Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Wikihounding by User:Benyoch

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

Benyoch's contributions to Wikipedia were "generally" constructive, but he is unable to accept criticism and this has led to Wikihounding that is most definitely not constructive. I first became aware of Benyoch when he made some edits to New Lambton, New South Wales (I have most Hunter Region related articles on my watchlist) which, although flawed in their implementation,[1] represented a reasonable attempt by an editor with only 9 edits in his history. I had no real interaction with Benyoch until March 2012, when he started editing Paterson, New South Wales (also on my watchlist), reverting the edit of a well established editor,[2] and adding an image gallery of random pictures of the area.[3] The reversion of the other editor also restored some categorisation errors that had previously been made by Benyoch.[4] In fact Benyoch's edit hadn't been a reversion of a single edit, it was a reversion to an earlier version of the article, which reverted reasonable edits by 2 humans and a bot.[5] After a "discussion" about that on the article's talk page, in a case of what appears to be "tit for tat", Benyoch headed to Talk:Raymond Terrace, New South Wales where he started a discussion titled "Intention to delete gallery of pictures", although the article did not actually contain a gallery.[6] Although that discussion went on for two weeks, there was then a generall lull until I made a blunder (I blame Firefox) at Vacy, New South Wales. Although I tried to explain this on the talk page,[7] Benyoch subsequently started attacking me and the civility level dropped. As I explained at the DRN discussion that I tried to start,(link), Benyoch resorted to writing inappropriate edit summaries,[8][9][10][11] making baseless allegations,[12] and resorting to the odd personal attack, even attacking me on my talk page.[13] As well as that direct attack, he added a few non-constructive trolls to existing discussions there.[14] Benyoch chose not to participate in the DRN discussion, despite a reminder form another editor.[15] Instead, he resorted to puerile attacks on his talk page, such as this one that I removed when I fixed his archiving for him.[16] Since then, he has made some thinly veiled attacks, obviously still aimed at me,[17] but persists in wikihounding at articles that he has never edited. At Talk:Steven D. Binder, not content with this attack, two hours later he added this post, in which he refers to my alternate account, which is rarely used for anything other than edits in my own userspace. It has only been this month that I've started using the account to do some work using AWB. In the spirit of WP:DENY, I reverted the edits, although I did note in the edit summary, "Wikihounding - not aimed at improving the article, just at attacking an editor". I had let it rest there, but today, Benyoch reappeared at Talk:Steven D. Binder and, in his first edit today and the first since posting there previously, struck out a comment that I had made to another editor, with the edit summary "Strikethru: Wikihounding - not aimed at improving the article, just at attacking an editor." a cut and paste of my own.[18] Just to clarify, in the interests of full disclosure, as I explained elsewhere, I made that post because I had responded to that editor, explaining I was busy and would address his post in a few hours,[19] but instead of giving me the courtesy of waiting to me allow to respond, he posted more stuff and then immediately rushed to DRN about an issue that had barely been discussed - the comment was valid and not an attack, just an expression of dismay. In short, there was no reason for Benyoch's post. There are other examples that seem to point to this editor following me around Wikipedia; this edit 20 minutes after mine on an article he'd never edited previously, and it was the only article he'd edited that day. Similarly, Benyoch's only edits for 9 November 2012 were to City of Lake Macquarie, an article he had never edited before and which I had edited only hours earlier.[20] On their own, these edits don't really seem out of the ordinary but, together with edits such as those at Talk:Steven D. Binder and the attack on my talk page, I believe they clearly demonstrate Wikihounding. At this point, I'm hoping that a third party will at least warn him about wikihounding. There's no point me doing so, anything I post is ignored and deleted quickly. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Benyoch has been notified of this discussion, here. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

And this is how Benyoch responded to the notification that I was required to give. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

WOW, you do quite keep a dosier on fellow-editors, don't you AussieLegend. I could keep a dosier on you, too, but I have better things to do than to count up the alleged editorial sins of other people. What some would say is a deception on your part (used to inflate your editorial status) you say is wikihounding. Get a life and be more honest in your interpretation of what actually happens here, especially of other people's critiques of yourself or changes made to your edits. What is th eproblem with my edit of Lake Macquarie? What if it was my first edit? It's on my watchlist. Why, because I grew up in the shire! But whan I correct your edits and remove redunancies you cry 'I am being wikihounded - and I can prove it because his edit followed mine'. Well, what a lot of shite. Unfortunately for me most of the places I have an interestd you you also have on your watchlist. Damn, well maybe Aussielegend is wiki-stalking me! I have observed you can make anything say what you want, and if that doesnt work you keep changing the goal posts in a discussion to meet your own needs - that process is totally pathetic. And stop being such a sook, too. You are one of the reasons why people stop editing wikipedia, because you are so anal, punctilious and officious and cannot accept another person has a different view to you. Furthermore, you allow no room for others to learn and make mistakes because you just want to big-head yourself. Well, your handle here the great 'AussieLegend' says it all, to be sure. They who no longer edit here were good people who have a lot to contribute, but because people like you cant cope with someone having an alternative perspective you hide behind your legalistic grip on policy and procedure and your little black book and your head full of jargon terminolgy and your vomitous verbosity to push your weight around. Even in this case you drag up stuff that was done and dusted thru a DRN process which I chose not to participate (why? because your method is to swamp people with so much shit - I couldnt be bothered - just like here) - even so, it was a process that was finished yet you want to drag it up and rubbish me in the process. Again, get a life, and stop going and crying to teacher all the time. To any third party who is reading this, please take AussieLegend's pants down and smack his backside. Failing that get him off my case and tell him to be more reasonable and not beat the shit out of other editors here. Wikihounding? Bunkum! Showing Aussie he can be wrong sometimes? Yeah, right on! Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Immediately above, in ostensibly attempting to refute the allegation made against him, Benyoch demonstrates rather too high a level of excitement than what's conducive to the intelligent discussion of the editing of an encyclopedia. His earliest edits do indeed seem level-headed, but Talk:Vacy, New South Wales shows the Benyoch we see above. His talk page carries the stern warning Edits to this page which I consider to be offensive and/or executed by any editor whom I consider to be a sociopath or psychopath will be removed without notice. This of course leaves open the possibility that he also removes messages that are neither offensive nor "executed" by anybody diagnosed as sociopathic or psychopathic; but for whatever reason, the talk page is now free of a large number of messages posted by AussieLegend. None of the latter messages approaches what I'd regard as offensive, but Australian sensibilities may be more delicate than my own. NB here we see what he considers wiki-hounding of myself by AussieLegal (sic) and Benyoch's forthright disposal of it; better bear in mind Benyoch's idiosyncratic understanding of the term "wiki-hounding" when hearing his allegations of it. -- Hoary (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your perspective, Hoary. I might get to respond to it later. In the meantime you need to ask, what happened with Vacy? You need to also appreciate that AussieLegend is a jargon-head, where only the most perfect and technical language will do (provided it is by him, of course)--where simpler terms will suffice--regardless of whether the every-day reader will understand the article or not. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I will make this point about this current process: If some at least consider that AussieLegend is just an editorial bully who hides behind his officiousness and superior understanding of wiki stuff and by doing so lords it over the lesser informed like me like he owns the place, and look into that seriously, then I will have some confidence that this process is, in someway, balanced. Otherwise, you may as well just hang me now - but with the understanding I am not the first and wont be the last he hounds out of wikipedia. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Ultimatums like that really aren't helping your case... — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems quite apparent I wont get a fair hearing from you, HandThatFeeds, as you judge my comments wrongly in saying I put up an ultimatum. To be sure, it was an invitation for a balanced perspective - there is neither a demand nor a threat of or against anybody or any editor. Disagree? Then have a look at wikipedia for ultimatum and properly compare with what I said. I view your comment here as incorrect, unhelpful and antagonistic - but that doesnt surprise me given my experience of biased and/or poor interpretation here in wiki. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You made an "either X, then Y or else Z" statement: that's an ultimatum. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins, You miss the point about there not being any threat to others on my part. Now are you going to deal with the issue at hand or quibble about justifying other people's inaccurate observations? Have you considered, for example, that AussieLegend is gaming the wiki system thru swamping people with protocols and procedures and continuously moving the goal posts in talk discussions to the point that it becomes fruitless having a discussion with him/her? For example, Aussie will take a genuine edit on my part and bundle it up into a claim against me that I am hounding him - its utter bullshit. Now, critically examining his editorial activity and interaction with other editors in disagreement with him/her would be a productive thing for someone to do. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you please provide some diffs to support your claims? I'm sure editors would be interested. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You know full well - I wont waste my keystrokes on you. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course that's up to you but if you are going to make allegations, as you did immediately above, you need to provide proof. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

There you go, again ... nag, nag, nag, nag. I am confident, given my past experience in communicating with you, nothing I could say would amount to anything near proof for you. And even if I did bother, you would just conflate it beyond all proportions. AussieLegend, you are a legendary bore. Now piss off, stop hounding me and leave me be. Furthermore, if you have come here with your complaint to garner support from a cohort of biased administrators, then you all know what you should do. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Please mind your civility. And if you make accusations without providing diffs, don't be surprised when nobody does anything about them. If you have complaints about AL, show the diffs or don't make the complaints. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Too quote an editor above, 'How many editors leave because of persistent nagging behavior by others that the community does not self-police despite a trivial solution'? Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

OK boys, why not just give me your warning about wikihounding, as The Legend wants, and any other warnings you like, and be done with it. Then I will be off. You wont ever hear from me again. I am closing my account - the reason: AussieLegend's editorial bullshit. There ya go AussieLegend - the place is all yours, just as you want it to be. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the comment regarding the "editorial bullshit of AussieLegend" on Benyoch's personal talk page can be considered a personal attack, and can be considered a blockable offense. As a result, I've issued a final warning towards this user. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

This warning has been disregarded as "an opinion".[21] --AussieLegend (✉) 20:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

My request to leave, boys, has been denied so that you can continue your administorial wiki procedures. Perhaps we have a different perspective on things, but I thought clearly stating my reason for leaving was the "editorial bullshit (i.e. the content) of Aussie Legend (i.e. the editor)" was a fair and reasonable description of my opinion of why I am leaving. You need to understand I am leving because of an EDITOR, and it is fair to name him/her. Perhaps you have a different opinion, but opinion it is. So, I ask, are you also going to deny me my opinion and procedural fairness in the process? Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Your "request to leave", which you didn't actually make, hasn't been denied. There's nothing stopping you leaving. You can go when you want but, many of your edits are constructive, like the ones you made at Waratah, New South Wales and City of Lake Macquarie.[22][23] If you concentrated on making constructive edits like that, accepted facts when they are presented to you, learned to discuss matters rationally and laid off the personal attacks and wikihounding, you could be a good editor. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Now, the above is an example of Aussielegend's manner gaming of the system, of using the system of reporting to his advantage, to garner support thru double-speaking. Full disclosure would mean he would say he was wrong and has changed his mind. But No, Aussie muddies the waters by trying to hold two positions at once. In the first place (his initial critique of me) he sayed my edits of Lake Macquarie and Waratah 'don't really seem out of the ordinary but ... I believe they clearly demonstrate Wikihounding.', yes, that's right, folks; what he says in his paragraph above is good editing (he could have said that before but didnt) was previously wikihounding. This is an example of how Aussie moves the goalposts in discussions to divert the attention from himself when he has been found out. Truth is Aussie, I do a reasonable job of editing and have done so until you come and scerw me over. So Aussie, do I make good edits, or am I hounding? You cant have it both ways. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

What can I say of the original claim regarding edits such as those at Talk:Steven D. Binder. the other editor at that page is at his wits end concerning Aussie's relentless attacks on his editing. So much so he took Aussie to a DRN. But Aussie couldnt handle that, because things have to be done according to AussieLegend's timing, will and ways. So he attacks the other editor and rips into him for doing something Aussie didnt like. my part was simply to highlight to Aussie that what he thinks is good for others is also good for him. And so, using Aussie's methodology I made an edit to highlight that fact. Unfortunately, Aussie has no sense of humour, or no sense of what he says is good for others is good for himself. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

On Talk:Steven D. Binder you will also notice I have called Aussie out for lying about his editorial prowess, about how he corrects copy vios 'every day'. My review of his contributions demonstrated otherwise and I made that know in order to assist the other editor as to knowledge of what is really truthful in the matter. But Aussie cant cope with being exposed for making false claims and so brings me over here on a wikihounding charge. Another truth is, I have the right to edit any page I wish and I dont need AussieLegend's permission to do so. And, revealing the truth where editors seek to misrepresent themselves and their editorial superiority is a reasonable thing to do, is it not? Please, Administrators, go check the facts for yourself and discover what I say is true. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

