Blackash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Slowart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have had a long drawn out dispute regarding the Tree shaping (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article. Various forms of dispute resolution have been tried up to MedCom, and various editors have given of their time to attempt to resolve the issue, but it continues to drag on. It has been suggested on the COI noticeboard that a Topic Ban might now be appropriate. A voluntary Topic Ban would not work as Blackash has stated she won't agree. Articles involved in the ban would include Tree shaping, Axel Erlandson, Arthur Wiechula, John Krubsack and Expo 2005. There may be others. SilkTork *^YES! 00:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and add Grafting and Richard Reames please.Slowart (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed for Formal meditation twice, the last time Slowart didn't agree. If Slowart would agree to go to Formal meditation I'm willing to go. Blackash have a chat 05:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for the reasons given at the COI noticeboard. I agree with Slowart that the ban should include the Grafting and Richard Reames articles as well, in fact all articles related to tree shaping. I think the topic ban should go ahead even if there is also an effort at mediation, since mediations often fail. In the lucky event of the mediation being successful, it will be easy to get the ban lifted. The turmoil at these articles should not continue, and a topic ban is a milder option than blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban for three editors, but allow comments I have been semi-following the Tree shaping issue since noticing it at a noticeboard in June 2010, and have found myself in agreement with Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs)—we think there has been too much effort devoted to minimizing use of the term "arborsculpture" in the article. As I recall, Martin Hogbin and I are the main contributors to the talk page who have no commercial interest in the topic. One editor (Slowart, named above) apparently has a commercial interest in "arborsculpture" and has favored mentioning that term as an "also called" in the lead (diff), while two other editors are very keen that "arborsculpture" not be used in the lead: Sydney Bluegum (talk · contribs) (diff1, diff2) and Blackash (named above) (diff). Many more such diffs over months are available. I support a topic ban for Slowart and Blackash and Sydney Bluegum: there is little point in applying a ban to only two of these editors. In a normal topic ban, the editors must completely avoid the topic. However, in this case I suggest that each be permitted to make suggestions on article talk pages, although they should be asked to not comment frequently or repetitively. These editors can make useful suggestions or point out errors, but an article topic ban should be enacted because the editors have unduly focused on the question of how "arborsculpture" is mentioned in the article—off-wiki interests seem the most plausible explanation for the vigor with which this matter has been pursued. Johnuniq (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/Question Johnuniq I noticed you have pointed to where I've supported an editor removing alternative names from the lead (my reasoning), yet you don't point out I later offer a comprise that puts alternative names (inculding arborsculpture) back into the lead diff. You also don't mention that Slowart removed a chunk of cited content about his own methods and then refused to talk. Why didn't you also point this out? Blackash have a chat 15:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I would suggest it is because Johnuniq is showing examples of editors violating WP practices - which is rather the point of commenting at ANI - rather than instances of compliance. If this were a matter of having the named editors (including you) banned from the site, your question would have relevance. Further, the tone and inference of your question indicates a possible symptom of the alleged interaction issues. Makes my decision easier. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions @ LessHeard vanU

1. An editor who removes referenced/cited content about themselves and then won’t discuss their edit, are not violating WP practices?
2. Whether someone is to be banned from the site as a whole or only part of the site it still is banning. I would have believed that the editor’s overall behavior and looking at their diffs in context would be what guilds the decision to ban in either case. Are you suggesting that the editor's overall behavior/diffs in context don't count when it comes to topic banning? Blackash have a chat 06:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On your question #2: If the problems are related to a single area, then the editor's behavior in that single area is all that matters. An editor can be a perfect angel 99% of the time, and still get topic-banned from the 1% where he or she misbehaves. Behaving well in one area does not give an editor immunity in another. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering my question. My edits and behavior on this topic has been as I stated below. I edit, talk giving reasons, and offer or except comprises. Any edit that may be considered a potential COI I gone to noticeboards and asked outside editors' views. It seems that because I've followed WP policy in regards potential COI I am to be banned as it is causing other editors too much grief, not because my editing/behavior is inappropriate. Please note most of the time outside editors agree with my view. Blackash have a chat 04:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is ridiculous on all sides. Phearson (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support article ban for all three named editors, but allow edits to talkpages - with a view that if good faith dispute resolution process are (re)started then this ban can be revisited sooner rather than later. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support article ban but permit talk page edits per what LessHeardvanU says above. I believe that both Blackash as well as Slowart have self-declared their COI on the topic and should be permitted the assumption of good faith. --rgpk (comment) 22:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It seems the only way forward. Sydney Bluegum is clearly an SPA (see contribs) and should be included in the ban. The question is, 'Then what?'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support For Blackash and Slowart for reasons stated above and obvious Conflicts of Interest. Abstain for Sydney Bluegum as his support of Blackash seems like a content issue not a CoI issue to me. However I have not been taking part in the discussion for about six months so I leave it up to others who have been directly involved more recently to decide on the best course of action as far as he is concerned. Colincbn (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Sydney's contribs. This is clearly an SPA. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The expertise of these editors (blackash and slowart being some of the foremost practitioners in the US and australia) slightly outweighs the constant arguing over the name. Over the last 2 years the quality and detail of the article has improved drastically, with these two doing the vast majority of the edits. The mediation committee needs to get their act together and actually send out a mediator. AfD hero (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• OpposeThis is not a simple problem, it like a game of chest. By banning me all that is happening is the players from one side are being removed leaving the lobby group for Arborsculpture. Of course Slowart is willing be banned as he still has players in the game. As has been stated on the talk page this group of editors are so hostile to anyone with a diffing view that most editors go elsewhere to edit. The result will be tree shaping and surrounding articles will become heavily weighted towards on their stated goal.
  Google Arborsculpture, it all leads to Richard Reames/Slowart. In spite Richard’s claims, Arborsculpture is not the accepted name of the art and that is why Slowart removed his methods and image of his results his bending method. And now IPs keep coming in and removing Instant tree shaping section as well.
  Comment Apart form that I believe it not right to ban me when I’ll added valuable content to the main article, I’ve always being willing to discuss content, offered or excepted comprises. Any edit I thought may have been considered pushing my view I’ve talked first, then asked at the appropriate notice board and even when been given the go ahead to completely remove the word Arborsculpture from the article I didn’t. The reason I was given to accept a voluntary ban was because editors where feeling too much grief. I’ve not been uncivil and edited in good faith and learn from my mistakes. I’ve been told this doesn’t’ matter if this is true it seems bad behavior is rewarded because topic banning appears to be the easy answer. Blackash have a chat 23:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Blackash this is not a game of chess, there are no "sides" and we are not "players". This comment shows that you feel there is a way to "win for your side". But editting to win is not compatable with editing to help make WP better. This is the definition of a Conflict of Interest. The fact is I do not care about tree shaping or arborsculpture at all. I have never done it or even seen it in person and I know no one who has. I simply want to help make WP a better more complete encyclopedia. This is the one sole reason anyone should edit here. Colincbn (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I got involved with that page several years back through a third opinion request (before I was sysopped) and it was exceedingly difficult to get anything done. I'm not entirely surprised that this is still going on, but an edit war that long has to be put to rest. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban. I vaguely remember having offered a third opinion, like HelloAnnyong, on one of the disputes that Blackash and Slowart were having two or more years ago. They're clearly still at it from entrenched positions and won't desist voluntarily. – Athaenara ✉ 01:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban I posted about fifteen times to the tree shaping talkboard and also to the WP:NPOVN in 2010 for a few months ending in August. There was no resolution then and I do not think there is any plan to find resolution. This issue has distracted me and a lot of other good editors. I feel that all Wikipedians have a duty to compromise as they must to minimize time spent on talk pages and maximize the time spent contributing to articles. There were good, friendly debates on how to present the Wikipedia articles related to this subject but with these two editors participating in the discussion I do not feel that the debates are likely to end. Perhaps other users associated with this topic should also cease editing. I would have supported a topic ban 6 months ago and if the issue is still hot then the reasonable response is a topic ban. There could still be mediation if the parties want to arrange it but if this happens then I think the topic of mediation ought to be the conditions under which the topic ban is removed after a year. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban on anything in the mainspace related to tree-shaping for Slowart and Blackash. As this has been a long-term dispute with edit-warring issues, I believe that a long-term topic ban is proportional. As endlessly arguing with each other is also disruptive, I would also be willing to support restricting them each to a single tree-shaping-related comment on any talk page or noticeboard per day, although perhaps that's an issue for another day.
  I have not yet formed an opinion about Sydney Bluegum. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Sydney's contribs. This is clearly an SPA. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think it would be more productive to ban these editors from any name-related edits or discussion, since this is the only real point of contention, but allow them to continue to contribute other content. AfD hero (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the two should be permanently banned from making any edits relating to the subject name or any section having a commercial connection, such as lists of practitioners of the art. Clearly they are both experts on the subject, whose views we should welcome but I think a short total ban might be useful while editors with no commercial interest try to sort things out a bit. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Hogin, you may not be commercial involved but as Bluerasberry stated you are not a neutral editor on this issue. A fine example is your last edit diff on tree shaping where you removed referenced/cited content. Please note the edit he was reverting diff had only added the word "The".

