Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jamiemichelle (talk | contribs) at 22:43, 13 March 2011 (→‎{{user|Jamiemichelle}} violation of WP:3RR). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Proposed Topic Ban for Blackash and Slowart on Tree shaping related articles

    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]

    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]
    I am happy to participate in formal mediation but have, as yet, not received any official notification on the subject. There is no requirement to list the issues I want to discuss in advance. In fact there is only one such issue, editors with a potential COI. As I say below, this might be a good case for arbitration of we can find no other way forward. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already stated why I haven't listed yet above your comment. When listing a formal meditation there is a section "Issues to be mediated". Would you please list the issues you have. I'm guessing from your talk page that spam is one, by your edits that the methods on the page are other and going by your comment I'm also guess which names are in the lead is also an issue. But when I file I don't want to be guessing what you are thinking. So please go to the tree shaping talk page and list what are the issues. Thanks for being open to mediation. Blackash have a chat 11:11, 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]

    • Oppose Topic Ban: Mediate title - it would be ridiculous to stop two agreed experts from editing the articles. I can however see a case for a consnsus being made by uninvolved editors as to which term is best, and then restrictions put on the editing so as to endorse that view only. Egg Centric 15:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Another COI edit

    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]
    Blackash, the argument is not about whether Pooktre should be in the lead it is about whether you should be the one to put it there (or restore it). Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    How about full page protection

    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]
    I agree. We need a topic ban for all WP:SPA editors and all those with a potential COI. The remaining editors can then discuss the best way to deal with the commercially sensitive issues in the article in a fair and impartial way. Once agreement has been reached and the necessary changes made the other editors should be allowed back, on the strict condition that they make no edits within a defined area.
    I think this would be a good case for arbitration, as the main issues are with editor conduct rather than content in itself. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So the fact you decided to remove cited content with no discussion is not relevant? I think it highly relevant. Blackash have a chat 10:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support full page protection The tree shaping article as it stands at the moment has had multiple outside editors help shape it, though my checking different points on noticeboards. Which seems to be why I'm up for topic ban. No-one is saying tree shaping article is a mess.

    I think the best solution is to do a full page protection of the article for 6-12 months. That way the article is not left with only the pro arborsculpture group. Who have done:-

    1. Have a stated goal of changing the title to arborsuclpture.
    2. To suggest editing the article for a WP:POINT diff to help achive their goal.
    3. Have already edited the article to give undue weight to Arborsculpture when they were requesting the article title be change back to arborsuclpture. For more detail
    4. Multiple editors have commented to various pro arborsculpture editors about them being uncivil and/or rude, sometimes to the point of driving away neutral outside editors.
    5. Are willing to support removal of cited content [3] and diff. In the second example there has been no discussion as to why.
    6. When it comes to answering content related policy questions they mostly don't. Some recent examples

    Note how I created points or ask questions and they are not addressed. [4] This Archive of the talk page should give a sense of the way discussions go this one is about the title [5] and this is good example of their style of argument [6]. Now times that by 5 or 7 editors who state I have COI (with no back up and other editors like SilkTork have stated I don't have COI) and you have some idea of what I've been dealing with.

    As one of the issues is, this conflict is taking up to much of other editors time. A full page lock would be the best solution, as this would free up other editors. If the page was fully locked, I would be fine with not bringing things up on the talk page or noticeboards. Though I would like to reply to treads others start. I would continue to edit fortnightly on orphaned articles. There is good reason that Slowart seems eager to be topic banned. Quote edit summary "Topic ban please" diff Blackash have a chat 10:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection is not going to be enabled for anything like six months, let alone a year. Wikipedia has far more controversial articles which survive without full protection. In the end this is a relatively minor naming dispute which only gives the impression of being significantly problematic because of the number of editors with COI involved in it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zombie433

    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]

    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 [[7]] 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]
    No, I'd say the vast majority of his edits was adding false information to BLPs - not a minor offence, and hence why he has been indeffed. GiantSnowman 14:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As the admin who blocked him, I'd like to make it clear that he was blocked because we couldn't trust his edits rather than because they were all hoaxes. Nevertheless, he's blocked, and ideally should be prevented from socking. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The behaviour of User:Nmate

    The context

    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"

    Current problem

    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: [8] [9] [10]. 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]

    My answer

    I have asked the user several times to avoid my enviroment [11][12], but despite this, the user keeps clambering on to my heels, and even my talk page teems with spam messages [13] 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.[14][15] 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--> [16] And then the second reporter was User:YellowFF0 there, who was also one comfirmed sockpuppet of User:Iaaasi--> [17] 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 [18] 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." [19] 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"[20] "I too have interacted a fair amount with Iaaasi"[21]