AussieLegend, you said I made no request to leave. That is utter garbage and I demand you to retract that statement. I did in fact, by making a request for Courtesy Vanishing, because I am so pissed off with all this bullshit of yours and the biased state of this Administrator's noticeboard, at least in part. I even have an email by Fumitaka Joe that states, 'Due to the current controversy surrounding your edits (see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikihounding_by_User:Benyoch>), we are unable to grant your request for courtesy vanishing.' So Aussie, the request to leave which you in the first place say I didnt make, and in the second place say 'hasnt been denied' (Thtat's some twisted logic on your part) does actually exist and has actually been denied. Yes, I would like to still be an editor, but you make that impossible. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

A request to leave, and a request to courtesy vanish are two different things. I can find neither in any of your posts. You don't need to request a courtesy vanish, you can leave at any time. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Your representation of things here is so awful, Aussie, it just gets worse, and worse. In this edit you make a claim of request to leave and request to courtesy vanishing are two different things. Big deal, so what. Just because YOU cant find something doesnt make it so - proof positive that you aren't the legend you think you are. The fact is, I have made a request for courtesy vanishing and it has been denied (repeating this for your sake - please take note this time at least), and the effect of making such a request for QV is akin to requesting to leave. But you wont believe that will you - because you have your mind set on one path only - maintain AussieLegend's view of the world even if it is wrong. It is called being deluded. So, what is the point of your post above? Nothing really, it is pointless, except being an effort to maintain YOUR status quo. In reality, it is just more of your relentless nagging, ever so typical of the method of your 'contribution' concerning talk on articles, I observe, where 'contribution' is more akin to 'dictates', from my experience. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, the other matter I havent brought up is the times AussieLegend edits immediately after me and reverts MY edits. Sounds a bit like wikihounding to me. Maybe more of that latter if this farce continues. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Like this? That was reverting a personal attack. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

There you go again, picking one incident in order to justify yourself without full disclosure of all the others. As I said, gaming the system. And, by the way, anything spoken about you and/or your edits will be interpreted by you as a personal attack. that is one big unspoken staus quo on your part. Ever so typical and ever so predictable. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a curious matter that no one has yet thoroughly analysed AussieLegend's critique of me here, wherein you will find links to the diffs in question. Hoary has made a stab at it, but mainly deals with the peripherals rather than the substance. And so editors will have to make an effort and read around to see how everything has to be done his way. Have none of you the gumption to take an alternative opinion and stand up for the weaker editor who gets thrashed by the stronger over such small things? Not one of you, thus far, I notice. Ask Aussie about the time he told me, more or less, that I had nothing valuable to contribute or say until I could match his 72,000 edits. I had less than a 1000 at that time; so being a newbie is more than just a start date. Ask him why he didnt demonstrate full disclosure by reporting how I thanked him for an edit on HMAS Cerberus? Ask him why he will report some alleged houndings because I am said to more or less immediately make an edit after he has on a page, but not report all the other time he has made an edit on a page/s and I didnt do anything? You see, for AussieLegend his claim to 'full disclosure' is selective self-puffery and, in my view, dishonestly so because all he does is game the system to support his critique of others. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You may also want to ask AussieLegend why it is a big deal to claim my 'first edit' on a page is a matter of hounding him? Am I not permitted to make a first edit? Why can it not be after him? Unfortunately for me Aussie and I live in the same geographical region, and so our watchlist would be similar. in fact, when AussieLegend mmyakes an edit watchlist gives me a mental prompt as to my interest in that article; and as with so many articles on my watch list I go visit that page to check the validity of the edit and to make a contribution. That is my methodology. I didnt think it to be a big deal, but AussieLegend wants his special space around articles, in my view he wants to maintain a form of ownership. Selective reporting to a 'tribunal' such as this is nothnig more than gaming the system in order to discredit another editor. Its about time someone seriously examined his methodology, otherwise, with editors like him around, who package themselves in WP:CottonWool, wikipedia will be a lonely and hard place void of feelings and the valuable interest and contributions of others. I am actually asking some of you more experienced editors than I am, and administrators, to take him to task, even if it means you have to do some hard and serious digging to see how he operates. To be sure, I am not the first to express such concerns. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

"You may also want to ask AussieLegend why it is a big deal to claim my 'first edit' on a page is a matter of hounding him? Am I not permitted to make a first edit?" - The big deal is when your first edit makes it clear that you're only following me around so as to attack me as you did at Talk:Steven D. Binder.[24] It's an even bigger deal when your second post expands on that attack,[25] and make no other posts that day. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Is that all you have got Aussie - a purely subjective assessment on your part. Whatever you think is alledgedly 'clear' is not necessarily a universal opinion. It is rather pathetic really that you would embrace my edits which are months apart to build up your claim about hounding now without comparing and contrasting all the other edits both you and I have made in the meantime which have no connection to each other whatsoever. Again, a matter of lack of transparency on your part, a lack of full disclosure and a of gaming the system thru selective reporting. Time to get real, Mr Legend, and understand that people may not agree with your edits and may actually change them, and they have a right to do so at anytime regardless whether it is in close proximity to the time of your edits or not. Your response, of course, is to beat the editorial crap pout of them. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 09:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Now here is an example of the his jargonising of wiki, over which we came into conflict... The lead of an article states, "[a certain place] is a locality within [a certain local government area]". Now I ask each of you admins who have an interest in the pursuing fairness and understanding in these proceedings,

1) what does "locality" mean in this context?

2) What would a common reader make of it?

3) How would they understand exactly what the nature of that place is? And,

4) do you think the common reader should have to go look at the source material to understand what is the nature of that place?.

AussieLegend, in the interests of fairness I request you refrain from answering these questions, as yet anyway, and refrain from communicating your interpretation of the term to other admins. Thank you to all.

Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Benyoch, you need to calm down. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked Benyoch for 12 hours purely because of the tendentious nature of the edits here, which were spiralling out of control. No opinion on the merits of the OP, simply a response to the process under way here. Happy for any admin to unblock without reference to me if they feel this is too harsh. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Jay Westerveld

Can some other editors take a look at Talk:Jay Westerveld#profession after snowboarding career (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs).

The article was protected due to a content dispute. I started a talk page discussion and attempted to keep the talk page discussion on track, but it appears to have devolved into a mess of personal attacks, BLP violations, and accusations of sockpuppetry. I would rather not take action myself, as I was involved in the content dispute that lead up to the page protection. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Sigh. OK. I laid out some rules of engagement on the talk page. I may have used a conjugation of the verb "dictate". With the article on full protection nothing will change, so I have modified this to Pending changes, and will place a note on WP:BLPN to invite uninvolved editors. Barek, as far as I'm concerned you're not so involved that you can't act; basically, I've threatened anyone who makes another personal attack with a block. I hope I don't have to police that page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Snarky reply from User:Alan Stenberg. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Irony, it seems, is alive and well. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Diff of Talk:Jay Westerveld: Good thing this is a wiki; there's some great material here I am gonna save for later use -- Dianna (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

As long as you give proper attribution. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hold on. This article is now on Level 2 pending changes protection, which is something the community agreed would not be used. More importantly, it is being used to prevent a single editor from editing the article. When that is the case, the appropriate step is to address the issue with that editor directly, not put the article on protection. This is even more important in the face of BLP violations, which are apparently endemic in this article; even now, half the "facts" about this editor are unsourced, and there continues to be a coatrack about Glenmere mansion in the article, and other references don't even mention the article subject. Here's an alternative: block the BLP-violating account or take the time to actually explain to them why their behaviour is unacceptable, and if recurrent socking is a concern, semi-protect the article. Risker (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Risker, it was not being used to prevent one user from editing the article--maybe I need to read up on the ins and outs, or maybe I should have checked the status of those editors, but I thought that both sides (and their possible socks) would be prevented from editing it. Correct me if I'm wrong (I often am), but pending changes and semi-protection would have the same effect given that neither Semperfly (talk · contribs) nor Alan Stenberg (talk · contribs) have reviewer status. And I thought (again, I might be wrong) that both sides would be aware of how their edits are not acceptable. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

There are a couple of issues here, the first being the use of PC-2, which did not receive community consensus for its use. The second is that neither of the two editors you've pointed out have actually been educated in any way about what they're doing wrong. We're protecting a poor quality BLP instead of educating the editors or removing them from the project. The two editors involved are editing only on this subject and, given the fact that they've both shown up at the same time, are likely to be bringing an external battle to our project. PC is not intended to be the shortcut to dealing with problem editors, or with massive BLP violations or edit wars. It's intended to deal with articles that have frequent vandalism or insertion of nonsense. This article does not meet the criteria. Risker (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll be glad to change to semi-protection. As for education, I think Barek has left enough material on the talk page, but OK, I'll repeat the salient points there. Another editor with BLP experience has stepped in as well. I'll start an SPI. I was unaware of those PC restrictions, but no longer. I think that covers it. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

On a relevant note, edits by Alan Stenberg (talk · contribs) have been remarkably uncivil, ranging from WP:PA to WP:OUTING and good old fashion WP:HARASS. See one user talkpage and earlier series of contribs on another user talkpage in addition to this gem. One of his already-blocked socks, Bog Turtle (talk · contribs) also levied this legal threat; Checkuser hasn't confirmed a connection yet, so SPI results aren't yet in. User talk:Alan Stenberg indicates he was previously blocked for abusive editing, and I've warned him regarding civility and his real-life conflict of interest surrounding Westerveld. Think a longer block is in order? JFHJr (㊟) 22:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

As all parties were previously warned[26], I'll be re-blocking him given his current behavior. As this is his second block, I've extended the block to 72 hours this time. My internet access is sporadic at best at the moment, so if others want to change the duration there's no need to discuss with the blocking admin (ie: me). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Persistent dynamic IP at Talk:Autism

Since at least 2009, a dynamic San Francisco Bay Area ip has dozens of times requested that the article discuss an as-yet-unproven commercial test developed by the UC Davis MIND Institute, claiming to detect maternal antibodies related to the development of autism. No reliable secondary sources are ever offered (to my knowledge, there are none), commercial sources and sources related to the product are sometimes offered, and in spite of having this discussion with scores of IPs in the same range dozens of times, nothing has changed in the research or the discussion that would indicate there are reliable sources backing text that could be added. The IP has a persistent case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT that consumes article talk. See Talk:Autism/Archive_13#Summary of past discussions with IP 76.2C IP 75 and other 70 ip range for a very small sampling of past discussions. Since it is a frequently changing dynamic IP, I don't know what can be done to prevent this recurrence on article talk; if we archive the discussion or hat/hab it, it just recurs. If IP is ignored, it just fills up the talk page. I also don't see much utility in notifying the current IP, since the IP changes frequently within discussions on the same day, so I will notice article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Noticed the most recent IP and a post IP made to the talk page of arb requests. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• If this is so persistent and it's going nowhere, maybe just rolling them back is the most helpful thing to do, besides semi-protecting the talk page, which is unusual but possibly warranted in this case. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Semi-protecting article talk, ugh ... locks out all IPs. Do we need community consensus to just rollback or otherwise remove future posts from the same IP? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, ugh. Well, you have my blessing, haha. Seriously, I would think that WP:NOTFORUM gives you plenty of leeway to revert disruptive edits, and I'm sure you can argue easily enough that it's disruptive. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
• Another thing--I was going to archive the talk page so you could start with a clean slate. But maybe you, or some other clever person, can make a sub-section of the talk page where you lay out the case, including that "Summary of past discussions", so you can point to that easily, maybe with a note on the talk page. Same applies to Talk:Causes of autism. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• There's nothing unaddressed on the talk page, so it could be archived, but it might be better to wait until tomorrow, in case anyone else adds something to the Summary thread. And, once the talk page is archived, IP will just start up again anyway. Thanks, Drmies, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• I am very impressed with your patience, Sandy. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• It's been going on for four years-- it's not going to be solved any time soon :) And, I've got a Christmas party to host ! Merry ho ho ho, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• How about three months of semiprotection for the talk page. It sounds like this IP is becoming a hindrance to development of the article. After checking the addresses used, it seems to me that no range block is possible. EdJohnston (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• If you look at IP's long-term pattern, you'll see that three months is a mere drop in the bucket :) It might be nice to have a break for a while, but IP is a true believer in this product and will be back as soon as the three months expire. It's interesting to read the (perhaps) first 2009 post, where IP wanted to add unsourced text because it was "cutting edge research" (unpublished) that someone had told IP about, and it was to IP important that parents know they can get this test. That was four years ago; no big breakthrough yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate at this stage to simply delete - not even archive - any further similar posts from that IP range from now on, as we do soapboxing, trolling, personal attacks and other inappropriate content on article talk pages. It is either a serious competency problem or a determined financial COI. Either way, I'm sick of it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