Martin made a conscious decision to add or remove the rest their edit.Blackash have a chat 03:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Martin Hogin to agree to mediation with me. For more details go to Tree shaping talk page. Blackash have a chat 05:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you have been proposing mediation since 2008 (diff). Many of your edits have been excellent, and this 2008 comment provides a very reasonable point of view (it appears that certain practitioners use tree shaping methods they believe are different from those of the person who coined the term "arborsculpture", and those practitioners object to having their work associated with that term). Nevertheless, independent editors need to take control of the articles since it is not satisfactory to have them dominated by those with a conflict of interest. As recently as a week ago you were removing "arborsculpture" from the lead of the article which suggests a "take no prisoners" approach that is not helpful on Wikipedia. Mediation is not required—the editors with a COI regarding terminology simply need to undertake to not make edits regarding such terminology. Instead, make proposals on the talk page and let uninvolved editors respond (yes, that might take a long time, and it might lead to unsatisfactory results, but it would be better than the advocacy and ownership now demonstrated). Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blackash, I am perfectly willing to assist in any form of dispute resolution process as a neutral editor with no commercial interest in this subject. On the other hand, you must stop making edits like this one [1] in which you added the proprietary name used by your own business for the art. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, when Slowart puts his own word into the lead you didn't comment to him about his COI. You now have twice supported Slowart's removal of cited content. Once voicing support on the talk page, the other time you made conscious decision to mirror Slowart removal of referenced/cited content. You have yet to explain why. This is not the behavior of a neutral editor. It is because of your support for the word arborsculpture and Reames/Slowart edits, that I've asked you to go to meditation. Please go to tree shaping talk page and list the issues you would like to discuss in meditation and agree there to formal meditation. I don't want to go the trouble of listing it again only to have you not reply to the listing wasting the meditations' time and mine, as happen last time I listed and Slowart didn't reply. Blackash have a chat 01:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't think a topic ban would work as there are more editors than just Slowart and Blackash involved. It is not that hard to have another account running as some editors do. A topic ban would not effect me at all as I came to wiki as an end user to get info. I got involved in this conflict as Blackash was the only editor providing useful information in the article while other editors were pulling her edits down. On the talk page, other editors just dont answer or talk about behaviour rather than content.This has been ongoing. Sydney Bluegum (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blackash has just made this [2]. Whether it is sourced or not is irrelevant, editors should not be adding proprietary names for the art used by their own businesses to this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pooktre is not registered or trademarked, its a word Pete and I created to name our own art. Different editors have put pooktre into the lead and SilkTork stated pooktre has also become generic. I suggested this change on the talk page close to two weeks ago. diff Martin I'm not a mind reader, if you had an issue with the my suggested comprise for the alternative names you should have spoke up. Blackash have a chat 00:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With topic ban it is my understanding that an editor would watch the articles. There have been comments as to this conflict tying up editors time.This seems to be an issue. On the COI noticeboard EdJohnston suggested full page protection. I feel this is a valid outcome as the conflicts are centered on Tree Shaping. Page protection would free up editors to work on other topics. If this were to go ahead the article needs to have the three methods in place when it is locked. As the article is now with Tree training, arborsculpture, and pooktre, I feel this is fair. As Tree training was suggested by multiple editors as the title for the article, it is reasonable for it to go in the lead first. Sydney Bluegum (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether desirable or not, that's not going to happen—as "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", pages are only protected for the amount of time required to prevent disruption. If particular editors repeatedly edit against consensus or Wikipedia's principles, processes such as the one being discussed here are undertaken, and problematic editors end up being blocked or topic banned (with blocks for violations). Johnuniq (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Pls see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Folkinfo search plus others for deletion discussions Moxy (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to do about about an editor (Lashuto (talk · contribs)) that is hell bent on adding external links and now has made a second template at Template:Musician-info-footer despite what was said and shown to the editor at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 March 7#Template:YouTube artist about our policies on the matter. I was going to speedy delete the new template but not sure this will solve the over all problem. Moxy (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy, this discussion belongs on Template_talk:Musician-info-footer.--Lashuto (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to TfD as well. It doesn't fit any of the speedy criteria and it's currently unused, so running it through a (now-highly publicized) TfD shouldn't be an issue. Cheers. lifebaka++ 07:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lashuto has made this a (minor) ANI issue with this edit at the TfD which added: "I fear that Moxy is on some sort of external links hissy fit. Where is the policy rule that "Navboxes are for internal links"? Was there an ArbCom decision on this matter?" Would an uninvolved admin please peruse the two TfDs mentioned above and inform Lashuto that there is a strong consensus against the use of templates/navboxes to encourage linking to videos: such "official" templates offer video links a false aura of legitimacy. Johnuniq (talk) 07:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On further review, there's quite a bit of incivility coming from Lashuto on the YouTube artist TfD. I'll be dropping him a note about it on his talk page. No other action is required at this time. Cheers. lifebaka++ 08:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you "Lifebaka" - I seem not to be able to communicate with him and need someone (hopefully an admin) to step up and try to communicate with him. I have been told to Foff in our first encounter and since then get responses like this. I no longer wish to communicate with him. I have been nothing but polite and pointing to policy the whole time. I simply want him to read and follow our policies and guidelines on spamming that he has been shown. All he plans on doing is advertising for music as we now have Template:Allmusic artist Template:BAE band Moxy (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been trying to assume good faith with User:Lashuto, but I find it a bit concerning that as brand new editor, his first edits are to spam YouTube artist pages to scores of articles, followed by creating a template to enable even faster spamming. When the template was put up for a deletion discussion and it became clear that there strong consensus is to delete, he starts creating yet more templates for yet more commerical music download sites, spamming them to yet more articles, and has now created a template that allows him to add 6 of these sites to an article in a single edit. Even assuming this is a good faith attempt to improve Wikipedia, perhaps someone could request him to please stop these mass additions until these discussions have run their course. Voceditenore (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O well more and more -- Template:Folkinfo search - Template:Moozone artist - Template:Qriocity artist - Template:Grooveshark artist - Template:Harmony Central ..Moxy (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File an RFC/U about the behavior, if necessary. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a fairly strongly worded message on Lashuto's talk page urging him to stop creating templates for the time being and start being civil. If problems persist I think blocking the account needs to be considered to prevent further disruption. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I hope he takes heed because I agree that blocking should be considered if he doesn't stop. This is becoming very disruptive. Note that he is also creating unreferenced stub articles simply to have yet another music site to put in a template, e.g. Online music database and the already speedy deleted folkinfo.org. Voceditenore (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments such as this one give me the feeling that there is a better than 50% probability that the editor is being intentionally disruptive. --rgpk (comment) 21:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting The Pointer Sisters? Old school spamming. Doc talk 03:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Maybe I'm just too sensitive, but the diff RegentsPark links seems to go beyond "intentionally disruptive" right over to "grossly offensive or degrading." The disturbing sexualization of the discussion seems to indicate to me that this user clearly needs to find a home at a different website than this one. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please check these templates that have been created by Lashuto in the last couple of days:

• {{Allmusic artist}}
• {{BEA band}}
• {{Deezer artist}}
• {{Folkinfo search}}
• {{Grooveshark artist}}
• {{IMDb search}}
• {{IMSLP search}}
• {{Internet Archive search}}
• {{Moozone artist}}
• {{MusicBrainz artist2}}
• {{Qriocity artist}}
• {{SearchMusic}} and Template:Musician-info-footer redirects to this
• {{Trim pagename}}

In addition {{Harmony Central}} has been significantly edited (not sure if any others). Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every one of them fails WP:ELNO#EL9. Once the author has stopped creating new ones they should all be TfDed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 07:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do we go about blocking this guy - Its clear he does not care about what has been said - this has just been made Template:ACE workid. See also His Multiple accounts.Moxy (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am listening. Sure, I know it is easy to nuke everything I created. My question is, which is betta for y'all: all the YT EL's ya got on on pages like Lupe Fiasco discography or just one convenient http://www.youtube.com/artist/Lupe%20Fiasco . The former sounds like whack-a-mole to me and latter sounds like new and convenient and only sort-of YT-evil. Whatever. Either way is fine with me, I guess.--Lashuto (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case there's already a perfectly workable solution in {{YouTube user}}, as the official videos (which are the only ones that aren't copyvios) are located under an official account. Of course we shouldn't be using the individual videos as references anyway, but that's a bigger problem with the article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Re the multiple accounts, I have filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dresian. User:Dresian, User:Teecono and User:Lashuto have been notified. Voceditenore (talk) 08:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• All three are now blocked, and apparently the one I thought was the sockmaster (Dresian), was independently blocked today as the sockpuppet of an unnamed banned user. The SPI is awaiting a CheckUser to look for sleepers. Then there's the mess to clear up... Voceditenore (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

78.155.239.29 is at it again - he added a bunch of fake credits to the Wikipedia listing for The Fox and the Hound. On IMDB, I had to delete many of these same names of people who didn't work on the film. Compare the credits on its IMDB page, from which I removed all the fake entries, to the credits that are up on the film's Wiki page now. There are DOZENS of names of people who had no involvement in the film. These edits need to be reverted, and seeing as this person even now continues to add false information, I believe the admins should take measures against him.--TServo2050 (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does there even need to be a full credits in the info box? It's practically as long as the article. Rehevkor ✉ 20:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might be Disney vandal/Bambifan101... I have blocked the ip for 31 hours and warned them that as the address appears stable (edits to the same articles going back months) that further disruption will incur longer sanctions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also  Confirmed:

• ILoveMovies246 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• TailsTheFox246 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I am strongly considering full-protecting The Fox and the Hound due to over-excessive sock puppetry. –MuZemike 22:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beyond considering. This has been the target of innumerable socks, and even two meatpuppet attacks by persuading admins from foreign language versions of Wikipedia. It's a non-descript 30-year-old animated feature about which it is highly unlikely that any new facts will come to light. Full protection for 6 months.—Kww(talk) 22:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, Back up the truck. A Full Protection for 6 months because two new accounts and an ip changed some information? Think we went a little overboard on this protection did we?--Jojhutton (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article has been under attack by the same user for 3 years. I don't know what definition of "sustained vandalism" you use, but that certainly meets mine. Bambifan101 has been after that thing for a long time, and there's no reasonable expectation that new information will need to be included in the article: after 30 years, not much is happening with regard to the topic.—Kww(talk) 01:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me state here what WP:FULL says:

Brief periods of full protection are used in rare cases when a large number of autoconfirmed accounts are used to make a sustained vandalism attack on an article. Persistent vandalism, or the possibility of future vandalism for highly trafficked articles, rarely provides a basis for full-protection.

