Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:04, 30 September 2011

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

2011 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 10 October 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno 14:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

YFuture time stamped to prevent archival. OpenInfoForAll (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Wheel warring by DragonflySixtyseven

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I'm closing this. I've looked through all this and there's really little more to be said. If anyone really wants to take this to ArbCom, they're welcome to, but a much better approach, IMO, would be for all the involved parties to pause to consider how they might better handle similar situations should they occur in the future. If they are not willing to engage in such introspection, there's nothing anyone on this noticeboard can do to fix that. 28bytes (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs) has now twice unblocked an IP editor: 76.31.236.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) with opposition from a number of admins. I believe that fits the definition of WP:WHEEL. Short chronology:

• I blocked 76.31.236.91 as an obvious sock of FaheyUSMC (talk · contribs) based on behavioral evidence (the similarity of these two edits: , and others by socks of Fahey , )
• Admins Eagles247 (talk · contribs), EdJohnston (talk · contribs) both declined unblocking based on that evidence., Barek (talk · contribs) also recognized the sockpuppetry and re-protected Least I Could Do (see edit summary).
• DragonflySixtyseven unilaterally unblocked 76.31.236.91 with editing restrictions. I emailed DS informing him/her of my disappointment with this action.
• I opened Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/FaheyUSMC.
• DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) closed the SPI saying the IP "looks like a recruit at least, maybe not a sock, but they are here for all same general purpose, therefore in violation of WP:CANVAS and WP:MEAT." S/he reblocked the IP for being a recruit and continued disruption and attacks on editors. .
• After the block the IP posted this uncivil unblock request.
• kuru (talk · contribs) declined the unblock and removes ability to edit talk page
• DS then unilaterally unblocked the IP again despite DQ's objections.
• After the second unblocking, MuZemike (talk · contribs) did a CU on the IP and said that it is possible that the IP may be connection but also that he had some doubts. (Not directly relevant, but mentioned to be fair)

The second unblocking seems like it fits WP:WHEEL:

• "Do not repeat a reversed administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it. Do not continue a chain of administrative reversals without discussion."
• "Deliberately ignoring an existing discussion in favor of a unilateral preferred action,
• Abruptly undoing administrator actions without consultation."

There is a lot more here including two SPIs, but I believe DS's first unblock was ill-advised. I believe the second unblock was wheel warring and in violation of policy. Toddst1 (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

After extensive discussion with the IP, I have concluded that he is not a sockpuppet, or a meatpuppet, of the original editor. Consequently, I unblocked him, subject to some behavioral restrictions: primarily, that he not edit anywhere other than a) the talk page of the article that's been the focus of this shitstorm, b) my talk page, and c) his own talk page. He is complying with these restrictions. During the initial edit mess on the relevant article, he was told that the subject (adding statement X) had already been discussed extensively; however, he was not given a link to this discussion, because it was on a page which had gotten deleted. So he had no idea what was going on, and then he was accused of being a sockpuppet and/or meatpuppet, and summarily blocked, and accused of being a troll. He is understandably upset. I specifically stated that if he misbehaved, I would block him. To the best of my reading, he had not misbehaved at the time of his block. He was describing how he perceived the way he was being treated (although granted, he was being inappropriately rude about it and I would have at the very least chastised him if I'd had the chance, which I didn't).

Overall, I'd point out that this is teetering on the edge of becoming a stupid meta-argument. Meta-arguments can never be resolved productively, because they are arguments about arguments and about the methods used in arguing, and they befoul external attempts at resolution (such as this one). I have edited the article at the root of this whole mess in such a way that should be acceptable to everyone involved. Now piss off and go do something productive. DS (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

DS, I'm trying to read your descriptions of your actions in the most charitable light, and it's still really hard to find anything positive to say about your unblocking of this IP editor. As far as I can tell, you've overridden the actions of another administrator based upon your personal, unrecorded, off-wiki interactions with the editor in question. Upon the basis of this, you're overriding the judgement of another admin. Even if you're wholly correct, and the editor in question should be unblocked right away, your method of deciding so sets an extremely worrying precedent. Do we really want a Misplaced Pages where admins override one another based upon their say-so? Quanticle (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Toddst1, what action are you requesting here? Do you want the IP's last block restored? I agree that the two unblocks by DS67 don't appear to have consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like acknowledgement that DS's administrative actions were inappropriate. There was a similar issue with DS a while ago. See this archived ANI discussion. I'll leave it up to the community to decide if any sanctions against DS should be applied for repeating the misconduct. I think the IP should be reblocked, but that's of lesser importance. Toddst1 (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

After the IP was blocked, a series of (other) IPs appeared on my talk page and Dragonfly's to leave abusive messages, and my AGF mechanism appears to be broken, because I'm having a hard time imagining that they aren't connected to 76.x. An IRC (chat) account that 76.31.x has claimed in the past (confirmed as him by both that account and Dragonfly) left me an abusive private message overnight, accusing me of "having someone" impersonate them. This IP is, quite obviously, no longer up to much good, whether they were contributing in good faith initially or not. With that in mind, I'm really, really surprised that Dragonfly would see fit to unilaterally unblock a user on a post-block rampage of abuse, especially based only on the rationale that no one except Dragonfly is allowed to block this problematic user. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I see two issues! the block/unblock war, and the user page delete/undelete war. No matter how you slice it, this kind of conduct is unflattering and is indicative of something. Someone else can figure out what that is, because it eludes me. My76Strat (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It is never appropriate for an admin to unblock without discussion with at a minimum, the blocking admin, and probably as well, with the admins who declined an unblock. Especially without an explanation. In addtion, Dragonfly's "piss off" comment is entirely inappropriate. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a long-term issue with DragonflySixtyseven. It goes back at least to 29 October 2007.—Kww(talk) 19:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are we wasting time with this? Incidentally, I'd point out that by strict definition, it was Todd who wheel warred (by restoring an action that I had undone), although I fully concede that I continued where I should have let it go. Can we get back to work now? DS (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Todd was the initial blocker. How are they wheel warring? That seems like a flat-out lie. You repeated administrative actions when you knew other admins opposed it. It's the very definition of wheel warring. -- Crossmr (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't "long-term" imply that it's been continuous? Anyway, please don't impute motive - "flat-out lie" definitely implies malice; at worst, this is a clash of definitions. As I understand "wheel war", when Admin A performs an action which Admin B undoes, and then Admin A re-performs it, it is Admin A who is considered to have wheel warred. In this particular case, Todd is Admin A, blocking the anon, and I am Admin B, unblocking. I acknowledge that other interpretations can and do exist, and I also acknowledge that even if we do consider Todd to have been initially at fault, I was equally at fault by continuing the action -- and I took Todd's message to me last night, asking if I was going to report him to AN/I for wheel-warring, to be a tacit acknowledgement that we could be considered equally at fault here. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have productive work to do. This is a meta argument, and meta arguments are always a waste of everyone's time. Please don't call me to AN/I again. DS (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

CORRECTION - it has been brought to my attention that Toddst1 is not the one who blocked the IP the second time; I acknowledge my factual error in this respect, as well as in my casuistric pickiness as to who precisely was wheel-warring. DS (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Dragonfly is clearly unfit to be an admin, and should resign that authority immediately. ←baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I politely decline the recommendation of the honorable gentleman. DS (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Dragonfly, but I have to agree with Baseball Bugs here. While you and him were both part of the wheel war at hand, (and DS, please reread WP:WHEELWAR again and again until you have learned by heart what is wheel warring, please.) Dragonfly, according to Kww's message above, have been doing this for almost four years, and that is something that Misplaced Pages does not tolerate. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 23:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hardly. I did this something similar, four years ago, in a different set of circumstances. That's not "for four years", that's "once, four years ago". If I'd been doing this continuously, I wouldn't have lasted a month. DS (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Somehow, bringing up the fact that you were accused of wheel-warring before doesn't help your case. Yes, I know it was four years ago (an eternity in Internet time). Yes, I know that you were cleared of any wrongdoing. No, it still doesn't help you argument to state, "Oh yeah, I did something like this before, four years ago, and I was cleared." Quanticle (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"It goes back at least to 29 October 2007." is basically the same as "It has been happening since about four years ago." LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 23:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a reason I normally avoid unblock-l and #-en-unblock. So, okay. I hereby place myself under sanction: I will not unblock any accounts that I did not myself block. Any violation can be dealt with by reporting me to Arbcom. Sound good? DS (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's actually good enough, actually. When an admin blocks someone on Misplaced Pages, they're not acting on their own behalf. They're acting on behalf of the overall Misplaced Pages consensus. Given that, when an admin is considering reversing a block, they are obligated to determine whether there is any opposition to the block and evaluate that opposition before reversing.

In short, no admin "owns" a block. All blocks are placed on behalf of the larger Misplaced Pages community. Therefore, in order to overturn a block, even a block they themselves created, the admin must consult the wider Misplaced Pages community, determine if there is opposition and evaluate any such opposition before overturning the block.

Quanticle (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What you, or any admin, should do is talk to the blocking admin first before unblocking. That's what you should pledge to do, as opposed to putting yourself on probation. ←baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"I did this something similar, four years ago, in a different set of circumstances. That's not "for four years", that's "once, four years ago"." A clear case of selective memory. I distinctly remember this and this instance of unilateral unblocking, from 2009 and 2010 respectively. It's long clear that DS doesn't hold WP:WHEEL or his fellow admins in high regard, but what can you do? At any rate, his reply here was more than "I'm too busy to reply" or "I don't care about ANI threads", so that's an improvement.--Atlan (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The block of 76.31.236.91

As the user in question I think I have the right to speak here in my own defense. I came here in good faith, trying to make an improvement to an article. The behavior I experienced from Toddst1, Elizium23, and assorted friends of theirs was nothing short of uncivil. It was rude. It was definitely nowhere close to the Misplaced Pages policy of ASSUME GOOD FAITH.

I spoke with Dragonfly6-7 repeatedly, asking for advice. I was repeatedly advised to be calm, to take things slowly, to explain myself thoroughly. I felt I did so. I stayed honestly within the limits Dragonfly6-7 had put forth, namely, to ONLY edit on the talkpage (NOT THE ARTICLE PAGE) and on Dragonfly6-7's talk page. I broke this only once, editing MY OWN talk page only to inform Elizium23 that I was NOT to hold conversations there as my understanding of what Dragonfly6-7 had set forth. I never "disrupted" anything.

I will admit, I had heated words for some people. I had heated words because as I see it, Toddst1 and Elizium23 were violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL in their conduct towards me. Sometimes, it was a matter of ignoring the debate over and over again for a protracted period of time. Sometimes, it was a refusal to address the points that were written. Other times, it was much more egregious insulting behavior. Toddst1 constantly accused me of knowing more than I "should", even though he KNEW that I was having continuous discussions with Dragonfly6-7 trying to understand wikipedia policy and what else was going on. He constantly accused me of acting in bad faith or being a "sockpuppet", something which even CheckUser MuZemike admits now is not likely.

When asked to apologize for his behavior, his reply was this: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ALeast_I_Could_Do&action=historysubmit&diff=450598991&oldid=450571622. I don't really care that he "later reverted it", an insult is an insult, a "personal attack" is a "personal attack" as I've been told.

At this point I feel I have been treated completely unfairly. I came here in good faith, trying to improve an article. What I have received in exchange is people making bad-faith accusations against me. It has been hounding. It has been harassment. It has been ugly and insulting tagging that I was a "Single Purpose Account" despite the fact that I WAS UNDER AN AGREEMENT TO ONLY EDIT ONE ARTICLE TALK PAGE AND ONE USER TALK PAGE. It has been continual prodding and poking and infuriating behavior. While I was gone and nowhere near my computer yesterday, someone left a bunch of stuff which Toddst1 "cleaned up" yesterday, I presume in attempt to tar and feather me in a nice neat frame-up job.

They have now accused me of being "a user on a post-block rampage of abuse", which is nothing but a flat-out lie. I'd ordinarily ask what the hell you consider "abuse", but I don't really care. I haven't edited ANYWHERE except for Dragonfly6-7's talk page since, right until this moment.

I COULD have wasted a bunch of people's time. I could have gone around messing up pages all over the place until some hopped-up jerk with too much power and not enough compassion decided to finish the job. I didn't. In everything I've done, I have acted in good faith, I have been open and honest, and that's more than I can say for Toddst1, Elizium23, or pretty much any of the other people I've had the misfortune to deal with here recently except for Dragonfly6-7. All of them simply stood by and let the abusive behavior go on, not saying a word.

As far as I'm concerned, I have been the victim of a protracted WP:BITE campaign by people who ought to know better and ought to have some common sense. But instead, the very people who ought to have been called out for their behavior are attacking the one person I've met on this crappy site with any common sense, and they see nothing wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AToddst1&action=historysubmit&diff=452446855&oldid=452444614) with their behavior. So obviously the "pillars and policies" of WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL really mean nothing to them or to most of you.

Final point: I repeatedly, in my discussions, was pointing out that it is intrinsically dishonest and unencyclopedic to misrepresent a source. Lo and behold, I looked at the "arbcom" page one of you linked to today trying to tar and feather Dragonfly6-7, and it's RIGHT THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE: Falsification of sources 2) Deliberate attempts to misrepresent or falsify the content of sources are extremely harmful to the project. Passed 6 to 0 at 12:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC) (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sadi_Carnot)

But I guess not intentionally misquoting or misrepresenting sources isn't something you strive for any more.

As far as I am concerned, for those of you needing a tl;dr version: I feel I've been abused. I feel Toddst1 and plenty of the people he coordinated with have violated WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL, and probably a huge number of other policies. I don't know who the hell was making nasty comments on Toddst1 and Dragonfly6-7's talk pages, but it sure as hell wasn't me, because I was nowhere near my computer for most of yesterday. If someone wants to tar and feather me and lie about me, feel free to do so. I haven't vandalized, I haven't "gone on a rampage", and I sure as hell have no plans to. On your own misbegotten heads be it. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I, and others, tirelessly quoted policy to you and explained why your argument was wrong, and you brought up the same old points that had already been discussed. Yes, there were times when I ignored you, because I didn't feel like feeding the troll, and I had already thoroughly explained policy to you, with quotes and links to the relevant sections. I will note that your predecessor tried to drag me into ANI, and was told to leave me alone, so don't try to accuse me of being uncivil. Elizium23 (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

And that wasn't me. Nor was it, apparently, FaheyUSMC, who YOU even admitted wasn't that person. So why in the hell are you using that to justify treating me like that? I've been told there are "no excuses" for uncivil behavior. YOU are as uncivil as they come, no ifs, ands, or buts. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"Feeding the troll." Sounds like a personal attack to me. But of course, since you're an abuser and not the abused, they won't call you on it. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I see from the sound of the crickets loudly chirping that I was right. Elizium23 commits a blatant personal attack, and none of you blink. He insists that he is somehow justified in this and excused from WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:BITE on the basis of secret knowledge that I had no reason to possess - some of it from a DELETED PAGE, some of it from a place I didn't even know about until two days ago that apparently was FURTHER HIDDEN IN AN ARCHIVE before I made my first edit in this sad mess. And none of you are even honest enough to call him on it. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are we to treat the block on the IP and the resulting administrative actions as two separate things? That is, if DS 67 was in the wrong, that is not going to automatically equate to a re-block on the IP, is it? –MuZemike 01:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparently no admin is allowed to block the IP, because DS will automatically unblock them. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

But if the block wasn't a very good one in the first place, then it wouldn't be fair at all to re-block. –MuZemike 01:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that you are right. Per Toddst's original post, he wanted a discussion of DS's actions and wasn't looking for the IP to be blocked again.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised. I don't see anywhere where anybody suggested that the block was wrong in the first place. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine then. I'll start. The block, along with the rest of Toddst1's constantly UNCIVIL behavior (violating WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and I don't know how many other policies because I still don't know half of the amazing number of "wikipedia policies" that seem to be salted into places on this godforsaken website that nobody who isn't an aspergers obsessive could spend the time to find), was completely out of line. What's worse is the number of you, including Toddst1 himself, who insist he "did nothing wrong" hunting me and continually harassing me. Oh, and the form-letter "rejection" the first time, followed by EdJohnston's ridiculous refusal, also are out of line and constitute violations of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:BITE. Finally, the constant insistence of people to MISQUOTE a source, which is what I was here to fix when I saw the source misquoted on the webpage, violates precedence I didn't even at the time realize your "arbcom" had set, though it is now quoted above thanks to one of you being good enough to link to it for me. Dragonfly6-7 isn't to blame here, Toddst1 is. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"Behaviorial similarities" seems like a bit of a stretch to block someone. Doesn't Misplaced Pages have policies on Edit Warring and Talk page usage? This could have easily been dealt with via the normal Bold, Revert, Discuss process or simple Edit Warring processes. Instead, an admin decided to use the tools because someone's quack sounded like someone else's quack. One of the first guidelines on the WP:ADMIN page is that no admin is EVER required to use the tools.

I've never even heard of this webcomic that the fuss is all about, and I could care less, but if you have an issue with an edit, just revert it and start a discussion like you would normally. Start the sockpuppet investigation if you must, but my goodness what a lot of fuss over so little.

The edits that prompted this original block hardly seem earthshattering, so I don't see how the block was really all that crucial. Regardless of whether you can get support for an edit, block, or any other action, let's try not to be too zealous to pull out tools and squish people. If you had absolute proof that this IP wasn't a sock, how would you have reacted (as an editor)? Next time, do the checkuser first, unless there is a real threat to the encyclopedia. -- Avanu (talk) 03:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What administrative action is sought here? N419BH 03:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

@Avanu: You'd be surprised the types of disputes editors get themselves messes into here; we even have an entire page dedicated to them :) That being said (and not to disagree with your last paragraph, criticism of WP:DUCK aside), remember that sometimes CU can't tell you anything, which is certainly true with old socks i.e. ones that are stale in which CU can't check.