    Administrator Tiptoety warned user:Squash_Racket [22] and user:Hobartimus[23] on the ground that they reverted all edits of the sockpuppets of Iaaasi , and then User:Rogvaiv1 also reminded Squash Racket of that [24]. 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:[25] ->(blocked on 9 August, September)[26]->(blocked on 11 August 2010) [27] ->(blocked on 25 August 2010) [28] At the unblock proposal, Iaaasi was supported by 3 administrators, Tiptoety [29] ,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, [30] and Shirik [31]. And , albeit, the community refused to unblock Iaaasi, the acces to be able to edit his own talk page was recovered [32] by administrator Slakr for inscrutable reasons and then administrator Rohnjohnes unblocked him without community discussion 3 months later. [33] 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 [34] 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"[35]. (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.[36]Just by checking the edit history of the article Košice out[37], 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. [38] 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: [39]--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: [40] (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 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 [41] 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[42] [43] [44], attempting to mobilize them against intended targets, pretending that his harassment style attacks were just a "legitimate dispute" over "content" [45] [46], 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 [47] [48]. 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 behaviour 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 Košice ,where , as I can see by now, the same behavior is applied. Adrian (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone help

    Can someone take a look at all this? Is it necessary for me to make a separate report for this issue? How should I understand this kind of statements , to cooperate with this kind of user and to reach a consensus??? Adrian (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    So it is called a block shopping ,and wikihounding on your part.(Iadrian yu is not an I.Q. champion) But, you can fill a separate report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring that you are certain to aware of.[49]

    Not too surprising that I do not want to "cooperate" with Iadrian yu as it is obvious that the user followed me to that article ,to which hadn't shown any interest beforehand. But despite this, I am willing to discuss with the user, to be filled with abashment:

    [50]

    "Reverted 1 edit by Rokarudi; Unification of Transilvania with Romania is a fact not a POV. Because Hungarian ultra-nationalists claim Transilvania we can`t mention facts? ".--Nmate (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Please refrain from name-calling and unsupported accusations. Your "evidence" is taken out of the context(by the way this happened August 2010...), if there is an opportunity/requested to explain I will, but not here(off-topic subject). If you want to accuse me of something please file a separate report and provide evidence for your statements. It would be better if you could explain your behavior than to offend other users...
    Never the less your personal opinion of some user might be, if you are not ready to talk , maybe you should reconsider your presence here. I could say the same about you, but I am talking with you without any problems, so please , try to be constructive.Adrian (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring from US House of Representatives

    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 [51] (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]

    Suspicious image uploads

    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]

    Comments on talk page

    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:

    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, Aoghac2z , '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 [[52]]

    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. -- Ϫ 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 [[53]] 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) [[54]]. 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 [55]

    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]