From this point forward yes I agree with Anthony. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

"Don Quixote long ago paid the penalty for wrongly imagining that knight errantry was compatible with all economic forms of society", Karl Marx

So, now he's going at my talk page. Could we also notice admins to delete this IP everywhere he posts? People respond to him on my talk, unnecessarily. [27] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

"People"? At least, "knight errant wannabe". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, if I named you, I'd have to notify you :) Thanks, Kiefer ... but that IP has a huge range, and is best ignored and summarily reverted. Will probably spread to other talk pages now that it is ignored and reverted on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate WP:CANVASSing by User:Cydevil38, not the first time

I believe that this edit by User:Cydevil38 is very problematic, since I see it as inappropriate canvassing. Per the page at WP:CANVASS, this message is quite biased in its message, since it uses loaded language which accuses editors which disagree with him to be "Chinese POV editors", and he has specifically chosen to notify a partisan audience, and not all relevant sides. I see this as campaigning and votestacking, and this has not been the first time that this has happened with this editor. This is a long-term issue, and I am under the impression that this editor thinks that this is perfectly fine behaviour. Not to mention, this editor has specifically ignored calls to engage in proper and thorough discussion in September 2012 on Talk:Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and is now edit-warring because he thinks that there is "insufficient discussion" regarding an article merge (Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences into Goguryeo controversies). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems like it to me. I suggest admins and other editors keep a close eye on that discussion and be sure that all decisions are based on strength of argument rather than numbers. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The editors in question have a long history of making antagonistic edits on Korea related issues. I more than welcome constructive edits and discussion from neutral parties. Cydevil38 (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Quote "The editors in question have a long history of making antagonistic edits on Korea related issues" - I sure hope you aren't talking about me, because if so, I find your argument to be somewhat absurd.

Let's have a look at the label you have given me, a "Chinese POV editor", which you have written in this diff. I have entirely avoided Korea dispute-related topics since 2011. Even in the article Senkaku Islands dispute which I have been involved in relatively recent (read: a few months ago) times, I believe that I have been able to keep a reasonable head, and being fair to both sides (China and Japan). I have even written many things that are critical of China, and I have been accused by other editors of being too Tibetan friendly, too Japanophilic, or being an agent of Taiwan independence or the Chinese democracy movement. Now, let me ask, what have you done, Cydevil38?

Now, ignoring everything political on Wikipedia, I have written articles about computer software, I have written articles about electronics, smartphones, game devices and computer security; I have been involved in topics relating to video games, and have written numerous articles about Japanese animations about cute little girls doing cute little things, not to mention anatomy and physiology articles, linguistics articles and military articles. I have written my first GA not that long ago, and I'm on the journey on writing my first ever FA. I have participated in numerous community discussions on how to improve Wikipedia overall, and I have reported various bugs. Now, may I ask, what have you done, Cydevil38? Have you been involved in any articles that aren't related to Korea and its neighbourhood disputes? And you have the nerve to label me as a POV editor?

Now, I'm not upset about this current edit-war dispute at Goguryeo controversies, I frankly don't really give two rat behinds about how this will end up in the end. What really grinds my gears is that you have the nerve to write things like this, about myself and other editors, over and over like it means nothing to you.

Currently the article at Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences serves nothing other than a content fork, since everything already exists in Goguryeo controversies. I made an edit which I saw fit, as a long-term Wikipedia editor, and through my judgment, I saw that your revert against an article merge was unnecessary. Your action of pulling out the "POV editor" card in response to me is unsportsmanshiply behaviour. Yours truly, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You are the major contributor to many antagonistic and biased articles on Korea, major examples being Pure blood theory in Korea (now moved to a more appropriate title despite opposition from Benlisquare), Anti-Korean sentiment, Anti-Korean sentiment in China and Goguryeo controversies. It is rather an objective fact that Benlisquare is particularly notorious among Korean editors. You can accuse me of being "Korean POV", which I openly admit, but yourself denying your own biased point of view against Korea is rather ridiculous. With this history of anti-Korea edits in mind, as well as with one other particularly biased editor involved (Shrigley, where one of his edits gave me a very strong impression[28]), I found it not very "unsportsmanshiply" to mention POV editors. And I hereby state that by POV editors, I only referred to Benlisquare and Shrigley.

Regarding your argument that Northeast Project is merely a POV fork, first, creation of the article Northeast Project predates Goguryeo controversies. I am a major contributor to creation of both articles, the former focusing on the project itself, and the latter focusing and expanding upon a particular aspect of the former. Second, Northeast Project is an article dealing with a significant and unique subject matter, with their respective counterparts in three other languages. Goguryeo controversies does not even have a counterpart in the Korean Wikipedia, and the term itself is not a commonly used word. The only language counterpart of the article is Chinese, and no other languages. Third, the initial POV of Goguryeo controversies wasn't very different from that of Northeast Project, until a series of edits and edit wars, where you were actively involved, were made well after the article was stabilized and balanced.

With the above issues in mind, it is rather ironic that you accuse me of unsportsmanshiply behaviour, when yourself accuse me of WP:CANVASS on this board (not the first time he accused me of wrongdoing on this board, with ") [29]. I feel that this matter is very much relevant to WP:Korea, and I felt that persons interested in Korean articles should be alerted to this matter, as much as WP:Korea was alerted of Pure blood theory in Korea[30]. Of course, you are referring this as my previous attempt to WP:CANVASS, and if you are bitter that the article was eventually merged against your strong opinion on the matter, you are more than welcome to raise the issue again through a request for article split. I have not alerted any particular individuals, and I do not believe alerting WP:Korea of this ongoing dispute is an attempt to solicit biased opinion. If you wish, you can go alert WP:China. I will not object and I will not perceive it as WP:CANVASS. And I more than welcome any neutral parties to this dispute. In this regard, I am sincerely thankful that you notified this board, despite the false accusation, which has turned more attention of neutral editors to this dispute. Cydevil38 (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how things that I've done 20 years ago makes your argument more convincing. Anti-Korean sentiment was written in 2008, my last ANI report against you was made in 2011, your problematic edits were made yesterday. Are you trying to divert attention away from yourself? Or are you the type that keeps old clashes close to heart? I'm commenting on your inappropriate behaviour now, you're commenting about edits to Wikipedia that I made when I was 16 years old.

I have never ever touched Goguryeo controversies except for yesterday and a few posts on the talk page, Anti-Korean sentiment and its subarticle(s) are by no means "antagonistic to Korea" (I may actually say that it's critical of right-wing politics in Japan), and I'm pretty sure you were the one who wanted to merge (not rename) Korean ethnic nationalism. I am particularly notorious among Korean editors because Korean Wikipedia editors post about me on Korean internet forums, such as the one created and hosted by User:KoreanSentry. I'm also quite notorious amongst Japanese editors, and my name shows up on 2channel quite a lot as well, but that's a different story. It's natural that you gain a few enemies, after being on Wikipedia for so long and getting involved in controversial topics, so I don't see what the big surprise is. Also, nowhere have I ever used the word "POV fork", please do a CTRL+F next time you write your replies; Northeast Project is a content fork, because a large percentage of its content is repeated in another thread. You don't need a degree in astrobiology to figure that out.

Also, if I am "anti-Korean" like you say, then why the hell am I writing articles which, some might say promote, Korean things like Samsung smartphones and Korean video games? Your reasoning, again, doesn't really make sense. I shall repeat again, by what means do I become a "Chinese POV editor"? Does this label have some kind of criteria, and is this a permanent label that is never removed? If I spend the next two years writing about, I dunno, frilly dresses, am I still under that label? Now, please have a look at these, CYdevil38, and tell me with a straight face (oh wait, internet) that you're not the pot calling the kettle black. Of this list of the 500 most recent edits of yours that goes back to 2009, find me just one edit that isn't related to KOREA STRONG! astroturfing. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I rather getting tired of this. Yes, I am a pot calling the kettle black. I'm POV, you're POV, regardless of the number of neutral edits you make on other subjects. As for Goguryeo controversies, I ask that other editors look to the edit history of the article and see for themselves that Benlisquare made major edits to this article in the past. This being said, I find this discussion with Benlisquare rather pointless. Unless an admin or other editors comment on the matter, I will no longer partake in this meaningless squabble. Benlisquare, if you feel that your edit is neutral and justified, make a request for merge rather than destroying an article with no consensus whatsoever. I'd like to see more neutral parties involved in the process, and also editors who are well apprised of the subject matter, the reason which I notified WP:Korea, where definitely a lot of people would know about the Northeast Project and Goguryeo controversies.

With regards to the issue of content fork, as far as I remember as a main contributor to the creation of both articles, Northeast Project was a split from the Modern Politics section of Goguryeo, and Goguryeo controversies was a split from the Northeast Project. In other words, much of the initial contents of Goguryeo controversies were copy/pasted from the Northeast Project. Cydevil38 (talk) 04:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the bigger problem here is that User:Cydevil38's style of editing exclusively involves repeated reverts, no discussion with opponents (but canvassing of supporters), and heated nationalist rhetoric. Even if I opened a dozen RfCs, AfDs, and merge discussions on the topic, it would not change his behavior. After all, the "pure blood theory" article did go through AfD, yet disruptive Korean nationalist SPAs like Cydevil continued their attempts to blank, deface, and destroy it. This user's reverts don't even come with a rationale. Reopening the merge discussion for a few more months is not the solution. As Benlisquare points out, it's extremely difficult to find any contribution of Cydevil's that does not boost Korea or denigrate its opponents; that consist of civil dialogue with other editors; or that refute the obvious conclusion that he is not here to build an encycopedia. Shrigley (talk) 04:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me ask again, Cydevil38. I write articles about silly Japanese cartoons and boring, nerdy computer nonsense. Shrigley writes articles about Chinese biographies and history. What do you usually write about on Wikipedia? What is the only thing you write about on Wikipedia? Taking that into account, should you be crying wolf about me and others and giving us various labels? You might take offense at this, but I certainly believe that your sole purpose here is to engage in POV wars. You have not done anything other than fight for your sacred nation here; prove me otherwise. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

First, I would like to humbly ask the admins and other editors to take their time to take a look at my previous contributions to Wikipedia on issues concerning Korean history and culture before judging me based on the accusations made by Benlisquare and Shrigley. On articles of significant controversy, I devote significant amount of time to engage in discussion where I try my best to find reliable and NPOV sources to back my arguments and attempt to draw consensus. If the dispute escalates, I am often the first one to ask for attention and participation from neutral editors by initiating request for merge, request for comment, request for third opinion or request for neutral point of view. I have learned the importance of these efforts from my very unpleasant experience in the extremely heated POV wars on Goguryeo and related articles many years before, where much content that I have written in these articles remains to this day with the exception of the Northeast Project, where much content was deleted by Shrigley before he made the suggestion for a merge with Goguryeo controversies.

Second, I admit that I have been rather succinct to discussions on the Northeast Project on the suggestion for a merge with Goguryeo controversies. In this regard, I would like to apologize to User:Rincewind42 for not engaging in extensive discussions, including the circumstances in which Shrigley had deleted most of the contents of the Northeast Project. This is because, as a doctoral student, I had not sufficient time to be involved in what I anticipate to become a very controversial and prolonged discussion and edits, knowing the edit history of Shrigley where he had made numerous unilateral edits without consensus on Korea-related articles that I believe to be extremely unreasonable, prejudiced and unreliable. I have been so far silent on his edits due to the preoccupation of my studies. However, now that I have submitted my last finals paper for this semester as of December 22nd just before midnight, and with worsening of the situation with the recent involvement of Benlisquare, I decided that it was appropriate to first notify WP:Korea before making a major edit to the Northeast Project and prepare myself for extensive discussions defending my edits. I admit that perhaps my wording was inappropriate in the notification at WP:Korea, but nonetheless I do not rescind my position and my previous arguments that both Benlisquare and Shrigley are POV editors, although I admit Benlisquare's are far more reasonable in his arguments than Shrigley despite my longer history of disputes with Benlisquare and his history of edits on Korea-related articles, and an extremely offensive comment he has made on me in the last ANI report, to which I remember with much bitterness and anger.