@N419BH: The main focus is the wheel war between Toddst1 and Dragonfly67 above. However, I would contend that, per my comment at the SPI case there, we couldn't be certain of a connection, and it's possible this could have been all avoided given we AGF'd a little better and gave the benefit of the doubt to the IP in question. –MuZemike 05:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The only one wheel warring was DS. Toddst didn't remotely get involved in that. He was the initial blocker and that was it.--Crossmr (talk) 05:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me like a bunch of hot air over pretty much nothing. DragonFly probably shouldn't have undone the block, and definitely shouldn't have undone it twice (not impressed with the edit summary on the second unblock either) but Toddst maybe shouldn't have done it in the first place. But, alas, the only perfect science is hind sight. So how about trouts all around and we move on? N419BH 05:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll pass on that trout. Given the long saga of the FaheyUSMC socks/meats, the DUCK test was applied with the appropriate level of discretion - that's why the first 3 admins that reviewed the block (Eagles247, EdJohnston, Barek) all came to the same conclusion. It wasn't until MuZemike ran a CU that any credible questions on the block came up. I'm confident I employed reasonable judgement followed by due process. If you don't believe WP:DUCK should be used, then you've got a different issue. Toddst1 (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I object to this characterization. After I was unblocked, it was made QUITE clear that I was very limited in what I was allowed to do per Dragonfly6-7. A note was placed on my talk page to that effect as well. At this point Toddst1 and Elizium23 both began to be very uncivil to me, constantly doing things designed to get me angry, I presume in an attempt to make me loose some profanity-laden tirade that would trigger Dragonfly6-7 to reblock. Toddst1 also began a campaign to get Dragonfly6-7 or others to reblock me directly, including creating a bad-faith "SPI" page along with highly uncivil edit summaries on the creation and notifications. Throughout the process, whenever I had trouble understanding, I asked Dragonfly6-7 to explain what was going on to me. For this, as I started to gain more knowledge of wikipedia policies, Toddst1 then started to insist that I "knew too much" and was "admitting guilt" for HAVING SOMEONE EXPLAIN POLICY TO ME. There was a COMPLETE lack of any assumption of good faith from his perspective and it is my belief that he knew precisely what he was doing, hoping to have me reblocked so that nobody would ever question his uncivil actions. As I am still unblocked, I am now asking if there's anyone honest here willing to actually look at the sort of uncivil nonsense I've been put through at his hands or not. I held up my end of the bargain, I edited ONLY where allowed to edit (despite Elizium23 trying to trick me into editing where I wasn't), and I tried to keep civil, though I'll admit that due to the constant NPA and UNCIVIL behavior from Toddst1 and Elizium23, there were times I lost my temper and described them as I really felt about them rather than couching it in flowery language. Their conduct, meanwhile, was patently ridiculous and obviously designed to harass. This whole section here is just the latest salvo in it, with Toddst1 upgrading his efforts not just to harass me, but to harass the one person (that'd be Dragonfly6-7) who bothered to look at the situation fairly and give me a chance to participate in good faith. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh and: just to clarify one thing on the whole "long saga of FaheyUSMC socks/meats" load of manure that Toddst1 is now shoveling, I'd like to point out MuZemike's comments (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FFaheyUSMC&action=historysubmit&diff=452316642&oldid=452309394) in my case that seem to apply to the other case, as well as the fact that even Elizium23 in that previous case admitted to not thinking that FaheyUSMC was the same as the person leaving a bunch of nastiness. Given that someone tried to frame me this weekend, and having read the history of the undeleted talk:The Dating Guy page (which Dragonfly6-7 had to unlock for me! AGAIN with the super-secret-only-if-you-were-there-or-know-the-handshake bullshit knowledge!), I think the same happened to this other person, and I think that's a horribly bad and abusive block too. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"Behavioral similarities" has another name: WP:DUCK. On a topic area where socking had been occuring, abuse had been documented, and a vendetta against one particular editor (Elizium) was noted, a new IP appears and jumps directly into the argument, making the same arguments as the last sock and badmouthing the same editor the last sock disliked. You don't need to be a particularly judgmental person to be almost deafened by the quacking in that situation, and in fact I said as much at the time, when Dragonfly unblocked him because he was "sure" he wasn't a sock. At that time, Dragonfly requested that I give both he and the IP a bit of rope, and I agreed and left a note on Dragonfly's talk saying that while the quacking was loud, the IP appeared to be trying to contribute mostly calmly and I was content to watch the situation develop. It turns out, the "way the situation developed" was with the IP becoming increasingly abusive in tone and increasingly paranoid in manner, throwing out accusations and refusing to compromise on the article's talk page (one highlight, as I recall, was declaring that since Elizium hadn't replied quickly, the IP was assuming he had won and could go ahead and implement his favored content).

So, let's review. We have an IP that was blocked for very obvious quacking, unblocked with Dragonfly's assurances that he wasn't a sock and Dragonfly would keep him under control, who proceeded to lose control, was re-blocked for quacking and disruption, and was unblocked by Dragonfly because he hadn't given permission for the block. And now, we have the IP here on ANI, throwing out wild accusations of conspiracy, people trying to railroad him, and people harassing him (for what gain, I remain unclear). An IP who, when blocked, either socks or meatpuppets to insult people peripherally involved in the situation and posts here increasingly nonsensical commentary demanding that, when we hear quacking, we conclude it must be a zebra, not a duck.

And...people are arguing that these blocks weren't needed to prevent disruption? I started off willing to assume good faith of the IP, but nothing he's done since then has given any evidence that he's here to contribute in a non-fighty manner, and I don't see either of the blocks as having taken any leap larger than a common-sense one in justification. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I get it Fluffernutter: you don't like me. But I don't like being lied about. So let's see: you first admit I "appeared" to be trying to work in good faith. Thanks so much for "assuming good faith." Then you ignore all the provocations and insults hurled my way, and insist I was "increasingly abusive in tone and increasingly paranoid." I'll remind you that this weekend, someone tried to frame me by placing a bunch of abuse while I wasn't around and was blocked. I think perhaps a little paranoia on my side may be justified by now. As for the rest, you insist that "since Elizium hadn't replied quickly", I was "assuming I had won." In actual fact it was two days later that I posted my comment, and it was if anything an expression of frustration at Elizium's never bothering to so much as acknowledge the prior point that I had made. I was, if you will remember, still under my agreement with Dragonfly6-7 and I was not going to "implement my favored content" or edit that article page in any way. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Also: "An IP who, when blocked, either socks or meatpuppets to insult people peripherally involved in the situation" - I'm nothing of the sort. I'll say it again: I was NOT the person doing that. I spent that entire day from 10am until getting home late at night at my girlfriend's church festival. I have NOTHING to gain by doing something like that even if I knew how. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You say "for what gain, I remain unclear." How about this "gain"? (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:OWN) From what I understand after, again, reading the history (even the stuff that had to be restored from being deleted that I could not see when I came here because it was deleted), the previous argument went about halfway. FaheyUSMC and Agent86 along with someone else were opposed primarily by Elizium23 on the Talk:The Dating Guy page (http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:The_Dating_Guy). Agent86 was driven away from that talk page or gave up in disgust, and FaheyUSMC and the other person were both "blocked as sockpuppets" after someone magically appeared - much like this last weekend - leaving a bunch of profanity and attacks and vandalizing and doing stuff I'm sure I was never even able to find just by following back from that one talk page. And you wonder why after being on the receiving end of it, I smell a frame-up? Because from where I sit, it looks like one. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point out to any commenting parties that this saga has been going since before June 3, and much of the past involves the deleted article The Dating Guy. Please also see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kyphis/Archive, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/FaheyUSMC/Archive, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/FaheyUSMC, Forum thread 1, and Forum thread 2 for most of the story. 76.31.236.91 turned up within 48 hours of protection expiring on Least I Could Do and immediately accused me of edit warring on it. He seems to have a crystal clear knowledge of all kinds of policies except for the ones we've been quoting to him such as WP:RS and WP:V. Elizium23 (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ahem. Once again: I was "being bold" and following the "Bold, Revert, Discuss Cycle." I'm not "new" to wikipedia as in never having seen it before, but I also have never bothered to edit often enough to want to have an account or waste much time with it. I know of the "Bold, Revert, Discuss Cycle" because of someone quoting it to me a long time ago when they undid something I tried to improve. This is the most time I've ever spent on Misplaced Pages and that's only because I can't stand to see people behaving like bullies. I didn't know the history of any of it, I had never seen the forums you link to, there was NO MENTION OF IT on the Least I Could Do talk page and everything you claimed was "already discussed" was hidden on deleted pages where I couldn't see it. I don't have "crystal clear" knowledge of anything except what I've been pointed to, what I've had explained to me, and what I've read on my own in what I again will point out is the ridiculously convoluted, disorganized, impossible to decipher MESS that is the pile of Misplaced Pages "essays", "policies", "procedures", and on and on. Hell, until a couple of days ago I didn't even know about the page I am writing on right now, and THAT only because Toddst1 started going after Dragonfly6-7 about it on Dragonfly's talk page. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Event timeline

(edit conflict) This event has gotten quite long and fairly confusing. I have organized it into a timeline to make this easier to sort through.

• In short, it appears that

1. 76.31.236.91 was bitten quite severely.
2. DragonflySixtySeven's actions were appropriate.
3. Toddst1 exhibited behavior unbecoming of an administrator and should be advised against doing similar actions in the future. Alpha Quadrant 17:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

AlphaQuadrant, can you explain on what you're basing your belief that Dragonfly's unblocks were appropriate? Completely independently of the IP's being bitten or not (and I think whether it's considered biting depends almost entirely on how loudly any particular viewer of the situation hears quacking), it appears that Dragonfly was OWNing the user and substituting his own (involved, in the sense that his actions were done out of personal concern for the IP rather than based on the IP's on-wiki behavior) judgment for that of multiple admins who blocked and declined unblocks. Is your belief that because the blocks were debatable, Dragonfly was correct to unilaterally lift them in defiance of the emergent consensus of multiple admins? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dragonfly6-7's first unblock of the user, as the blocking admin blocked him on flimsy evidence. (Only two edits by the IP editor, which added information from one of the article's sources, and a claim that there was evidence of meatpuppetry on a forum that went dormant a week before the incident even occurred.)

The IP editor was causing a fair amount of drama for several days after consensus had been reached on Talk:Least I Could Do, continuing his argument that first party sources could be used to verify otherwise unsourceable information. However, this action by Elizium23 labeling every single one of the IP's (16) comments with Template:Spa was fairly disruptive. As the IP had agreed that if he was unblocked, he would only edit User talk:DragonflySixtyseven and Talk:Least I Could Do it is reasonable to assume he wouldn't have any edits on other pages. When Dragonfly6-7 suggests that Elizum23 and Toddst1 consider apologizing for "misperceiving the situation with our IP editor here", Toddst1 replies "apologizing" for not filing a SPI sooner. (later redacted) He also states that "This disruption by the erroneously unblocked IP has gone on long enough." At this point the IP and Elizium23 were both arguing their interpretations on whether or not a first party source could be used to reference the information added, and the only disruption caused so far was Elizium23's mass tagging of all of the IP editor's comments with Template:SPA. The "evidence" Toddst1 presented in the SPI was flimsy, citing that the two consecutive edits made by the IP was "overwhelming evidence". Both of FaheyUSMC's sockpuppets and the group of 13 forum meatpuppets who attacked Elizium23 all stopped editing on, or before September 3. Yes, they were blocked, but no new socks/meats turned up. An IP editor making a two sentence addition to a paragraph, nine days after the incident, is not necessarily a sockpuppet. There would need to be a bit more substantial evidence. If the IP editor had readded the information word for word, then I would agree that it is likely the two users are the same person, however the information added was written much differently.

On the 24th when DeltaQuad reblocked the IP editor for disruption, he had stopped arguing against consensus. However the IP was violating WP:CIVIL in making personal attacks against Toddst1. However, the personal attacks were not one way, as Toddst1 accused the IP of disruptive editing and of socking, both of which lacked significant evidence, therefore violating WP:NPA. Both comments were later redacted by Toddst1, but if he felt he needed to redact them, then should he have made those comments initially? Stating that it would be naive to even consider it a coincidence suggests that Toddst1 is unwilling to even consider that he may have erred. I do not believe DeltaQuad made a bad block, but if because the personal attacks were from both editors, both editors should have been blocked. I agree that DragonflySixtyseven's second unblock was done out of process. He should have at least discussed the block with DeltaQuad before performing it, as the block had no relation with the supposed socking issue. Alpha Quadrant 17:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The IP didn't have any behavior that was blockable. S/he made two edits in succession on an article that were reverted and it was badly explained to them why it was reverted. They were then blocked. For what, exactly, i'm still not quite sure. Silverseren 17:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The IP was blocked, both times, for being a sock on the basis of behavioral evidence (i.e. quacking), not for incivility. If, indeed, the IP is a sock (and this seems to be the focal point of the debate), then it seems appropriate for them to have been blocked when they were determined to be a sock, whether they were editing at that moment or not. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. You're onto it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said below, the information 76.31.236.91 added to the article was in the citation at the bottom of the paragraph he edited. It is quite plausible that two editors would add similar information to the same article. WP:DUCK is a flimsy argument because there was a significant amount of doubt about the two editors being the same person. After the checkuser was performed it made the argument for WP:DUCK even more questionable. Alpha Quadrant 18:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention that the LICD and Dating Guy issues have been highly (internet) publicized, so it is fully plausible that there are a number of unaffiliated users who have heard about it and are trying to put it into the article, per the reference that is already in the article. Blocking them all under WP:SOCK just because of that similar, plausible edit is an obvious violation of WP:BITE. So, no, you're not onto it. Silverseren 18:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that the block was highly inappropriate and all of the blocking admins should be trouted for inappropriate process and biting the newbies. In fact, I don't see why Toddst isn't getting blocked for WP:NPA violation if you're going to block the IP for that as well. Silverseren 17:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Where's a diff for Todd's alleged personal attack? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Particularly this edit, as it is a violation of WP:NPA#WHATIS #5

I think alpha missed an important diff that went with the one s/he presented: this. When you present diffs, sometimes the context matters. Toddst1 (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh please. "But I took it back after I insulted the hell out of someone so it's ok right?" That's kindergarten level manure. I've never even seen so much as an apology from you. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

AlphaQuadrant, if you're going to step into the content dispute then you're going to have to recognize that the proposed edits contravened WP:SPS and WP:V that state that self-published sources can be used to support claims about themselves, but not about third parties. And your timeline leaves out mention of the meat puppetry going on at exactly the same time 76.31 appeared, and his appearance within 48 hours of semi-protection expiring at Least I Could Do. Elizium23 (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know WP:V well, and yes, the source provided is neither reliable or third party. All I said was that because it is present in the article it is quite possible that two different people used the same source to add similar information. As for the meatpuppetry I can find no evidence of that in the article's page history. All I see is a user who used one IP to sock. Alpha Quadrant 19:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

For evidence of meatpuppetry, I have already presented most links (right before your timeline was posted, I hope you read them) but here are some relevant ones: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive719#coordinated_attack_from_Dragoncon Forum thread 1 Forum thread 2 (note these are forum threads with three or more pages, you will want to browse all of them for direct evidence of meat pupetry coordination, harrassment and attempted WP:OUTING. See also the three sockpuppet investigations. Also, protection and patrol log for "The Dating Guy" and protection log for "Least I Could Do" show that the following admins agreed that the material being added was disruptive: Toddst1 (talk · contribs), Barek (talk · contribs), Cirt (talk · contribs), HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs). Elizium23 (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

And I disagree on the question of whether it violated either of those. As did a number of other editors, one of whom had the following to say regarding your conduct long before I was even here, Elizium23: (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AThe_Dating_Guy&action=historysubmit&diff=448158277&oldid=448149545) So apparently I'm not the only person by any stretch who wonders about your competence and thinks you play around violating policies. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

And that's exactly the kind of bullshit accusation that got dragged into ANI before, and you still haven't provided any proof - diffs or GTFO. Elizium23 (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to provide diffs and count the number of times you reverted that page as Agent86 mentions. Unfortunately, someone DELETED THAT PAGE and so I can't do that because I can't see it, not being a member of the secret-handshake club. As for the rest of the incivility, your edits speak for themselves but I'll give you a few:

1. - (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Least_I_Could_Do&diff=prev&oldid=450533861) this is just freaking rude. Especially since you had obviously read my talk page and KNEW I was under an agreement only to edit on that talk page and Dragonfly6-7's talk page.
2. - (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Least_I_Could_Do&action=history) If I understand what an edit war is correctly, and I think I do, you are engaged in one long before I ever came along.
3. - (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Least_I_Could_Do&diff=next&oldid=450567506) Dragonfly6-7 asked you to calm down and apologize. You were silent, Toddst1 responded by posting a major insult instead.

Do you really want more? 76.31.236.91 (talk) 20:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think a few demotions are in order. From what I understand:

1. The IP was unfairly blocked TWICE, due to simply having supposed similarities in behavior to a sockpuppeteer. The block did not have enough evidence to support it, as just because two edits were in the same behavior as a sockpuppeteer, does not mean that they are sockpuppets.

   This is why blocks should not even be placed in the first place without sufficient evidence. (Even DeltaQuad should have enough sense to have evidence like that)

2. DS here apparently was trying to help the IP editor in question. At this point, I am actually taking DS's side here.
3. DS does not seem to be wheel warring, because the IP agreed to editing only the articles talk page and DS' talk page. (This of course, also includes the IPs own talk page)

The real problematic admin here seems to be Toddst1 (talk · contribs), as Toddst1 reverted this unblock request here, saying it was inappropriate use of unlock requests, while from what I see, it is NOT inappropriate use. They couldn't have abused the unblock template either, as two times is NOT abuse. This is why we usually warn four times, and block the fifth violation, not the second.

DeltaQuad also blocked inappropriately, as I do not see any vandalism edits, and there is also a difference between sockpuppetry and making edits in a similar behavior to a sockpuppeteer.

Toddst1 inappropriately protected the users talk page, when he also blocked the IP that made the "if you hadent already figured it out" section. We do not do such protections on an IP talk page, as that also obviously prevents the IP of whom that talk page is for from responding.

Elizium23 (talk · contribs) and EdJohnston (talk · contribs) do not seem to be problematic here, as they are being nice to the IP, and Elizium23 did not post anymore on the IP talk page, except for one Level 1 warning. This "dont post here please" request was indeed made by that IP editor, and Elizium23 followed it to the dot.