    So, you insist you are the freelance photographer Lui Godinho and as you have yourself claimed in your userpage, a Hindu too? I’m not saying that those with non-Indian names cannot be Hindus, but how many Goan Hindus does one meet with Portuguese names! It’s a very rare occurance. To my knowledge, there were a few Hindus from villages in Bardez which did have such names. But almost all of them reverted back to Indian names after 1961. A few Catholic Gaudas re-converted to Hinduism in the twenties and sixties and maintain their Lusitanian names. But the well-known photographer is not a Gauda! I’m unaware of his religious orientation, but he is most likely not a Hindu. The well-known Goan journalist Frederick Noronha is in my contact list and is a friend of Godinho. So, if Imperium is insisting that he is Godinho, I can obtain Godinho’s email id from Noronha and verify the truth of the matter, simply by asking him if Imperium's account belongs to him
    I find it disgusting that Imperium is playing the “Religion card” on me again, while simultaneously accusing me of religious bigotry based on my ethnicity. After all, since I am a Mangalorean Catholic, I must be a Roman Catholic too. Right? ...... Wrong! I have been an Atheist since the age of 15. Furthermore, I am an Antitheist, which means that I dislike religion in general and am not in favor of Christianity. Furthermore, no one in his/her right mind would construe the quoted statement as anti-Hindu/anti-Hinduism. By use of the sentence, one could more easily accuse me of being anti-Portuguese than anti-Hindu. Of course, we know that such a supposition would be absurd. So, why should a sensible person pay any heed to this nonsensical allegation?
    Why would a staunch atheist and anti-atheist like myself use Biblical terms in the first place? Could Imperium provide an instance of such a use? Who resorted to name-calling me “Judas Iscariot”, probably in light of my ethnic background, after i tagged the Commons images for deletion? Wasn’t it you, Imperium? So, it’s more likely you’re the religious bigot and not me.
    As for obtuse reasoning, one merely has to look at your comments in this page to see evidence of it. For instance, interpretation of my comment as anti-Hindu bigotry, claim of my reprimand on your persistent disregard for friendly advice and basic Wikipedia policies as "incivility", the objection to the use of "Stealing" to describe your theft of images and claiming authorship of them, etc, among many other examples. I can go on and on about this.
    For the sake of common decency, I would suggest that you refrain from reprimaning me for supposed uncivilty, religious bias and obtuse reasoning, if you lack the ethical bone to abstain from them yourself. It’s not your place to do that.
    And why shouldn’t I look at my three years tenure in Wikipedia as an accomplishment? During my tenure, I have created 79 articles and made minor and major contributions to hundreds more. Compare that to your limited experience and your own edits, which includes a lack of awareness and disregard of Wikipedia norms and rules, and you will see why I am in all rights, a far better Wikipedian than yourself. Now, you will probably dispute this. "Hey, i've received a barnstar. Doesn't that mean that i am a good Wikipedian?" Simply the fact that a user has given you a barnstar doesn't mean that he gave it, because he was impressed with your edits. As Wikipedians usually do, he probably gave it to motivate you. One look at your created articles (Canara Konkani, Goa Konkani language agitation of 1986 - far worse prior to my few corrections and title change) reveals a lot of unsourced original research and haphazard editing. The fact that your edits have been disputed by every editor you have come in contact with doesn't in any way make you even an average Wikipedian. An editor is to be judged by the quality of his edits, as opposed to the single barnstar that he received for motivational purposes.
    Time and again, Imperium has shown an incredible lack of ethical conscience, as evident from his persistent lying and shameful lack of acknowledgement of his own behavior. Instead, he is trying to deflect criticism from himself and the topic at hand (persistent personal attacks in spite of warning), by putting forward counter-allegations. This is a defense mechanism on his part. He will definitely do so again. I fear that to continue to respond to defamatory attacks and slander from someone of his kind would somehow serve to validate them, putting me in the same boat as him. I leave it to the administrators to suggest that he refrain from this kind of behavior in the future. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 10:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    What was initiated as a message to take cognisance of an alleged insult, was splashed into the sewers of name versus religious identity and has finally been tinged in the dark hue of ethnicity. My man, do get hold of yourself. Your communication is turning out to be a classic case of argumentum ad nauseam. User Joyson, as much as I am a moderately religious person and a practising Hindu, it must be understood that your religious predilections, as mine, are not relevant to the subject of this conversation. The word Judas Iscariot is used as, a simile, to refer to a person who, notwithstanding one's reliance on them, lets them down. I urge you not to take up an "anti-Portuguese", "anti-religious" or any other anti prefixed stance or bring it into public domain unless it is called for, and certainly not on the Wikipedian platform.

    User Joyson must refrain from processes that result in the usage of phrases like "to my knowledge", "most likely not", "probably" on Wikipedia; these can be termed as unsubstantiated statements.

    I am sure the administrators will take note of the belittling posture in your last paragraph and will weigh it against your claims to be a responsible and welcoming editor. I can not comment on how efficiently you have contributed to Wikipedia; I can certainly comment on how irrelevant a veteran you have proved yourself. I feel the administrators have already given their views on the matter and it is unwise to continue deliberation on this matter. This will be my last piece of correspondence on this matter on this page. I thank the administrators for their discretion. Imperium Caelestis 12:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You call a person “Judas Iscariot” when he has back-stabbed you, not when he has let you down. You called me so after I tagged your plagiarized images for deletion. I never cease to be amazed by much more absurd your reasoning gets with each passing comment. Furthermore, my "relevance" or "irrelevance" is not for you to decide. If you expected me to take kindly to your cheap under-handed behavior towards me and not criticize you for your misdeeds, then you are in for a big surprise. I am normally very helpful and nice to people as evident from my earlier interactions with you. However, i do not take well to those who ignore friendly advice and then instead of admitting his mistakes like a mature person, responds with lies, name calling, slanderous allegations, etc. So, you shouldn't be surprised at all when faced with such harsh criticism. By the way, i find Imperium's claim that "I have no personal problems with Joyson Noel" very hard to believe. If this is the case, then it would be very odd for him to request that the Goa_Konkani_language_agitation_of_1986 article's name to be changed to the original one without any proper reason, after reporting him to ANI, especially considering that he had earlier completely agreed with me on his talk page. I can't find any other logical explanation for this sudden change of mind. I, however, don't feel that the administrators have deliberated on this matter and await their views. I trust that they will take the right decision. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 12:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I submit my apologies for coming out with this message inspite of stating that my previous message was my last one as the latest message by user Joyson warrants an addendum on my behalf. I would like to make known to him that I do indeed have no misgivings, personal problems or bias against him. I enjoy each piece of correspondence I receive from him. I consider him a unique specimen created by Providence on the seventh day of Genesis and his writings and views only help me get to know him better. I appeal to him to continue his communication on this subject, or any other in this matter, on my user page. I shall not communicate my views on this page on this matter unless called for by discerning administrators (read-third person). I wish user Joyson success in his endeavours. Going off the air... Imperium Caelestis 13:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    In keeping with his past conduct, Imperium shamelessly continues with his name calling and insults again:
    I consider him a unique specimen created by Providence on the seventh day of Genesis
    How much more evidence does one need? This is the third time! Joyson Noel Holla at me! 13:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we've seen enough. I've interacted with both editors in question, and in my experience, both of them are mature, reasonable editors. Lets not blow up the issue. As mentioned by an editor above, admins cannot discipline editors. Konkani is for all of us, Wikipedia is for all of us. If there is really an issue, let us sort it out amicably. Yes Michael? •Talk 19:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    user Mike, It's a simple case of Much Ado About Nothing. Having read the other articles on this page, I felt ashamed to submit my arguments on this page. It is too trivial to be presented here. I was left with Hobson's choice as I was directed to this page to give my side of the story. Nevertheless, do read an interesting article on the Lusitanisation and delusitanisation of Roman Catholic Gaud Saraswat Names sandwiched between the comments. Also read the autobiography and self-appraisal. Please enjoy the hillarity in the conversation. That is all there is to it. warm regards Imperium Caelestis 19:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    nudity on userpages