I ask that admins and other editors consider my circumstances with regards to my recent involvement in the Northeast Project before taking accusations by Benlisquare and Shrigley at face value. To this end, I wholeheartedly agree with User talk:Heimstern that it is important for the Wikipedia Project for , I quote, all decisions are based on strength of argument rather than numbers. Again, I welcome the involvement of neutral parties to decide upon the merit of argument made by both myself and my disputants, and participate in the discussion and series of edits that is to come at the Northeast Project. Cydevil38 (talk) 07:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This polemical statement and the edit warring on Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) suggest that it might be appropriate to place that article under full protection until editors can find a way of discussing matters more calmly without personalizing the dispute. Mathsci (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add to the case that I have just found out that Shrigley is a new account of Quigley, also an editor with a long history of POV edits in Korea-related articles. More disturbingly, collective action of Benlisquare and Quigley have lead to the permanent ban of a Korean editor, Kuebi, on the grounds of edit warring and POV pushing with their ANI notices. The result of Kuebi's permanent ban was his or her edits on Pure blood theory of Korea, in which both Benlisquare and Quigley engaged in fierce edit warring. They have been reverting my edits, to which either I have explained in discussions or no-one objected to, and they persisted on their reverts in my absence and without my knowledge which Kuebi in turn has been reverting. I am concerned as I have also been accused twice by Benlisquare on the ANI board, and the current and only editors engaged in edit warring with myself are Benlisquare and Quigley/Shrigley, "coincidentally" in all articles I am currently involved. While I will not defend the past actions of Kuebi, I shall appeal to the action the admin has taken with regards to edit warring on Pure blood theory of Korea, as I believe the action was taken on false pretenses by Quigley/Shrigley. Cydevil38 (talk) 10:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

None of this is helpful. You link to WP articles instead of usernames. Kuebi is not a Korean editor; you presumably meant Kuebie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The redlink for the article should presumably be Korean ethnic nationalism. Mathsci (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for the mistaken links. It's Pure blood theory in Korea. And you are correct on Kuebi. I believe I have been getting emotional on this matter, and I will no longer partake in this ANI notice unless absolutely necessary. I will focus on the article in dispute, and I will take your advice in avoiding personalizing the discussion. Thank you for your feedback on my behavior. Cydevil38 (talk) 11:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Cydevil is out of control. Now apparently he's wikihounding me by blanking an article that I created just two days ago, and which I sought feedback to improve. We need some kind of warning here, because otherwise - if this ANI thread dies without any activity - he'll continue his disruptive behavior of nationalist edit-warring, blanking, and defacement of articles. Shrigley (talk) 01:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Albania / Azerbaijan editing

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

---

Would someone neutral but with knowledge of the area please take a look at the edits of User:88.72.229.34? I reverted their removal of sources on the Azerbaijani American article, but I'm not conversant enough with the topic to judge the rest of the edits, although I know there's been disruptive action in that area recently Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of edits removing sources and removing cn tags. I think it might be the same person as 88.72.245.145 (talk · contribs) and 88.74.38.219 (talk · contribs). However, it's an active range used by other productive editors... bobrayner (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Edits like this are good, because they bring our content closer into line with what sources say. But edits like this are not (Regis Philbin is not my specialist subject but the first source I googled said Arbëreshë, not Albanian). Putting hyphenated-americans into new national pigeonholes is a BLP problem, I think (although the edits to Eliza Dushku weren't so bad, actually).

This change looks bad at first glance, because we expect nationalist warriors to change demographic numbers away from what a source says, but in this case their new numbers actually match what the ACS tables say. Well, there's potential to misinterpret primary sources and how they pigeonhole people but overall I'd call that a good change if it weren't for removing the source. bobrayner (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

If this area is subject to discretionary sanctions, should the editor (at all 3 IPs) be notified? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think there's some good and some bad. It's not a clear-cut case and I am absolutely no expert (I'm not even an admin, I just wandered in here by mistake when I was looking for where all the cool editors hang out). What would get the best outcomes - help, warning, or some combination of the two? bobrayner (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me that the following IPs may all be the same editor:

• 88.72.229.34 (talk · contribs)
• 88.72.245.145 (talk · contribs)
• 88.72.250.70 (talk · contribs)

What I've noticed is a pro-Albanian pattern of edits which extends to making unsourced changes of numbers and in some cases actually removing sources such as the US Census. These IPs are all on DSL from Arcor AG in Berlin, Germany. It is probably a simple matter for this editor to cycle his IP within a range. I suggest consideration of a range block of 88.72.224.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). For the past contributions from this range see the range contribs. For one person to make contentious edits from a fluctuating IP violates WP:SOCK so the niceties of the Arbcom warnings may not be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Since there were no objections, I've blocked the range one month. EdJohnston (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Tomcat7

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

---

User:Tomcat7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I hate to bring this here, but I think this warrants it. Tomcat7 continues to edit war after a RFC/U into his edit warring has been created. The diff in question.[31] I did issue a warning prior to the RFC/U filing on Dec 17th. [32] Discussion has continued on Talk:Friedrich Eckenfelder from December 11th across two GA's and two separate discussions on that page. Easier bits to read are here [33] and here [34].

Edit reverts relating to the one source tag in particular.

• Paperluigi added One Source tag on 22:02, 7 December 2012‎ [35]
• Tomcat7 removed One Source tag on 13:35, 8 December 2012‎ [36]
• ChrisGualtieri added multiple tags on 01:53, 11 December 2012‎ [37]
• Tomcat7 removed tags on 10:45, 11 December 2012‎ [38]
• Ritchie333 replaced by undoing Tomcat7's revert on 12:38, 12 December 2012 [39]
• Tomcat7 reverted again on 12:53, 12 December 2012‎[40]
• ChrisGualtieri added one source tag on 04:43, 13 December 2012‎ [41]
• Tomcat7 removed One Source tag on 19:48, 16 December 2012‎ [42]
• ChrisGualtieri added one source tag on 05:35, 17 December 2012‎ [43]
• Tomcat7 removed tag again on 11:47, 17 December 2012‎ [44]
• ChrisGualtieri added multiple tags on 03:21, 19 December 2012‎ [45]
• Tomcat7 removed many tags and fact templates on 10:49, 19 December 2012‎ [46]
• KillerChihuahua undid the revert on 16:26, 20 December 2012‎ [47]
• RFC/U filed. He makes his first post at the RFC/U on 20:17, 22 December 2012 [48]
• Tomcat7 reverted again on 20:23, 22 December 2012‎ [49]
• KillerChihuahua replaced on 01:55, 23 December 2012 and is current as of this posting [50]

This has gone on for too long, and even my opening of the RFC/U into his edit warring has not discouraged him from removing the tags even after all the warnings and discussions from several users. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Given that several editors have tried to discuss this with Tomcat7 prior to the Rfc, including myself[51] and generally get no reply except a removal[52] I agree that something needs to be done. It is clear the Rfc is having no effect; the last removal was after posting at the Rfc. Unfortunately, I cannot see a way forward from this venue unless we have consensus for a community sanction of a ban on tag removal - which to the best of my recollection is unprecedented; and even that would not address the issues of poor sourcing. I am open to ideas and suggestions. KillerChihuahua 05:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to add that Tomcat's edit warring is not limited to the above page. He reverted three edits that placed a citation needed tag in Golden Eagle Award for Best Foreign Language Film. He was the warned about his conduct by Crisco 1492, but swiftly removed the notice from his talk page: [53]. I agree something has to be done, his unwillingness to engage or address the issues is worrying, especially as multiple editors have expressed concerns. Yet none of this has worked, I'm not sure what action should be taken, but if left unattended I fear his poor sourcing will continue and there will be more of these disputes. NapHit (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a content dispute. That is not serious, and is more likely a case of misunderstanding and aggravation. I am not going to hold that against him or put it forth here, as it is an unrelated matter to the Eckenfelder page. Crisco has commented on my talk page about it and I am going to discuss it on the page. A fix is likely for this little matter. Oh and I notified Crisco about this ANI as you brought his name up. Though I think the edit warring notice is valid for other things, it was not given to Tomcat7 for this page. So I did not include it and I would not hold it against Tomcat7. The only ones which should be held against him were the Eckenfelder related ones. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Tomcat has done good work, but sadly he seems to get caught in the heat of the moment too often. The warning mentioned above was for 3RR, which although not directly related to the issue here speaks of a very wide problem. I've had to block Tomcat before, for edit warring too... this was a couple months back. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm aware this is not a content dispute, that was not my point, perhaps I didn't make it clear. The reason I brought up his actions on the Golden Eagle page was because it further highlights an unwillingness to engage other users. Also it highlights that his edit-warring is not confined to one page. The fact that he has edit-warred on multiple pages is concerning and should be highlighted here, especially as he has been blocked for this before, so it's not like he is unaware of he rules. NapHit (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm well aware of this, and was (attempting) to indicate that he has been warned before. This is repeat behaviour so, if punished, that needs to be taken under consideration. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I actually don't want to discuss this further, but here is my response. Everything began with me translating a random article from the German Wikipedia, namely Friedrich Eckenfelder. I never knew this artist before and I saw that no English versions exists. So I took the opportunity to translate it for a wider readership. User:Wuselig was the main contributor of this article, and brought this article to "Lesenswert" (similar to Good Article) status, with an overwhelming decision. Now I did the same here. The article stayed very long in the queue, but finally a user named User:ChrisGualtieri, who, it seems, has no interest in art, posted his review. Well, it was a poor one because he first said that he put the article on hold, but then suddenly changed his mind. He then posted a very lengthy block text, and noted "TLDR", perhaps in response to the main contributor Wuselig who stated that he was glad that someone translated it to English. Chris claimed that text in Wikipedia is copyrighted and must be attributed, but actually that is not true. He did not even bother to read WP:ABOUT, and began further pushing his view. After a quarrel at the GAN talk page, Gualteri seemed to have forgotten me. However, suddenly a user started to review it, while Gualteri took the opportunity to add huge banners on the top, and place tags, such as citation needed tags, after almost every sentence. He also stated that there should be more sources, but I reminded him that there were no more reliable third-party sources. Then he watched my contributions on former featured list nominations or featured lists, and performed radical changes. For example, in Golden Eagle Award for Best Foreign Language Film, a featured list, he removed source and text and added a citation needed tag, claiming that the sources do not confirm what the article claims. Actually, both sources clearly supported the content, further outlined on the talk page. In Abel Prize, he also put citation needed tags, but now he was correct, so I added sources. Then he and User:NapHit, who rants when I add premature lists to FLC and is allegedly on vacation, unfairly stated on the nomination page of Golden Eagle Award, that I did no changes and just responded to the nominator for fun. Actually, I made an error somehow (perhaps forgot to save my changes), which I think happens at some point. Then he started a "request for comment", why I really don't know. It would be wise if he would eventually leave me alone and stop watching all my contributions, to avoid further disuptive edits and accusations. That is all what should be done, but it seems that Gualtieri does not want peace and instead wants to ruin the good atmosphere. Oh, and he often ignore my and others' comments, for example on his talk page he did not even responded to my comments and opened a request for comment. --Tomcat (7) 11:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