Basically, there are a few admins involved that should be demoted, or at least warned, and it seems DS had a good reason when unblocking. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Elizium23 did not, in fact, pay attention to the request and instead dumped a comment on me again later. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 20:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

There was sufficient evidence, LikeLakers2. The blocking admins and the admins who declined the unblock requests clearly saw it. Fine, the IP may or may not be a sockpuppet per CU evidence, but I believed 100% that he/she was a sock based on behavioral evidence and thus I declined the first unblock request. A personal-attack-laden unblock request is subject to removal by anyone, DS clearly wheel-warred, and most of your arguments are incorrect. Do you need to re-familiarize yourself with policies? Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No, as I understand policies well. DS did NOT wheel war, as the IP clearly agreed to a proposal DS made, and DS clearly said that if the IP steps out of those bounds, he would block him himself. This does not seem to constitute Wheel warring. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

And I always say that a few admins all believing something is this or that is nothing to me. You do realise that group of admins could be all 848 of them, and they could be completely wrong, correct? LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

And may I add that, even if you are correct, Eagles247, that there is still inappropriate use of admin powers by people that are not DS? LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 20:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

<DeltaQuad> LikeLakers2-1: I didn't block him as a scok FYI

Just saying. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 20:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I know that... Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

DS does not own the blocking rights to the IP. Any admin who sees fit to block will do so. Your assumption that individual admins do not do any research when blocking or declining unblock requests and just go with the "herd" is incorrect. Was it inappropriate for Toddst1 to revert an unblock request with a reference to admins as Nazis? Or was it inappropriate for DeltaQuad to block for valid non-sockpuppetry-related, but disruptive, reasons? No, DS was acting in a correct manner by unblocking twice without discussion with the blocking admin, right? Mind you, I like DS, but I feel he went a bit too far here. I suggest no action be taken here. Let the IP stay unblocked for the time being, and if he/she acts up, we can just block him/her again for non-controversial reasons. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The Sock Uncertainty Principle, and other ramblings

All models are wrong. Some models are useful. -George Box, statistician

The fallacy of the above discussion is much of it hinges on whether a user is a sock or not. This is a poor model, as we can't actually know whether they are or not. Can there be any doubt that some socks escape detection, or that some nonsocks get unfairly blocked? Since certainty is impossible, resolving that issue is moot. Therefore a probability model is superior; we should act in a way that simultaneously considers both possibilities. My first suggestion is that discussion of whether ip76 is a sock or whether the block was "fair" is moot; they're not blocked now and not mucking up the article in question.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. -Creepy mirror sunglasses prison guard, Cool Hand Luke.

As a nonadmin I appreciate DS's intent. There is a WP caste system and IPs are often treated poorly, and AGF is an important component to what makes WP that work. Unfortunately, their execution faltered. While sockedness is subject to uncertainty, the WP pillars are not, and one of them is WP:Consensus. Regardless of whether they are right about the ip's sockedness, their combative tone -- e.g. "stupid, stupid," "meta arguments" escalated the situation rather than calming it. Independent action contrary to admin consensus based on IRC information is a really bad idea. By trying to bludgeon their point of view through assertion rather then gentle persuasion, they contributed to an us vs. them mentality which caught ip76 in the crossfire. A "look, guys, I've talked to this guy on IRC, let's give him a chance" approach is more likely to bring consensus than a confrontation. (One option would have been to reach consensus on upblocking the talk page to let the ip make their own case.) Furthermore, modeling calm civil behavior to/for the ip would encourage him to adopt a similar manner. (e.g. I think the other admins have made a mistake, please stay calm while I try to reach consensus).

Do or do not. There is no try. -Yoda, Star Wars Jedi Master

While efficacy requires admins frequently act quickly and independently, gray area cases require WP to act as a community, not individual agents. I don't know if the "unblocking with restrictions monitored by a single admin" thing is a common practice, but it's a bad idea. Block the editor or unblock. It juvenilizes the restricted editor, requiring them to run to Momma to ask permission to do this or do that, and it provides them with "admin approval" for actions they take. If an editor is not responsible enough to use the unblocked editing privilege wisely, they shouldn't be unblocked in the first place.

Short cuts make long delays -Some hobbit, Fellowship of the Ring

While I understand the frustration of editor(s) repeatedly inserting the same piece of contested text in an article, and the need for admins to accomplish tasks quickly, once consensus isn't evident, slowing down and being more explicit and explanatory is appropriate. While it's a good shorthand to use terms like DUCK initially, further conversation should more respectful on the probabilistic nonsock ip76. A quick response which "saves time" by producing a contrary quick response doesn't really save time in the long run. Clearly there is a history here (including a deleted page) which could/should be explained to try to bring everyone to a common understanding. Gerardw (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

1. - The question of whether the block is "fair" is not moot. I currently believe, based on what I have seen, the history I have read, and based on his own activities ("diffs" provided quite thoroughly above) that Toddst1's behavior violates WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE, and WP:AGF (and if anyone knows of any others, please let me know, as I am sure I don't know half of the complete mess that comprises "policies", "essays", "procedures" and the other godawful gobblygook that may be involved and impossible to find on wikipedia). It is as another person said "conduct unbecoming an admin" and if I don't speak up now he'll just keep doing it to anyone else he feels like doing it to. By his own words (again linked above), he will not admit a single thing he did wrong. This is a problem.
2. - When I talked with Dragonfly6-7, the impression I got from him is that now, or in the past, an area-specific unblock where I was limited to only editing a few places was considered normal because it would allow me to prove I was acting in good faith, being honest and staying within the terms of the agreement I had made. If this isn't the case, I have no idea. The term "probation" was used at one point or another. So I tried it. I didn't expect the horrible treatment I would receive from Elizium23 and Toddst1 and if I had known it would be that way, I wouldn't have bothered. I think that on the average, at least, I proved that I am honest, that I am acting In Good Faith, and that I stay within the limits of any agreement I make when I could easily have not done so.
3. - Honestly, you people talk in such a damn alphabet soup that it's impossible to make sense of what you are saying half the time without consulting someone on IRC and having them spend 20 minutes explain it. FFS (yeah I at least know that acronym and I'm sure you do too) would it kill you to speak in plain english? It's like the old joke about the prisoners who know all the jokes by heart they just call them out by number until one day the new guy shouts "5" and nobody laughs. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's a couple more. WALLS & TLDR. Honestly, you aren't helping DS or yourself at this point. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

tl;dr version just for you, the stuck up jerk who can't understand multisyllabic conversation. Toddst1 acted the jerk. Mentorships and probation agreements are common. Wikipedians need to relearn the concept of speaking english. Oh and IPs are tired of assholes like you treating us as third class wikipedians. Signed, Steve. 107.33.224.12 (talk)

Spoken like a true "drive-by". This, along with your frivolous MFD. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who read and attempted to send talk page mail as an IP recently: IPs are treated like shit and Baseball Bugs has just demonstrated that by assuming that Steve is a "drive by" because he signed as an IP. Assume good faith, people! Now — let's get rid of the underlying problem, which is the fact that IP editing is allowed at all. Sign In To Edit. Carrite (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a death pact...and the IP 76.31.x.x had begun to rant the same stuff repeatedly in long posts which is why I left a short recommendation. The IP 107.33.x.x...I wouldn't even consider a third class Wikipedian. He's here to troll. Why would one extend good faith to someone who left a post like that?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Complaint about 2 editors

Hi Admin,

I would like to complain about Jasper Deng and ConcernedVancouverite and their behaviour, culminating in Jasper Deng accusing me of “sockpupperty”. That is a very serious accusation, according to Misplaced Pages policy and one not to take lightly, so I filed a compliant after carefully reading and researching.

In my opinion they:

• 1) are bullies
• 2) tagging too fast to possibly "fast track" their way to Admin
• 3) accused me of disruptive editing
• 4) accused me of canvassing
• 5) nominated my talk page for deletion when all can see it's just a draft of an article
• 6) making me feel small about my English
• exhibit competitive behaviour toward me like it's a competitive sport who can tag the articles I edit for something first (which is rife if you look at my talkpage)
• 7)accused me of sockpupperty

1) An editor believes I am being bullied: ConcernedVancouverite and Jasper Deng are bullying me because I am a newbie and English is not my first language and they have more power over me with editing. I am trying my hardest to do edit Misplaced Pages articles within the guidelines and I really would like to get those articles correct before I move on. They quickly tag the articles I edit and create for deletion and mow my comments down or ignore my comments when I ask for help on making the article better and more notable.

2) Another editor complained that "he's tagging a little too fast" before nominating it for deletion

An editor believes that that they want to "fast track" their editing power to Admin and are ”hit and run tagging “.

3) Jasper Deng accused me of "disruptive editing" - I didn't correctly make my point as English is not my first language, and I was merely trying to correct an article so that it reads correctly (I think the page wouldn’t save at the time also). Jasper Deng says "it would be very unfortunate if we had to block you from editing because of this" implying that he will block me from Misplaced Pages. I have never encountered that type of behavior in my life before this. "Please do not create articles that are about non-notable people or things" - I did not - I am trying to make wikipedia as encyclopedic as possible and I am asking for assistance and help. I have referenced and cited more than for example http://en.wikipedia.org/Vikki_Ziegler, but Jasper Deng or ConcernedVancouverite did not put a "notability" tag on this article and it's been around since 2008 with 10 cites and they are not even referenced properly.

4) ConcernedVancouverite accused me of "canvassing" as ConcernedVancouverite stated: I am definitely not. Since when does "I would really like to get those articles correct before I move on" constitute canvassing? Another editor agrees with my point

I am merely asking the editor's opinion, not using jargon which will sway the editors. Since when does seeking aid (not swinging votes and consensus!) a no-no? "Your posts here are disruptive" says an editor and “you are making an exhibition of his contribs”.

ConcernedVancouverite and Jasper Deng's flag or banner on my page is a black mark and I am upset - they should have explained to me first, should have given me a warning or something rather than rushing head on and tagging.

5) This was my personal draft page nominated for deletion by Jasper Deng But it was a draft and another editor agrees I have a limited amount on the computer and had more pressing issues to deal with regarding research for editing Misplaced Pages articles, rather than researching how to save my draft in another location, but I will research that as soon as I am finished here.

6) Then ConcernedVancouverite said "it is not so obvious that Domenico's first language is not English", when I have said it in my previous posts I posted to another editor. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adam_Schuck In this instance, ConcernedVancouverite picked me out on a gramatical error. Regarding this, I meant "comments on" instead of "re-affirmed" and that's that only line he commented on, not my pleading for assistance.

7) Then Jasper Deng accused of "sockpupperty". It is a very serious accusation. and that is the last straw. Then I made a compliant. Can you look at the IP addresses in the log please for J2theso? I am not J2theso and have never been J2theso. I reside in the USA, in NYC. If the IP address has come from anywhere else i.e. another state or another country, then it will prove that I am not a sockpuppet and that Jasper Deng's claims are false and he should be that one who should apologise and refrain from commenting. He says that he has been editing wikipedia articles for a long time, should he not pick on someone who has a little bit more experience than me?

By the way, another editor previously said that he was "too biased" of this Being Born Again Couture article to edit it (I can’t find the reference to cite it and I‘ve been looking for 50 minutes) written up in his previous comments, and much later he went onto the talk page of BBAC and said “delete” in a bulleted list comment on the BBAC article: .

I have thought about this and there is a problem with Jasper Deng and ConcernedVancouverite’s contributions: they make a lot of contributions and edits and so consensus is swung in their favour because they are the “voice” of the people, just there 2 people. “Consensus” will never be reached – 3 or 4 people around at the time will decide on deleting or keeping the articles, since the majority of people will never get involved in any AFD discussion because they are too tired/scared that their opinion will be bulldozed.

Please reprimand ConcernedVancouverite and Jasper Deng for these reasons and take the black marks out of my page please.

Thank you.

Domenico.y (talk) 05:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

Have you notified ConcernedVancouverite and Jasper Deng? You need to post {{subst:ANI-notice}} on their talk pages not here. Nil Einne (talk)

As a general comment, there's no real such thing as 'black marks' on your page. The primary purpose of message warnings is to ensure you are aware of our policies and understand the consequences and inform you of anything that requires your attention. You are free to remove most messages from your user talk page, whether they are deserved or relevent or not, although archiving is preferred, see WP:UP#CMT. (Do note this doesn't include ongoing MFD tags like on your previous user page (now moved to a subpage by me).) Previous messages and warnings themselves will not count against you other then implying you are aware of our policies and guidelines, as well as the possibility of being blocked for certain behaviour, although the behaviour that lead up to the message or warning may be scrutinised. Nil Einne (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nil Einne, I have just notified the users in question, thank you. I will see WP:UP#CMT. Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) Domenico.y —Preceding undated comment added 07:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC).

I should like to reiterate some of the concerns mentioned. Having first "met" Domenico.y via WP:RFF a few weeks ago upon reviewing a couple of the articles he created, please note that I have no former knowledge of the subjects, and no COI; generally I have no view on the keep/delete issue, articles can be improved to standards after AfD, whereas hounded contributors do not tend to return.

There is a history of events resulting from Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) and ConcernedVancouverite (talk · contribs) which I saw fit to challenge and engage in. These include:

• Several AfD nominations (though within Wiki policy)
• AfD of "draft" on userpage, when moving to a sandbox would have helped - no AGF.
• Disruptive Edits Warning - no AGF.
• Canvassing Warning - false claim imo - no AGF.
• Undid a barnstar which was clearly placed accidentally on the wrong (his own) talk page with "WikiLove" and accusational edit summary left - no AGF.
• It was clear to me from day one that Domenico.y is not a native-English user, and various actions seem to treat him more like a "retard" than non-English editor - no AGF, very condescending attitudes.
• Accused of sock puppetry based on ONE post - no AGF, no justification - also a COI as accuser of socks filed AfD that he seeks to defend.
• These continued reprisals were almost tag-team or synchronised - no apologies for their mistakes, just continued challenges.
• Regardless of if Domenico.y's articles appear "promotional" or COI, there has been no support, no AGF, no attempt to work with him, apart from myself, and as I made clear in earlier RFF replies, I have no knowledge or interest in the fashion industry to aid in the development of articles.

I find the situation paramount to bullying, hounding, and severe levels of WP:BITE. The candor from those two, particularly Jasper Deng, who is clearly an "admin wannabe" and persists in attempting to stave off my defence of Domenico.y via my talk page, denies that he is doing anything wrong and makes cliché "NPA" remarks, when his entire "campaign" against Domenico.y come across as one big PA in itself. I feel it necessary to support this ANI, before the accused post a rebuttal, and once again try to take advantage of Domenico.y's inexperience. This pair should know better than Domenico.y, given their involvement in !admin-tool duties. I do not pertain to be "perfect" and am often aggressive in condemning their behaviour, but as far as this case goes, I feel it is a clear cut example of poor communication skills, lack of AGF, and selective abuse of guidelines to favour (advocate) backing their behaviour whilst belittling Domenico.y due to his lack of guideline knowledge.

Ma®©usBritish  08:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

MarcusBritish - when one SPA makes another, similar comment, there is a pretty big connection. But I really dislike you accusing me of a campaign against Domenico.y, which is clearly something that hasn't happened. But Domenico.y needs more help than most new editors and I'm backing off here.Jasper Deng (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