Sustained is, according to the dictionary: Maintained without interruption

There appears to be some interruption in the edits and the vandalism today was done by an ip and a non-confirmed user. This doesn't fit the definition of WP:FULL.

Also, 6 months isn't very brief.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree that I'm in WP:IAR territory here. If a consensus develops that my action was excessive, I'll heed it.—Kww(talk) 02:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty obvious who it is. Indefinite semi-protection and WP:RBI is all that is needed here. Oh and WP:DENY; WP:DNFTT will help too. Fully protecting the article is giving him what he wants: recognition that he's causing a problem. I've got it watchlisted. N419BH 02:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I have to say though, that it was obvious that you had the best interests of the page in mind, but I think the collateral damage may be a bit much for a six month full protection. Even BLPs don't get this sort of love.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off, let me apologize for what I started. I don't know about 6 months of continuous full-protection as that seems quite a bit, but a much shorter period of time, like 1 week or something; I would even support going down to semi and then go to full on the next attack. That or we simply "give up" and stop blocking them altogether. –MuZemike 05:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not going to give up on combating Bambifan101 but I will note that that vandal has forced the (topic?) retirement of at least one good editor. Short period protection is not going to deter them, nor indeed is long term but it may cause them some inconvenience. As the general editing to that article is moribund then inconveniencing the troll is equitable, im(ns)ho. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Moribund" is a pretty good description. I chose 6 months basically because of the long duration of the problem. It's one question whether protection will do any good at all, but, assuming that we feel that it does, why would one think that two or three weeks is going to do anything to deter a 3 year long effort?—Kww(talk) 14:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still feel that this is not within the guideline of WP:FULL. Its not a BLP, so its hard to justify such a lengthy Full protection,and given that a semi-protection will most likely cause the vandal to get his socks to auto-confirmed before editing the page, that may be enough to take care of the problem. Has Semi-protection even been tried yet?--Jojhutton (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and indefinite has been applied several times - take a look at the logs for the page - this has been going on for a LONG time, and I see no problem with locking it down again. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bambifan's been doing this for years. Full-protect is the only defense left that'll definitely work. HalfShadow 20:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - Its generally not proper for admins to edit a fully protected page unless first brought up on the talk page per WP:FULL: Any modification to a fully protected page should be proposed on its talk page (or in another appropriate forum). No request or any acknowledgment to the edit was ever mad on the talk page.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the same paragraph on WP:FULL: ...if the change is uncontroversial, any administrator may make the necessary edits to the protected page. Really now, that edit had nothing to do with the reason for protecting the page. So I resent the implication that I did something inappropriate. — Edokter (talk) — 21:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but it must first be brought up on the talk page. No admin can decide what is controversial or not without first making a proposal to it on the talk page of a fully protected page. One of the arguments for keeping the page fully protected is that It's a non-descript 30-year-old animated feature about which it is highly unlikely that any new facts will come to light. That means there is no reason for anyone to feel the need to edit the page, yet just hours after the page was protected, an admin edited through the protection, which means that there is still reason to improve the article. So why should admins only have the pleasure of editing the page at will?--Jojhutton (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or, as an alternate (if the community is willing, that is), we could turn on Pending Changes for that article. –MuZemike 21:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes may work. Is that still being utilized?--Jojhutton (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been disabled, but 'testing has ended'. However, in the spirit of WP:IAR, I think it's a good idea. — Edokter (talk) — 21:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But wouldn't it, in essence, be as effective as semi-protect, or am I missing something? HalfShadow 21:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm favor of a semi protection. Make the vandal have to jump through the 3 day waiting period and 10 edits hoop before editing. Thats a pain in the ass if your socking.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from this thread, that is exactly what he would do. With pending changes, capturing these edits is more bulletproof. — Edokter (talk) — 22:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection hasn't worked in the past with Bambifan101 or some of our other prolific sockers. Look at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Bambifan101/Archive. Another example is WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Brexx/Archive, which even had to be archived to be maintainable: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brexx/Archive/2009 had to be split off. Pending changes has proven to be ineffective against socking as well: too many editors just approve anything that isn't obvious vandalism, and Bambifan101 has proven to be quite good at inobvious vandalism.—Kww(talk) 22:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hard pressed to find any sustained auto-confirmed vandalism in the past year. It doesn't mean that there isn't any, I just couldn't find it. Per WP:FULL: Persistent vandalism, or the possibility of future vandalism for highly trafficked articles, rarely provides a basis for full-protection. Full protection should only be used to stop immediate vandalism or edit warring.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We get it, Jojhutton; you mentioned it on bold for 3 times, now. So, when are we expecting to unban Bambifan101? –MuZemike 01:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A curiosity, Bamifan101 and Jojhutton share exactly no letters in their usernames EXCEPT THE LETTER "N", which coincidently is the last one in both (not counting numbers) names. Just saying... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sad thing is, until I saw the signature, I thought you were serious. It's amazing how tortured SPI evidence can get at times, isn't it?—Kww(talk) 14:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...did I just get accused of using a sock puppet? Or was the above signature suppose to have a different meaning?--Jojhutton (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm. 15:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he was just making a joke. If you followed SPI, you'd be aware of how silly the arguments can get:Freddy369 must be the same editor as Alicia1113 ... the digits after the name are both divisible by 3!, and similar.—Kww(talk) 16:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the full-protect to pending changes per the above... hope I don't get shot for it. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not shot, but please put it back. Not only is pending changes non-standard, it doesn't work for sock-puppeting prevention, as I mentioned above. There may not be a strong consensus for what I did, but there's even less for pending changes.—Kww(talk) 16:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If it solves the problem and is likely to do so more effectively than semi-protection or pending changes, why not go with full protection (even long term)? I see no reason why it isn't a valid option if it is what it takes to get the job done, especially as it isn't likely there is going to be any major content work on this article. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Wait, how does it not work? He can try to edit and any Bambi edits will not actually appear in the article. I don't see what your argument is here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• They won't appear until a reviewer approves them. Very few reviewers disapprove of anything but obvious vandalism, and BF doesn't participate in obvious vandalism. That was the most painful thing about the pending changes trial: watching good editors become accidentally complicit in sockpuppeting.—Kww(talk) 17:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I was just looking through the Bambi socks and what I noticed was that there were liteally hundreds of articles being vandalized. Should we Full Protect all of those articles? Not sure why this one was chosen for a 6 month full protection, while the others are not even semi protected. If you full protect one, Bambi will just move on to another article, if he hasn't already.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been his most chronic target: it's obviously some kind of obsession with him. Don't assume that that he isn't mentally ill in some fashion. Logic doesn't really apply.—Kww(talk) 17:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Still, I didn't see enough auto-confirmed socks to justify a full protection, let alone a 6 month full protection. In fact I couldn't find any recent auto-confirmed vandalism on this page at all. Could someone, who may be more in the loop, provide some diffs of recent auto-confirmed vandalism, in order to make it easier to determine what type of protection this page may actually require.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (I will also note that 78.155.239.29/ILoveMovies246/TailsTheFox246/TailsTheFox2476 is not actually a Bambifan101 sock. All these users should remain blocked, but I will point out that the geolocation of the IP places it in Letterkenny, Ireland. The same person has made the same false claims in comments on YouTube videos, which has pointed me to his YouTube account - according to this, his name is Gerald McGrory and he lives in Dunmore, Ireland. This person isn't Bambifan101, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a vandal who should remain blocked, and admins should keep a lookout for any future socks of this guy.--TServo2050 (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Viewpoint Pending changes is basically the right idea. It was used at Gödel's incompleteness theorems for a while against multi-year sock onslaught by associates of Carl Hewitt, mostly from IP addresses (see SPI archive), similar situation to this. It would have helped to have something like an edit comment giving instructions to reviewers about what they should be rejecting ("per talkpage consensus, please reject any edits related to XYZ") but it was better than nothing even without that feature. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This message was first posted on WP:EAR, but I was advised to place it here.