In short regarding the one article: Most of the banners are simply incorrect as stated hundreds of times. It is impossible to discuss with Gualtieri, as he often ignores comments and repeats what was stated many times. Chris is clearly making disruptive edits on that article. What I am doing is to defend the article to make it readable for our readers, but he and others repeatedly revert the good old version to an ugly one with a lot of tags and banners. Paraphrasing is, to my knowledge, not possible if the languages are different. However, since I don't have the book, I also couldn't have paraphrased it, but I simply translated the article to English.--Tomcat (7) 11:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't rant when you nominate lists when you nominate lists at FLC, how you can infer that from text alone is beyond me. However, the fact that you acknowledge you nominate premature lists indicates you're aware of what you're doing. Back to the main issue the article is readable with the tags, they don't impact on the readership. In fact they are probably more helpful as they indicate the article has flaws and the reader should assume everything in the article is correct. The fact that you say "However, since I don't have the book, I also couldn't have paraphrased it..." Is very worrying. The fact you don't have the book and yet are claiming the article is factually correct is completely nonsensical. You can't back up your claims without access to the book. Yes you've only translated but that doesn't mean everything in the article is correct. Clearly there are issues and without the book you are in no position to fix them or claim there are no issues, which is why the tags are valid. Oh and for your information I am backpacking around Australia and have recently purchased an ipad so I'm able to contribute on here more. This happened to coincide with this issue. Also you have to understand when I saw you had said you'd responded to comments at Golden Eagle Award, yet had not edited the article it looks bad. I'm notto know you had an issue so what I wrote was the logical response anyone would make upon seeing that situation. NapHit (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Tomcat7, your accusations that I did a 'poor review' is purely opinion. It is like I don't like art, couldn't be further from the truth as I am artist myself. I like art, I study art, I learn from other artists. You are responsible for your own edits. Several people have noted the close paraphrasing when reading through the article, it does not matter the language it was it, you directly translated it to the point that Google mirrored a majority of it. Including the flowery prose as noted at 2 GAs. I'm not here to discuss content, it is your behavior with the edit warring over tags that you know and admit to being valid. That is the problem. You know the one source tag is valid, yet you refuse to let it remain. And if you wish to make this a content dispute. Please point out how you are able to add additional inline citations to the article which did not exist in the de.wiki version. [54] All the edits done were by you. You are responsible for whatever material you put on wiki. And are you certain you are able to translate German to English properly? Your translation of these lines is worse then Google. "Friedrich Eckenfelder was born as the second child of the daily help Rosina Vivian and the shoemaker Johann Friedrich Eckenfelder. His father moved from Balingen to Basel when he was appointed journeyman shoemaker in 1859, meeting there his future wife." While I don't intend to start a content discussion, there are numerous concerns with the content. The insertion of false inline references on Eckenfelder is unquestionably bad-faith as you do not have the source material and they were not present on the dewiki page. Though I want to keep this on track about your edit warring. It is the edit warring which you continue to engage in after being warned half a dozen times that is the problem. You won't or can't address the problems so you remove the tags that you, in this very thread, have acknowledged being correct. I noticed you removing the tag prior to my review, rather then addressing it, you tried to conceal it from the readers and potential reviewers. The one source tag should remain until fixed.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to link to my statement at the RfC. I think both parties are at fault here and that the best thing to do would be for them both to take a step back and leave the other alone for awhile. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not think I am at fault for this mess. I just discovered that Tomcat7's GA nomination Golden Eagle Award is shamelessly copied text from Google Translate and dropped it word for word into the article. This is essentially what the Eckenfelder article had as well. Please see [55] for my post on that matter. Tomcat7 has done many GA and FAs yet deliberately inserts these violations in. RFC/U is not for such matters, but I think we have very deep problems when an experienced editor does this. Diff of him adding the CV. [56] Google translates version. [57] This is clearly a problem as it remains in the article prior to my tagging it. [58] I am just stunned at how many issues there are here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, RFC/U is for user conduct issues which is what this is. And yes TomCat7 is doing stuff that is not correct, but you have no basis to say that he is doing so deliberately in defiance of rules. It is not the case that most people realize that an original translation can also be a copyvio. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

No comment on the edit war, but we are now at two failed GAs due to copyright issues. I'm a lot more concerned about that then I am about the back-and-forth and the RFC going on. Wizardman 16:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not too difficult to handle that problem. Someone should probably try to calmly explain to TomCat7 that direct translations of sources also fall under the copyvio policy. I'm pretty sure he'll understand that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I did explain the matter to him about copying on the Eckenfelder article. This was his response. [59] Granted he says its not copyrighted in wiki, which is true, but the close paraphrasing and the CV from the dewiki page came with it. I've told him numerous times he is responsible for his edits. I've tried to explain this, and I've never gotten through. Someone else should explain it then. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Generally people don't respond well to critiques offered as accusations, since that feels like an attack and not an offer of help. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I've begun discussing the matter with Maunus at his talk page about the matter. I've just learned Tomcat7 is not able to contribute with a native or professional level of English. Which explains two of the three content disputes. While it does not address the edit warring behavior, Tomcat7 has ceased edit warring. Hopefully, discussion at the RFC/U will pick up steam. As I never wanted a block or punishment and since warning about edit warring has reached Tomcat7: Please close this thread. It is no longer necessary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

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

JonnyBonesJones

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

---

Could another admin or three please take a look at the discussions on my talk page User Talk:Qwyrxian#MMA Flags and User Talk:Qwyrxian#Admin grievances., User Talk:Qwyrxian#In case you aren't aware, and User Talk:Qwyrxian#So let me get this straight., and User Talk:Qwyrxian#I feel threatened by your comment? The short version is that User:JonnyBonesJones took what I believed (and still believe) to be actions in direct contravention to both MOS:FLAG and a specific discussion on WT:MMA; I told the user to stop, and threatened a block for further disruption. Over the course of this, perhaps I chose my words unwisely, but JBJ has taken part of my words out of context and has, in my opinion, gone to make WP:POINTy edits on other sports articles, claiming to be acting in my name. Regarding the underlying question (when/how is it appropriate to use flagicons on lists of people in sporting articles) I intend to seek guidance at MOS in the next few days, but need time to craft my concerns clearly (and it's 10:00 pm on Christmas-eve-eve, and I'm not willing to make promises on when I'm going to get around to that). In the meantime, I wonder if perhaps it might be best for the encyclopedia if JBJ stopped the aggression masked by an "Oh really? Isn't that what you meant? And you're involved! And I feel threatened by you!" attitude. I'm not recommending any specific admin action, though I think a nice talking to from someone who isn't me might help matters. And, as always, feel free to tell me that I'm getting it wrong and take whatever action is appropriate in that regard. After I notify JBJ, I don't know when I'll be back on; it might be soon, or it might be a day or more. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Now Now Qwyrxian, calm down. Please dont assume bad faith on me. I was only trying to follow wikipedia's guidelines and doing what you, an admin said was ok. I dont know why you are so upset, or accusing me of being pointy. And I didnt know what you meant by your "I strongly recommend backing down now before this escalates in a way that will not be good for you." comment. BWilkins helped clear that up though. I am not being aggressive, I am trying to help you calm down and discuss things with you! JonnyBonesJones (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Please note this is not taken out of context, this is an actual quote from Qwyrxian's page. I have bolded the important parts:

"It's funny that you talk about flouting "site-wide consensus", since the usage of flags in MMA articles is just the same as in most sports here in Wikipedia, which only goes on to show that we were following the consensus. Here are just a few examples of the most famous sports (none of them have a clear national connection): Tennis - Tennis male players statistics, 2012 Wimbledon Championships – Gentlemen's Singles, 2012 French Open – Men's Singles Bicycle racing - Tour de France, 2012 Tour de France Golf - List of golfers with most PGA Tour wins, 2011 U.S. Open (golf) Formule One - List of Formula One drivers, 2012 Formula One season Soccer - FC Barcelona, 2012 FIFA Club World Cup squads Boxing - Susianna Kentikian (a featured article). Miguel Cotto (a good article]] In some of these sports there might be an international federation which officially determines the nationality of the athletes, but that's akin to a MMA organization doing exactly the same thing. Evenfiel (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC) For soccer, the use of flags indicates the national team that that player plays for, thus fitting MOS:FLAG. For the boxers, they were listed as FA and GA in 2008 and 2007, respectively, which may be before MOS:FLAG's current formulation, and certainly back before WP was as serious about neutrality and site-wide consistency as now. I'm going to ask that those two articles be fixed. On the rest, you're welcome to start removing the flags yourselves. WP:OSE. Just to be sure, I looked very carefully at MOS:FLAG again, and the plain reading is unbelievably clear to me: we cannot use flags for sportspeople except in places where they specifically represent a country. That is not the case in a number of the articles you cited above, and certainly not the case in MMA. Flags over-emphasize the national identity of people, and thus violate WP:NPOV, except in those cases where the nationality is actually important; i.e., when they have won/competed on behalf of said country. I'm going to go ahead and take care of the two boxing articles, but I have limited WP time, so you're welcome to tackle the rest. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)" JonnyBonesJones (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Please note I am trying to follow all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to the letter, I also believe Qwyrxian is involved in MMA related disputes because of his deletion of this page: UFC on Fuel TV: Barao vs. McDonald JonnyBonesJones (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

No - one does not become WP:INVOLVED by performing an administrative action. I've deleted MMA-related articles (I think), that does not make me involved whatsoever (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

What would make him WP:INVOLVED then? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, you've managed to link WP:INVOLVED, but have you read it? It explains it right there. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty vague if you ask me. Also there was this post on Qwyrxian's page where he thinks he may be involved in MMA related editing. I will quote it:

"I've removed the flags. I don't know for sure if this would make me WP:INVOLVED, since I'm merely enforcing a site-wide consensus, but hopefully once notified of the rules (on the talk page) everyone will be cooperative. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)"

I don't see how:

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area

is vague on the fact fuctioning purely in an adminstrative capacity doesn't make someone involved, which was the original issue of contention.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I also hope you have a Merry Christmas Qwyrxian. And if you are jewish, I hope you have a Happy Hannakuh! And as always, I hope you have a nice day. :) JonnyBonesJones (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

As I have Qwy's talkpage on my watchlist, I already provided some intervention there - before it was brought here to ANI, IIRC (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

And I thank you for that BWilkins! JonnyBonesJones (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

JonnyBonesJones (AKA: JBJ)knew what the WT:MMA consensus was after having it explained to them multiple times both at various articles that they were edit warring to restore flags to MMA articles and their own talk page. The WP:POINT violations and the WP:WIKILAWYAR-ing based on the summary close of the WT:MMA discussion show that suggestions to become a positive contributing member of WP is in danger of being branded a MMA-SPA. Suggest liberal application of wet oily fish and WP:CLUEBAT to diffuse the current situation. Of note, the community at large did recently authorize general sanctions for the MMA project space, and seeing that this disruption started at MMA topics. It may be appropriate to read the "riot act" of the MMA GS warning at JBJ so that there is no doubt regarding consequences that could happen for disrupting the MMA project space again. Hasteur (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but, even though you misspelled it, cant accusing me of WIKILAWYERing be considered a personal attack Hasteur? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It'd be interesting to know who is behind accounts like Hooskerdo (talk · contribs). So SPA, so MMA-focused. Just sayin'. Doc talk 15:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong with someone being in the MMA project? I am in it too. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Wiki-lawyering and passive-aggressive behavior are Jonny's middle names. Although he removed all the material from his talk page after coming back from his most recent block, those of you who can stand wading through it can read this revision starting here. And just above that is the block immediately preceding it. One of Jonny's many tortured arguments in favor of an unblock on the second block was that he was being punished for the first block twice.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

BBB23, why are you saying I am WIKILAWYERing and bringing up the past? I thought accusing someone of wikilawyering is a personal attack, is it not? For shame... JonnyBonesJones (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to go to deeply into this, but I find it interesting that of the two labels I used, the wiki-lawyering apparently bothered you more than the "passive-aggresive" label. I wouldn't think that accusing someone of wiki-lawyering is a personal attack; even if it is, it's pretty tame. In any event, accusing someone of something is generally permissible if it's supported by evidence. As for "bringing up the past", your past is part of who you are here, and to a large extent I see little difference between the past you (and it isn't very long ago) and the present you.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It can be considered an insult according to policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikilawyering#Negative_connotations And as far as passive-aggressive behavior is concerned, I disagree with you, I prefer the term logical and calculated. I know my past is part of who I am, all of our pasts are part of who we are, we build our legacy on it. I am quite happy who I am thank you very much. I am a very positive thinker. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

And for the record, JonnyBonesJones, crude passive-aggressive tactics tend to have a fairly short shelf-life on Wikipedia, so they don't really fool anyone and there's no external rules requiring anyone to accept them at face value.Calton | Talk 16:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, how am I passive aggressive? Are you a psychiatrist? You cannot diagnose people online. I am a very happy, positive person who loves his family, loves God, and loves MMA. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you a psychiatrist? No, I merely have reading skills above the the sixth-grade level, as well as a lifetime of dealing with and little patience for those who -- wrongly -- think they're being clever. If you think you're being particularly clever, I suggest you try this out on your homeroom teacher and see how far it gets you. --Calton | Talk 21:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot of stuff in here that is not directly related to the point, and I'm trying to make sure I understand the point. Is this right? Community consensus is currently that flag icons should only be used to identify sportspeople who are officially representing that country in a formal sense, and should not be used to simply identify the homeland of a given sportsperson. Consensus is that this agreement applies specifically to the sport of mixed martial arts, a sport in which athletes most usually fight as individuals, and not as the official representatives of certain countries. User:JonnyBonesJones doesn't agree with that consensus, because he thinks that flag icons are useful for making certain kinds of tables more readable and visually appealing. Rather than either participating in a useful way with discussions and trying to persuade others to agree with his opinion on the usefulness of flag icons, he is instead removing flag icons from the lists of various other sportspeople, such as race-car drivers and tennis players.. He is doing this to demonstrate how useful the flag icons really are, and prove his point, even though this is not directly related to the area he truly wants to change, and even though race-car drivers are not typically considered martial artists, except perhaps in certain bars after important races. Even though others have asked him to stop, he is not participating usefully in discussions, and his edits are having a net negative result on the encyclopedia. In past blocks, he has shown limited ability to read and understand rules, and there is some concern that, while he has a great deal of enthusiasm and knowledge related to mixed martial arts, he may not have the reading or social skills needed to participate at Wikipedia in a way that will make the encyclopedia better with little or no disruption. Have I unraveled it correctly? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That is completely false, and your opinion. I have helped create articles on this site, and helped ID what model Glock was used in the Sandy Hook massacre. My edits have been very constructive. And as far and reading or social skills go. I passed Reading class in college with an A plus, and I with my excellent social skills I have many friends and have had beautiful girlfriends.JonnyBonesJones (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain which specific parts of what I said were incorrect? You seem to be saying that you are entirely uninterested in discussions about flags or martial arts, and I'm almost positive that isn't right. Can you explain clearly which facts about the disagreement I got wrong? I didn't realize that the disagreement that we are discussing was related to the Sandy Hook massacre; if it isn't about the use of flag icons in MMA articles, then I'm very puzzled indeed. Please note that I am only curious about what's happening here at Wikipedia, and have no questions about your private life when you aren't editing Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Very well, I am all for explaining my position. I will quote you directly:

"Community consensus is currently that flag icons should only be used to identify sportspeople who are officially representing that country in a formal sense, and should not be used to simply identify the homeland of a given sportsperson. Consensus is that this agreement applies specifically to the sport of mixed martial arts, a sport in which athletes most usually fight as individuals, and not as the official representatives of certain countries. User:JonnyBonesJones doesn't agree with that consensus, because he thinks that flag icons are useful for making certain kinds of tables more readable and visually appealing. Rather than either participating in a useful way with discussions and trying to persuade others to agree with his opinion on the usefulness of flag icons, he is instead removing flag icons from the lists of various other sportspeople, such as race-car drivers and tennis players.."

For one, they are invidivuals that represent certain countries. If they weren't, flags would not be included in the tale of the tape. Secondly, I could care less if flags make the page "more readable or visually appealing" and the consensus said "RESULTS TABLES". Third, I was told by the admin I was allowed to remove flags from those pages because he said it violated MOS:FLAG. So I did him a favor.

"He is doing this to demonstrate how useful the flag icons really are, and prove his point, even though this is not directly related to the area he truly wants to change, and even though race-car drivers are not typically considered martial artists, except perhaps in certain bars after important races."

I have nothing to prove, I did this because Qwyrxian said it was ok, and I was doing him a favor. Also a bar fight isnt martial arts.

"Even though others have asked him to stop, he is not participating usefully in discussions, and his edits are having a net negative result on the encyclopedia. In past blocks, he has shown limited ability to read and understand rules, and there is some concern that, while he has a great deal of enthusiasm and knowledge related to mixed martial arts, he may not have the reading or social skills needed to participate at Wikipedia in a way that will make the encyclopedia better with little or no disruption. Have I unraveled it correctly?"

I dont care if someone tells me to stop doing something, they arent the boss of me. I will not stop improving wikipedia, just because some stranger told me to do so. Also many people have asked Mtking to stop what he is doing, he doesnt listen to them. I am participating usefully in discussing, and there is a discussion on the F1 racing page about MOS:FLAG. You are not an English teacher, nor are you a social worker. You do not have the credientials to judge my reading skills, or social skills. You have unraveled it completely wrong, and and tangled it all up. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you haven't rebutted what FisherQueen said at all. As for your last comment, if you are disruptive, are told to stop, and persist, you will be blocked. If you violate policy, you may be blocked even without being warned, but certainly if you are warned and you persist, you will be blocked. In the broadest sense, the community is the "boss", but in the narrower sense, those whom the community has empowered to act are "bosses" by proxy.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Just because you disagree with me on a subject that you admittedly know nothing about, doesn't make me "disruptive". How about trying to WORK with MMA editors, instead of alienate them? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite block. While I don't feel confident unilaterally blocking this user without consensus, it seems clear that he is adopting an unnecessarily combative attitude toward other editors, choosing 'fighting words' even when courtesy would be more likely to achieve his goals. He doesn't appear to understand what other people try to communicate with him in writing. I don't think this is because he is unable to read and understand what others write. His oddly complicated and erroneous interpretations of others' comments, and of Wikipedia rules and guidelines, seems more like a determination to do as he wishes, and to willfully misinterpret anything which would contradict that. I think the problems here go much deeper than a mere misunderstanding of the rules; this appears to be a person whose refusal to collaborate with others in an honest and clear way will make it impossible for him to avoid disrupting the project. And, to respond to a specific comment - actually, I am an English teacher. But I'm not interested in assessing your overall reading skills, only the likelihood that your editing will be likely to make Wikipedia better. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You're an English teacher huh? Well you aint my English teacher. And I am not your student. I have offered to help you better understand MMA, and to help out. But you just want to get rid of me it seems. Even if your plan succeeds, this will not help wikipedia, or the MMA situation, it will just make it worse. You know I have done nothing wrong, and I only did what an admin said was OK to do. BTW what "fighting words" did I use? lol JonnyBonesJones (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. I, too, feel uncomfortable unilaterally blocking Jonny, although I gave it serious consideration. I agree with FisherQueen's assessment, perhaps even more strongly given Jonny's history. I would add that if Jonny wants to come back after a signficant amount of time has elapsed and demonstrate convincingly that he should be unblocked, that would, of course, be considered.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You want to block me for no reason, even though I have offered to work with you to help understand MMA better, this is proof that you dont try and solve problems, you think you can just try and block every MMA editor and the problem will be solved? You are mistaken. You should work with us, not push us away. If I do get blocked, it would just make me another Martyr for MMA on wikipedia. Our sport deserves a place here. Football players have even been using MMA training to help them in their sport. Bruce Lee and Royce Gracie have revolutionized martial arts! We help protect people from bullies, muggers and rapists. We have no shame in protecting our sport! JonnyBonesJones (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

...each comment you make along those lines makes it more likely that you will be blocked, not less. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

What for? Because I offered to help? lol JonnyBonesJones (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Support indefinite block. Based on JBJ's commentary above, where he declares his intention not to listen and to continue the behavior that brought him here regardless of WP:CONSENSUS, complete with bad faith out the wazoo, I'm not seeing the gain to having him around without a major shift in attitude. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

When have I declared my intention not to listen? When what got me here was listening to an admin. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I see all these accusations, but have any of them been proven? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Support indefinite block, per Bushranger. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Support Arbcom investigation for misuse of admin tools and grivances if I am blocked JonnyBonesJones (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Community sanctions I don't meant to subvert the community's will here, but we already have community adopted sanctions in this topic area and I've gone ahead and invoked them.--v/r - TP 18:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

And I agree to these sanctions! Thank you for having my back TParis. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't have a problem with your imposition of sanctions, TP, but I don't believe that prevents an admin from indefinitely blocking him, particularly if there are other bases for the block. Please correct me if you think I'm wrong (as a matter of procedure). His threat above, which is typical, is more evidence in support of a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • You're not wrong. If consensus is a block then that's what it is. In the meantime, I invoked a previous consensus. When I said I don't mean to subvert the community, I meant that I don't mean to take action while another action is being discussed. Not that my action is in any way a shield to what is being discussed here.--v/r - TP 19:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support smaller sanction It seems exaggerated to block indefinitely here, yes JBJ is being obnoxious and uncooperative, but if given a timeout I think he will realize that he doesn't help himself by being argumentative in his responses to valid criticisms, or denying personal responsibility for his actions. He should get a short block to prevent himself from digging the hole he is in any deeper, and depending on how he handles that further sancitons may not be necessary.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• If this were the first sanction, I would agree with you. However, he has already been blocked twice this month. Each time he reacted very badly. In effect, he's been given timeouts, and there's no indication that they've helped. An indefinite block is not permanent. He can ask for it to be lifted after he's had an extended timeout. That said, I wouldn't be averse to a block of 1-6 months rather than indefinite if that's what the consensus is.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support TParis sanction I agree not to touch a flag on wikipedia for 6 months! JonnyBonesJones (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support 3 month block plus indefinite sanction against touching flags, plus 6 months topic ban from MMA-related topics (broadly construed) plus minimum 3 months mentoring when they return Switch to SUPPORT indef block this editor is the epitome of everything that is wrong with certain editors in the MMA topic (<- addition) They promised to continue to disrupt - 'nuf said. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not promise to disrupt anything... lol JonnyBonesJones (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

One of the problems is you don't see yourself the way others see you. Similarly, you don't interpret your comments the way others do. I'm sure many editors here interpret your statement "I will not stop improving wikipedia, just because some stranger told me to do so" (see a ways above) as you will do whatever you think is best no matter what anyone else thinks. That's a promise to disrupt.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

How is promising never to stop improving wikipedia a promise to disrupt? Dude, I dont care the way others see me, or what they think of me. Who are they to judge me? God is my judge. I have agreed not to mess with flags for 6 months, but you still wanna block me? Why? The only one who makes sense on this page, besides myself, and TParis. Infact, TParis, I hope you become a bureaucrat or something man, you have been the only one who has been fair to me on this page, big ups. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hang on and step back. You say you want to improve Wikipedia. The problem between you and many other editors here is that you differ on what improves the encyclopedia. That is a reason to talk, not to throw around "I don't cares." You cannot improve the encyclopedia if you get blocked. This is a community, a society, and there are rules to this society. Does it not make sense to acquaint yourself with these rules? Qwyrxian has tried to do that for you, but you need to spend more time listening and being open then showing the community whose boss. Would you consider getting mentored?--v/r - TP 21:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont know what you mean by mentored, but sure. And I agree, blocking me will solve nothing. How do I get mentored? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's another example of your not listening to, or not understanding, what people say - TP did not say that blocking you will solve nothing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block, reluctantly. I've looked through JonnyBonesJones' talk page history, and the actions that have been mentioned therein and here - and I'm seeing a non-stop uncompromising battlefield approach. Instead of "I'll try better to follow Wikipedia's way of doing things", all I'm seeing is a constant "Wikipedia should listen to and learn from me" response to every issue. I really have not seen a single instance of genuinely listening to other opinions, taking them on board, and trying to develop a collegial consensus. The one so-called agreement, "I have agreed not to mess with flags for 6 months", is entirely bogus, because it did not come until after a prohibition had been forced on him - it has no more merit than a prisoner being locked in a cell and then saying "I agree to stay in here". Even this discussion here is more testament to the problem - all I see is a battlefield argument against every comment, and a continuation of the wikilawyering and pointiness, with no apparent understanding of the real nature of the problem. I would support an unblock should JonnyBonesJones make a convincing case that he understands the problems and is genuinely willing to change his behaviour. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