After taking a look through all this, there are a lot of issues here, but the two most obvious are (1) Jasper and ConcernedVancouverite need to leave Domenico.y alone, starting now; and (2) someone needs to help guide Domenico.y in the right direction. I'll take care of #1 right now. Marcus, would you be willing to spend some time on #2? 28bytes (talk) 09:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree to this.Jasper Deng (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you proposing a formal interaction ban? VanIsaac_WS 09:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I think politely asking them to give this editor some space should be sufficient. 28bytes (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep.Jasper Deng (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been since the RFF, and on his talk page - I usually point to the right guidelines and policies, and copy-edit, but as I said above, not having interests in the articles he is writing about, I can't contribute/research them, Domenico.y seems to have the knowledge, but really it is a matter of notability, reliable sources, and non-COI neutrality to make sure the articles meet standards, and avoid AfD issues. Clearly Domenico.y is acting in good faith and keen to proceed, and I think it best he be allowed to work on articles in his own userpace/sandbox, to go via AFC or RFF, and take a gentler approach to creating new articles, whilst he establishes a sounder grasp of guidelines via editing, discussions and general wiki involvement - by editing articles that relate to what he wants to write about, he will get a better feel of what is good, acceptable, reliable, etc and work similar styles into his own drafts. I certainly don't mind answering his questions, giving general feedback, or doing a copy-edit/cite-check now and then though, but I don't want to be "involved" in creating articles on fashion, as it's not my thing. If that would appease the situation, it's the best I can do. I think the other 2 editors need to take him off their watchlist and let alone - now this has matter has been dragged through AFD, talkpages and ANI it is getting too much attention - Domenico'y wants support, not scrutiny - we need to make him aware of where that support is and how to use it effectively. Only then does he stand a chance of enjoying what wiki can offer him, and allow his independent editing to be accepted. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish  09:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a case of a strongly conflicted new editor who is friends with the subjects of the articles not enjoying having those articles edited by others to reduce their promotional nature. My only actions on the Davina Reichman article which was created on December 28, 2010 was tagging it with a notability tag on September 25, 2011 - a normal quality control practice . Later on September 27, 2011 I removed a BLP claim that did not match what it was citing - once again a normal quality control practice. Similarly on the Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show article which was created on March 12, 2011 my only original editing action was to PROD it and remove one entirely uncited section on September 24, 2011 - another normal quality control practice. After that article was deproded by Domenico when he blanked the page, an admin brought it to AfD. I then !voted on the AfD which had been started by that admin here and later made a comment and struck out a double !vote by Domenico here - which are both normal practices on an AfD. I had much more involvement with the Adam Schuck article, which I initially nominated for speedy, as it did not make plausible claims of notability. I nominated it only after attempting to find sources and when the bulk of what I turned up was just social media passing mentions and social media profiles I nominated it for speedy deletion based upon my own research combined with the lack of any plausible claims in the article. My research that I had completed is detailed on the now current AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Adam_Schuck. So in two of the three cases where I have been attacked numerous times the claims of either bullying or tagging too fast are entirely baseless. Yet I received regular attacks for the same such as the editing notes (which quite frankly should be removed by an admin for their inappropriate attack nature) here and . While I can recognize there may be differing views on the Schuck article content, the regular personal attacks and canvassing are really not appropriate in my opinion. I will refrain from commenting on Domenico.y's talk page for now, but will continue to follow-up on the pending AfD discussions, which would be normal practice. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The grounds for accusing Domenico.y of COI are unsupported, to the best of my knowledge. He has not identified himself as being affiliated in any way with the articles in question. You simply "assumed" he was Australian because the majority of his edits are to Australian BLPs and events - yet he has identified a) his first language is a non-English based one, b) he resides in NYC, US. You need to take caution not to persecute editors for COI without solid proof that there are such conflicts - people do have and develop strong interests in things. As for "promotional nature" - again, I disagree and it is you who is pursuing Domenico.y based on your beliefs rather than any solid facts. Given his non-native use of English, the tone of articles is more likely due to difficulty in his wording than any desire to advertise, and you would do right to AGF than stereotype the tone of articles against contributing editors. Ma®©usBritish  16:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Domenico.y has reverted my !vote and Kudpung's !vote at the AfD for Davina Reichman. Is this allowed? Chillllls (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't. However, admin Floquenbeam has already corrected the removal. I'll presume there are now enough eyes on the matter to preclude a repetition. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually the COI case is pretty clear as follows: This promo photo of Davina Reichman was uploaded by Domenic.y and states, "I Davina Reichman created this work entirely by myself." Additionally this promo photo of Davina Reichman which is attributed to Domenico Yousef was uploaded by Domenico.y. Additionally, in this diff Domenico.y stated as point #7, "...as I have seen Schuck's EMG Award with my own eyes." Additionally there is a clear relationship between Reichman and Schuck and Domenic, but the evidence of that is on another website so I will not post direct links here to avoid outing beyond the content posted on Misplaced Pages by the user in question. It is fairly clearly a COI. On a separate note I notice that since this AN/I has been in progress Domenico.y has continued to edit inappropriately and has been warned and communicated with by several other editors such as these: Edit warring warning from Floquenbeam , edit warring warning from Off2riorob . I think part of the AN/I closure in addition to Jasper and I agreeing to not communicate with him on his talk page should include Domenico.y being banned from editing those conflicted articles until he learns the ropes of Wiki and how a conflicted editor can and should interact with the community. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Marcus now agrees that Domenico.y has a COI as per his post here . Since it is relevant to this discussion, I thought it would be important to provide the diff to make sure others who are just reading this discussion are aware that Marcus has now understood the COI issue more clearly. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think your comment is a damned impertinence. How dare you accuse me of "agreeing" with anyone - I made efforts to search and confirm or disprove any COI, and happened to come across a link - that they were in the same class in Uni - hardly bedfellows. You were making guesses, and casting aspersions, so don't try to wrangle your way out of your unjustifed behaviour with "see, I was right" malarkey or hide behind my methods. In this day and age we don't cast guilt without proof - you did. As such, I support the proposal below. Ma®©usBritish  23:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Also going to add that your request that he be subject banned is further tripe, which would effectively have Domenico leave Wiki for good, because he only has one subject on interest, at present. As with any author of a new article it is respectful to give them room to develop the content with guidance. Not let them donate the ingredients but not bake the cake. The entire proposition is self-righteous nonsense, which I oppose strongly, and consider as further biting also - newbies aren't going to learn the ropes if you make them stop working on articles that they are interested in, are they? Logic is a virtue - use it. Ma®©usBritish  00:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Neither Jasper Deng nor ConcernedVancouverite understand what travesties they have committed, so it is time to escalate. I propose a 1 month interaction ban between Jasper Deng and ConcernedVancouverite against Domenico.y; violation of this ban will lead to a block for the duration of the ban or 2 weeks, whichever is longer.

Moreover, I am personally admonishing Jasper Deng and ConcernedVancouverite for excessively poor treatment towards a newcomer. You both know better than to hound and stalk like that, but neither of you took any effort to stop and think about any ramifications of your actions toward Domenico.y. Do not do that again, either of you! –MuZemike 02:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban. I'm not familiar with ConcernedVancouverite, but I know Jasper Deng has a long history of biting users and assuming bad faith. I'd also propose, at least in Jasper's case, a topic ban from areas on Misplaced Pages in which he could bite other new users, such as the help desk, as well as reverting edits that aren't considered obvious vandalism. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

  Interesting suggestion Eagles247 - I'd just suggested the exact opposite. The fact is that Jasper does need to improve his work with other users and so I suggested that he did a little work on the help desk whilst focussing on not biting - seeing things from the new users point of view. He's going to come up against new users pretty much anywhere he works and I think it would be better to work on improving his "customer service" rather than trying to limit the places he can cause damage. Worm · (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

  Worm, this is not new behavior for Jasper. He's bitten many editors over the past few months and has been warned about it. See User_talk:Jasper_Deng/Archive_7#Talkpage warning, User_talk:Jasper_Deng/Archive_7#Accusation of Sock Puppetry, User_talk:Jasper_Deng/Archive_7#Not happy, User_talk:Jasper_Deng/Archive_5#June 2011. Yet the behavior still continues, even though, as my June 2011 warning to him above shows, he's had more than three months to practice not biting editors and the result is still the same. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

  I've seen those, 28bytes mentioned that I should peruse Jasper's archives when he asked me to lend a hand mentoring. However, I haven't seen specific suggestions that he works on his people skills - rather that he should "stop biting". Effectively, we're telling him not to do single things one at a time - banning him from more and more areas is only moving the problem around, not dealing with the actual issue. Were I less busy, I'd suggest that I could monitor everything he did on the helpdesk, but I know I don't have the time for that. I think that suggesting he works in an area with a specific task in his head ("be helpful, see things from their pov") might be useful in helping learn to interact without biting. I know there's a NIMBY element, but where do you suggest that he does work if we were to ban him from anywhere he might interact with a new user? Worm · (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

  Maybe content writing? Looking over his contributions, it seems the only time he has ever edited an article is when he reverts another user's edit (vandalism or not), but I've never seen him actually sit down and work on an article. Could be worth a shot. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I opposed being lumped together and being blamed for actions of another editor I have no connection with, and would request specific diffs to support the claims made against me such as:

• AfD of "draft" on userpage, when moving to a sandbox would have helped - no AGF.
• Disruptive Edits Warning - no AGF.
• Undid a barnstar which was clearly placed accidentally on the wrong (his own) talk page with "WikiLove" and accusational edit summary left - no AGF.
• ...various actions seem to treat him more like a "retard" than non-English editor - no AGF, very condescending attitudes.
• Accused of sock puppetry based on ONE post - no AGF, no justification - also a COI as accuser of socks filed AfD that he seeks to defend.

My read is that the bulk of the complaint actions were not based upon my edits and that I am being unfairly accused of such actions. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(Non-admin observation) I agree with ConcernedVancouverite here. I have had many indirect dealings with the user in the past when dealing with new editors and new editor contributions, and have not found any WP:BITE issues. This seems to be one experienced editor being BITEy with a new editor, and another experienced editor interacting with the same new editor at the same time in a manner which would not normally be considered improper (i.e. properly tagging, removing improper content, executing normal AFD etiquette, and informing the new editor in question of the user's concerns). Whether or not Jasper was acting improperly, the interactions between Jasper and Domenico.y and the interactions between CV and Domenico.y should be reviewed seperately. It makes no sense to judge one of these editors based on the other editor's behaviour. Singularity42 (talk) 03:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The ban is a moot point since I pretty much self-interaction-banned myself from Domenico.y. This self-ban may be enforced as MuZemike describes above.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support - though I feel Jasper deserves twice as long as ConcernedVancouverite, but in the end both were rude, aggressive and more to the point have not apologised for their conduct to the person they were distressing. As for Jasper, there's no way he should be granted Admin, after this conduct, imo, at least not for a long time yet - I feel if I had not interjected, this pair would have chased Domenico right off Wiki, and kept it hush. Abhorrent behaviour as noted by MuZemike. I didn't want to push the matter this far, but seeing as it's been done I stand by it- and the defence of CV is plain wiki-lawyering, imo. Ma®©usBritish  23:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

MASS-scale ban evasion

Ladies, gentlemen, I would sincerely like to know what Misplaced Pages is going to do about the banned User:Brunodam and his articles. Quite simply, this fellow has figured out that if he edits an existing article, he will be reverted easily, but if he creates a new article, specifically named, conceived and organized so as to promote (unbelievably offensive racist) POV - an AfD needs to be posted! And if these obscure pamphlet-articles are not deleted, then otehr Wikipedians (i.e. me!) have to go around rewriting the nonsense. The articles are obscure and noone edits them otherwise, leaving these unbelievable pamphlets about (quote) "fanatical Slavic mobs" floating about our project. Frankly, I just read some of his stuff: now I'm simply enraged and want to know why these articles. i.e. sock edits(!), are not deleted on sight?? No Wikipedian should have to go around cleaning these articles-up essentially on the demand of some banned sock. The next step for me is to start going around reverting sock edits on those articles - i.e. blanking them almost completely.

In addition to the other articles and socks I found there's User:Ideanoise, the purpose of whom in life seems to have been to write-up Italian irredentism in Dalmatia (irredentism, i.e. restoring rightfully Italian lands to their true masters, is User:Brunodam's hobby) --DIREKTOR 06:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Brunodam isn't WP:BANned, just indef-blocked. Maybe an actual ban would be the best solution here? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It's always been my understanding that indef blocks that are then evaded by massive, persistent sockpuppetry automatically amount to indef bans after a while. What happened to good ol' "a ban is a block that no admin would ever overturn"? In any case, for the purposes of handling CSD#G5 the distinction is immaterial. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

In practice, that is usually the case. However, an actual ban carries more bureaucratic weight, in my opinion. Can't hurt, either. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Surely if we've got an indef-blocked user creating POV articles in such an obvious manner to disrupt Misplaced Pages's deletion process (by having a week of AfD discussion), there's two possible solutions: we could have a proper community ban (which, if the facts are as the opening poster suggests, would pass with ease and effectively be a nail in the coffin) or just have admins doing WP:IAR deletions per WP:POINT/WP:GAME. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The old-timey de facto type of ban apparently has not survived general community suspicion of how that will be interpreted by individual editors. IMO if you read through the various pages, there is a big hole where a good-faith editor defending the wiki against an obvious indefblocked prolific socker could get blocked on a 3RR vio. I'm not sure axactly how to plug the hole, but on my reading, it's there. Franamax (talk) 07:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Italian irredentism in Istria and Italian irredentism in Dalmatia seem still speedy-able, since it never had substantial content edits by any other contributors. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Done and done. We'll see what happens with them now. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

See. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

1918–1920 incidents in Split should also be speedied, since most of the non-Brunodam edits are basically the removal of the more-obviously offensive segments of his "essay". Not only that, but the events are so insignificant and obscure they probably do not meet WP:N requirements and should not stand alone but be elaborated-upon as part of a larger history article (History of Dalmatia comes to mind). I mean I'm from around there, I do know my history, and I never even heard about them.

Though I suppose the rubbish will stay now that the (ironically article-saving) AfD has been posted.

Other sock articles are Derna (Italian Province) and Italian Province of Cattaro, by Brunodam's own User:Firstpangea and User:8Magicgiven --DIREKTOR 07:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed these. --Joy (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Italian Province of Spalato by "8Magicgiven" is another, will see if there's more. --DIREKTOR 07:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Removed that, as well as Litoranea Balbia, Italian Concession of Tientsin, Misurata (Italian Province). --Joy (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• "User:RoyalY" is almost certainly Brunodam's "Maltese version", with his Italian irredentism in Malta article. --DIREKTOR 08:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• • I tagged the account more explicitly - in the future feel free to examine block log yourself and tag accordingly. The article can't be speedily deleted because of a lot of intervening history. The other one, however, Italians of Ethiopia, was only trivially adjusted by others and I removed it. On the talk page, he used yet another sockpuppet account, User:4researchvita, and signed his last comment as "B.D.". D'oh. --Joy (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Romans_in_Slovakia&diff=448866201&oldid=448363149 Can someone investigate that? --Joy (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Ditto for http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Praevalitana_%28Roman_Province%29&diff=448862935&oldid=433620746 --Joy (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ban proposal for User:Brunodam

For exhausting the community's patience with constant socking (1 2 3) and POV-pushing (for example, that described above), I propose that User:Brunodam be indefinitely banned from the project. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• I honestly thought the user was already banned (as opposed to merely indeffed). The guy has perfected block-evasion and sockpuppetry to a fine art, there must have been at least a dozen serious dozen socks by now. --DIREKTOR 07:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Dear lord. All I can say is that I strongly support this proposal. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• A no-brainer. As I said above, cases of persistent longterm sockpuppeting after an indef block should almost automatically be considered community-banned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
  • There's still a spectrum of sockpuppetry, and while this is an egrecious case there will obviously be others where it's less so. A tiny bit of formality helps to ensure that editors remain comfortable with reverting the most troublesome cases on sight. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support for reasons given by Lothar von Richthofen. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• There is some amount of input from this editor that is not egregiously slanted and useless, but that pales in comparison with this behavior where they don't appeal their block since 2008 (?!) and instead keep creating new accounts. That is unacceptable. I just re-read Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia and the end-result is indicative - Giovanni Giove and Brunodam have both deteriorated since, and while DIREKTOR (as well as Kubura) have caused significant issues, they've at least managed to keep it together. --Joy (talk) 11:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: I'd like to point out that Brunodam is already community-banned as per this discussion. — Oli Pyfan! 11:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Well. This is awkward. Ach jo, that's even better, I suppose. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh thank goodness... I thought I was getting old :D --DIREKTOR 09:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The Italian Irredentism Series.. by Brunodam

There's the Italian Province of Spalato, which imho should be speedied asap as its virtually all sock edits. There's the 1918–1920 incidents in Split article (actually "dedicated" by Brunodam to "Vituzzu beddu") that's undergoing an AfD which imo could greately benefit from input by users familiarized with this thread. And then there's the "Italian Irredentism Series" that Brutaldeluxe discovered:

• Italian irredentism in Corsica
  • quite a bit of intervening history --Joy (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Italian irredentism in Savoy
  • This one is tricky. One Brunodam sock created it, one random user undid some of the damage and tagged it, User:Charvex did some more edits but also untagged the problems without much explanation, another Brunodam sock edited it (User:GiusGar), and then other users did various minor cleanup edits. The bulk of the text still seems to be by Brunodam so I'm leaning towards CSD#G5. There is no discussion on the article's talk page. Does anyone think that anyone would still mind a speedy deletion? --Joy (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Italian irredentism in Nice
  • A lot of intervening history by a variety of editors, and has been through one AfD discussion already - hardly a speedy-deletion target. --Joy (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Italian irredentism in Malta
  • mentioned elsewhere --Joy (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Italian irredentism in Switzerland
  • Two socks contributed all content, intervening edits were trivial, the bulk of it by User:Consilinario - deleted. --Joy (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Romans in Nubia
  • Deleted, basically the entire content was contributed by User:Consilinario and User:6graytrucks, both confirmed sockpuppets of User:Brunodam, as well as User:OneDalm0 who is probably him too --Joy (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Nero expedition to Ethiopia
  • This one was also User:Consilinario and a bit of User:OneDalm0. --Joy (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The question is whether one prolific sockpuppeteer, who found a (pretty gaping) hole in the system, should essentially force enWikipedia to sport this series of offensive nationalist "Why Italy Should Annex its Surrounding Lands" pamhlets, or whether they should be reorganized, merged, renamed, or deleted. --DIREKTOR 08:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Brunodam is essentially gradually translating all the articles he has created on the Italian Misplaced Pages. He is perma-banned o'er there too. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 09:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

He is permanently banned from the Italian Misplaced Pages? Can you please post a link where this can be verified? --Joy (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I guessed it myself:

• http://it.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Speciale:Registri&page=User%3ABrunodam&type=block 22:18, 23 ago 2007 Cotton ha bloccato Brunodam per un periodo di infinito (creazione account bloccata) ‎ (Evasione del blocco: sockpuppet di utente:Bruno d'ambrosio)
• and in turn http://it.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Speciale:Registri&page=User%3ABruno%20d%27ambrosio&type=block 06:55, 22 mar 2007 Trixt ha bloccato Bruno d'ambrosio per un periodo di infinito (solo utenti anonimi, creazione account bloccata) ‎ (Minacce legali (http://it.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AUtenti_problematici&diff=7606609&oldid=7606401))

That's the equivalent of Misplaced Pages:No legal threats. --Joy (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What I wanted to do with this sub-thread is ask what people think should be done with these articles..? Do we leave them as they are? --DIREKTOR 12:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm answering those inline above. --Joy (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record, your choice up there seems very reasonable, and I agree on every point. --DIREKTOR 04:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

User:2forever

I just noticed 2forever (talk · contribs) was also blocked as a sockpuppet of Brunodam, but this had not been documented. I'm going through their user contributions now - I immediately noticed Maria Pasquinelli and removed it, but there could well be more where that came from. --Joy (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, how we have been played... Talk:Italian cultural and historic presence in Dalmatia. --Joy (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, sockpuppeteering perfected to a fine art. --DIREKTOR 04:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Ragusino overlap

While investigating User:Brunodam's sockpuppets, I ran across National Memorial Day of the Exiles and Foibe which was created by User:Nanazo, a confirmed sock of User:Ragusino. It was significantly changed by other users since, including Brunodam, so it doesn't qualify for deletion under WP:CSD#G5, but someone might wish to examine it further. --Joy (talk) 10:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Ragusino's English is noticeably worse than Brunodam's so I don't think they're one guy. Though if there's one guy that has created more socks than Brunodam its Ragusino. I'm not kidding: there were (and probably are still) dozens and dozens of Ragusino socks, all of them very obvious. But there were/are just so many its a full time job reporting them :P. As far as the article is concerned, I don't think it makes a difference. --DIREKTOR 11:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The article National Memorial Day of the Exiles and Foibe has a couple of reliable sources. The national day appears to really exist in Italy. There is a longer article on this topic in the Italian Misplaced Pages. I would not favor deleting our article, even if it was created originally by Ragusino. A patient editor could search around for more sources to balance the presentation. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, its a real national day after all. --DIREKTOR 08:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Sixtyabove4