    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. [56], 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]
    I generally agree w/ the nuking of userspace nudes, but as a participant to that IUP discussion I can definitely say none of us even considered images outside of the mainspace when discussing the change. Protonk (talk) 09:45, 13 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 [57] [58] [59] trying to get Gonville Bromhead's name to rhyme with a rude word, [60] accusing park staff of murdering ducks, [61] [62] [63] preventing the removal of improperly sourced BLP material, while adding false info himself, [64] 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]

    Out of curiosity, how would you folks react to a nude picture of the user hirself? Plenty of Wikipedians have photos of themselves on their user pages, and if the user were a nudist or some variety of skyclad pagan, it might even be a religion or (legally parallel) creed issue. Given that anti-nudism is itself a religious taboo, and that the law in many places protects nudity (here in Ontario, for example, the Supreme Court ruled that women have a constitutional right to bare their breasts in public), you'd have a hard time arguing that someone should be censored for it. SmashTheState (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess my first thought is I'd be highly dubious that any revealing photo was indeed of the user in question. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And mine would be "Can I have a revealing photo of User:Casliber on my page?" Bishonen | talk 15:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    While it may be perfectly lawful and socially acceptable for women to go topless in public in many jurisdictions, Wikipedia is a collection of privately owned servers associated with a privately "owned" domain name. Although NOTCENSORED is frequently trotted out here as some kind of excuse for anything that people object to, it is nonsense. Wikipedia is censored, and that censorship is the right of its owners, who set the rules. Of course I mean the community sets the rules, but only inasmuch as the rules do not conflict with the aims of the owners. All of which is to say that a "constitutional right" has very little relevance here or on any website. So, I guess the answer to your question is, per WP:UP, no, a nude picture of the user would not be allowed here (although Commons would welcome it with open arms). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Braganca4646 Part 2

    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]

    Requesting block for editor making overtly racist edits

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

    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: [65], [66], [67], & [68].

    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 ([69] & [70]). 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]

    He's requested an unblock, of course. Could someone more familiar than I with how SUL works verify that this demonstrates that it's the same person on the various wikis? --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It's the same person. If it weren't, the last column would say something like unattached or unconnected. I'm denying the unblock request. NW (Talk) 16:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Pattern of Editing Article by Redsjava and Anon IP 70.239.199.8

    Redsjava (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    70.239.199.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    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's 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]

    You just can't keep a good man down

    Visitor10001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Remember this guy? The one who didn't get blocked for this and this because he said he was leaving? Remember how calling other editors "assholes" and "douchebag" for reverting him wasn't good for a block because he said he was leaving? Well, brace yourselves for a shock; he's back. But wait, there's more. Now he's announcing his intention to sockpuppet if he doesn't get his way on his favorite article.

    Here's the backstory: Redemption theory is one of those goofy tax-protest scams that says you're not legally required to pay taxes, and if you follow some obscure procedures you're legally excused from doing so. Real lunatic stuff. Visitor has been employing the equal validity fallacy to insist that the fringe ideas be given equal treatment with what the FBI, the Treasury Department, and the Department of Justice (in short, the reality based community) say about it. Here is an example of his thinking (if you can call it that) from my talk page, where he carries on about the "fraudulent U.S. government". You get the picture. It doesn't go anywhere good. His latest edit to the article is attempting to use this as a reliable source. This is a report written by a guy who at this very moment is sitting in a Federal prison cell because he followed the same bad advice he gives in this report.