  Re "Dude, I dont care the way others see me, or what they think of me. Who are they to judge me? God is my judge": I mean no disrespect to your religious beliefs, but here on Wikipedia, no he ain't. Your judge here on Wikipedia is the Wikipedia community, and when it comes to dispute, Community consensus is the law - if you are not prepared to accept that, you will simply not be editing here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support minimum 3-month block, up to indefinite. Not here to improve the encyclopedia as a whole, just pump up his pet hobby and play games with everything else. Note to JonnyBonesJones: you think you're being clever, but you're not the first to try out that schtick. --Calton | Talk 21:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note. Blatant violation of WP:CANVASS: [60]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support indef block: I threatened to take JBJ to ANI earlier because I felt he did not have the capability to work with other editors. He immediately goaded me on by behaving in a condescending manner and referring to me as being like "his little brother". [61] I didn't take the bait, but it is further evidence of his inability to work with others, which would be fine in some situations, but not in a collaborative project like Wikipedia. Ryan Vesey 22:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support community sanctions, blocked from editing sports related articles for three months. He's obviously going way over the line in MMA and no longer seems fit to improve that section, but who are we to come to the conclusion Mr. Bones can't write beautiful prose on classical music, quantum physics, or some other topic which will improve the quality of this encyclopedia? Maybe MMA just gets his blood pumping so much that he's let himself slip into single-purpose account mode and started screaming about martyrdom. Let's assume the best from this editor and give him a chance to prove himself. If it's obvious he can't, support indef block. PhnomPencil (✉) 01:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• Presently Opposed to Indefinite Block - I have posted on my talk page in response to JBJ, offerring some advice. As the section "Please" on that page indicates, I have tried before to suggest he alter his approach, without success. I believe he was acting in a disruptive and POINTy fashion at the F1 page, and I believe the ban on flag editing is justified. However, I am still presently willing to AGF and accept that he is well-intentioned but acting poorly. On his current trajectory, JBJ is heading for an indefinite block but I support him having more time to adjust course and avoid that outcome. Maybe there is a mentor who JBJ would listen to and respect? EdChem (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• One the one hand, I don't mind if a mentor can be found for JBJ, and JBJ agrees to work with the mentor, and together they work on finding ways for JBJ to contribute constructively and civilly. On the other hand, my life experience tells me this is almost certainly a waste of time. I know that it's somewhat unfair for me to just assume that JBJ is similar to a lot of people I've known in the past, including to some degree myself...but he's displaying all of the symptoms of the "super-smart, misunderstood victim". If my guess is correct, JBJ simultaneously believes two contradictory things: 1) his maneuvering is nothing more than an attempt to "win" by exploiting fractional differences in meaning (in both his own and others' words), and similarly he knows exactly what others mean when they criticize and advise him but he will intentionally avoid that meaning in preference for one that advances what he perceives as his own agenda; 2) he is sincerely hurt by the fact that others seem to be attacking him "unfairly" because all he's doing is "what he's told" and "what he said". That is, I believe that JBJ honestly doesn't understand why all of us don't act with his precision, logic, and "honesty", even though he knows that everything he's doing is an intentional, nonconstructive front. Now, I know that people can improve from this state of viewing and interacting with the world, but I sincerely doubt they can do it through Wikipedia, and also constructively contribute to the project in the meantime. I wasn't aware of all of the details of JBJ's past until I read the links provided above, but after looking I see someone who is fundamentally unable/unwilling to follow community norms. However, in the past, people have given me leeway to attempt to mentor and guide seemingly hopeless cases, so I don't mind if there is a volunteer willing to take on this task. Note that I would expect that this mentoring would require a period of offline editing--i.e., a period in which he could only suggest edits in his own/his mentor's userspace, and have them go live only after approval. Should any part of this not be plausible (no available mentor, no agreement to editing restrictions while under mentorship, no acceptance of a mentor), then instead JBJ should, I think, be blocked. Personally, I would prefer a fixed term block, of probably 6 months to 1 year, because I'm afraid that if he can't see the light at the end of the tunnel, then we're actually inviting unnecessary trouble on ourselves (email me if you can't figure out what I'm implying but not saying per WP:BEANS). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support indef block - I'm not sure I'll ever understand the ethos that allows editors like this to continue to walk all over us out of ... I dunno, an over-abundance of caution? Fear of being perceived as illiberal? An inordinate respect for "due process" which is out of place on a private website which was intended to build an encyclopedia and not to built an online community. If the guy's not contributing to the betterment of the project just ban him and get it over with. There is no onus on us to bend over backwards, he's had chances, and his comments here are dripping with his disdain for the rest of us. Just get rid of him! Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. There has been no evidence so far that he either understands the purpose of this encyclopedia or is willing to change his on-line combative conduct to be compatible with those aims. Mathsci (talk) 07:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Amadscientist (talk · contribs) is not helping matters by his contributions on JBJ's talk page, e.g. [62][63] Mathsci (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose indef block at this time - Per EdChem. A little more time and a little help from others may or may not work, but I think we can try. with the stipulation that this is a last chance. Next step would be much stronger to an indef.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block like the topic he edits he is far too combative for my liking. GiantSnowman 10:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Temporarily blocked

• NOTE: as it appears that their intent is to disrupt this discussion, and MMA (including an appeal to Jimbo) as a whole during his possible last hours on the project, I have blocked JonnyBones for 31hrs for WP:CANVASS and WP:DE. This 31 hour timeframe will allow this ANI discussion to continue unimpeded - I think we have seen enough from him to understand his "point". He may still request copy/pastes from his talkpage here using {{helpme}}, but I would caution anyone responding to those helpme requests to consider them carefully. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Indef blocked

For a moment it looked like JonnyBonesJones was starting to respond to Amadscientist's approach (and we should thank Amadscientist for those efforts). But after the latest abusive outburst on JonnyBonesJones's talk page, I have upped the block to indefinite and revoked his ability to edit his talk page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

And I've redacted and rev-deleted his gross personal attacks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

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

WP:OWN on several Japanese cinema articles

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

---

I have recently attempted to edit several articles previously edited/started by User:JoshuSasori, but he has reverted almost all of my edits on flimsy grounds. The worst case is Sonezaki Shinjū (1978 film). Even when I quoted clear MOS guideline, he continued to quote the same argument at me again and again. Basically, I wanted to include an English translation of the Japanese title in parentheses, in accordance with WP:NCF#Examples and WP:UE; but he insisted that because the film doesn't have an "official" English title then we can't do that. I also wanted to include mention in the opening sentence of the film having been produced in Japan, as per MOS:FILM. I quoted Wikipedia guidelines to him several times, but he continued to revert my edits. By obstinately refusing to budge, he forced me up to 2.5 reverts[64][65][66]. He then posted two 3RR notices on my talk page: this is ridiculous, since he has reverted me more than I have reverted him. He has also persisted in quoting Elvis Presley lyrics instead of providing comprehensible edit summaries/replies to me.

I am not sure if I am in the right place, but this user's childishly acting like he owns every article he has ever contributed to is somewhat upsetting. It is difficult to demonstrate with diffs, but most of his comments towards me are also tinged with sarcasm. This is probably the worst example: even though some of the articles on Japanese cinema that he has edited were worked on by me about six years prior, he seems to assume that I am a troll who only decided to edit Japanese cinema articles in order to undermine him.

elvenscout742 (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the Presley lyrics play off your discussion regarding "hounding" in the previous section of his talk page. Why is it a problem he uses the same argument when discussing a similar issue? Also, is there a third party you can go through who might act as an intermediary?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that this user suddenly started trying to rename all pages I had created yesterday. I never heard of this person before. If you have the power to examine my watchlist then go ahead. I watch every single article on Japanese cinema and check edits every day. I have been doing this for about eight months. I have never seen this person before until two days ago, when suddenly he/she is moving several pages I created. He/she has never edited these pages before I am very sure. JoshuSasori (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the behaviour of the above user. He/she was WP:HOUNDING me and started renaming all the articles I had created, e.g Kindai Eiga Kyokai, Ryoko Nakano, Reikou, Sonezaki Shinju (1978 film), . He / she says that this is according to some policy but the referred-to policy MOS:JAPAN and WP:JATITLE do not agree with what he/she says they say, so I had to undo many edits. I keep telling him/her to read policies to check and to check the article references, but he/she just doesn't seem to want to read anything, or whatever he/she reads and quotes selectively. It is really getting boring and ridiculous because no matter what I try to communicate with this person, he/she seems not to read what I have said and he/she often accuses me of making a personal attack when I obviously haven't. I cannot begin to understand it and cannot take him/her seriously any more. He/she is making completely irrational and counter-productive edits and clogging talk pages with bizarre messages. I am sorry but I am completely lost for words what to do about this person. JoshuSasori (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you ask at the Japan WikiProject which of your approaches is better? Because I don't think AN/I's going to solve your difficulty. People are thin on the ground here due to time of year and the most likely outcome is an evenhanded one, which both of you will think is unfair.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

JoshuSasori already asked at WikiProject Japan if we could change the MOS to support his POV that macrons should never be used in articles on modern Japanese people. There doesn't seem to be any consensus on that. Several of the articles that JoshuSasori started, however, already violate the current MOS, including several that are not about people. That is why I moved several of them. The ones where he had no argument, he did not revert my move, but he has prevented me from making any other edits; wherever he could get away with it, he has reverted my move. (Ryoko Nakano has an "official website" that appears to have an English version created by a freelance translator, and the translator got paid whether or not he/she bothered to include the macron; there is no indication the Ms. Nakano prefers to spell her own name as "Ryoko" rather than "Ryouko" or "Ryōko"; nevertheless JoshuSasori completely reverted me.) Basically, WikiProject Japan right now is divided between those who wish to accurately represent the Japanese language by using the standard, official romanization system, and those who think that diacritics are ugly and pointless (JoshuSasori indicated in his initial proposal that he doesn't actually speak Japanese and can't understand the reason we use the macrons).

But the idea that I am "hounding" JoshuSasori is ridiculous. I was editing articles on Japanese film six years before he created an account, and despite his assumption of bad faith, I don't actually have it in for him. I have only made edits to articles where Wikipedia policy is obvious. JoshuSasori has been reverting me. His constantly reverting my constructive edits to Sonezaki Shinjū (1978 film) is ridiculous, and it appears to be either because he doesn't like me, or because he thinks of these articles as "his". elvenscout742 (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you've misrepresented JoshuSasori's statements. He didn't say he didn't understand the what the macron's function was, simply that he was unaware of any modern Japanese person that used them in the romanisation of his name. With that, I have to concur: I know many Japanese people with long vowels in their names, but not a one that indicates that via a macron. It's a form that has grown effectively obsolete. I'm very surprised that Wikiproject Japan clings to its use.—Kww(talk) 05:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that is how it was looking to me, though I am not comfortable enough in my understanding of Japanese to opine that specifically. I would suggest you guys start an RfC and settle the matter, putting these questions on hold until you do. You are both acting in good faith as far as I can tell, the only way you're going to get into trouble is if you talk past each other and edit war.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

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

User using multiple user names to replace sourced content in multiple articles with what would appear to be deliberate misinformation

Please see WT:ANIME#Mass vandelism???, Aakeem00 (talk · contribs), and Aakeem077 (talk · contribs). Goodraise 22:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is another two user names most likely belonging to this editor: Aakeem0775 (talk · contribs) and Aakee08 (talk · contribs). Goodraise 22:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

And another three: Aakeem079 (talk · contribs), Aakeem01 (talk · contribs), and Aakeem 2010 (talk · contribs). The user has been warned (exactly how often is difficult to tell for obvious reasons), but does not react to them. They do not provide edit summaries and do not (as far as I can see) engage in any sort of discussion. Goodraise 22:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there a way to recover all the vandalism done? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

24.26.79.67 (talk · contribs) and 24.26.79.173 (talk · contribs) would also appear to be the same editor. Diffs to various warnings: [67], [68], [69], [70]. Will add more as I find them. Goodraise 23:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Several administrators including myself are now blocking these accounts. Aakee08 is however stale since 2008. De728631 (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Know, however, that WP:SPI is the correct place for this. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You're right, of course. My mistake. This sort of thing just happens too rarely in my little corner of the 'pedia. I don't even remember when I last had a problem with sock puppetry. Goodraise 23:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that aakeem00 removed the block notice. Can someone please add it back.--64.229.167.20 (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I also removed an episode list that was on the talk page of Aakeem 2010.--64.229.167.20 (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Ops that should be User talk:Aakeem 2010.--64.229.167.20 (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Bot scale link changing by User:SnrRailways

User:SnrRailways seems to have a pathological hatred of the term Train station and is trying to systematically purge the term from Wikipedia, even when it is in piped links and does not show on the page. User:Edgepedia has requested that this activity cease pending the outcome of this discussion at WikiProject UK Railways but editing has now resumed while the discussion is ongoing. An IP has pointed out that User:Wedensambo has a remarkably similar history of removing train station links and has been active on Japan railway articles while SnrRailways has not been editing. I believe systematic changes on this scale may need prior approval as would be needed for bot changes.--Charles (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the account as an unapproved bot, being careful to take steps (e.g. disabling autoblock) that are appropriate when blocking a bot. He's making so many changes in short periods of time (and always using precisely the same edit summary) that this can't be explained as making use of tabbed browsing. Let's hope that this permit more time for discussion; if discussion end up rejecting his idea but he continue these edits in a fashion that's plainly manual, blocks for general disruptive editing will be appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Shot in the dark here, but this could be an indexed search that works through a database scanner to generate a list of hits. I've done the same thing to find specific errors in Wikipedia before, the edit summary is lacking the AWB bit, but I do not see the tell-tale signs of a bot. The edits are not spaced in such way as to be a bot, and the edits themselves are not indicative of tabbed browsing. This is definitely in the realm of human editing, but is probably assisted with a tool. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I left the message on the talk page in the hope that the edits were WP:POINTy after Sheffield station was put on full protection after SnrRailways had attempted this change by edit warring over a week. There appears to be a misunderstanding what is meant by discussion and case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT here. Edgepedia (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Wedensambo

And User:Wedensambo? Similar concern - please see contributions. I must say for me the interest/concern is not so much whether it's automation per se or not; it is whether there is consensus, preferably at some centralized point such as a project, for these large-scale changes. Show me a place where it's been properly discussed and agreed, as a mass update, and I will be content. At the moment it has the worrying feel of an individual crusade and I would like to avoid this. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Frimoussou

Frimoussou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user first came to my attention a few months ago when they were repeatedly removing Template:Subjective category from various LGBT-related categories without explanation. In the last month their behaviour has become more and more disruptive: this has included editing other users' talk page comments (including archived comments, with edit-warring) and singling out one editor in particular for repeated attacks and insults, which they are also edit-warring to restore.