This sockpuppet had created the article Cristoforo Ivanovich that noone else contributed to, so I removed it. --Joy (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, ya learn something new every day at wikipedia. When I saw that word "irredentism", I thought it had something to do with teeth cleansing. Then when I read the article, I was reminded of Hitler trying to glom onto every place he could think of where German is spoken (including parts of Wisconsin, perhaps). Looks like Hitler's kind of dream has never died. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Irredentism is a common word - and is part of a great many cultures - including almost every European nation, African nation, South American nation, Nort h American nation, a bunch of Australasian nations, Asian nations. And Antarctican as well (the Argentine v. Chile land claims). Did I miss any? Collect (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Not really an issue in the USA, as English is the dominant language, and we were the interlopers. The closest to it might be the encroachment of the Spanish language. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well yeah, lots of nations have "unredeemed" territories that are theirs "by right!", but few really call it "irredentism".. its an Italian term and is primarily used in that context. You have a city of some 25,000 people, and 2,083 of them Italian. Suddenly the 23,000 non-Italians find themselves under Italian military occupation, and about to be annexed into Italy, with Italian troops changing signs into Italian, forcing Italian as the official language, and preventing any non-Italians (half-dead war refugees) from entering the city so their tiny percentage does not decrease further. But nooo, its all about the "constant suffering of the poor occupation forces" and one of their guys that got killed - thats the title of the subsection, while the fact that some "few" non-Italians might have been killed when the Italian troops opened fire on crowds of people, thats not so significant, they were only Slavs.. a part of a "fanatical Slavic mob". Unbelievable stuff.. --DIREKTOR 14:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

To be more accurate: Italian troops do not occupied Split in 1918/1920: they sent one ship (the Puglia: January 12, 1919) with no more than 50 soldiers. No one changed signs into Italian in that period, but in 1941/1943. Italian wasn't the official language in 1918/1920. No one forced the non-Italians from entering the city. One non-Italian was killed between 1918/1920 by Italian troops: his name was Matej Mis (July 11, 1920).--Presbite (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong on several points, but this is not the place to start a content argument (my mistake for bringing it up of course). --DIREKTOR 18:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Ideanoise, User:OneDalm0

These two I'm not 100% sure about - asked at User talk:Shell Kinney#blocked sockpuppets of Brunodam --Joy (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleted the following articles made by OneDalm0:

• Roman expeditions to Sub-Saharan Africa
• Petru Rocca
• Italian Libya Railways
• Territorio Sahara Libico
• 1st Libyan Division Sibelle
• Ghirza

--Joy (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

User:6graytrucks

Deleted Cristofini Pietro. --Joy (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Also by this one: Lower Trajan's Wall. --Joy (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Judging by Upper Trajan's Wall, also significantly expanded by him, I don't think there are any irredentism problems in that article. Perhaps WP:IAR should be applied to this one? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 08:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Azerbaijani-American

User:Saygi1, User:Atabəy and User:5aul are attempting to restore to this article an entire paragraph speculating on what the current population of Azerbaijani-Americans is, and what the Census will report about it. This is clearly a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, but the editors have repeatedly adopted an WP:IDHT stance regarding the speculative nature of the material. (See and, in fact, the entire talk page of the article is evidence of the IDHT attitude of these POV-pushing editors, and their willingness to edit against consensus; also )

Further, in a discussion thread on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, the consensus of uninvolved editors was that my removal of the material was justified, as the sources provided (the paragraph is a veritable Potemkin Village of references) are not reliable for the purpose of establishing what the number of Azerbaijani-Americans might be, or what the census might say, and concluded that the material violated WP:SYNTHESIS. As Nuujinn wrote:

Throwing lots of weak or non-reliable sources doesn't help in terms of referencing. I haven't looked at all of the sources, but what disturbs me is that no source presented attributes a number backed up other than by a raw assertion by some individual or group. Where are these number actually coming from? Is there a study, a survey? Or it is just the case that numbers were plucked from thin air and shopped around?

(The latter appears to be the case, as the figure of 400,000 appears in all cases to originate from pro-Azerbaijani sources.)

The editors named, however, will not recognize the consensus that the material is outside of policy, and continue to restore it to the article. I am near 3RR, so I cannot revert them, and while Saygi1 was the original protector of the violating material, 5aul and now Atabəy -- both pro-Azerbaijani editors, and the latter under indefinite 1rr/week restrictions connected to the ArbCom Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 decision -- arrived to help out and prevent Saygi1 from violating 3RR.

As far as I can understand, unless there's been some kind of well-documented investigation of the issue, there's no encyclopedic need to speculate on what the current population of Azerbaijani-Americans is: we have the most recent data, and more current official data will be released when it is released, and can be added to the article at that time. We are not here to be an Azerbaijani propaganda outlet, touting an increase in Azerbaijani-Americans from the current figure of 14,000 to 400,000 (!!) Certainly there is no need for material which violates WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:RELIABLE SOURCES to be presented to the public. User:Saygi1, User:Atabəy and User:5aul need to be told to stop violating policy by restoring this material against consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

All three editors notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This same article was at issue a few days ago in another WP:AN/I thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I summarized my views on this issue at Talk:Azerbaijani American and in my response to Nuujinn at the Reliable Sources thread. The figure of 400,000 is unofficial, and merits mentioning in the article because it is based on a multitude of sources, including independent non-Azerbaijani ones, such as this. Therefore, I did partially restore the well referenced paragraph removed in a massive revert by User:Beyond My Ken, until the dispute on the talk page is concluded. In my edits, I have not violated any injunction of the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, as the restoration of material was my first edit of the article within the last week, compounded with further editing improvements to references and active participation on the Talk:Azerbaijani American throughout the week, outlining the rationale for my edits. I am not sure why User:Beyond My Ken deliberately labels me as pro-Azerbaijani when my edits in the page were constructive and neutral in every possible way.

I also moved the dispute tag to the relevant section of the article disputed by User:Beyond My Ken and others, as the rest of the material in the article does not seem to be disputed. I kindly suggest all involved editors, including those who hardly provide any rationale on the talk page but revert, to refrain from frivolous reporting and reverting of information, until the dispute is resolved on the talk page and consensus is achieved. There is a way to achieve consensus by seeking third party opinions through RFC and other due procedures. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted to a previous version of the page. "Guessing" about census data doesn't cut it, no matter how sourced those random guesses are. I have full-protected the page for 2 weeks. Open an WP:RFC or WP:3O. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Bwilkins, I actually removed the sentence on guessing about the 2010 Census results in my edit, which you reverted, and only left the part on unofficial figures. Your revert prior to closing the article removed several other references added to other undisputed parts of the article. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Too bad you hadn't been so adamant about including certain info, or else I wouldn't have had to revert to the WP:WRONGVERSION. Any changes that you introduced during your recent edits should be confirmed now on the talkpage to get WP:CONSENSUS (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

BWilkins, there was no "guessing" in the article - please see the last version of the article I edited before Beyond My Ken blindly reverted it by blanking the paragraph with 18 sources without discussing and out of simply personal issues. That's why I complained to the ANI-edit warring board about Beyond My Ken engaging in edit warring and blind reverts, and then coming to these boards to state everything and anything he can to blacken anyone who "dares" to disagree with him. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand Beyond My Ken's point. But as long as I understand, this case is not related with "Armenia-Azerbaijan 2", even if users frequently mention to Armenians and Armenia in talk pages. I've recommended User:Atabəy to avoid comparing Armenians and Armenia in irrelevant discussion. Those habits and behaviors of users misled third party users. Takabeg (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand the scope and focus of WP:ARBAA2. The case originally provided for this remedy:

Hajji Piruz and the other users placed on revert limitation in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Remedies are subject to supervised editing. They may be banned by any administrator from editing any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area should they fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in their interactions with one another concerning disputes which may arise.

This makes it clear that the case was not specifically and only about Azerbaijan and Armenia, but was instead about the general area. This remedy was superseded by a new one, which reads:

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

This drops the language naming the countries, replacing it with the more general "area of conflict", which is unfortunate, but it is still clear that what ArbCom meant by "the area of conflict" is the aforementioned "Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran". Hence, the sanctions in WP:ARBAA2 do apply to Azerbaijani-American. If you do not believe this to be the case, you can file a Request for Clarification at WP:RFAR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

May I ask a question here? As a reality check, what was the number of Azerbaijani-Americans reported in the 2000 census, and does this number coupled with whatever the estimated immigration has been in the past decade dovetail even approximately with the alleged 400,000 estimate for 2010? If it does, even approximately, then an RfC should be opened on whether the sources cited for the 400,000 figure are sufficient or not. If it doesn't, then there would be something wrong with the figure and it shouldn't be used.

If the matter is brought before the Arbitration Committee, we will discuss whether a disagreement about the number of people of Azerbaijani descent in the United States falls within the scope of editing limitations that were initially designed to deal with disputes on the other side of the planet. I would really like to think, however, that things will not come to that. I would also like to think that some of the obnoxious rhetoric employed in this discussion will not be repeated. (And I would like to think that I will win the lottery tomorrow, an event with probably about the same probability, alas.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

@NYB: According to this, from the 2000 Census, the number of people in the U.S. population born in Azerbaijan is 14,205. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

According to this, the U.S. approved 109 refugee applications from Azerbaijan in 2002, and there were 338 visa lottery winners from Azerbaijan between Dec 2003 and Dec 2008. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

One further comment: the disputes weren't really on the other side of the world, the disputes were right here on Misplaced Pages, and the same battling POVs are in play, because the same mindsets are involved (and maybe even some of the same editors, under different names, on all sides of the issues). Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's hear what the editors on the other side of the issue have to say. One question that occurs to me is whether the number of "Azerbaijani-Americans" is the same as the number of "Americans born in Azerbaijan"; I assume not, as say, a child born in the United States to two Azerbaijani immigrant parents would presumably be Azerbaijani. But it seems to me that either there would be a number of Azerbaijani-Americans (defined broadly) contained in the 2000 census results, or else there would be no comparable number expected to be reported in the 2010 census, or else the data to be reported have changed between the two censuses (in which case there would be an official source somewhere for that). Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that how one defines "Azerbaijani-American" is going to make a difference. (In fact, our article has a remaining bit of synthesis in the "demographics" section in which Census numbers are added to Homeland Security and numbers from other sources to come up with a 2000 A-A US population of 14,944.) I would doubt that official sources would want to deal with such vague categories, which is why we get "People born in Azerbaijan", a hard fact that's not further characterized. I don't think we're wrong to have an article called "Azerbaijani-Americans", but I do think that the facts presented in it should be of that variety, hard and from official (or otherwise very reliable) sources, not factoids which have been mixed up like batter and baked into a cake. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The WP:ARBAA2 is not applicable to Azerbaijani American as it does not specifically deal with any territorial or national dispute involving Armenia, Iran, Turkey and Azerbaijan on either side. The issue here is the opinion of few editors who dispute the numbers provided for an unofficial estimate of Azerbaijanis in the U.S. The problem with Census data is that the official numbers provided by the Census only estimate the number of U.S. citizens and residents from the Republic of Azerbaijan, while, in reality, an overwhelming majority of ethnic Azerbaijani speakers in the U.S. come from Iran, Russia, Turkey and other countries, and in comparison, incomers from the Republic of Azerbaijan are not in significant numbers. That is why the Census figures can not, naturally, reflect the true estimate, which opens way for the unofficial figures cited in various sources. Again, for the purpose of the article, Azerbaijani-American implies any person either born in Azerbaijan or otherwise identifying him/herself as Azerbaijani, due to linguistic, ethnic, national, etc. affiliation. This definition does not conflict with people who identify as representatives of other communities at the same time. Again, I am not sure why ArbCom injunctions are being recited here by Beyond My Ken, when the involved editors can and are discussing issues on the talk page of the article. WP:ARBAA2, or WP:ANI for that matter, should not be used as a way of enforcing certain opinion on the articles, but as a way of reinforcing sanctions for specific violations of editing policy. What are those in this case apart from a pure editorial disagreement over sources or information? Atabəy (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken - as I've stated before (for example, here ), for the Armenia-Azerbaijan ArbCom to apply, the articles have to be directly and completely relevant to both Azerbaijan and Armenia, and in this case, the article Azerbaijani American it is neither directly relevant to Armenia, nor is it really that directly related to Azerbaijan. Yes, it's about Azerbaijani people, including those born in Azerbaijan, but it is primarily about America, and them being a minority and an ethnic group in U.S., not in any other region of the world. It is not about Azerbaijan, it is not about Armenia, it is not about Turkey or Iran. It is about United States of America. Otherwise, one can claim that pages about International Monetary Fund, World Bank, FIFA, United Nations, and anything else that has Azerbaijan's membership (and incidentally, Armenia's, Turkey's and Iran's) should all be part of the ArbCom, and that's just not the case. By the way, I hope you understand that your edits of anything directly relevant to Azerbaijan and Armenia falls under the Arbcom, too, then? Now that you've read it thoroughly, you should keep it in mind (and thanks for educating others such as myself, too). I won't mind at all if you will be restricted from reverts and edit warring to once per week - I won't have to report you then like here .

Meanwhile, Newyorkbrad, the article Azerbaijani American, just like the articles Iranian American or any other hyphenated Americans articles, is not about the Census. The Census is just one of the sources that can be used - albeit the most comprehensive one. So let's not bring everything down to Census as if it's the only source that can or should be listed. The estimate 400,000 is clearly labeled as a non-Census estimate. Same like the Iranian American article where I placed references that despite the 2000 Census reporting only about 338,000 Iranian-Americans, numerous US sources place their numbers at two million. No one has challenged that or removed that, either.

Secondly, as you've correctly predicted, the 2000 US Census figures reported Americans "Americans born in Azerbaijan". Considering that far more ethnic Azerbaijanis live in other countries than in Azerbaijan (there are too many sources on this question, I am more than happy to provide them if needed), then obviously the U.S. Census figures simply can't report the true numbers (we also added to that all the citizenships received by Azerbaijanis from Azerbaijan in years 2001-2010, which adds another 10,000 or so people, to bring the total of US citizens from Azerbaijan Republic to approximately 24,377. This number does not the refugee applications or any other data. All of the numbers are straight from the Department of Homeland Security, as cited in the article).

Especially when you compare and look at the Iranian American page, and check the MIT Iranian Student Group survey (a poll or survey done by Iranian-Americans at MIT - that's a scholarly source, and no one has removed or challenged it, even Beyond My Ken who likes to challenge everything "approves"), that at least 11% of Americans from Iran are actually ethnically Azerbaijani. I inserted that source in that article, after it was cited or supported on a talk page by other active editors of that article, like Khodabende14, Alborz Fallah and Kurdo777. Since the U.S. Government (White House and State Department) say there are 2 million people from Iran (and not 338,000 that the 2000 Census reports - should we raise the same problems for the Iranian-American article like BMK is raising for Azerbaijani American?), that's some 240,000 Azerbaijani-Americans just from Iran alone. Doesn't include Azerbaijanis who came from Azerbaijan, Russia, Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, etc.

This is compounded with the problems of census undercount that are true for all ethnic and other minority groups - I've cited like a dozen high-quality sources on this subject, including three from the U.S. Census Bureau itself, one from a U.S. Senate testimony, and one from the U.S. House of Representatives. They all reveal a big problem across the board, which is applicable to all (but they don't name the Azerbaijani-Americans by name - and neither do they name 1,000 other ethnic groups in America by name, too).

Now, if you look carefully at the article version that Beyond My Ken blanked out , the 400,000 figure has well over a dozen citations (much more than needed), is available in a Google Books scholarly source, plus three (US local or state) government sources and from foreign government (such as statement from an Azerbaijani Consul General in Los Angeles, whose job is to know such things, as that's what consulates have to deal with: visas, passports, and other demographic questions all the time) and U.S. NGO organizations like AAC and USAN that were specifically chosen by the US Census Bureau for the Census 2010 partnership (to help with the census 2010), makes that estimate of 400,000 more than worthy of inclusion/retention.

So as you can see, there is plenty of evidence, direct and indirect. But more importantly - these sources and that paragraph specifically should not have been removed/blanked out by Beyond My Ken without explanation. All of the sources and the paragraph in question comply with WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE among other. It is more reliable than similar articles like Iranian American and Armenian American, for example.

And the paragraph in question does not make any predictions or speculations about the future that would violate WP:CRYSTAL as Beyond My Ken tries to allege. The admins should have restored my version and thus undone the damage that BMK has caused with his disruptive edit, which he did without any talk and discussion, whilst admitting not to be an expert on the issue. --Saygi1 (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The quality of the sources cited has been dealt with very thoroughly on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where the consensus of uninvolved editors was that they do not sufficiently support the claims made. For instance the Brooklyn Borough President, a county-level official, is cited in support of the 400,000 figure. (There are currently 3,143 counties or equivalent in the U.S., are we expecte to believe that every County Executive is an expert on ethnic demographics in the United States?) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Essentially, the argument being made here is:

1. Some ethnic groups have been shown by studies to have been undercounted (reliably sourced)
2. The census doesn't count "Azerbaijani-Americans", or American Azerbaijanis born in other countries, only Americans born in Azerbaijan (unsourced, but plausible)
3. Therefore Azerbaijani Americans must have been undercounted (synthesis, no source)
4. A number of different figures are floating around, in the neigborhood of 300,000 - 500,000, but 400,000 is often mentioned (sourced primarily but mostly indirectly to Azerbaijan-related entities, otherwise weakly sourced to entities not reliable for demographic figures; no official or intensive studies or surveys are cited)
5. Therefore, there are probably 400,000 Azerbaijani Americans in the U.S. (synthesis, unsourced)

Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

More synthesis in the article

I have posted a request that the last paragraph of the current article be deleted, on these grounds:

WP:SYNTHESIS states:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

The Demographics section of this article contains the following paragraphs:

According to the 2000 U.S. census, there were an estimated 14,205 Americans born in the Republic of Azerbaijan, out of which 5,530 were naturalized U.S. Citizens and 5,553 identified themselves as Azerbaijani in a primary or a secondary ancestry. Census 2000 did not count Azerbaijani-Americans born in countries other than the Republic of Azerbaijan.

According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in 2001-2010, a total of 9,391 people from the Republic of Azerbaijan were naturalized as U.S. citizens. The table below presents the distribution for each year between 2001 and 2010:

These statistics do not include the legal permanent residents (green card holders) who numbered 781 in 2010, refugees, legal non-immigrant aliens (temporary visitors) who numbered 4,938 in 2009, as well as a very large number of ethnic Azerbaijanis born in other countries, such as Iran, Russia, and Turkey. Thus, based only on Census 2000 and DHS data, the official estimate of the U.S. citizens born in the Republic of Azerbaijan is approximately 14,944, and the number of U.S. residents born in Azerbaijan is approximately 24,377, minus the natural decline.