User:Fleetham has been around for a while, but I only encountered him when he started work on articles relating to the Chinese auto industry in 2010. I have been spending about a third of my time since, trying to repair his often disruptive and confusing edits. I have engaged in countless talkpage conversations on his, mine, and article talkpages, but absolutely nothing has any impact. The problematic articles are manifold, but the biggest dispute is at Share taxi. A visit to Share taxi (and Yulon Motor, Jianghuai Automobile etc etc) and some digging around should make the problems fairly obvious. Ownership, over-referencing, chopping articles into countless subsections, and a refusal to engage in any fruitful conversation with other editors are the main problems I've encountered. There is a long harangue of the various issues (with links and quotes) listed here.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are some strange behaviors here, evidently including some linguistic challenges, and I don't understand at all what he means here by "all these facts need citations because I tend to add stuff that isn't true". That strange self-reference to false information aside, he seems to be trying to improve articles, but not necessarily going about it the right way. But ANI cannot handle disputes over over-referencing or chopping articles into countless subsections, until other avenues of dispute resolution have failed (see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. ANI might be able to help with "ownership" issues and refusal to engage in consensus. In terms of refusal to engage in consensus, I do see conversation here, but unfortunately it is only between the two of you; WP:3O or input from other noticeboards could help clarify consensus there. With multiple parties engaged in conversation, it becomes much easier to see who is talking and who not and who is edit warring to override consensus in implementing their preference. If there are examples of him editing in spite of clear consensus, diffs of those would be very helpful. I'm afraid that this forum is not the place to expect others to go "digging around." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the editor targets articles that are generally pretty boring, so it is hard to get other editors involved. Another editor has been getting involved here: Talk:Share_taxi#Dolmus_section - which is nice, as it has upped the civility level a notch. I would just like for someone to take a look at this editor as they are impossibly rigid and won't agree to anything other than their favored version. I know it's boooring, but...  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For another data point involving different editors, see the lengthy debate on Talk:Fastenal where User:Fleetham makes 14 references to assorted Wikipedia policies. - Ttwaring (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie433 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zombie433

This guy has been long term nuisance for those of us over at WP:FOOTY and keeps on reappearing with a new IP every few days - the ones in the category are just those we've managed to catch, God knows how many more are out there - any chance we can get a rangeblock or something please? GiantSnowman 14:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• How i'd wish for that, mates. He continues with his "work", and as Snowman says, has a seemingly neverending array of anon IPs. Even worse (apparently) is this case, User:Pararubbas, Zombie has only had one account, this "user" creates sockaccount after sockaccount (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Pararubbas and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Pararubbas), and also has several anon IPs as "backups". Both do not engage in any talkpage conversation whatsoever (Zombie did once or twice, when severely threatened, Pararubbas has NEVER) and write zero summaries.

Rangeblock definitely, if possible - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All his IP's are from the same general area. It's likely he is just using his school or library's computers as zombies. A range block should handle that.AerobicFox (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody fancy helping us then? My request back in January at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations for "a long term solution" was also ignored... GiantSnowman 12:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user has vandalized 1000's of BLP's User wrwr1 [[3]] has tried to repair some of the damage, but this is gonna take years....Cattivi (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His added info was all wrong? Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No not everything, maybe 10-20% is a product of his vivid imagination, but that's still a lot with the number of edits this user has made. At least 50% is OK, the rest is not appreciated by everybody. And it's not only en.wikipedia, other wiki's copy en.wiki ,those need to be looked at as well, even 'reliable' sources like clubwebsites copy en.wikipedia Cattivi (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 December 2010 I was unblocked and granted a second chance after an indefinite block, becoming again a contributor with full rights. Since then, I've been a very active wikipedian and all my edits were made in accordance with the wiki policies. The fact that I've become a trustable user was also recognized by the admin HJ_Mitchell, who gave me reviewer rights.

Nmate (who was notified about this report) may have violated WP:HARASS, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:TALKO, WP:NOSPADE and WP:PLACE.

In the first place he posted a message on my unblocking admin's talk page asking for details about how I was accepted back in the comnunity

Secondly , he reverted me with no explanation on János Bolyai article. When I asked for a clarification on his talk page, he refused the conversation

Next he filed a report accusing me that I fight against sock puppetry, "instead of flattening to a sequestered corner"

Nmate engaged into an edit war against me at Lajos Kossuth article. The edits he was trying to revert were explained on the article talk page, but he refused to participate at the discussion, preferring to simply revert.

He posted a message on my talk page asking me to leave WikiProject Hungary

Nmate also accused me of "trolling" and deleted my post on User:Yopie 's talk page, breaking WP:TALKO

Later, when I explained him that it is mandatory to inform other users when filing reports against them, he replied me the following "If I report anybody for edit-warring, and then I do not leave notification on the talk page of the reported person, it is my own business"

Today, he refused to respect WP:PLACE, even if I informed him 2 times about this policy. He switched the order of alternative names in the lead of the article about Košice and engaged into an edit war on this subject: [4] [5] [6]. According to the rule: "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages", but he disregards this (Iaaasi (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I have asked the user several times to avoid my enviroment [7][8], but despite this, the user keeps clambering on to my heels, and even my talk page teems with spam messages [9] posted by Iaaasi ,even though I asked the user shun my talk page. And If I started to edit an article, the user still emerges at the same place to make "constructive" edits there, which is quite weird. And when the user was blocked for indefinite time from editing Wikipedia, his sockpuppets still followed me around on Wikipedia.[10][11] And the fact that the user fights against sockpuppetry, is the most weird thing that I have ever seen on Wikipedia.

The Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stubes99 page was opened by User:CyanMoon who was one of the comfirmed sockpuppets of User:Iaaasi--> [12] And then the second reporter was User:YellowFF0 there, who was also one comfirmed sockpuppet of User:Iaaasi--> [13] Interesting to note that Iaaasi is still often proposes checkuser requests at the SPI page of Stubes99 and Tiptoety is the most active checkuser there.

Please note that Iaaasi had made more than 10 confirmed sockpuppets [14] and administrator FisherQueen told one of his sockpuppets that " You've created so many sockpuppet accounts that it's very unlikely that you'll ever find an admin willing to unblock you, or at least, not until several years have passed without any more edits from you. You've tried often enough that you know now that any accounts you make will be blocked, and the changes you want won't be made by you." [15] And that Iaaasi is allowed to edit the English Wikipedia ,again, thanks to the fact that Iaaasi hoodwinked the administrator and checkuser Tiptoety,who does not have a soaring stature anyway, with a very extensive and steadfast IRC canvassing. According to my assumption Iaaasi had devoted six months to covince Tiptoety to handle his unblock in the background.

There is a continous ,mutual, and self confessed interaction between Tiptoety and Iaaasi via IRC, even before Iaaasi received his second chance type of unblock. "I was approached by Iaaasi"[16] "I too have interacted a fair amount with Iaaasi"[17]

Administrator Tiptoety warned user:Squash_Racket [18] and user:Hobartimus[19] on the ground that they reverted all edits of the sockpuppets of Iaaasi , and then User:Rogvaiv1 also reminded Squash Racket of that [20]. But later it came to light that Rogvaiv1 was also a sockpuppet of Iaaasi. There was even an interaction between Tiptoety and user:MarekSS here and MarekSS was also a confirmed sockpuppet of Iaaasi.

Interestingly enough that Wikipedia:Standard offer reqisites at least 6 months without sockpuppetry, but the WP Offer coming from Iaaasi appeared here on WP ANI, on 27 September, 2010; despite the fact that Iaaasi had 3 detected sockpuppets one month before. See:[21] ->(blocked on 9 August, September)[22]->(blocked on 11 August 2010) [23] ->(blocked on 25 August 2010) [24] At the unblock proposal, Iaaasi was supported by 3 administrators, Tiptoety [25] ,Muzemike (he was the nominator of the unblock proposal ,which based on a false pretense " He has been consistently constructive over at simple.wiki since his block this past March for disruption, and he has not shown to have socked during this period of time." when in fact Iaaasi had 3 detected sockpuppets last month, [26] and Shirik [27]. And , albeit, the community refused to unblock Iaaasi, the acces to be able to edit his own talk page was recovered [28] by administrator Slakr for inscrutable reasons and then administrator Rohnjohnes unblocked him without community discussion 3 months later. [29] Since then the user keeps following me around on Wikipedia for which I am upset.--Nmate (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it can be seen, User:Nmate did not address my accusations against him, but responded again with comments regarding my unblock from December 2010. Instead of accepting that I am again a member of the community, he keeps contesting my unblock for 3 months (instead of WP:LETGO)(Iaaasi (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: Have both parties considered the third step of BRD, Discuss? I see no discussion on the talk page (or on either editor's talk page). I do however see accusations and threats of invoking administrative intervention (WP:EW, ArbCom, etc) by what appears to be both parties. Before this becomes a thing on ANI, can we please try some of the lower tiers of dispute resolution (Talk page discussion, 3O, mediation) before asking for immediate intervention from Administrators? Hasteur (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, your wikihounding aimed at me is still pertinent. Second, if you want to resolve content disputes, then WP ANI is not a right place for it. Third, I do not give a hoot about your opinion related to anything and anybody. Furthermore, I have asked you in the past sveral times to stop following me around on Wikipedia and to stop posting any messages on my talk page but you do not want to complete my request.--Nmate (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are the one who has followed me and reverted me with no reason. Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. Which is your work and how have I inhibited it? (Iaaasi (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Iaaasi is a serial sockpuppeteer who recieved several indefinite blocks please see the following accounts each of which received an indefinite block:

1. Ddaann2 (talk · contribs · logs) 16:17, 17 March 2010
2. Nauneim1 (talk · contribs · logs) 22:16, 16 April 2010
3. Umumu (talk · contribs · logs) 06:43, 20 April 2010
4. Conttest (talk · contribs · logs) 07:16, 12 May 2010
5. DerGelbeMann (talk · contribs · logs) 03:07, 8 June 2010
6. MarekSS (talk · contribs · logs) 03:07, 8 June 2010
7. EurovisionFan2010 (talk · contribs · logs) 03:07, 8 June 2010
8. DusanSK (talk · contribs · logs) 17:07, 16 June 2010
9. Karpatia1 (talk · contribs · logs) 17:15, 9 July 2010
10. Rogvaiv1 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:57, 9 August 2010
11. CyanMoon (talk · contribs · logs) 09:09, 11 August 2010
12. YellowFF0 (talk · contribs · logs) 08:01, 25 August 2010

From the above it is clear that this extremely disruptive user never stopped editing even after this many indefinite blocks, in some cases the banned user edited for several hundred edits before being blocked. See many of them had huge number of contributions and the admins did nothing to stop him WHEN he was blocked. Now it is getting worse this user seems to believe that he is free to harass Hungarian editors all day, continuing the same thing he was blocked for so many times. This is not the case. Hobartimus (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other words this block was violated two THOUSAND times easily if we add up all the edits, and all this seems to be ignored. Hobartimus (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That case is closed. You look too much in the past, all these sockpuppets were well known when I was unblocked and since then I've respected all the policies (Iaaasi (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

There is no point in continuing discussion with someone, who dedicated in wikihounding and to pick a quarrel with my edits. Once I had reported this user for a violation of 3RR [30] and soon after his interest in editing the article White Carpathians that I had edit just before I filled my 3RR report concerning Iaaasi, "resuscitated"[31]. (Nauneim is a confirmed sockpuppet of Iaaasi which was created on the ground that the user was unable to wait until his 3RR block comes to an end. But after the 3RR block had expired, the user also continued editing the article with an abusive 3O request there without having had an interest in editing the article beforehand.[32]Just by checking the edit history of the article Košice out[33], it plainly looks that the user hadn't had any interest in editing the article before I started to edit it, but shortly afterwards his interest in editing the same artice, enhancely increased and picked a quarrel with my edits there and went to ask for an abusive 3O request forgery, too. [34] So that it is not too surprising that if I am unwilling to accept his 3O request forgeries neither here ,nor anywhere else on Wikipedia.--Nmate (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edits on White Carpathians were in February 2010, more than 1 year ago, when I was still a very beginner on Wikipedia. And since when asking for a 3O is an abuse? (Iaaasi (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Some of the socks were used to constantly follow around Hungarian editors and revert them, report them to ANI and various places, in violation of rules prohibiting harassment block evasion, with the intention to force them off of wikipedia. It seems very relevant to the present day because if the same thing is going on here (targeted attacks against Hungarian editors) just without the use of the harassment socks, than that's a direct continuation of a more than a year long pattern. Hobartimus (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used my socks for making constructive edits, anyone can check that. If we take in consideration such old events, I can also remind the admins about Nmate's blocks for Personal attacks or harassment of other users: Ethnic slurs and incivility. Let the admins decide if we can talk about targeted attacks of you and Nmate against me or vice-versa

For the record: I was blocked for ethnic slurs and incivility by Elonka, who has an interesting way of thinking, and everyone could check which were the ethnic slurs and incivility for which I was blocked here: [35]--Nmate (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I could also add that at least one of the reasons of my blocking (suspected of being a sock of User:Bonaparte) was wrong.

When I got 48h block, User:Nmate reported me on a subject where the presumed edit war enemy, User:Rokarudi, accepted that my edit was made in good faith and it was not a conflict there. Even if it was technically an edit war, it was not a proper conflict. (Iaaasi (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I think it is important to show what kind of answers I get from Nmate when trying to resolve a dispute by asking for a third opinion: [36] (Iaaasi (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Note: User:Nmate just got a Warning for incivility (Iaaasi (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I already told that I could not cosider your 3o requests to be serious ones but abusively used ones ,due to what you did at the article White Charpathians and for your continous Wikihounding.--Nmate (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't accept 3O you may propose any other legal way for solving the dispute (except edit warring as until now)(Iaaasi (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

As I told, I do not want you to always edit the same articles as I do.--Nmate (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a collaborative Encyclopedia. As long as the rules are respected by both of us there is no reason to avoid each other. Wikihounding means inhibiting someone else's work, so I ask you again: which is your work, and how have I inhibited it? As the policy says: "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles". If you like, I am ready to compare my edit history with yours in order to notice who brought more benefits to the project between us (Iaaasi (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Nmate, this is what you are calling wiki-hounding? The correction made by me by moving the Hungarian name to the correct field in the infobox (from native_name to other_name)? (Iaaasi (talk) 07:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I can confirm to the fact that Iaaasi indeed harassed others in the past in fact doing the same for about a year. For example please review the contributions of this attack account [37] from almost a year ago. By that time He already started to stalk, harass, revert other editors then post to ANI (as above) and communicating with various editors[38] [39] [40], attempting to mobilize them against intended targets, pretending that his harassment style attacks were just a "legitimate dispute" over "content" [41] [42], while the sockpuppet account's only purpuse was harassment. All this while being blocked. The MO was always the same, pretend that it's a content dispute while harassing his victims over and over an over reverting them and "warning" them while pretending that his sockpuppets were legitimate editors [43] [44]. Hobartimus (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your accusations, but I will not give a detailed answer. However I am not the subject of this report and these things happened months ago. Please refer exclusively to my post unblock activity (Iaaasi (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

These things happened continuously over a long period I merely gave a single example above. I will provide more examples if necessary. Hobartimus (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any complain, please file a separate report. This discussion is about User:Nmate (Iaaasi (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I would like to inform the admins that Hobartimus has broken WP:NPA, by bringing unsupported accusations: "Iaaasi lied to an admin on IRC to get him to support his unblock" {Iaaasi (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I see this report (as usual) got complicated and it is discussed everything except the reported problem about the unusual behaviours of User:Nmate, 1; 2; 3; openly refusing to work with other editors 1; 2; 3 , his usually empty edit summaries that easily(and almost by a rule) become edit wars (if you don`t explain your edits , how should the other user know what are you doing...) 1. I really think this behavior should be analyzed because we are in a situation of solving something when the other user just sits and engages in edit wars(and not talking), with empty edit summaries... The most current case in at the article Kosice ,where , as I can see by now, the same behavior applied. Adrian (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

143.231.249.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mrxpress2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An IP address registered to the US House of Representatives, 143.231.249.138, is edit warring on a politician's article. I thought I would bring this to ANI's attention because I know the potential gravity of blocking such addresses. Kansan (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could be the Mrxpress2 account, logged out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That IP address is used mostly for partisan edits to spin articles in favor of conservative Republican incumbents. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the IP address has an extensive block record and that the latest edits which include largescale remove of sourced content [45] (I don't think that the HuffPo is a good source there and it should be replaced by something less partisan but the content as a whole seems sourced) come right after the last block expired. A longer block may be in order. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's most likely the staff of some of the congressman editing their bosses articles. Nothing serious to worry about, this type of thing happens with corporations also. Just treat this as a usual case.AerobicFox (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These two have removed the entire "political views" section from Daniel Webster (Florida politician) multiple times and refuse to consider anything other than their own views about it, accusing those who edited the article of being liberal Democrats trying to insert their POV. This is ridiculous because, unlike them, I will freely admit my potential biases and say that I wrote most of those sections and I am a Conservative Republican who took great care to only say things from news sources and minimize my own biases when writing the article. If anything, it may have unintentional biases TOWARD Mr. Webster, since I voted for him; the fact is, they are whitewashing from an internet address withing the US House of Representatives, and this is reprehensible. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There is no reason though to fear this will blow into anything more than the usual POV pusher just because the IP is from the house of representatives. If they're edit warring to remove content they don't like then they should indeed be banned.AerobicFox (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find this case of extreme interest and urge an admin or admins to look into it and take action if need be. Jusdafax 04:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – user now blocked indefinitely and talkpage access revoked, as he will not stop making legal threats towards other editors editing pages he has created. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)][reply]

Fresh from a recent block for disruption and related sockpuppetry-assisted edit-warfare, Panagiotis Xenos-Kokoletsis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has come back with a vengeance. I left a note with Theresa Knott but she seems unavailable at the moment. So if you don't mind please block this editor. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This can't be helped; see all the well-meaning notes in his talk page history. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can only be helped by an indef at this stage. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW he even reverted my ANI notice for this incident. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left a query on his Talk page asking why he saw fit to delete that...if I'm stirring the pot, feel free to trout me for it. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing you deserve is a chocolate cookie for your great effort. :) But given the past history of this user your edit will be reverted. Thank you anyway. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After this, I've indeffed. (Note the IPs listed here.) Blanking notices from your talk page is one thing; this is something else. An indef, of course, is not infinite. But there needs to be some kind of showing of willingness to collaborate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The diff you provided is unbelievable. Even the most clueless of vandals don't act this way. This redefines cluelessness. Hopefully if some clue returns to this user they can be rehabilitated. But I will not hold my breath. Thank you very much Moonriddengirl. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now repeating the same legal threats and insults from his main account. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The now blocked Kokoletsis has issued legal threats on the talk page of Moonriddengirl through a sock. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's already indefinitely blocked. Administrators aren't really in position to do much more than that. I'm attempting to talk to him, but worried that your two new block warnings may confuse him, given his status. He seems to be a bit confused already. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted them for that very reason - I hope Dr.K. doesn't mind. I thought you'd said all the necessary at this time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't mind. Thank you Elen for your concern. I simply wanted to give him a message that legal threats and personal attacks are not allowed. Since Moonriddengirl has explained this to him I don't mind the removal of the warnings. Also I realise that the templated messages may not have carried the message optimally but I have given up trying to converse with a user demonstrably incapable of any kind of intelligent dialectic exchange. Thanks also go to Moonriddengirl for her reply. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing is very much sliding into huge I-didn't-hear-that-tirades. I appreciate your patience here, and you're certainly free to keep trying for a while, but I doubt it's gonna bring any results. Interpreting our messages first as "seeking friendship" first, and then as "threats" shows what kind of warped mind we're dealing with. But like I said, try your best. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(personal musings: so when I leave stern templated warnings I "bite the newbies"... now when I leave explanatory personalized prose, I am harassing people into "creepy friendship come-ons"... *sigh* Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

In a wiki environment where the collaborative effort vitally depends on intellectual exchanges among the various editors, one cannot stand in isolation and keep to themselves, incommunicado and out of touch with their surroundings and act independently of the community, especially if they also violate the communal norms. Not coincidentally, the etymology of the word "idiot" is from the Greek term which refers to "one who keeps to himself". Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to MBMadmirer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has been blocked for about a month, (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MBMadmirer/Archive) the reason given was sockpuppeting; however, while checkuser showed a number of potential socks, they were not involved in the contested editing. And those that were did not check out as socks. Could a block have been justified under Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Blocks? There may be a public relations firm involved, see http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/09/koch-wikipedia-sock-puppet/ Note the emphasis on sock-puppeting, which I'm not sure applies. I think the appearance of what seemed to be socks at Talk:Political_activities_of_the_Koch_family#Time_for_a_deletion_debate is what precipitated the initial flurry of activity. Anyway, is there a basis to continue to block MBMadmirer and if he is unblocked what warnings, advice, restrictions, etc should be made? User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A month is pretty fair for editing under a COI with the subject, if not a little over. I don't see a username policy violation so that's clear. I would highly recommend a topic restriction in relation to the company/any COI edits, and block immediately if not followed. -- DQ (t) (e) 19:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what's going on with this issue. Am I correct in thinking that MBMadmirer works for some kind of PR firm, and was making these edits on behalf of a client? Are the other accounts supposed to belong to other employees of the firm, using the same IP address? If so, how can we distinguish the different users? His apparent co-workers, user:Jeff Bedford, user:Crislen and user:Nanorlb, were unblocked by Arb user:Elen of the Roads as not being a socks and who "do not appear to be editing with COI". A review of their editing histories show they aren't editing about hobby-type articles. Isn't editing an article on behalf of a paid client a COI?   Will Beback  talk  22:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is not clear that he was doing PR work for the firm on behalf of the Kochs. What he says is

I am an admirer of the Koch family and Market Based Management. I have worked in politics and contributed to a number of wikipedia pages in the past. One of my employer's clients is Koch Industries. The purpose of this account is to contribute to articles related to these subjects. Of note, Koch Industries is a client of my employer, and with this in mind, I have carefully read through Wikipedia’s policies regarding WP:NPV, WP:V and WP:COI, and find it important to follow these closely. Keeping this in mind, I intend to seek the input of fellow editors when approaching potential edits, only moving forward after reaching adequate consensus.

I think he needs to declare exactly what his relationship is with the Kochs, and the PR firm, if there is to be an adequate declaration of conflict of interest. Given a conflict of interest, the questions are what are proper bounds; has he conducted himself within them in the past; was the block deserved at the time; what are proper guidelines for him now, which depends on his role. If he is just an admirer of the Kochs that is wholly different from doing professional PR work on Wikipedia for them. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I unblocked I think four accounts in the end of it. User:CBuiltother had been editing an article where he had a lot of sources because the subject of the article was a client of the company, but he had been very scrupulous and upfront about it. Jeff Bedford, Crislen and Nanorlb did not appear to be editing in a problematic manner either, and Jeff has a good understanding of copyright in images. MBMadmirer was editing problematically - not just the COI, he was edit warring as well, as I recall, and so drew attention to himself. The owners of the ffffour accounts I unblocked did not proxy for him, although Jeff Bedford said he knew who the guy was. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that information. If I understand correctly, all of these accounts are editing with a COI, but the judgment is that the ones which have been unblocked are editing properly given their COIs because they've acknowledged that they are engaged in paid editing. Is that right? I assume that they were tagged as socks originally because they are editing from the same IPs. If so, then I'd further assume that either we know they aren't socks only because they've said so or that we know they are socks but they aren't being abused because they work in different topics. Is that correct? While paid editing is not banned, using Wikipedia for advocacy is, per WP:NOT. Did the investigation of these accounts address that issue?   Will Beback  talk  00:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crislen did not appear to be editing with COI (she was editing articles about Maryland, but not with any high level of activity). CBuiltother was aware of COI issues and taking steps to have all edits checked for NPOV and verifiability etc. Nanorlb had previously indicated (at David Lauren) when he was editing an article for which there was a possible COI as one of the Ralph Lauren brands was a client of theirs. Jeff Bedford communicated with Arbcom by email, and showed a good understanding of our policies, as well as providing some evidence that these four and the blocked editor were all different people. All four were warned to watch out for COI and to adhere closely to Wikipedia policies. If they have access to source material which meets our standards and which allows them to improve articles, and they avoid writing advertising puffery, this is a net asset to the project. They have been editing for some time, and no-one had complained of problematic editing from the four of them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather interested as to why we often are so hypercritical of paid editing but are fairly fine with this kind of thing... NW (Talk) 02:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My own view is just that the identified paid editors seem to be not very good at what they do (maybe we don't notice the good ones). These guys understand our policies, write well, and have good sources.

It is not that you can't identify the good ones, I thinking of one who edits for a popular consumer product; it's that you can't make much of a case because they are civil, reasonably good editors, and follow our policies; in fact, use our policies to the advantage of their client in such a way that it seems that they are paragons of virtue while you are the one breaking the rule when you add anything critical about their client. Doing PR for the Koch brothers, however, is a bit more difficult. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a need to make sure they are not gatekeeping articles, obviously. That's something that should be watched out for. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My question right now is: why are we discussing this? I see no indication that MBMadmirer has requested to be unblocked. Unless they want to come back, I don't really see a reason to unblock. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I read things more clearly (I should have asked for a clairifciation in the first place), I have to agree with HelloAnnyong, why are we dicussing the unblocking (which has not been requested) of a COI 3RR violator? The unblock of a user should require proof that 1) they understand the policies or 2) it was an incorrect block. In this case only the 1st applies because of the 3RR vio. On to the other people, if they understand NPOV and COI and are editing constructively, I have no problem with letting them live edit. -- DQ (t) (e) 05:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I think it was just a question of whether it was accurate to label him as a sock. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, whether there was even a good reason to block him; most of his edits were to talk pages, I can't find any 3RR violation, let alone a warning. He did make some aggressive edits. My interest came from http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/09/koch-wikipedia-sock-puppet/ which implies a sock farm that did a lot of "polishing". I doubt he would edit after all this trouble and managing to produce negative rather than positive PR. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not 3RR, but Edit Warring that Elen mentioned earlier. Maybe Elen could post the diffs, because I don't see it either. If were still talking about labeling him as a sock, we have no real basis to do it, because even with the article, we have more evidence that this was just recruiting. (I got to go now, will finish commenting later). -- DQ (t) (e) 14:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've repeatedly asked this user to stop adding incorrect categories and removing appropriate ones but the user continues the same behavior despite requests to stop. Please see edit history for Press Your Luck (which was not a FremantleMedia program), edit history for The $1.98 Beauty Show (which is being moved to category:Beauty pageant parodies, where it becomes the only article in that category), and edit histories for The Price Is Right $1,000,000 Spectacular and Whammy! The All-New Press Your Luck Sottolacqua (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing an issue here at all. Press Your Luck is under the current day ownership of Fremantle and has had revivals in other media under that name (it should be categorized under the ownership which does have an article, which the independent producers of the original do not have), and $1.98 is a beauty pageant parody show, while the Spectacular was produced by Fremantle and should be categorized as such. The programs are properly categorized and Azumanga is an experienced editor who knows games shows and categories left and right, so I cede to their judgment. Nate • (chatter) 07:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – All sketchy images have now been dealt with. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone who can actually see the images please check out the uploads of HappyLogolover2011 (talk · contribs)? For example, the image description pages at File:M11 bg02.png and File:K12 miu1.png make absolutely no sense; they seem to have been copied from other images. I have reverted the addition of those two images to the sky article, but there are also some Disney logos and other things that might need to be checked out. Graham87 03:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Apparently this didn't post last night) The two images look like a copyvio but I can't pin point where. TinEye search 1 & TinEye search 2. As for the disney images, I don't think the user understands that FUR prefers low resolution images. -- DQ (t) (e) 13:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They look like something lifted from a movie. Any idea what "the Mansion" refers to? Maybe Disney's Haunted Mansion or one of its spinoffs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the sky images are now listed at Files for Deletion. I hunted for a source but was unable to pinpoint where they were lifted from (I strongly suggest they are copy vio). I am going to examine the other uploads; some of them have been in our collection for a while but HappyLogoLover has uploaded new versions that are a little too big and need to be deleted. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Tin Eye website is great. It is now officially cool beans. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone. Graham87 01:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just assume that the new versions of the files that the user uploaded are OK. Graham87 02:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I checked each one and deleted almost every one. But it seems the activity has resumed so it's back to the drawing board. I will re-check what they are up to --Diannaa ^(Talk) 07:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has created an SPA account (Loonymonkey Sucks (talk · contribs)) for the sole purpose of "getting far-left editor Loonymonkey banned". I know nothing about Loonymonkey (talk · contribs) (I did check his/her history: there are no blocks; he/she has been registered for over three years and made less than 50 edits). Loonymonkey Sucks (talk · contribs) is canvassing editors to sign a petition that will be submitted to Jimbo. This strikes me as at best odd, and possibly a violation of several policies. Cresix (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Less than 50 edits? The user seems to have nearly 9000. Are you sure you looked in the right place? RolandR (talk) 11:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. My mistake, and a very stupid one! My apologies. Cresix (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The username clearly violates the username policy and has therefore been reported at UAA. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User just got blocked. Cresix (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed as each other:

• Loonymonkey Sucks (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mr. Boomabang (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Paul Beaucritz (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

–MuZemike 17:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should sock tags be placed on any of these user pages? Cresix (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say so. GiantSnowman 18:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese nuclear power plant story - here is ready to post. Sorry for bringing this up here, but this looks like a seriously big deal that would be good to get posted quickly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with EH, this is a huge story and none of our regular ITN admins seem to be keeping up with the issue. Thanks to any admins who can step up. Jusdafax 09:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reprimanded a new user User:ImperiumCaelestis on his talk page for failing to abide by Wikipedia rules and guidelines, and uploading images under false licenses while claiming authorship of them. As such, i tagged them for deletion and informed the user as well. Instead of being civil and admitting his mistakes, he defensively resorts to counter-accusations of incivility and name calling (Judas Iscariot). After i warn him that any further name calling will be reported here, he dares me to do so. Furthermore, at the end of the previous message, he makes a subtle insult against me with the following statement, "My faith in the supremacy of grey cells over grey hair only increases with each piece of correspondence I receive from you." As such, i would appreciate it if the concerned administrator could do the following:

• Warn him against indulging in such behavior in the future.
• Please read the following correspondence between us and let me know if anyone feels that i was uncivil and made unfair attacks against the user's character, as opposed to his conduct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ImperiumCaelestis#Question

Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 10:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I submit my protest in the manner user Joyson Noel has presented his feedback right from the outset. His style of communication is sharply antithetical to Wikipedia:BITE and Wikipedia:Don't_tear_others'_heads_off. What was a technical irregularity certainly did not warrant the use of words like you been stealing' and you happen to be a Hindu with the odd name Lui Godinho.

If you kindly peruse Talk:Kanara_(Canara)_Konkani you will find that I have had healthy interactions with veteran users like PratikMallya, Aoghac^2z , 'Yes Michael? and AshLin and have heeded to them and have appreciated their way of putting things across.

It is not only I, but also user AshLin who has found Joyson Noel' language of correspondence offensive. Kindly peruse [[46]]

user AshLin has also conveyed his annoyance at the language used User_talk:Joyson_Noel#Anout_your_post_at_User_talk:ImperiumCaelestis.

I wish to make known that Joyson Noel's language is unbecoming of a veteran and an unwelcoming experience for new users. I appeal to the concerned administrator to take cognisance and necessary action. Godspeed!! Imperium ^Caelestis 11:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is now known that you two don't like each other. I don't think any admin intervention is necessary here. I don't see any egregious personal attacks. Maybe the copyvio accusations warrant a closer look, but I hope users don't expect admins to start finger-wagging at mature adults. We can't take sides or scold other users when they don't get along, all we can do is protect the wiki from disruption. -- œ^™ 12:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ohkay....

Joyson, you're violating WP:NPA and WP:BITE. Those sorts of warning messages are not acceptable even in the case of outright vandals; them, we just block. You adopted an excessively confrontational tone from the first contact I can see, and that's not OK. You need to stop doing that.

Imperium - claiming copyright on someone else's images here is an excellent way to be permanently blocked from contributing here. Violation of others' intellectual property rights is not OK. Even if material is in the public domain now, putting your name anywhere near a copyright without properly crediting the original author is extremely questionable. Even if you transformed it somehow, the original ownership and credits have to be respected and properly noted. "Own work" is entirely unacceptable under those circumstances.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

admins œ and Georgewilliamherbert, I begin my note by thanking you. I admit, as have on earlier occasions, that I had a problem in finding the right copyright templates and filling factual information in the infobox.

If you kindly peruse my talk page, you will find that I have also been questioned regarding the copyright status of certain images I uploaded earlier and the administrators (e.g. B) were courteous enough to read my comments and suggest accordingly [[47]] The images in dispute were downloaded from Facebook and I had no key words to make a search on google for the details of the same; having uploaded those images, I also appealed to veteran users to peruse the articles and offer their criticism (as against censure) [[48]]. I give you my unequivocal assurance that I do not aim to violate intellectual property rights. I am just getting used to filling the infobox; customising copyright templates is still a handicap. PD and copyright templates pertaining to India are few and one has to go through a volley of discussions and subsequent editing. This is an enlightening experience and helps avoid similar errors in the future. I assure you that I am liaising with AshLin to learn the tricks of the trade and get all images factually reworked.

It is not that I have any personal misgivings against Joyson Noel. I maintained a welcoming stance in my conversation. I appreciate the genuineness of his concern; I have a problem with his articulation. These are two snippets of the initial correspondence I had with him:

The only issue regarding the Konkani language agitation page was that an eager beaver administrator marked it for deletion citing it was not as per the standards of a stub just as I was creating the page. please enlist the other lot of issues Look Joyson Noel, I am not an antagonist. That article speaks of a history that is common to both you and I, and I'd like you to submit constructive criticism on that article's page if any. We could get into hair splitting arguments on whether Canara/Kanara Konkani is prevalent or not. We could also team up and help our mā̃ybhās rise out of the ashes. I leave that to your discretion. The manual of styling is something which you too can help out with. mog āso!!

My dear fellow Konkani Joyson Noel, Those articles belong to all of us. They are our common history. I have no issues with users editing and contributing information so long as there is a reason. It is killing when someone just deletes one's contribution without discussion and overlooks offered evidence. Your advice is, and will be, well received. Don't wait to be asked, just hop onto the bandwagon.

kindly peruse [49]

warm regards, Imperium ^Caelestis 12:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imperium is lying and has deliberately misquoted the statement. I said, unless you happen to be a Hindu with the odd name Lui Godinho. This was part of the response to Imperium falsely claiming ownership of an image, when In fact, the image belongs to a Lui Godinho. Furthermore, I don’t find the use of the term “stealing” objectionable, as it was used to accurately describe Imperium’s dishonest plagiarism of non-free images while claiming it as his own. Furthermore, this is not the first time I have contacted with the user. My first contact was here, when I offered him helpful tips as I discovered that he was a newcomer with a lack of knowledge on basic rules. After a while, I implored him to take some time off editing here and study the rules which he ignored. See here. If my reprimand was harsh, then it was in light of his flagrant disregard for my advice and the rules. Nowhere in our correspondence have i taken to name calling, false accusations and personal insults. I accepted his request for help and what do I get in return? When I reprimand him with the intention to correct his attitude, i get called “Judas Iscariot”, falsely accused of being uncivil, along with the false charge of insulting Hinduism as well as rebuked for reprimanding him. Let alone the fact that he does not even show the maturity to admit his own mistakes. Even after warning him to steer away from personal character attacks, he goes ahead and makes a subtle insult against my intellect. Make no mistake! I do not request you to take any severe action against him, merely to do what is right and warn him against behaving like this in the future.

Regarding the offense taken at my statement by Ashlin, please see the discussion here at my talk page. The misunderstanding has been cleared. He felt that I was taking Imperium’s anger out on him, which was not the case.

He is manipulating our correspondence to make me look bad. These are the excerpts of my correspondence towards him. Do these sound rude or biting?:

Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 14:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find Joyson Noel's name and religion charades grossly offensive. I come from an age that has seen a Muslim Malcolm X, a Catholic Fr. Prathap Naik and a Hindu Julia Roberts. I appeal to the administrators to take cognisance. His use of Biblical terms in correspondence with other users, and obtuse reasoning, is appalling. I appeal to the administrators to advise him to join a course on formal writing skills and verbal reasoning in the English language. I pray the older veteran takes my comments in good stride. It also looks like the user considers the three years he has tenured in Wikipedia as a major professional achievement; I say this as he has been consistently harping on this and trying to tower over me through his previous pieces of correspondence. I suggest he refrain from self-sympathising by using phrases like He is manipulating our correspondence to make me look bad.

As far as the images are concerned, I reckon that Wikipedia has an internal mechanism and they are being dealt with accordingly; I pray he understands this, and does not use this page to voice his concerns on the image issue.

I reiterate, I have no personal problems with Joyson Noel. I have seen his user profile and he comes across as a user, younger to me and quite enthusiastic. My proposition is only that he refrain from using directive language and a confrontational tone. I would like to submit to the user, through you, that if he does not refrain himself from doing so in future, I shall make a request that the user's administrator and auto-control rights be withdrawn.

warm regards Imperium ^Caelestis 07:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are both being far too wordy. I'm sorry, but you are not coming across as constructive. Also, please stop emphasizing your opponent's name by copying his coloured signature all the time. I don't know why this is, but in my experience doing this while discussing a complaint against another user is almost invariably a sign of an unconstructive, hostile stance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hahahaha(pardon me for this rendition)...I am an Indian national and coming to the point for me, and my countrymen (as was with colonial England), is a lengthy process of edits, revokes, abrogations and propositions. Hence the verbosity. The British law that we inherited follows the process of an opening statement, followed by arguments and counter-arguments. being a novice on Wikipedia, I deemed it best to follow that same time tested approach. Your point is noted. I shan't use copied signatures of users I have a difference of opinion with. Godspeed!! Imperium ^Caelestis 08:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the current community feeling regarding gratuitous nudity on userpages? I know this is a recurring issue, but given the many many recent discussions about why Wikipedia has trouble attracting female editors, I am not clear where the community stands presently. I ask because I came across the userpage of User:LustyRoars, who is an obvious yet unblocked troll, and User:RandomGuy202 who appears to have done no editing other than putting up a gallery of topless women as their userpage. (And, yes, I did purposely entitle this thread "Show me your tits" because it amuses me when people are offended by such things as mildly risque titles of threads but not bothered by the actual issues being raised.) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted both userpages, per Wikipedia:UP#Images - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a recent discussion for images in mainspace that incorporated unnecessary attention-grabbing elements. [50], with consensus saying that such images are not appropriate, and modifying the Rules of Thumb #9 at WP:IUP to now read: Shocking or explicit pictures should not be used simply to bring attention to an article. Since we are not a webhost, I would argue that while there may be an exceptional reason to allow an editor to include a nude picture (perhaps they are a professional nude model?), the average editor never needs to include these, and such images should be removed from userpages. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was unaware of those recent changes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is ANI the right place for the general question - is there something that admins can do, by application of policy? In the case of LustyRoars, possibly; we can discuss whether they are trolling, and if so whether they should be banned (in which case their userpage will be replaced with a template, thus eliminating the nudey pics, should the decision be in the affirmative.) RandomGuy202? Not really, but then there was nothing to stop you from blanking the page per IAR as it is serving no encyclopedic purpose. Any person other than the account holder reverting would need to show why it it needed for those images to be shown - and if the account holder re-activates after being moribund for so long they can also provide a rationale. It is a case by case situation, I suggest. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED but it is WP:NOTWEBHOST either. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have anchored the needlessly titillating header and given a reflective title. Delicious carbuncle, please don't disrupt the wikipedia to make a point or, because as you say, it amuses you when people are offended. Off2riorob (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not amuse me when people are offended. You have misinterpreted what I wrote, but exactly fulfilled my prediction. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't? Then why did you write "it amuses me when people are offended"? maybe you'd like to strike that? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is part of what I wrote, so I will admit to being amused when people are offended under certain specified conditions with attached clauses. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the last dozen of so edits of Lusty Roars (such gems as [51] [52] [53] trying to get Gonville Bromhead's name to rhyme with a rude word, [54] accusing park staff of murdering ducks, [55] [56] [57] preventing the removal of improperly sourced BLP material, while adding false info himself, [58] and just general vandalism) I've indeffed him. Can't see this chap is a net asset to the project. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Editing holidays awarded by EdJohnston --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, I reported User:Braganca4646 for POV pushing/edit warring and evading final warning by creating an account after multiple warnings. Admin Diaana added a note saying that he has stopped editing and to report again if the IPs and the editor start editing again. Only a day later he is back and doing the same thing. There is an SPI open for him, but that is getting nowhere despite people there asking "why he hasn't been blocked yet" and him continuing to edit both as IPs and as the account.

Here we have an editor who edit warred, insulted people, had his multiple contributions rev deleted, received multiple "final warnings", registered an account to evade the final warning, tried blanking the ANI report and is repeating the same POV pushing/edit warring. Can someone please block this guy and be done with?. He has already wasted multiple editors' time and shows no sign of stopping. This sort of delaying just wastes people's time and makes them frustrated. (Please dont dismiss this saying he hasnt edited in ten hours, come back in a day and make me file yet another ANI report tomorrow) --Sodabottle (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent about the last hour examining the activity of both IPs and the user account. Whilst the edits since the SPI was launched are not as extreme as the ones before, there are still serious issues and I have said so at the SPI investigation. Please relax while HelloAnnyong makes the decision. It's night time in India and Braganca4646 is not editing at present. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – semi-protected, material RevDel'ed Jclemens (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An IP-hopping editor is repeatedly adding text to this article describing images he's seen of this "glamour model," first uncited, then cited to images which purport to be of the model. These "references" uniformly fail WP:RS and WP:BLP; they're message board posts in a dubious forum, boobpedia.com, etc., as well as violating policy regarding linking to copyvio sites. This has been a recurrent problem with the article, similar text, even more graphic, has repeatedly been removed without incident in the past [59] [60]. The content is clearly inappropriate, the user clearly an experienced editor; I don't know whether rangeblocking would be effective/appropriate or if semiprotection of the article is required. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference from vintage erotica forum - not sure I see the dubaiety - which has 20 pages of images of Miss Ter Horst taken from various RS magazines: Playboy, Mayfair, Club, Men Only, etc. I'm not particularly experienced an editor but I do know what an RS is and I do know that Hullaballoo is vandalising, and deserves a block for this. --92.40.18.104 (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Indeffed N419BH 05:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Giornorosso was recently warned about edit-warring on Types of rape for repeatedly inserting "Race is a very significant factor in determining offenders. Most of gang rape offenders in the UK are black", which is a gross distortion of the source. This followed their insertion of "nigger" into an image caption, which sadly went unnoticed. Here are a few more choice examples, but there seems to be a specific agenda underlying all of their editing: [61], [62], [63], & [64].

Giornorosso has already been indef blocked on de.wiki for a single racist comment. On Commons, they have included pro-Gadaffi comments in image uploads ([65] & [66]). I suggest that their contribution history be carefully reviewed following an indef block (Gang rape is a new fork of Types of rape, for example). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The n-word comment was added by an IP, not Giornorosso. His edit was to add an image of Barak Obama. Another edit calls someone a "black supremacist" without a source. Another adds unsourced stats on prison populations. One of your diffs is of Giornorosso adding the n-word to a page to describe a group of people. No comment on the links from other wikis. N419BH 00:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

? I wonder if you were looking at the wrong link. He added the word "nigger" in the link supplied; no IP has edited that article in quite some time, as it has been semi-protected since 2008. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)This is the diff of him adding "nigger" on the Nigeria article which is what was being referred to by DC I believe. There is a distinct theme to many of his edits relating to Roma, blacks, muslims and crime. Some of the edits are sourced - rather dubiously, but some of his edits like the Nigerian one are pure vandalism of a particularly offensive kind. This an editor with an obvious agenda and a willingness to vandalise. I would propose an indef. block. Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for racist vandalism. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redsjava (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
70.239.199.8 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

UPDATE: I ran a whois check on the IP address, and the results could be found here. This record shows a connection to the Academy of Art University, the article in question for this inquiry.

Here the relevant details from the record:

NETWORK

NetRange 70.239.199.0 - 70.239.199.255

CIDR 70.239.199.0/24

Name SBC07023919900024051223105052

Handle NET-70-239-199-0-1

Parent SBCIS-SIS80 (NET-70-224-0-0-1)

Net Type Reassigned

Origin AS

Nameservers

Customer Academy of Art University (C01249896)

Registration Date 2005-12-23

Last Updated 2005-12-23

I'm experiencing what appears to be emerging issues with both user Redsjava and anon IP 70.239.199.8 for the article Academy of Art University. The account Redsjava seems to be used to exclusively edit Academy of Art University. Although the IP account 70.239.199.8 has been used to a large extent to edit the article Academy of Art University, the IP account has been used to edit other articles in addition to this one.

The anon IP 70.239.199.8 went behind RedsJava to revert the content in the Academy of Art University article, using the same reasons as Redsjava. Both appear to make edits to the same article in tandem. RedsJava has questioned my actions regarding the affected content by posting unsigned messages on my User Talk page, even though I posted my rationale in the article's edit summary and on its Talk page. I was able to identify the poster after a bot added the signature of that person's account.

At one point, I had to post an advisory for both RedsJava and IP 70.239.199.8 for WP:SPAM when both accounts were used in excess to advertise degrees from the school. In this case, one of these account was used to add the advertising content, and the other account was used to revert my removal of the questional content from the article.

For the last editing incident, I repeated in part my rationale for restoring the content and directed the user to revisit my post on the article's Talk page. This response was left on the User Talk page for Redsjava after a bot identified this user as the poster of this unsigned message. I have responded from Redsjava/70.239.199.8 for the second time after one user or the other leaving unsigned messages on my page.

In the meantime, here are the diffs for revisions in question that involve both Redsjava/70.239.199.8:

(1) Adding excessive advertising in the article:

January 24, 2011 IP 97.65.178.2 adds excessive links from school's site to advertise degrees

January 26, 2011 Lwalt restores the previous version of article to remove the excessive linking to school site

February 3, 2011 IP 70.239.199.8 reverts the content to restore the excessive linking to the school's site added by IP 97.65.178.2.

February 6, 2011 Lwalt restores the version of article that does not include the excessive linking.

February 7, 2011 Redsjava undid revision by Lwalt, but this time removing the links to the school and leaving in place text to advertise degrees in the list of individual programs when the information is mentioned in the prose of the article.

February 11, 2011 Lwalt edited the article to cleanup formatting issue and remove references to degrees in list, since this information is already mentioned in the content of the subsection.

(2) Deleted sourced content from article:

March 8, 2011 Sourced content deleted by 70.239.199.5

March 8, 2011 Sourced content restored by Lwalt

March 9, 2011 Sourced content reverted to deleted status by Redsjava

March 12, 2011 Sourced content restored to article again by Lwalt

Here are the diffs for the dialogue related to these incidents:

unsigned message by Redsjava/70.239.199.8 about removing excessive linking from article. Another user with an anon IP 97.65.178.2 seemed to be involved in the first incident, since edits to the content in that case also involved Redjava/70.239.199.8 to some degree.

Bot identifies poster of unsigned message to Lwalt regarding sourced content restored to article

Lwalt posts message to IP user 70.239.199.8 regarding marketing links. I edited the message to correct the error in year of the date from 2010 to 2011.

Lwalt posts the same message to Redsjava regarding marketing links. Diff for the complete message is no longer available as user likely deleted the original message.

Response of Lwalt to second unsigned message

Edited response referring poster to article's Talk page to discuss the issue

Are Redsjava and 70.239.199.8 the same person? This person seems to be itching for some sort of edit war (something I don't care to engage in or waste my time or energy with this behavior) using both accounts to push a point of view. Is there anything more that's needed to address this issue or encourage discussion of different viewpoints, rather than these disruptive actions? →Lwalt ^♦ talk 03:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely Redsjava is connected to the school and the IP edits are them editing logged out, perhaps unknowingly. The fact that the IP and redsjava are using the exact same word-for-word rationale to remove well-sourced negative content indicates to me they are the same person. I don't see any evidence of abusive sockpuppetry, but I do see a few instances of disruptive editing. N419BH 05:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]