    Now I realize this may look like it's somewhat of a content dispute, but check more of his recent diffs. And remember, this is a fringe theory that has more consequences than most. Unlike disputes about who wrote Shakespeare's works and whether the lost continent of Atlantis ever really existed, if that article gives any credit or validity to "redemption theory" and our readers follow it, it will take them by a short route to federal prison. We owe our readers better than that. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If he's vowing to sock, he deserves the block! —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 10:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a bit tricky. I cannot believe that this editor is not going to do something in the near future that won't get him blocked, but nothing he has done since his return is in violation of policy (even the threat to sock isn't, as it appears more to be rhetorical musing). I would also be wary of blocking for the past PA's, since the block period would likely have expired by now. I suggest that we wait, civilly engaging with him regarding WP:CONSENSUS where thought necessary, until he makes an inappropriate comment and dealing with it at that time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If blocks are supposed to be preventative, then their statements fully justify one. They are making it clear that they intend to disrupt Wikipedia until they gets their way. IMO, this should be treated similar to an NLT block: indef until they back off the threat. Resolute 19:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In a rational world, we could block this guy based on WP:LOON, block any accounts that suddenly show up to continue pushing the same ridiculous POV, and move on with our lives. Someone who pushes this silliness is never, ever going to be helpful in building a respectable encyclopedia. However, this is not a rational world, this is Wikipedia, and in this environment LHvU is probably right: we need to go thru the charade of pretending that it is only a matter of explaining our complicated policies about not being an edit-warring POV-pushing loon, and the lightbulb will go on an he'll start churning out FA's, and the extreme likelihood of this happening is worth the weeks of disruption it creates for everyone else. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought better of this, and was going to just block him indef, but I see FPaT is faster than me and has blocked for a week. I support the block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even though this is not a rational world, last time I looked persistent tendentious editing was blockable. Blocked a week, as a start. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note for the record, his last edit before being blocked was this taunt on my talk page.
    Also a question. Does it make any sense to think there should be some special level of scrutiny on tax-protest related articles due to the serious legal consequences that could accrue to anyone if they got erroneous or suspect information from a Wikipedia article? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia quite clearly states in many places that it cannot be depended upon for legal advice. How could we, with editors from hundreds of countries contributing? --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this is certainly collegial. Corvus cornixtalk 21:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    FUKAB (and aliases)

    Resolved

    Three days ago, FUKAB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (whose username appears to also be an intentional slur directed at Abandonia - which is frequently referred to by the shorthand "AB") has vandalised the Abandonia article and created an attack page directed at Abandonia on his personal userpage (now deleted due to CSD/G10). After his edits were reverted, the following message was sent through our website's contact form:

    glad you liked the change to your wiki page oyu sad fucjks,. if only you had been nicer and more polite and helpful and this would never have had to happen at all. instead you are a Bunch of assholes who probably fuck eavch other in the ass all night cos you r so in love with each other you sick fucks

    The logged sender corresponds to a user who has been recently disabled on Abandonia due to his behavior in our forums. Details of both that and the source of the e-mail may be provided if needed.

    Yesterday, a new account called Fukabandonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalised the userpage of L-Zwei (who reverted his prior vandalism) and then reverted the disruptive edits back into the Abandonia article. His activity on L-Zwei's userpage may be construed as an attempt to violate WP:OUTING (explanation: Abandonia has a staff member called "Chosen" with whom one of the vandal's prior aliases had interacted with).

    The user has not met the conditions for a WP:AIV report yet (due to not having received a sufficient number of warnings), but his behavior in combination with the usernames utilised and the e-mail he sent to us shows that his sole purpose on Wikipedia is to vanadalise the article and attempt harrassment of pople he believes to be members of Abandonia's staff or associated with it. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Did no one tell him how much we enjoy dealing with off-wiki disputes? Both indef'd. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Materialscientist‎

    Resolved
     – Strike through and semi's applied. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we get some semi-protection and RevDels there please? - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 14:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Excellent, thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 15:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (Not by me, I went there and found the actions taken - just placing resolved template, at second attempt, here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

    User Slrubenstein

    Please consider yet another evolutionary action for this novice editor This users typical communication style is denigrating by way of unspecified negativity:

    • "nothing you have" written is valid; everything you have written is "[completely] worthless".
    • After deleting an entire day of my editing effort, without discussion they said "I really do not see how it is a worthwhile use of my time to give you any more feedback". Does this violate WP:Editing policy by removing without discussion?
    • following me around, undoing my edits
    • psychobabble where serious discussion with me is warranted: "Wikipedia is not about temptation, and I am not your tutor."

    See the discussions hear, here, and here. Slrubenstein lacks knowledge of the Wikipedia culture, is bold, and yet too defensive for communication, remaining silent on issues they might better apologize for. I give it up to you to judge my own hypocritical judgment. I have tried, and so have others. — CpiralCpiral 17:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand that you are upset at having your work reverted, in the future you can avooid that by proposing large changes and rewrites on the talkpage before adding them to the article. In this case most of your edits were clearly not based in a sufficient level of knowledge about the topic and in fact completely misrepresented while also not being based in sources. It is a strong word to call your contribution worthless, but in terms of our mission of improving the wikipedia by using the policies of WP:V and WP:NOR to add and expand our article content it was not strictly speaking an wrong evaluation. You are not being quite truthful that Slrubenstein has refused to give you feedback, he has in fact argued at length trying to explain to you why your edits were not an improvement to the article. He said that he would give no more feedback when after extended discussion you still did not appear to understand. He did undid your correction of grammar, but you do not show that he then immediately after proceded to undo his reversal and let your correction stand. Slrubenstein does have an abrasive tone in discussions, that is trur and I have asked him to tone it down sometimes, but he not really being incivil here. But actuallt I do understand his frustration when users undertake major rewrites of articles without doing the basic research necessary for understanding what the actual topic of the article. I don't think there is basis for sanctions here. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I think the problem is that you've been adding original research. You removed sourced material from Cultural relativism, and replaced it with unsourced material such as: "Cultural relativism is the cultural aspect of relativism. Like any science cultural relativism has a philosophy that attempts to justify its structural aspects," and "What is really right philosophically, for being moral, is a question that asks how we know what we know to be morally true in the largest conceivable structure of an absolute, objective reality." [71]
    That kind of edit will always be removed if spotted, because our articles have to comply with the three content policies: WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. That means you should include reliable sources for any edit likely to be challenged, which is practically everything in an area like this. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing to see here. Cpiral, you may wish to request input from additional editors if Slrubenstein's explanations do not satisfy you; this is the first step in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hauskalainen

    Hello. Hauskalainen (talk · contribs) has recently made a series of allegations that I and another user (User:Slatersteven) are are involved in off-wiki collusion and are supporters of the British National Party or extremist politics in general.

    Diffs: [72] [73] [74] [75] [76]

    I made clear to Hauskalainen that I wan't happy and asked him to remove the comments at his takpage here: User_talk:Hauskalainen. He has responded, but does not seem to see that he has done anything wrong. Far from removing the comments, he went back and edited them so as to additionally offend against Godwin's Law: [77].

    My request is: please could an admin either delete the material contained in the diffs above or else give me clearance to do it, then please give some advice to Hauskalainen so that the behaviour isn't repeated.

    Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I would add that the user seems to be using the accusation as an attempt at intimidation [[78]]. The user has also refused to appoligise or to retract the accusation [[79]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is clearly a series of personal attacks and Hauskalainen should be blocked unless it is retracted. TFD (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone should advise Hauskalainen that excessive use of the caps lock key and the bold face markup has the opposite to the intended effect. Instead of strengthening one's argument, it weakens it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think at this stage a warning is all that is needed. Unless this represents a patern of attitude.Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have indef blocked the account until they provide the alleged evidence or they confirm they will redact said allegations. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be OK to remove the material from NPOVN? I consider the claims made there to be a serious slur and it's quite a public location. --FormerIP (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be best if it were redacted rather than removed, so the more legitimate aspects of the discussion can remain in the original format. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is my concearn, if he does not retract it the accusatio remains there. Thus the slur on our characters. I have no major issue with it but would have liked toi have had the chande to refute the evidacen rather then allow the inuendo (and thus the doubt) to remain.Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please feel free to review this edit: [80]. Steven: I've also slightly edited one of your posts in the process. Hope that's okay. --FormerIP (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No probs, but i am not sure that there was consensus for the materials removal.Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Question, regarding LessHeard's comment above: "provide the alleged evidence" - why would providing such evidence of the user's membership of extreme political movements justify the users comments? It's not against Wikipedia policy to be affiliated with political groups if it doesn't affect your editing, but WP:NPA and its derivatives are applied across the board. S.G.(GH) ping! 19:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally, I've got no problem with the idea that Hauskalainen can be unblocked if he can convince a reviewing admin that his allegations had a basis, because he won't be able to do that. --FormerIP (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The accusatin (and thus the evidacen) is about POV pushing based uopon political advicacy (and indead COI).Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    IRWolfie-

    User IRWolfie- is seriously disrupting the Frank J. Tipler article by deleting peer-reviewed papers in mainstream scientific journals and proceedings. Here is a diff: [81]. As I said to him on that article's Talk page on this matter after he had already been repeatedly told about how this is improper:

    This time around you also deleted "Cosmological Limits on Computation", which was published in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (published by Springer). You also deleted numerous other mainstream scientific peer-reviewed journal papers, such as from the International Journal of Astrobiology (published by Cambridge University Press) and Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science (published by Wiley-Blackwell). You also deleted the peer-reviewed proceedings papers (peer-review is a standard process in proceedings papers).

    Based upon your deletions of these peer-reviewed papers in mainstream scientific journals and proceedings, it appears that you are simply attempting to disrupt this article.

    --Jamie Michelle (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    My response in Talk:Frank_J._Tipler#Journals and my improvements should show that I am acting in good faith to try and improve the article. The "journal of religion & science" is not a reliable scientific journal nor is the Journal of Astrobiology. The "Cosmological limits on computation" is about the possibility of universal turing machines also and so not related to the specific claims. I have made further edits to tidy up the article and separate Tipler's scientific work from his personal work on religion. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The International Journal of Astrobiology is published by Cambridge University Press. Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science is published by Wiley-Blackwell and is the world's leading journal on science and religion.
    The paper "Cosmological Limits on Computation" was the first paper published on the Omega Point cosmology, so you have not the slightest clue in the world as to what you are talking about.
    Based upon your complete ignorance on this topic, there is no possible way that you could improve the article, except for perhaps grammar.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no need for personal attacks. Also note that I am a fully qualified physicist. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    also the "zygon: journal of religion & science" is not a scientific journal as is evident from http://www.zygonjournal.org/. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science is published by Wiley-Blackwell and is the world's leading journal on science and religion. Here is Wiley-Blackwell's Zygon homepage: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1467-9744 .
    You ignorantly said that the paper "Cosmological Limits on Computation" didn't much concern the topic of the article, when in fact it was the first paper published on the Omega Point cosmology, so you have not the slightest clue in the world as to what you are talking about.
    I didn't make a personal attack upon you, I simply pointed out the fact that you have not the slightest idea about this subject, and so it is logically impossible that you could improve the article except for edits involving grammar and typos, and the like.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Again please no ad hominem attacks. Zygon may or may not be a good journal or not, but still it is not a scientific journal. Zygon describes itself as "Zygon is an interdisciplinary journal". "The paper Cosmological Limits on Computation" concerns itself with the fundamental feasibility of a universal turing machine. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The paper "Cosmological Limits on Computation" is the first paper published on the Omega Point cosmology (Tipler even explicitly names the Omega Point in this paper). The Omega Point cosmology *concerns* how a universal Turing machine is physically possible. So you have not the slightest clue in the world as to what you are talking about.
    Pointing out that you have no idea whatsoever as to what you are talking about on this subject is not a personal attack upon you. Rather, it's simply pointing out that it is logically impossible that you could improve the article except for edits involving grammar and typos, and the like.
    Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science is published by Wiley-Blackwell and is the world's leading academic journal on science and religion.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note there have been problems with Jamie Michelle tendentiously editing Tipler articles in the past. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That is a false statement. A number of vandals, and also stalkers of myself, had shown up due to their ideological dislike of the Omega Point (Tipler) article from having seen a news report on Prof. Tipler that was posted on some antitheist discussion boards, with some of them being banned for their vandalism and their nasty and extremely hateful abuse of me.
    I notice you also appear to be among their circle, given how you follow me around in order to make comments like the above and in order to support those who disrupt the Tipler articles, which doesn't speak at all well for you.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It should be noted that Jamiemichelle is still reverting every change I have ever made to the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That is a false statement. I did not add back the correspondence. You have admitted above that you know absolutely nothing about the Omega Point cosmology, and so it is not logically possible for you to improve the article except by editing grammar and typos, and the like.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is a diff of your revert: [82]. Here is a diff of before I edited the page and after you reverted all changes. The only paper you have removed is the nature correspondence, whereas you removed all further edits I made to the page. [83]. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So you here admit that your statement that I have reverted every change you made is false. Like I said, I did not add back the correspondence. All your other edits which delete the peer-reviewed papers in mainstream science journals and proceedings are highly disruptive, and so of course they are going to be reverted.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Here are the diffs of the attacks against me by the user Jamiemichelle. [84] [85] [86]. The user also reverted my edits three times within 24 hours as can be seen here [87] IRWolfie- (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have never made any attack upon you in the slightest. You are the one who has repeatedly admitted both above and on the Frank J. Tipler Talk page that you do not have even the slightest knowledge about the Omega Point cosmology. I have merely used these admissions by you to point out that it is logically impossible for you to improve an article whose subject you know nothing about, except for making edits concerning formatting, grammar, typos, and other such edits which don't require any knowledge of the subject.--Jamie Michelle (talk)
    There is no "tendentious" edits on my part, as I'm merely reverting highly disruptive edits by a person who has repeatedly admitted that they know nothing whatsoever about the subject which they are presuming to edit. Nor is there any "ownership" issues on my part, as deleting peer-reviewed papers in mainstream science journals and proceedings is extremely disruptive. I would hope anybody would revert such edits, particularly by a person who has admitted that they have no clue about what the papers talk about which they are deleting.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Content dispute, and a fairly major mess. Looks like some possible ownership issues and perhaps undue weight given to some fronts. Sorting through it at the moment. Both of you are at 3 reverts for the day, by the way. N419BH 21:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Jamiemichelle (talk · contribs) violation of WP:3RR