The last paragraph of these is a classic case of synthesis, since none of the sources cites actually gives the numbers 14,944 or 24,337. These numbers were obtained by join A and B together to imply a conclusion C which is not mentioned by sources, which is explicitly forbidden by WP:SYNTHESIS as original research. Therefore, I request that the final paragraph of the three quoted be deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding up some numbers to reach a total is not, it seems to me, the sort of synthesis that the policy warns against. Although your concern that the 400,000 estimate may be speculative or exaggerated is a reasonable issue to raise for discussion, the figures you quote here do not seem to be reasonably subject to dispute by anyone, and hence your invocation of the policy here strikes me as hypertechnical and as detracting from the force of your earlier arguments.

A more serious concern about the paragraph you challenge is whether the emphasis on the exact numbers gives an impression of greater accuracy, to the last person, than is possible given the sizes of the numbers involved. But that probably is a nuance better suited for discussion on the article talkpage than on ANI. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Brad, I'm totally stunned by your comment that this is "hypertechnical". The paragraph I cited is a black and white example of the policy cited. Numbers from different sources (using the same? different? antithetical? methodologies) are added together to come up with figures which are mentioned in none of the sources. How can that not be a violation of WP:SYN, when it's precisely what the policy says not to do?

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

I really don't understand your take on this -- how can a policy not mean what it says? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The 2000 number and the 2001-10 numbers are both actual counts from official government statistics. It amounts (in round numbers) to "there were 15,000 Azerbaijan-born people living in the US in 2000, and another 10,000 more arrived since then, so there are about 25,000 now." The fact that the paragraph adds 15,000 and 10,000 and gets to 25,000 strikes me as not especially problematic, though of course others may disagree. As I said above, I think there are more serious issues with the paragraph, including whether there is an excess of misleadingly exact detail. Let's see what others have to say. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

To flesh out my thoughts a bit more, I would think that the policy against original research through synthesis is violated, in a fashion that should concern us, when an editor adds material to an article embodying an inference that is not present in those terms in the original sources and the accuracy of the inference could reasonably be questioned. Do you think the latter is the case here? (Not a rhetorical question—I'd like to know the specific reason you are concerned about the figures, which seem quite reasonable, as opposed to the figure you were questioning yesterday, which I had questions about too.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Brad: That the figures are the same order of magnitude as the official Census figure certainly lends them a certain believability, but that's really neither here nor there. My feelings about the numbers are pretty irrelevant -- there are many things I know as fact from personal experience, but I cannot add them to articles without a citation from a reliable source, because that what policy requires, so I go out and find a reliable source to back it up. I see no reason here that policy shouldn't be followed as well.

I believe one problem may be that you seem to be approaching these figures as pure numbers which can be manipulated in any way reasonable – in another time and place, I have indeed argued, and continue to believe, that adding up numbers is, in and of itself, not "original research" – when, in fact, they are statistics, arrived at by a complex process. As I implied in my parenthetical remark above, we have no way of knowing if the numbers that came from these various sources were produced using the same methodologies or methodologies that are antithetical, if the database the stats came from are compatible or not, etc. etc. These are significant issues when manipulating statistics, which have been completely ignored here. This, it seems to me, is an extremely good reason for the sythesis policy to apply here: we're not just adding up numbers, we're combining results from different sources as if everything else is equal about them, and we just don't know that. If someone were to do a proper meta-analysis, manipulating the figures appropirately so that they can be combined, that would certainly be usable, but having editors do it themselves, that's not good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry to butt in here, but a) isn't this a content dispute more suitable for another noticeboard and b) isn't this a case of WP:CALC? --John (talk) 05:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Need Help

Hello, I m a wiki user.There is an article on pakistani artist on "Imran Channa" which is being tagged for deletion and copy-violent which is done by one shared IP ( 182.185.234.113) ( 182.185.219.2) ( 182.185.128.145) constantly for few days. i want help from the administration for the protection of the page.. Thank u..--Artmartxx (talk) 06:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I've semi-protected and am trying to engage the IP at the talk page. Once he has explained the basis of his concerns, I may unprotect to permit him to place the tags. IPs are permitted to voice concerns with articles, and even to nominate them for deletion, but it is hard to tell at this point if this tagging is being done in good faith as his tags have included allegations of copyright violation that I have not yet been able to substantiate and he has also tagged for AfD another article. --Moonriddengirl 11:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think all the IP needs to do is be guided through the AfD process. Artmartxx, I'm disappointed that on multiple occasions you summarily removed an AfD tag without comment. I'm much more disturbed by your actions in this matter than the IP's. VanIsaac_WS 12:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Floydian's continued proud violations of WP:INCIVIL and WP:STALK

Despite being repeatedly warned on his incivility, User:Floydian has shown no interest in stopping. And despite being explicitly warned to by an administrator to avoid me, User:Floydian will not stop stalking and making personal and uncivil attacks on me wherever he follows me to. I've been very patient with this user for several months but it's now getting ridiculous.

And as you'll see below, he has no respect of administrators who disagree with him.

Starting with this user's multiple failed AfD's earlier this year that I was involved in, in which this user demonstrated some of the most egregious violations of civility I've ever seen, this user suddenly became obsessed with me, hounding me, showing up in discussions about articles that he had absolutely nothing to do with. Throughout his 7 month long obsession with me and interaction with other editors, he has demonstrated complete inability to interact properly with those he disagrees with. This list of his violations is long, but these are only the ones I've come across in just the few minutes of searching.

Incivility

• Here are just some of the amazing examples of this user's incivility at other editors and a couple to me. These are just some, starting from February into this month (September):
  

"are you fucking blind?"

"Use common fucking sense. That is a reason and an argument. Your vote is useless."

"Fucking tards"

"Way for two voters to change it to whatever the fuck they want to, because they're Admins. WHOO!"

"Its admins like you who don't pay attention to the bigger picture that make doing things take twice as long.", "Thanks for wasting time by making assumptions."

"wait...charitable? You're about as charitable as an insurance company!" , "Prove where I lied (but don't copy my post or I'll be an anal retentive prick because I have nothing better to do with my life)"

"are you really that thick?"

"This feels as fruitless as wiping a kittens nose in its pee to get it to stop peeing on the floor. If you can't be bothered to address basic points of debate, including but not limited to understanding what you yourself have posted, addressing points raised by others, and backing up your consensuses, then you are a waste of time."

Hounding and Stalking (and more incivility)

After the proud spree of incivility in the first few diffs above, Floydian began stalking me by showing up in discussions I was involved with that he had nothing to do with.. He then showed up on my talk page, again regarding a topic and discussion he had nothing to do with, and just kept on hounding and baiting me, all on my talk page. He just wouldn't go away.

In an apparent attempt to save face, the user inexplicably started an ANI against me for calling his behavior childish in the above exchange, despite him attacking me by calling me "childish" and then "thick". In that ANI, administrator Chris Cunningham/Thurmberward closed the ANI with no action but appropriately warned us to avoid each other.

Since that ANI last April, with the exception of one AfD on a road (I have a long history of strong interest in transportation articles), where user Floydian strangely attacks my "honesty" , I have managed to stay away from him. User Floydian on the other hand has repeatedly violated the administrator's notice in his own ANI and has continuously been hounding me. Just after that AfD he dropped in on Talk:News International phone hacking scandal (a topic obviously having nothing to do with roads which make up a majority of his edits) right after I made a comment there just to counter my opinion. (His opinion was almost unanimously out of line with consensus). After I made an edit related to the Hollywood Freeway chickens article , someone quickly started and AfD on it and he immediately jumped right in to advocate its deletion. (with the exception of a SPA, his opinion again was unanimously out of line with consensus).

The final straw came today after I created a stub for Hollywood Walk of Fame honoree George Hicks (broadcast journalist) where I removed a prod and began collecting citations to place in the article. Floydian jumped in out of nowhere and drops this foul language-laced attack on the article's talk page, the very first edit on it. When called on his stalking and his uncivility, his response was:

"once again you just say a bunch of nothing, and do a bunch of nothing, at the same time. What a great contributor!"

While noting that adding citations is always good to any editor, it's clear this user's sole motivation was to hound and harass me instead of improving the article. As of writing this user has made zero improvements to it. (I've made great improvements to it.) I'm tired of contributing and having to worry about his guy who is obviously monitoring my history page and has no sense of civility and boundaries, from jumping into articles I'm working on or discussions I'm involved with to throw attacks at me. My toleration for this is over. It's disruptive, immature and and at best extremely bad form.

Conclusion

What's terrible about his editor is that he thinks his uncivil behavior is perfectly fine.

For the first two diffs above, when called on his incivility by several users , he not only didn't apologize but actually doubled down. His response was most telling about his view of Misplaced Pages's civility policies.

And he stuck to his proclamation.

As administrator User:Fastily stated about his incivility in Floydian's failed RfA (have a read, it's quite amazing) which was almost unanimously opposed due to his incivility, "Many users have been blocked for much less." This user has been called on his behavior for the last several months by several administrators and users and yet he has not stopped. Clearly this user has not learned anything about civility in the last year. Nobody has ever been blocked for disagreeing with other users, but profanity laced personal attacks and hounding on this project should not be tolerated. Let's finally demonstrate that our rules against stalking, harassment and incivility are valued. Otherwise this user will continue with this poor behavior and others won't be deterred from it.

Feel free to delve deep into the evidence, diffs and histories and come to your own conclusion. Thank you for reading.--Oakshade (talk) 06:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Aside: I assume you mean User:Floydian - on at least three cases you mentioned User:Floridan. I presume those were typos? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Appreciate it.--Oakshade (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You've been complaining about this for some time. Why was this not resolved in April? Doc talk 06:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That was my response in the ANI started by Floydian against me. It hasn't been resolved because Floydian has ignored that ANI closing Admin's suggestion for us to avoid each other. Also his incivility was not scrutinized there so he just continued with it. I wished this was all done, but alas.--Oakshade (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're looking for a "civility" block based on a pattern of incivility - I wish you luck in that endeavor. Doc talk 06:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• What does a bunch of evidence from months ago show? I've actually taken many steps to improve my civility since a failed RFA in the late spring; I have completely cut out my use of foul language (though Oakshade would like to consider words like "hell" and "damn" as foul, we don't live in the 1950s), completely toned down my edit summaries, and disengaged myself from most drama (where possible). I still tell people when they are being poor editors, but that is far from incivility - that is factually based, and telling someone that the edits they make are doing more harm than good is not personal, its part of building a good encyclopedia.

I'm assuming this report is a result of my posts at this talk page. As an aside, Oakshade regularly accuses people of OWNership, as you'll see in his generous collection of evidence, yet treats any interaction I have with him on articles he's created as stalking. Back to that article, Oakshade regularily contributes very dismal quality articles to the encyclopedia, makes no attempts to improve them, and fights vigorously against those who try to encourage him to include a source or write more than a sentence before hitting submit. Many of his articles are taken to AFD where the community's time is wasted for seven days because nobody wants to do the work that the initial creator should have done in the first place (WP:DEADLINE applies here in my mind). But I digress; after avoiding this editor for at least 3 months, I brought in a source to the talk page of their recently created article and asked them, for the love of god, to please include a source and do a little more research. The reason I found the page was because of the PROD placed upon it. Anyways, I don't feel Oakshade has any case here, and so I don't plan to reply any more beyond this once. Just the same thing as months ago, with the exact same evidence, and half a year of separation between then and now.

And as a last point, you added just over 11000 bytes of data in the edit to make this complaint (though as has been mentioned, most of that is probably copied directly from the report in April). Meanwhile, you added 1300 bytes of content to an article. This provides a value many like to refer to as the content : drama ratio. For what really should be a non-issue, you have spent far more of your time focused on this than benefiting Misplaced Pages. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 08:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You say you have taken steps to improve your civility. I find the following edit summaries contradict that statement:

• once again you just say a bunch of nothing, and do a bunch of nothing, at the same time. What a great contributor! from 28 September
  
• Soon I'll just get your whole university blocked from editing :)
  
• Dummy edit to give dummy IP a hard time when they try to hit undo
  

I also find your response to this report contradicts that statement as well; Oakshade regularily contributes very dismal quality articles to the encyclopedia. I draw attention to the fact that my own ban history was gained through far, far fewer "incidents" and far far less serious reasons. I cannot believe that after the first list posted above, this user has not been blocked. Colofac (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If we can't point out when we think someone is not providing a net benefit, then slowly the encyclopedia will be taken over by entropy. I'm sorry if people take it personally, but perhaps those people should double their effort and prove otherwise instead of taking it as an insult against their character. It's not. It's an observation based on the concrete content that you submit in the form of text, nothing more, nothing less.

The edit summaries you've cherry picked are certainly taken out of context. Perhaps read into them and the surrounding edits before jumping to conclusions? Please observe the history of that IP over the past 3 months and you'll see that yes, a rangeblock for their school is soon to be necessary.

And if you think calling such a persistent vandal a "dummy" is an attack or personal assault, well, then you don't have a lot of hours logged to Misplaced Pages. Dealing with clever vandals over the course of three months, regularly trying to mess the articles you've committed a lot of time to, then YES! You become frustrated! Calling a persistent vandal a dummy is well-earned on the vandal's part, and I can't lower myself to the social interaction of a McDonalds Playplace, treating even the most extremist of people as fine and dandy. Vandals are vandals, I'm sure the verbal pain I cause them will be absorbed. As for the first summary, that's exactly the problem with Oakshade - Sooner than taking a source that I offered, along with my observation of Oakshade's persistent creation of two sentence unsourced stubs instead of taking the initial time to create an infomative and sourced article, he accused my of stalking, acting in bad-faith, and reported me here. You tell me where the good-faith was broken in that chain. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 16:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but calling someone a "dummy" is very much a personal attack. For someone who feels they can talk about logged on hours, you of all people should know this. Short articles are not "dismal", in fact, would you post the links to short articles the editor has created on my talkpage so that I can edit them to make them better? Calling all their edits "dismal" is uncivil and bad faith. I'm gonna advise you to drop your line on "worth" and "benefit", it is shockingly arrogant and totally unnecessary. I would rather short articles than that attitude. Colofac (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I am very much surprised to see you attacking Floydian for incivility. Does this mean we are not going to see anything like this from you in the future (maybe I missed where you conceded that it was wrong and undertook not to repeat it -- it's hard to stay up to date when people keep purging their own talk pages), or are you just being hypocritical? Hans Adler 18:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thing is, have your own history Hans. Things like calling people "pedants" for example. Hypocrisy can be called both ways here. Colofac (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

So you are just being hypocritical. Thanks for the clarification. Hans Adler 19:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Really? Because the way I see it, you decided to hound me first, despite your own actions. Hypocrite. Colofac (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In 2009? On Talk:Leeds by referring to a group of people you identify with as pedants? I couldn't help noticing that you were using Twinkle by your 8th edit. Anything to declare? Hans Adler 22:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Can I please block User:Hans Adler, User:Colofac, and User:Floydian for personal attacks on each other? --Carnildo (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be a big leap of a judgment call, seeing as I'm not part of whatever they've got going on above. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 02:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Problem with aggressive user Nmate

I have a problem with aggressive user Nmate. I think Misplaced Pages is not a battleground and problematic user Nmate constantly attacks me 1 and deletes References 1 2 3 4 from Articles. His last attack and menaces are very disturbing 5. He wrote: I will delete every contribution to Misplaced Pages if you continue making personal attacks on me and Pov pushing ,and I will report to ArbCom whose outcome won't be as auspicious as it was last time.I think he has any mental disorder, because I don´t attack someone. Also I think his behavior will be more aggressive in future 6 7 8. Please resolve my problem with Nmate´s personal attacks, because I'm tired already. --Omen1229 (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Don`t want to "pour oil on fire" but it seems that the main activity of User:Nmate is to cause conflicts and write various reports (according to his contributions). There is a pattern and whenever he re-appears a new conflict is created with various users. Adrian (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I see a lot of Wikistalking accross many articles . I also see talk page issues such as reverting someone else's talk page message by a third user. This behavior is highly disruptive and I am on the edge of a block for Wikistalking. The only thing holding me back is that the edits that are reverted appear to be slightly POV. I would say that they are sourced and in good faith and this is a content dispute that should be resolved by discussion and not by edit warring. I strongly suggest Nmate knock it off and find something better to do.--v/r - TP 13:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Nmate is already under editing restriction regarding Eastern European topics due to his past violations of policy. It seems that his continued edit warring and incivility over these articles constitutes a knowing and purposeful violation of the Digwuren ArbCom decision, and that violations like this have been enforced by either topic ban or block. Please note that any blocks or bans need to be documented at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans. I would say the severity of his incivility would merit at least a lengthy topic ban, but I'm just one editor. VanIsaac_WS 13:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I read the restrictions and I see that Nmate was notified of the restriction in 2008. As it is within admin discretion and I can see how Nmate would think his edits were justified, I am going to WP:AGF on Nmate and leave a reminder on his talk page that Wikistalking and undoing good faith edits are disruptive. I'm not going to personally issue a block at this time, but another admin may decide otherwise.--v/r - TP 15:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Citation bot 1 needs to be blocked

Citation bot 1 (talk · contribs) The bot currently is messing up the authors on several pages like this, which it completely lacks consensus to do, and despite several requests to not do that. Citation bot used to operate manually for a long amount of time, so one would control when the bot should edit, based on if one though the bot's edits were worth the following cleanup. But this seems to be an automated run, and it messing hundreds if not thousands of articles. Please block it immediately, before it creates an even bigger cleanup backlog. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. I'm assuming you've contacted the bot's author? m.o.p 15:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Iadrian yu is a new meta/sock puppet of banned User:Iaaasi

User:Iadrian yu is a new meta/sock puppet of User:Iaaasi. He was banned many times by anti-semite and chauvinist edits in English Misplaced Pages. Notice:

Iaaasi has more (ISP) Internet Providers from Romania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukretius (talk• contribs) 15:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Lukretius has left the discussion, having been hit by a boomerang. Favonian (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Rory Williams