Although I can find nothing especially worrying about their article edits, and their editing in general remains infrequent, Frimoussou's approach to contributing in other areas and interacting with other users leaves a lot to be desired and I believe that a block is becoming increasingly warranted. SuperMarioMan 01:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked the editor for 48 hours for personal attacks and disruptive editing. I also reverted the archive edits by the editor and the IP, although my edit summary was flawed (sigh).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• 83.112.26.176 (talk · contribs) might be the same editor. At a minimum, their edits are beyond disruptive and go far into the NPA range. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • In fact, this edit makes it clear that they are the same person. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Drmies has blocked the IP. -- Dianna (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes xe has. And had a little rendez-vous with Brigitte Bardot in the process, from which I'm still recovering. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Was it like this? -- Dianna (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Very much so, yes. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
            • Much better than being sent to the cornfield. Much. Dreadstar ☥ 06:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

DPL bot

DPL bot is creating The ancient inhabitants of the British Isles repeatedly and placing the {{dablinks}} tag. The page was speedily deleted under A10: was duplicating History of the British Isles ( check the deletion log). I think the original page consisted of more than 7 links to disambiguation pages; probably that's why DPL bot is placing tags on it. DPL bot has created the page 2 times. I read somewhere that a malfunctioning bot should be reported at ANI. Please look into this immediately. Thanks! Forgot to put name (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• I blocked it as the owner appears to be away. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Wouldn't it have been better to salt that page as it didn't appear that the rest of the bot was malfunctioning? Legoktm (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm unblocking and protecting the page per Legoktm's comment. You have my permission to reblock if you think it necessary; I'll not consider it wheel warring. Nyttend (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, we have a malfunctioning bot and absent owner and you think we should just let it run unmonitored? Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem an urgent problem. It only causes a problem when a page is deleted after it is detected with dablink, but before it is tagged. I'd guess this is pretty rare. If not it can easily be blocked. Rich Farmbrough, 04:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC).

Go to Special:Newpages and put DPL bot into the "DPL bot" line; you'll see that the bot's not created any extant pages in the last 30 days. Its deleted contributions, when filtered for articles only, show no deleted non-minor edits except to this page, and since only existing pages can be marked as minor, creating articles like this is plainly a first-time problem. Finally, going here reveals no new articles started by the bot. If this were a problem deserving of a renewed block, we'd see something happening somewhere else. Nyttend (talk) 06:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Another suspected IP sockpuppet of Velebit (FAO EdJohnston or Osiris)

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

---

Special:Contributions/71.178.112.242 has commenced editing in the same way and the same type of articles as Special:Contributions/71.178.108.23. Per [71].EdJohnston or Osiris might want to take a look. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This must be Velebit (talk · contribs). I suggest a three-month block of each new IP as it appears. The last three I've noticed are 71.178.108.23 (talk · contribs), 71.178.106.250 (talk · contribs) and 71.178.112.242 (talk · contribs). Previous history is at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Velebit. EdJohnston (talk) 05:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Patricia Cloherty

The article Patricia Cloherty has been the subject of constant bad-faith edits by User:Happy225 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) who seems determined to turn it into an WP:ATTACKPAGE. The article was sent to AFD and was fixed (by me and others) to remove the WP:UNDUE weight given to some references and other attacks and accusations. A few days ago, Happy225 copy-pasted an entire old version of the article back into place including the old attacks, undue weight and old AFD tag.

Happy225 is basically an WP:SPA almost solely focussed on this article. He has been blocked in the past for edit-warring at this article and has received warnings going back 3 years - all related to this one article. Not sure what the obsession is but some form of WP:COI is obviously at play.

The latest obsession seems to be related to the subject's age which Happy225 seems desperate to include. This was specifically noted at the AFD by the closing admin because no WP:RS exists for this "fact", only social media, and I think there was a suggestion that the original DOB was wrong.

Either way, the article was the subject of an OTRS ticket from the subject, seemingly because Happy225's previous edits inserted a bunch of unsourced attacks and accusations and the subject asked for the article to be deleted. Thus the AFD nom.

Happy225 has again be warned, twice, and I asked an admin to keep an eye out, but the quasi-vandalism continues. On the matter of the subject's age, I'm probably at 2RR myself, though the timing is spaced beyond 24 hours. Either way, I would appreciate some assistance. Stalwart111 22:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks from Kiefer.Wolfowitz

{{resolved|Talk page access revoked for the duration of the block Nick-D (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)}}

There's a recent dispute at Wikipedia:An#Inappropriate question at RfA, which led to Kiefer.Wolfowitz being blocked. Discussion on his Talk page has become rather confrontational, and he has "banished" me from posting there and has been removing my comments. However, he is posting personal attacks against me there, and I have no way to reply....

• Edit summary, "Stop lying, little man". I might be wrong, but I'm not a liar.
• Edit summary, "Regardless of your lying or bullshitting, which you can clarify elsewhere, Boeing, you are so reckless with the truth that you are banished from this page. I don't mind my opinions being considered bullshit, but I do object to being called a liar (though I don't really mind being called an airplane).
• Edit summary, "no bullshit artists or liars are welcome". More accusations of lying.
• Comment accusing me, and others, of being "clueless about sexism".

There is also what appears to be a personal attack on Wehwalt on the page - though I am not aware of any history behind it, it seems like a gratuitous attack. (I commented on it and then redacted myself, because I decided against possible drama escalation at the time). I ask that uninvolved admins please review Kiefer's talk page (including removed comments), and decide if any action is needed - for example, an AGF/NPA warning? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

No comment on the above, but Wehwalt and SandyGeorgia have been going at it for months now. --Rschen7754 00:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to go to a Christmas Eve celebration, but it seems fairly clear that Kiefer is on a rampage and is wholly incapable of controlling his temper. I would recommend at a minimum that his talk page access be revoked during the remainder of his block and consider extending the block for the personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• And now he appears to be accusing me and other admins of "rushing to close and cover up an allegation of sexual harassment" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, let it be seen if the attacks continue - if they do, TP protection is fine; hopefully, they won't. Black Kite (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just revoked Kiefer's talk page access for the duration of the block per the normal way of handling editors who continue to make personal attacks after being blocked. Nick-D (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Well done. Merry Christmas from the Wikipedia admin corps. Black Kite (talk) 01:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Whoa Nelly! he actually said " leaving an appearance of rushing to close and cover up an allegation of sexual harassment" - 747 was perhaps skim-reading. I doubt KW cares right now about talk page access, but it does seem this was a little hasty. Rich Farmbrough, 03:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC).

Weasel words don't change the underlying implication. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You think it's OK for him to banish an editor from his talk page, and then make repeated personal attacks in edit summaries when removing their comments? As for "leaving an appearance of...", that's only a thin veil on another attack. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea about the banishment, though I suspect the best thing to do when someone is blocked and tells you to leave their talk page is not to even read it. But "leaving an appearance of..." is not a thin veil, it completely changes the sense from a suggestion that something is wrong to a suggestion that it is unwise. I'm actually not that impressed with the talk page block being imposed after KW was told not to do it again, and hadn't. I really haven't got time to look into the details, but it does seem that a blocked person becomes persona non-grata - talk page blocks should be a last resort, and should run no longer than they need, as indeed should all blocks. Something we forget at our peril. Rich Farmbrough, 04:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC).

• Shutting down talk page access on blocked experienced editors is almost always a thuggish and cowardly action undertaken by bullies. This should be undone at once. Carrite (talk) 05:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk page access is enabled for blocked users in order that they be able to post unblock requests or participate in a limited amount of collaboration with others. When anyone abuses it by attacking others, shutting down talk page access is appropriate, regardless of that person's experience. Nyttend (talk) 06:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, that's the standard practice and the reason I revoked talk page access here. I note that most of Kiefer's previous blocks have also ended up with his talk page access being revoked: [72]. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I find myself in agreement with Carrite and Rich here, though I do not phrase it the way Carrite did. Given that KW was already blocked, the talk page shutdown seems a bit over the top. Add that it is Christmas, and the act feels flat out wrong. I'd say let KW vent on his page, and be big about it. As for the underlying issues, 30 minutes of reading left me rubbing my eyes. We all really need to be getting along better than this, especially at this season. Merry Christmas, and I am not being sarcastic. Jusdafax 07:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

  My view is that banishing someone from your talk page and then using that talk page to personally attack them (including in edit summaries) is an abuse of the right to edit that talk page - no matter what Christian holiday it falls on. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

  (I should add that I neither support nor oppose any specific actions, and I'm happy for others to decide that - whether the consensus is for or against block, talk page revocation, or whatever -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC))

• As the original blocking admin, I guess I should weigh in. Personally I am generally opposed to removal of talk page access, but it all seems to have hit the fan after I left last night and KW's behaviour means I unfortunately have t support the removal - for now. Could one of the admins above who opposed the talk page access removal e-mail KW and see if he is willing to calm down and discuss the situation without resorting to personal attacks? GiantSnowman 10:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• Just for clarity, that would need to include an agreement to cease calling other editors liars - something in which KW indulged rather freely in his little festive spree. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Agreed. And I can see no reason why experienced editors should have a free pass for this sort of thing. I also think this needs to be taken into account in any future blocks -- and that this is a short block compared to other of his blocks this year. (note for transparency, as I recall I was also at the receiving end of one of his attacks) Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Page protection

Please protect the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations from the constant IP blanking. 82.132.217.109 (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, this should go to Request for Page Protection. The traffic isn't heave, though... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Normally, you want to take this to WP:RFPP. If I were patrolling there, I would probably look at this and decline as not being enough action to justify protection at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree, this case should probably be marked as closed. TBrandley 02:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Since November 21, I can count around ten IP edits with section blanking tags. It might not be that much but it has been fairly constant. Decision up to you. 82.132.217.109 (talk) 02:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I would still recommend submitting a request at requests for page protection, as administrators deal with those matters there. This page is designed for incidents occurring among others, so please use the appropriate subpages. But since you are already here, an administrator may already deal with the concern. TBrandley 02:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I was reverted again today. Can an admin semiprotect this please? The edit-warring has lasted over a month.82.132.246.70 (talk) 12:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Derwick Associates

There seems to have been some conflict over this page. One of the two conflicting editors is "wondering" if the other is Derwick's lawyer - a user with the same name has posted legal documents relating to the case on a file posting website. Since Derwick have a defamation case running, and have included their Wikipedia page in it, this seems a reasonable question. I have excised a significant amount of UNDUE coverage of the case, and made a few other minor tweaks. I have also requested from both conflicted editors a statement of their relation to Derwick if any. It would be useful if this situation could be reviewed to see if there is any need for administrator intervention in this incident, and incidentally to improve the article. (Spanish speakers might be able toc check more of the background.) Rich Farmbrough, 03:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC).

MX896 and rapid creation of dubious redirects

MX896 (talk · contribs) has created about 40 redirects this morning, most if not all dubious, some removed, some up for speedy. At AIV but seems to have stopped for the nonce. If no one objects or beats me to it, I'll indeff him, does anyone have the tools to fix these rapidly? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Given the number of times they've been warned, they're due an indeffing. Blackmane (talk) 09:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)