    It appears as though the following constitute reversion of the same information, namely the re-addition of ten references to back up a single sentence:

    1. 1:50 3/13/2011
    2. 18:11 3/13/2011
    3. 19:20 3/13/2011
    4. 19:36 3/13/2011

    The final two attack IRWolfie's credibility in the edit summary. N419BH 21:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Obviously I'm accusing him of being disruptive, and hence lacking in credibility. That's what this report is about.
    IRWolfie- has repeatedly admitted above and on the Frank J. Tipler Talk page that he has no knowledge whatsoever about the Omega Point cosmology. That wouldn't be a problem in and of itself if he would not attempt to make edits based upon that complete lack of knowledge, yet he has repeatedly attempted to delete the paper "Cosmological Limits on Computation" based upon his ignorance of the subject. He finally on the Talk page admitted that he was wrong in attempting to delete that article.
    Now Tim Shuba (who is part of an antitheist crowd that got involved in articles associated with Prof. Tipler after a news report on Tipler was posted to some antitheist discussion boards) has re-deleted this article, which IRWolfie- admits that he was wrong to delete. As well, Tim Shuba has also reinstated IRWolfie-'s other deletions of the peer-reviewed papers published in mainstream journals and proceedings.
    These edits are improper and violate Wikipedia policy regarding credible sources.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Tim Shuba

    User Tim Shuba has reinstated user IRWolfie-'s disruptive edits already reported on this board: [88].

    Tim Shuba is part of a crowd of antitheist ideologues who for some time now have been dirupting articles associeted with Prof. Frank J. Tipler. Viz.: [89].

    Awhile back, a number of vandals, and also stalkers of myself, had shown up due to their ideological dislike of the Omega Point (Tipler) article from having seen a news report on Prof. Tipler that was posted on some antitheist discussion boards, with some of them being banned for their vandalism and their nasty and extremely hateful abuse of me.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've moved this from being it's own thread to being a section of this one as the matters are directly related. You didn't notify Tim as required. I strongly suggest reading WP:BOOMERANG before continuing. N419BH 22:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I forgot to notify him, but I'll do that now.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Known IP edit warrior is back

    The editor has a long history of disruption, edit warring, and consequent blocks under different IPs, while the most recent ones are:

    The user has been discussed on this noticeboard 3 times:

    Overall, the following IPs has been used by this user:

    So far the user has faced 7 blocks ranging from 24h to 7d. The connection between the IPs can be established, taking into account the same writing style, and the same behavior patterns, such as edit warring, ignoring warnings, own talk page blanking, area of interests, geography. The most recent and serious violation is 1RR on Palestine-Israel articles:

    1. 1st and 2nd reverts on Mira Awad within 22 hours.
    2. 1st (1, 2, 3) and 2nd ([90], [91]) series of reverts on Palestinian Christians article within 22 hours.

    The user seems to simply ignore warnings and blocks, for that reason I'm asking for administrative action. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Please consider the following connected IPs, raising the total number of blocks to 10:
    I'm deeply sorry to say that, but the first problem of the user is WP:COMPETENCE. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    i do not know any of the above ips and i have no connection with any of them! u can not come up with a connection of some people from different ips or even countries edit the same article or agree with something that others do not agree withm ,means that they r the same person! ur accusation makes no sense, and i find it very offensive! u owe me an apology!--213.6.4.208 (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    "different ips or even countries edit the same article "
    You may be unaware of this, but you can trace all IPs to a general area through a variety of websites. All IPs that begin 213.6 are from Essen Germany, and the IP 82.213.38.2 is from Munich Germany, so it is clear that these IP's are not from different countries.AerobicFox (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    These IPs have also been reported here, not long ago. Soosim (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=418687885"