I'm reporting this here, because I think it doesn't quite fit anywhere else. There's a slow motion edit war going on over the racial status of this Doctor Who companion. Disagreement is over whether he is/was human. I believe this will continue without external intervention. Hope it can be resolved. Thanks. --Ebyabe (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll warn those two involved to stop. The talk page has a discussion about it already, so let's hope it works out. Regards SoWhy 16:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope so too. But it seemed to be getting to the point where an intervention could be useful. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

wikistalking from IP-hopping editors again

I created the article London Weight Management -- while researching sources I simply noted that Vivian Balakrishnan had launched one of the events they had donated to, which simply provoked attacks by this IP. This seems more of trying to pick a petty fight with me rather than actually having a genuine content dispute. (For one, the IP tries to remove the whole instance of a perfectly good well-sourced statement, rather than fixing any problems seen.) elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 17:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I am seeing COI coatracking and if not nipped in the bud - attack page creation here by User:La goutte de pluie - his position as an opponent of Vivian Balakrishnan is well known - Off2riorob (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I was simply showing that it wasn't any old event they were donating to -- it should be favourable news to the company. I am only reflecting what news sources tell me. In any case the IP editor's style of editing -- taking out an entire paragraph as opposed to fixing a sentence or seeking compromise, is rather abrasive. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 17:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, I am not actually an opponent of Vivian Balakrishnan, merely his COI article-whitewashers. There are some things about VB that I like. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 17:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

So, your not creating a negative attack article about a company to associate it with a person that is from a political party that you are a known opponent of? Are you claiming you are creating this article as revenge against the COI whitewashers, as you call these editors? ? - such a position taken by yourself was the discussion of recent threads regarding your contributions, is this a continuation of that revenge position? - Off2riorob (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, I simply created this page after witnessing a media storm on facebook. I discovered the links to Balakrishnan purely by chance. London Weight Management could have donated to an event that was launched by anybody important and I would have added that in. I was simply adding sources so the entire page wouldn't just be about their ads. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 17:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Better question, would this article survive an AfD? Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

See the news storm that has developed. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 17:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't see anything there related to the article. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest a speedy blanking and deletion request by La goutte de pluie is the way to go here. I would topic ban him from all Singapore political articles and associated content additions as well. His contributions are not getting any less conflicted or more compliant with NPOV in that area. - Off2riorob (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Also remember WP:NOTNEWS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That last paragraph is given undue weigh toward the 'controversy' but I personally find interesting how a pregant woman can have postpartum depression. I'll refer to the Misplaced Pages article on Postpartum depression which says "is a form of clinical depression which can affect women ... after childbirth." (emphasis mine). One citation for that paragraph is not enough. We require significant reliable sources for these kinds of negative prose. I also agree with the above that this article likely would not survive an AFD. User:La goutte de pluie could do us all a favor by tagging that article for {{db-g7}} and saving us all the drama.--v/r - TP 18:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Deleted. See deletion reason and header of this section for rationale. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Good call, I support that.--v/r - TP 18:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Sascha30

This follows on from this archived thread.
User:Sascha30 (who is mostly not logging in and usually editing as User:79.233.16.120) is continuing to make abusive edits on Talk:Foreign relations of South Sudan (, and ) and disruptive edits on Talk:Foreign relations of South Sudan (, ). Whilst he is a newbie, he has been told enough times how to behave. His edits on the Talk page are particularly unacceptable. The last thing he said was "YOU CANNOT STOP ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!" - please can an admin prove him wrong? Bazonka (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I left a warning. Even though they appear to be inviting a block, if they are User:Sanscha30, then they have edited reasonably and in good faith in the past and we should afford them an opportunity to return to good encyclopedia building behavior.--v/r - TP 19:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. However, my gut feeling is that this will have no effect. Warning him hasn't worked before. Let's see what happens. Bazonka (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, because warnings can be increased and then we can block if it continues.--v/r - TP 20:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Long-term returning user with COI on Itō calculus plus tag teaming

• Itō calculus (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Mdbrack (talk · contribs)
• Mattrach (talk · contribs)
• BechampAnalyse (talk · contribs)
• AmericanProbabilist (talk · contribs)
• JRMATH (talk · contribs)
• RHarryd (talk · contribs)
• AaronKauf (talk · contribs)

This successive list of single purpose editors have all attempted over the past four years to add identical content to the article Ito calculus by an associate professor Hassan Allouba from Kent State University. The material that they are attempting to add has not received recognition in secondary sources, such as academic textbooks, or mathscinet, the main international journal that currently reviews all mathematical articles since 1940. A large number of users, including regular editors of the article, have been aware of the problem this has been causing. The last two editors are now acting as a tag-team to reinsert this WP:UNDUE content without any justification. The long-term pattern suggests that there is some form of conflict of interest in their edits. The first six accounts have probably been operated by the same user. A previous report was made by another user on WP:FTN over a month ago, where I first noticed this collection of editors, but since then the problem only seems to have become worse. None of the editors listed above, of whom only the last two are active, seems to be here to improve the quality of this encyclopedia. I am not quite sure what action should be taken, but the current tag-teaming and edit warring seems highly problematic. Mathsci (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Some of those accounts are long stale, so don't expect much from them. Unless some kind of SPI investigation comes out, there not really relevant due to the time that has elapsed. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before on WP:FTN. The first six users are single purpose accounts whose sole purpose has been to add exactly the same problematic content to the article. The large time gaps between the different accounts (the staleness mentioned above) ruled out any kind of SPI report but the conclusion about them being operated by the same user is hard to avoid. Mathsci (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• AaronKauf (talk · contribs) has not replied here but on his user talk page replied to the standard ANI notification as follows; "Great, let's call a spade a spade then. Because your account along with your friends' will be in that discussion. Cheers!" In addition today he has made the following unsubstantiated comments on the talk page of the article:

• "Please read the above comments before issuing your regular veto. This behavior of vetoing and threatening is unethical and based on unsubstantiated claims. Your account along with the other British ones are WP:SPAs."
• "Why are you (along with Mathsci) enticing an edit war by constantly reverting and deleting any contribution we do to this section? You are not even willing to engage in a constructive mathematical discussion. It is obvious that you and your group are having personal issues with the author Allouba. And as I stated before, the Wiki is not a vehicle to settle scores. The constant harassment and threats issued by you and your friends are unethical, and against Wiki policies; and are being reported."
• "We are talking about the quadratic covariation derivative which has been published in peer-reviewed articles. We are contributing to this article like every other editor. However, each time the aforementioned theory is written, accounts like Mathsci and William M. Connolley, quickly either revert it or delete it. This has been their "single mission" these days. I always discuss my contribution on the talk page, and those accounts refuse to engage in a constructive mathematical discussion. They instead resort to harassment and threats. This behavior is not democratic and doesn't adhere to Wiki policy and should be reported."

This editor does not appear to understand wikipedia policies. In addition neither editor has explained why the chain of single purpose accounts has been adding identical content for the past four years. It is the notability and dueness of the mathematics that has not been established within the criteria of wikipedia. AaronKauf in several edits, including the ones above, has repeatedly suggested that those unconvinced about the unnotability of the material are single purpose accounts with a personal agenda against Hassan Allouba: that is not the case. RHarryd has repeatedly argued, in trying to justify why this work has been not cited, that the work of mathematicians who have won Fields medals is also not cited so often. That comparison is unhelpful, since the work of Fields medalists is cited very publicly at the International Congress of Mathematicians, where the recipients are announced and their research described. Mathsci (talk) 04:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Note I moved this thread back here because the user requested a chance to respond. Nformation 19:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Note. AaronKauf was informed twice about this thread with an explicit clickable link the second time, but did not respond to either notification. He unilaterally made a disruptive request for "mediation" which was refused. I gave yet another detailed commentary there about his edits. At present his edits indicate that he is not interested in contributing to this encyclopedia according to any of wikipedia's standard editing policies. Possibly he could provide some of kind of justification for his disruptive edits (unfamiliarity as a beginnner). If not, then perhaps this is not the place for him. Mathsci (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I am also getting tired of user AaronKauf's attitude. I am a stochastic analysts and so I feel a certain responsibility for the pertinence of a Misplaced Pages page that describes the basic notions of my area of research. I've been trying to clean up the mess and to reason with him (and various other single-purpose accounts) about the pertinence of citing Allouba's article in such a prominent location. Unfortunately, instead of engaging in a constructive argument, things have now degenerated to the point where he accuses me and others of defamation and comes up with weird conspiracy theories. (For the record, I know neither user Mathsci nor user William M. Connolley and have not asked any of "my friends" to come and persecute AaronKauf.) This has now been going on for quite a while. Is there anything one can do about it? Hairer (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems like a pretty clear case of tendentious editing by AaronKauf (talk · contribs), as well as mild edit-warring. The lack of clear violations makes it hard to make the usual WP:SPI and WP:3RR cases, though there is definitely a worrisome pattern there. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

He did actually make legal threats in his last comment, accusing me and others of defamation: "This defamation is liable here in the US. You don't need to know a person to discriminate against him or her.", which probably falls under no legal threats. I agree that WP:SPI is probably difficult to demonstrate at this stage. In the beginning, the pattern was that of a new single-purpose account being created every couple of weeks to give some additional "weight", but after being accused of sockpuppetry, this pattern changed. Now, only two accounts (AaronKauf and RHarryD) seem active and they might actually be operated by different users, even though their style remains suspiciously similar. Hairer (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Abuse of admin powers by Andrwsc

Andrwsc (talk · contribs)

I've been doing cleanup for Book:1952 Winter Olympics. Part of this involves tweaking the various appearances of templates, such as {{Infobox Country Olympics}}, to display correctly in the PDFs, etc... In particular, I fixed {{Infobox Country Olympics}}, to exclude the navigational content (the list of years in which Argentina has been in the Winter Olympics is completely irrelevant to print version, and adds an unimaginable amount of clutter to the books. Andrwsc immediately reverted me, and full-protected the page to his preferred version, justifying with the rational that any edit mades to a template should go through the sandbox first, in direct violation of WP:BOLD, etc... This was not done out of concern for vandalism, or concern that the edit breaks the page, this was purely done so Andrwsc could control the template to his pet version.

I don't know if this is part of a longer pattern, but the page should be unprotected, his edit reverted, and Andrwsc should at the very minimum be chastised to use his admin tools to beat regular editors into submission. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd definitely like to hear from Andrewsc. I'm interested in his reasoning on the page protection issue. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Templates that are transcluded on more than 3,000 pages are fully protected to prevent test edits to the template. See Misplaced Pages:High-risk templates. Headbomb made a few test edits before making his/her final edit and Andrewsc is correct to protect the template. Had he fully-protected an article, this would have been abuse of his tools. I don't see any discussion with Andrewsc before coming to ANI, either. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In fact, Headbomb appears to be blatantly ignoring my attempt to initiate discussion on another set of his recent edits. I'm all in favor of WP:BRD, but that requires, you know, the "D" part... — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see that one. In any case that's moot per this ongoing RFC on the topic. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Two things. Andrwsc should have attempted to discuss these changes with Headbomb first, before preemptively using his tools to change then protect a template. Also, it seems that Andrwsc is an involved editor on that template and there appeared to have been issues with edit warring on the page in the past, although I didn't get into reading the details, or how involved Andrwsc was in that past dispute. My opinion is that it is never ok for an admin to preemptively protect a page or a template, minus any suspicion of vandalism. Full protection is and should be reserved as the last line of defense, not the first action taken. As for whether or not Headbomb should have made those changes is for discussion to decide, and not a decision for admin tools, unless consensus asks for it.--JOJ 21:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)That template is high-use, transcluded on ~3900 pages. I had already seen several of Headbomb's edits today, taking multiple edits to figure out how to achieve the end result (e.g. {{Infobox figure skating competition}}, used on >900 pages, took 7 edits in a few minutes to accomplish what he was doing, plus the earlier edits to Infobox Country Olympics). I did not want to see further experimentation on a high-use template without some discussion (either on the template talk page, or on the WikiProject talk page) or at least create a sandbox version, which is what my edit summary tried to convey. It is disruptive to affect so many articles with broken, intermediate versions of high-use templates. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes I should have used the sandbox. However the version you reverted worked just fine, and you didn't revert it because it was broken, but rather because you didn't like it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What exactly are the consequences of a broken template in this context?--Tznkai (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:High-risk templates#Rationale. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that rationale is to avoid large-scale vandalism occuring from simple edits. In this case, malformed infoboxes from broken template edits could result in layout or formatting problems on a large number of pages. It's a good faith edit, but still needs to be made carefully—which is why we have sandboxes. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, but we're all agreed that Headbomb, whatever he was doing, was not vandalizing. Were the templates disabled? Portraying incorrect information? Causing infinite data if/else loops?. Whats the approximate viewership of the most popular of those pages so affected? Recall, that with a vandal, they have no intention of leaving a changed object in a functional state at any point. --Tznkai (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Headbomb: If you are willing to discuss the proposed change, then I'm happy to hear it. But your modus operandi today has been like a bull in a china shop, without much discussion. For this, and other edits you have been making today, I still recommend WT:WikiProject Olympics. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs)

Rather I've been the opposite of one. I came in and fixed stuff that was critically broken. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If you fix things carefully, yes. But my observation of your edits today reveals your carelessness. You made a few edits, didn't like what you saw, then self-reverted. That type of experimentaton should never happen on a live high-use template. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You can't make omelets without breaking some eggs. Testing the rendering of print version or toolserver tools such altviewer is already cumbersome enough without spending half an hour setting up sandboxes and testcases, which are not guaranteed to replicate actually articles when you can do it live in 5 seconds at the cost of an imperceptible load increase on the servers. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:DISRUPTING a few thousand articles to test for a printed one is not the way to make omlettes. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

30 seconds of "disruption" only visible to logged in editors who chose to read the most-up-to-date (cache-purged) version of an article is hardly the end of the world. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

To be blunt, I'd have to agree with others here and would go further then that. If it takes you 30 minutes to set up a sandbox and testcases for a small number of templates, you probably shouldn't be editing templates period. Nil Einne (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm the single-most experienced editor with templates and their print versions. The only reason you're saying this is because you never actually dealt with print versions and their fickleness before. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying you need to view 9+ pages before you know if changes like to a template works in a print version? Nil Einne (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That edit was part of debugging with User:Dispenser's altviewer for various book reports, such as Book talk:1952 Winter Olympics#Book report. Recreating the book, sandbox version of the template, create sandbox version of all 44 articles, make them all use the sandbox version of the template, etc... is a huge amount of work that would take probably over an hour. And you're shit out of luck if the bug is namespace-dependant, which you can't know, a priori. Compare this with 5 minutes, which affected essential no one.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

So you're confirming then that you had to view the print version of all 44 articles before you knew whether the change was working? Nil Einne (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm confirming that the live version of the template had to be edited in order to isolate the origin of the bug, unless one wanted to go through hours of work that could be instead be done in 30 seconds. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No, you've so far failed you explain why you need to test the live version by your ambigioty. If you really need to test the print version of all 44 articles to find the bug, I'll give you that it would have been rather difficult to test it in a sandbox. If a few select cases would have achieved the same thing, at it was easy to determine apriori which test cases, then it is not difficult to test in a sandbox situation. It's not needed to precisely replicate something, if you can be resonably confident of replicating what is needed with a few simple cases. Obviously if you fail to do so with a few simple cases, it's resonable to consider whether expanding the effort, or taking the risk with the live version would be more appropriate, but that doesn't seem to have been the case here. Nil Einne (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I just told you why I needed to test the live version... I didn't need to test the print version of those articles because this was not something related to them, this was related to the behaviour of User:Dispenser's altviewer for various book reports, such as Book talk:1952 Winter Olympics#Book report, which was behaving erratically, and needed the live version of articles to monitor its behaviour in various conditions to isolate the issue. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You can forgive me for thinking it had something to do with print version when you told 2 different people something along the lines of 'I'm the single-most experienced editor with templates and their print versions. The only reason you're saying this is because you never actually dealt with print versions and their fickleness before' as justification for why you couldn't use a sandbox when it turns out that is apparently irrelevant here. As for your newer claim, I admit I didn't understand it at the time as I'm not familiar with book reports and was confused how to access them (it would have been helpful to link to an example of what you were referring to like although I acknowledge not finding out was mostly an error on my part). I'm of course willing to take you at your word that you needed to test a book report in its entirety, and couldn't just test one or two articles with the altviewer in an initial attempt to identify the problem (which may not have been guaranteed to work but if it did show the problem in isolation, may very well have). I'm of course presuming you also mean it was resonable to expect the problem was in a flaw in the template design (and not a flaw in the tool which could perhaps be mediated by redesigning the template but was still a flaw in the tool). Nil Einne (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not happy how this is playing out. Clearly, HB has a reasonable goal; the short term impact of the test edits is an issue, but I'd trust HB to back out on failure. Andrwsc could have offered better advice on how HB should proceed to edit the template. The template discussion is not collegial. Andrwsc is basically saying the template does not have problems, it is being misused by others, it serves Andrwsc's purpose, and HB should make a new one. And now we have a mess at ANI. Discuss the template change and be done with it. Glrx (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, those comments ("misused by others") were referring to another set of templates that Headbomb edited today. The current version of those is not what I originally intended when I created them, but it is acceptable. There are three distinct areas where Headbomb and I have crossed paths today; this ANI report is about just one of them. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

To call standard protection of a highly-visble template "abuse of admin powers" certain lowers HB's argument to ... um ... nothing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That conveniently forgets that he didn't do it to protect it from the vandals or whatever, he did it because he didn't like it and didn't want me to revert. He's involved, thus abused his powers. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ask any software designer: you never test on live code. Make a copy of the template. Choose an article. Make a copy of it for yourself. Remove the instance of the OLD template, add your REVISED template. Test. Fix revised template. Test. Apply changes (if accepted by consensus) to the real template. Taadaaaaaaaa! We have a "show preview" button for normal edits - testing on a test copy does the same thing (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The only reason you're saying this is because you never actually dealt with print versions and their fickleness before. You can't do a preview, you need the live thing. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe true. But that does not stop the fact that you fecking with a template appeared to be disruption, and the protection was valid, and this was never admin abuse. You had better methods of getting this done, and calling wolf was not on that list (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

However, reverting a working version because you didn't like it, then protecting the page so it cannot be restored, certainly IS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Please disengage the finger pointing. There are good and bad points to both sides. Stop jostling for position and do what is good for WP. Figure out what should happen to the template(s). Glrx (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

This should have never been brought to ANI. Discuss with the admin first, then, as a last resort, bring it to ANI. As the top of this page says, "For incidents involving the possible misuse of administrative powers, please attempt to engage in discussions with the admin before posting here." Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this should not have been brought here, but the fact that Andrwsc is not only a major contributor on that template, but actually its creator should disallow him from using admin tools on that template, because he clearly has a conflict of interest. Furthermore, his edit summery did not suggest a disruption to the template, but suggested that he was not in favor of the change. Again, a conflict of interest. Its OK if he reverts as an editor, but as soon as he used his admin tools on the template, he created a conflict of interest between his edits as a wikipedia editor, and his privilege of admin tools.--JOJ 23:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest there are 2 issues here. When Andrwsc protected the template, it seems clear from the comment he? felt the template needed to be protected to ensure proposed edits are tested in a sandbox first. The proceeding edit appears to be a disagreement with this change. I agree ideally Andrwsc should not have protected the template but instead requested someone else to handle it. However the requirement to test changes in a sandbox first was not unresonable, and HB has so far IMO not sufficiently explained here or elsewhere why this wasn't possible (and definitely doesn't seem to have been explained before they began). Was the situation sufficient urgent to allow Andrwsc to ignore proper practice? This is hard to say, since it's not clear to me if Headbomb would have continued to edit without testing if Andrwsc had told them to stop. I do find it concerning that Headbomb suggests the Andrwsc change should be reverted. If Headbomb agrees not to edit without testing or at least discussion establishing it is okay to edit without testing and says they would have stopped if Andrwsc had politely told them to stop, then protection should be removed and Andrwsc reminded not to use administrative tools when they are involved when it isn't highly urgent. But even in this case, I see no reason for reverting Andrwsc's edit. Per BRD, Andrwsc was entitled to revert a change they see as unwelcome. In an article, it may be acceptable (albeit not encouraged) for Headbomb or someone else to further revert Andrwsc thereby reintroducing the change with some minor discussion but I would suggest a highly visible template is a wheelwar like situation and so once Andrwsc had reverted, the change should not be reinstated if it didn't clearly fix something but was effectively a content dispute, until consensus was reached to introduce the change. This of course means that IMO if Headbomb had planned to revert Andrwsc further without reaching consensus on the change, it ironically somewhat justifies the protection even if Andrwsc wasn't aware of this (and therefore doesn't perhaps really justify his actions). Nil Einne (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I explained it multiple times why it was not possible (or rather why it was undesirable) to "test" those changes in sandbox versions. What more do you need? A white paper on cost vs benefits of spending hours setting up dummy version of a book vs making a live edit which has a lifetime of a few seconds if it's breaking something? And why do edits which are known to be valid / not break stuff / fix old problematic stuff need "further" testing before they are reinstated? They work. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In case it wasn't obvious, I made my above reply before your latest reply above where it was still rather unclear to me, what you were saying, mostly by my own fault but not helped by your initial irrelevant justification (and use of non direct links as examples). I don't know what 'valid / not break stuff / fix old problematic stuff need "further" testing before they are reinstated' has to do with anything. I made it clear it's nothing to do with further testing but reaching consensus on a content dispute in a highly visible template before a clearly disputed change is reinstated. (Obviously it may be justifiable to reintroduce a change which fixes a clearcut undisputed problem even if it has been reverted.) Nil Einne (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Edit: And yes, if you didn't understand or heck still don't understand and still think reversal of Andrwsc edit without reaching consensus is okay that then IMO protection was a good idea even if it was perhaps not ideal for Andrwsc to do it. Nil Einne (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Both Andrwsc and Headbomb are experienced editors; I think some collegiality is in order from both sides. If Andrwsc was concerned that HB's edits were breaking the template, then the appropriate response (considering this is an experienced, obvious non-vandal editor) would be to revert those edits and post a message on HB's talk page or the template talk page. Then, if HB ignored the message and continued making test edits, that would be the time for page protection. And, it would have been respectful if Headbomb contacted Andrwsc on his talk page before bringing it to the drama board. So, can we all kiss and make up and close this thread? —SW—  23:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thread can be close when the protection is undone and the templates fix re-instated. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I am certainly unwilling to make that change without proper discussion at WT:WikiProject Olympics, which I have twice asked you to do. You made a bold edit, I reverted, so now is the time for discussion. This is not just a technical edit—you wish to exclude infobox content from the book version that was deemed to be useful by the WikiProject when those infoboxes were developed years ago. And even if we got consensus for removal, I'm not convinced that your addition of a couple of newline characters would not affect the infobox rendering. We need a sandbox version to verify that. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

So you admit that you improperly used your tools in a dispute? And that you are reverting without understanding your own actions? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Drop the stick Headbomb - you're in no place to give orders. High-profile templates are always protected - you found one that was not, and now it is. Off to the template talkpage and go back to being congenial (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

~3000 transclusions is not a "high profile" template in need of permament full protection like {{cite journal}} is. If anything is needed for an infobox, it is little more than permanent semi-protection. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion on what Headbomb was trying to do. All I know is that it was not vandalism, by my knowledge. What concerns me is the fact that a regular editor on that template reverted to his preferred version then fully protected it when it was not before. That is the issue here. What say you Andresc to this charge? Admins do not get final say on content, and when they revert and fully protect any page or template, then a conflict of interest arrises.--JOJ 23:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

An uninvolved admin has examined the issue and made a decision. I'm fairly certain the decision was made with the potential WP:COI weighed into the equation. So how's about we let it go now? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

As a general note, from the edit history it seems the template was fully protected before but this was quickly reversed. Searching easily finds Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive638#HJ Mitchell mass fully protecting templates with some losely relevent discussion. The template is or was in Misplaced Pages:Database reports/Unprotected templates with many transclusions/1. From that discussion, it's not clear to me everyone agrees that having over 3000 transclusions is enough to automatically justify full protection although a lot of the concern there was that is was felt the list was fairly untargeted and included stuff like WikiProject templates Nil Einne (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

There were two distinct actions on my part. The revert was simply the second step of a normal BRD process. (And I'm still waiting to see the "D" started at the project page or template talk page.) The protection was because I had already seen several of Headbomb's template edits within the previous hour, and felt that it was not safe to experiment on this live high-use template. It is appropriate to protect a template at a known stable version. This is not article content, it is table markup that affects thousands of articles. It's obviously a different situation than protecting my "preferred version" of prose text. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

But you don't get to make the decision on whether or not a page if fully protected on your own. No one asked you to do it, and your strong connection to that template, (the fact that you created it and are a regular contributor there), should doubly disqualify you from even hinting at using your admin tools on that template.--JOJ 00:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

How about instead of making blind reverts to things you don't understand, you actually let people who understand what they do take care of things? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You're seriously suggesting that I don't understand templates that I've created? Personal attack noted. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no personal attack. You've admitted it yourself, multiple times, that you didn't understand the edits you were reverting. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. I knew perfectly well the impact of your change, as you can tell from the edit summary. What I don't understand is why you attempted to make changes to that same template about an hour earlier and then self-reverted. I presume you understood the effects of your edits and merely changed your mind? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are you sure you're not a lawyer rather than a physicist? If Andrewsc has admitted it "multiple times", why do you keep asking him to admit it ("So you admit that you improperly used your tools in a dispute? And that you are reverting without understanding your own actions?")?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm withholding comment on any accuations of potential misuse of the tools and/or WP:OWN issues. But, Headbomb, your conduct here is not helping your case. Repeatedly staing that you're the only person who understands and therefore are the only person qualified to work on the templates is not how Misplaced Pages works (and gives the impression, to me at least, of a potential ownership issue on your own part). Misplaced Pages is a cooperative project; the opinions of Andrwsc, or anyone else, have exactly the same amount of value as yours, regardless of who does or does not "understand" template syntax. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying I'm the only person who can understand templates, I'm not, but as far as print version are concerned (which are an entirely different beast than online versions), the only guy who knows half as much as me is the guy who codes the renderer. Andrwsc said that he made the reverts because those were "experimental" edits of uncertain effects. This is patently false, as those edits did exactly what they were supposed to, and fix the templates' broken behaviour, and are completely uncontroversial routine stuff that's been done for as long as we've had PDFs (~3 years). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

No, this is incorrect. It is utterly ingenuous to claim that this edit is a "fix", because it removes a significant portion of the infobox content from the print version. That's not fixing "broken behaviour", and certainly isn't "completely uncontroversial routine stuff". The Olympic history summary in the infobox is very useful (a good example is Germany at the 1952 Winter Olympics) and not just a set of links that have no value in printed form. I knew exactly the implications of your edit, which is why I reverted and asked for discussion. The experimental edits I was referring to are ones like these, where you tried to do something, fixed a mistake, and then backed out altogether. I was also skeptical of your multiple edits at {{Infobox figure skating competition}} which also included a self-revert before trying something different. That is why I pre-emptively protected {{Infobox Country Olympics}}, to prevent any possible subsequent disruption before discussion and/or sandbox edits. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment WP:HRT is there for a reason; highly-referenced templates are to be protected. It's SOP. --Rschen7754 00:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

High-risk templates should be protected pursuant to the guideline, but the question is what constitutes a high-risk template. The guideline gives some criteria but also says: "There are no fixed criteria, and no fixed number of transclusions, that are used to decide whether a template is high-risk. Each template is considered separately." Oddly, the guideline says that the determination should be made by the "community" - not quite sure what that means. However, assuming that in practice an uninvolved admin can determine that a template is high-risk, then I agree that it appears that Bwilkins had done that. Even assuming that Andrwsc should have asked an uninvolved admin to make that determination, there's really no harm no foul. Headbomb should let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to HB's argument that a 4 minute exposure on 4000 transclusions need not fall under the protection of a highly referenced template. We have two experienced template editors. I don't see a lot of disruption. The template protection has a COI issue. However, there isn't much point to debating either position; they're both toss ups. What's left is a content dispute about the template that doesn't belong here. Glrx (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I hate to get all philosophical here folks but this is a WIKI. The bias is in favor of editing, directly onto the page. Mistakes are easy to undo, especially ones made in good faith. This is not a permission culture. It is how all of us got started.

I asked repeatedly what the real damage here was. The only answers seem to devolve down to inconvenience to editors and momentary ugliness for the reader. Guess what kids, we're not important. The reader is, and any good faith attempt to improve things for the reader is to be congratulated.--Tznkai (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I would dispute that the edit in question would improve things for the reader. It was the intentional removal of the "Olympic history" summary section from the printed version of the infobox on ~3900 pages. That's why I reverted per BRD, and I am still looking for a discussion about the merits—or lack thereof—of the change. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Could the template be unprotected now? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The template can be unprotected, but you should not revert it to your version (or make changes to that effect), per WP:BRD. Fram (talk) 07:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

On high-use templates

We do not routinely protect every template above X transclusions simply because it's in high use. HJ Mitchell got into rather a lot of trouble for doing that. People need to get this out of their heads, because all it does is make it harder for people to contribute to templatespace. This goes doubly when admins are going around reverting to their preferred versions and *then* fully protecting of course.

Anyway, I've started a sandbox to improve this template in the meantime. I'd still strongly recommend that it be unprotected. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

WalkerThrough

I was halfway through writing this request for more eyes when User:Black Kite re-indefblocked this editor. I place it here anyway as:

1. The editor has requested unblock, reason given "religious discrimination"
2. Black Kite is discussing possible unblock with the editor, and if he is unblocked I feel strongly more eyes on him would be a Good Idea.

WalkerThrough (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

When WalkerThrough's previous indef block was reduced to 12 hours, I promised here on ANI that I would keep an eye on him. So far, he has:

• Canvassed for support
• Edit warred in his extreme ignorance to remove the simple statement that the Bible is regarded as a religious text, though not canon, to Abrahamic religions, including Islam, and the Baha'i. This resulted in this frustrated "ranty" post by the highly regarded and respected (and darn near unflappable) Tznkai
• Meanwhile, on my talk page, please see the section Maybe we can have a fresh start which will illuminate the issues with this editor's views of policy, Truth, and Misplaced Pages.
• See also his poor reaction to a warning, even after I explained this was to his benefit: User_talk:WalkerThrough#September_2011

I regret that I am posting and leaving; I will only be around for a very short period after this; I will answer any questions when I can, probably tomorrow early morning or late afternoon. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 01:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I will only be around for a short time too; it's 2.36am here and I'm only still awake because my daughter is. I think however that the user's talk page is clear enough; if anyone wants to unblock then that's fine, but I think the editor needs to promise to stop inserting POV (and one could argue OR) into religious articles exactly as the comment below my block statement represents. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• I think an indefinite block for this is very harsh. Indefinite blocks should be used for wilfull malevolence and disruption, or for someone who has shown himself to be unable to conform over a longer period. This is not what we have here, Walkerthrough have responded quite well to calls for collaboration after initially getting of to a bad start for lack of understanding of the editing culture. We should help Walker Through to learn how to contribute well, not block him. If Walker Through wishes I could mentor him in this process. I agree with Black Kite that we need a clear statement that Walker Through understands that inserting Bible quotes into articles without prior consensus is not a good way to edit - because it is controversial when to do that. But I am quite certain that he can understand that. This is not religious discrimination, it is the way that secular encyclopedias are written. He also needs to show that he understands that he is not presenting "the christian viewpoint", but a particular Christian viewpoint that is likely to coincide primarily with his own. I am not going to review the unblock request because of my previous involvement with the case, but I do think that indefinite is excessive in the absence of any evidence of actual malevolence. I hope the reviewing admin will consider my statement.

  This is his second chance. He has shown himself to be resistant to following, or even caring about, policy. He has been edit warring to promote his POV, and stridently argues that he is following policy and attempts to guide him are "harassment". I'm not optimistic. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 01:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering that most editors on Misplaced Pages are American, and most Americans are Christian, it's safe to assume that at least a significant portion of Wikipedians are Christian. In this light, WalkerThrough's claims of religious discrimination honestly come across as a bit immature, and his continued insistance that he is presenting some monolithic Christian view on different subjects (looking at the varied nature of Christians) is outright haughty. All of it seems like he will never get WP:NPOV, and will screw up on other policies when in his favor. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

So now we use two strikes and you're indefinitely blocked. I didn't get the memo when that policy change was made. Contrary to what you state he has shown himself to be fully able to participate in civil discussion and consensus building.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Um, that's not what I stated, actually, so its not "contrary" to what I stated. I said I wanted more help watching his edits and guiding him, and listed problematic edits and patterns. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 01:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You stated that "he has shown himself resistant to following or even caring about, policy". I think his actual behavior contradicts that. I agree that more eyes is good.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Resistant is not synonymous with incapable. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 02:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• I AM a Christian and I fully endorse an indefinite block in this case. I have a high tolerance for giving second (and third, and fourth) chances, but not in the case of Truth-bearing SPA accounts. The only absolute guarantee with this individual is that giving him a third chance will mean having this discussion all over again a few weeks from now. If he were a more established editor, sure... but the amount of drama he has caused in such a short period of time makes him a liability to the project. I would support the standard offer in a couple months. Trusilver 04:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse block. The way he went from Bible to Acts of the Apostles just to insert more or less the same contentious stuff there, right after he had been told he couldn't have it in Bible, shows he seriously isn't getting it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• An indefinite block is clearly the right thing. The editor clearly does not have any intention of stopping inserting his/her point of view, which he/she calls "the truth". I see no evidence at all to support the statements above that "Walkerthrough have responded quite well to calls for collaboration" and "he has shown himself to be fully able to participate in civil discussion and consensus building". What I do see is him/her showing some signs of going through the motions of discussing, but in fact using discussion only to provide arguments in favour of allowing him/her to continue to push a point of view, and showing no signs at all of any intention of actually changing the way he/she edits. There are statements such as "Please allow me to reassure you that I do want to follow WP policies", but in practice we have (1) quoting from policies and guidelines selectively and out of context, in such a way as to twist the policies to support what WalkerThrough thinks should be the policy, rather than what it is, (2) arguing against policy when it clearly does not support WalkerThrough's view (this occurs over the "verifiability not truth" issue) and (3) totally misunderstanding policy issues, as for example persisting in treating the "verifiability not truth" policy as though it said "truth is irrelevant, so posting outright lies is just as good as posting verifiable facts", which of course it does not say. Numerous editors have patiently tried to explain what the issues are, but we continue to get "I didn't hear that". WalkerThrough either can't or won't see that trying to force his/her own version of a christian view into articles is pushing a point of view. That is the primary problem, but we also have several other problems. For example, there is a strong battleground mentality. Editors who have attempted to be helpful by informing WalkerThrough of how to work within the framework of Misplaced Pages methods have been subject to assumptions of bad faith, accusations of harassment, threats of being "reported", etc etc. Thus we have, among many other examples, "some admins have proven to be irresponsible with their powers. One admin, Killer, has been harassing me." To represent KillerChihuahua's actions as harassment is absurd. Walkerthrough seems to be quite incapable of seeing the problems in any other terms than as an evil conspiracy to suppress his point of view as to what constitutes THE TRUTH. For example, here we have "It is clear to me that there are many non-Christian editors who are determined to censor the Bible and Christian faith views from being presented" We also have such remarks as "strong presentation of the anti-Christian side", which appears to mean "presentation of anything which is contrary to WalkerThrough's version of christianity": to refer to it as "anti-Christian" is nonsense. A very simple indication of WalkerThrough's attitude is given by a recent section heading used on his/her talk page, namely "Blocked again...This is religious discrimination". Despite every effort made by numerous editors to patiently explain what the problems are, we get "I didn't hear that": this is all a conspiracy to suppress christianity. It is clear that WalkerThrough either cannot or will not see what the problems are, and has no intention at all of changing their editing pattern. Going through the motions of agreeing to follow policy, by saying things such as "I agree not to promote a particular point of view" is meaningless if it is followed by "putting what I believe into articles is not promoting a point of view: it is telling THE TRUTH." There is no case at all for unblocking. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Problem with aggressive user Nmate 2.

I wrote here yesterday 1. You warned Nmate yesterday 2, but this problematic user constantly deletes References 3 4 from Articles without discussion. --Omen1229 (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards