Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:15, 29 September 2011

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • 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)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation

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)

WP:OWN on Militant atheism by User:Anupam

user: Anupam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
page: Militant atheism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After responding to an RfC at Militant atheism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), I've had some time to observe the behavior of editors. It's become clear that this article is being used as a WP:COATRACK by a small cadre of editors which hope to link new atheists in the mold of Richard Dawkins with oppressive regimes that used state atheism for oppression, like Lenin's. What stands out most is several instances of disruptive editing by user Anupam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The general editing behavior has been one of using edit warring, and tendentious editing on talk pages to enforce ownership of the article.

If anyone has infinite time, they are free to review the tendentious editing themselves and the production of massive walls of text at the article talk page: Talk:Militant atheism‎, and the archives. In lieu of going over the talk page, I'll speak to specific instances of Anupam's disruptive editing and issues of ownership.

unrepentant tag team edit warring: This is covered in detail on the talk page thread Stop edit warring over WikiProjects. The short of it is that when confronted with his role in the edit warring, Anupam preferred debating whether or not he was engaged in an edit war to discussing the content being warred over. The article page has been fully protected for some time to prevent edit warring. Despite this, an edit war broke out on the article talk page relating to the status of various WikiProjects. In conjunction with two other editors, Anupam himself reverted article content for a third time. His rationale for reverting content a third time: I correctly restored the relevant templates after there was no more objection at the reverting users' talk page. (Other tag teaming diffs: .)

edit warring on template sidebars: An RfC on Talk:Militant atheism exposed a significant ambiguity problem with the article content. Specifically, that both state atheism and new atheism were treated as a single topic in the article without any context or disambiguation or sourcing. In response to the synth/or/pov/ambiguity issues brought up by the RfC I updated several templates, unlinking Militant atheism: , noting this on the article talk page: . These links to Militant atheism had been inserted by Anupam: Template:Atheism Sidebar, Template:Irreligion. Today Anupam reverted those changes based on the fact that the RfC had not been closed, . I undid that changes as the RfC neither applies to the template, nor would it resolve the quality and ambiguity issues related to the article. Anupam reverted again: , . (Here is a link to the template discussion: .)

reverting corrective relinking: Four days later I was reviewing articles which linked to militant atheism to update the links for articles which clearly were referring to state atheism as opposed to new atheism, or some generalization of the two. As I was doing this, I noticed the text for many of the articles was eerily similar. Reviewing page histories, I found the following:

• the text "militant atheist" was introduced by User:Pseudo-Richard copy/pasting the same summaries across many articles back in 2007 (e.g. ,,,).
• the linking to militant atheism was done by User:Edward based on suggestions from the Find link tool.

In other words, the linking to militant atheism is generally an occurrence of serendipity rather than one of sourcing. After correcting several these links, which deal explicitly with the topic of state atheism, Anupam reverted the disambiguating edits that I had made: , , , , ,

other editors views: Anupam's disruptive editing and ownership issues have been discussed by other editors, and this has apparently been an ongoing problem.

• previous ANI discussion regarding ownership issues.
• There is an extensive discussion of ownership issues related to militant atheism with over a dozens diffs on Master of Puppets' talk page.
• More discussion Master of Puppets' talk page.
• From talk page archives: The thing is, all the other editors LEFT because you and Anupam are impossible to work with. You revert EVERY single move that has been made.

I'm not sure of the best way to resolve these issues. For the time being waiting for resolution of the RfC to conclude the most sensible way to go. But the problems go much deeper than the specific issue raised by the RfC. I think more community involvement would help in this situation. I invite uninvolved editors to at the very least review the issues presented here. Thank you, aprock (talk) 08:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Subsequent to complaints from both of you about each other (on the edit warring noticeboard), I've warned the both of you. I know this sounds confusing, but if there's any tendentious edit on the areas related to the RfC by either of you before the RfC concludes, I'll be forced to block the one making the edits. As you correctly mention, the sensible way is to wait for the RfC ending. I have to admit that in terms of warring, Anupam seems to be worse off than you are Aprock. Therefore, even though my words may seem harsh, they're made simply to ensure that you don't destroy a clean record by making edits that perhaps anyway would be authorised by the RfC. Clearly, there's no excuse for jumping the gun while the RfC is in progress. In summary, if either of you sees the other guy going against this warning note before the RfC concludes, drop into my talk page or here and the respective editor will be blocked. Wifione 09:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick and reasoned response. aprock (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There is now three seperate threads on ANI (one of them with many subthreads) that relate to disputes originating in Militant atheism.... Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It's the new Scientology :p. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully all the dogs are ok. aprock (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned above, there are already two other topics on the militant atheism article - all three seem to unite on the fact that waiting for this RfC to conclude will solve all problems. So why keep making discussions about it? I'll close the RfC as soon as I've reviewed all responses and discussion has stagnated - then, whatever the result is, you guys are free to discuss further actions like unlinking sidebars and the like. m.o.p 16:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is not about the RfC, which deals with article content, but the disruptive editing of Anupam. aprock (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment: I, too, was brought to the page via the RfCs, and I've been observing what is going on. It does not really appear to me that Anupam is engaging in WP:OWN. Wall-of-text, yes. Civil POV-pushing, probably yes too. But annoying other editors isn't really ownership. It's important to get these things right. Yes, this is becoming the new Scientology, and maybe the new Santorum. If so, it will eventually work its way up the dispute resolution food-chain. I notice another recurrent theme in these multiple ANI threads, which is that good faith editors keep saying they are exasperated. I wish that weren't true, but given that it is, the best advice is patience. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
• As someone who (like Tryptofish) came to the page on the basis of an RfC, I share his view. I'm not sure this is WP:OWNership per se, as opposed to just an obsessive focus and civil POV-pushing. Anupam (talk · contribs) is by far the heaviest contributor to Talk:Militant atheism in the past few months - no one else even comes close (see recent talkspace edits and edit-counter). I think it's just wearing everyone else down - the Abd-esque combination of civil POV-pushing, voluminous and narrowly focused editing, and poor listening skills can make other editors feel like they're beating their heads against a brick wall. As to the best solution, I dunno, but this problem comes up fairly often. MastCell  18:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that I've been mediating the various goings-on over at the MilAth talk page for the last few months, and as I've said above, I have not seen Anupam engage in ownership of the article. At worst, they're simply very interested in improving the subject matter, and have the patience to outlast other people of differing opinion. Does that mean they're doing something "wrong"? I don't think so. m.o.p 20:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Content disputes shouldn't be resolved by one party having the "patience" to exhaust and outlast all other comers. That dynamic favors obsessive single-purpose editors over those with more diverse and generalist approaches to the project. In fact, when you phrase it like that, it makes me think that there is a real WP:OWNership problem here. MastCell  21:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith when I say this: Anupam's not doing it with the purpose of "winning". In fact, they've been more than willing to discuss (and, in fact, have lead most of the discussions on the talk page) with other users, including ones new to the article. I don't believe outlasting the competition is Anupam's intent. m.o.p 03:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

MoP was there an official mediation request that everyone signed onto, with you as the mediator? I'm asking in earnest because while I also became involved more recently because of RfCs I'm unaware of anything like that being the case. If you feel that you are unofficially mediating in your role as an admin then it is my opinion that it hasn't been a very neutral mediating job. Tryptofish and Mastcell might not feel that this is actual WP:OWN behavior (though they are not dismissing it like you are either), but a vast majority of editors opposed to Anupam's POV do think it is. Other than simply saying, Anupam isn't doing anything wrong, I have not seen you try to "mediate" between the people who find his behavior problematic and those who do not. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There was a formal complaint submitted to WP:AN3 about Militant Atheism somewhere in June or so. Given that the article was in a rampant state of disrepair and there were a good five or so editors edit-warring repeatedly, I stepped in and helped mediate a compromise. Through a lot of discussion, we managed to turn the article around from something that needed to be protected to something that the community was actively building.

Of course, we're in a different place now. I understand that you're new to the article, and, as a result, haven't been part of most of the compromise building, but I assure you that I haven't taken sides; I am simply here to facilitate discussion. If you feel there are things I could be doing (for example, if you have a proposition that will help your dispute with Anupam get resolved), I'd be happy to hear it. All I have on the list now is closing the RfC (which I'll be doing when it turns seven days old).

Now, when it comes to Anupam: as I've said, I do not see outright ownership. Other issues that have been raised were taken care of, but to say that Anupam is attempting to control the article strikes me as strange, given that user's tendency to initiate discussion and compromise on the talk page. Is Anupam interested in the militant atheism page? Undoubtedly so. Does he/she want to shape it to their own will? I don't see it. m.o.p 03:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

MoP, I'm sorry but I do not agree with much of what you wrote. What discussion have you "facilitated" in the last few weeks? I've made all my complaints abundantly clear to you and you're MO has been to dismiss every single one of them. Indeed, despite numerous complaints about Anupam from a number of editors I see no attempt by you to work with Anupam to alter anything about the way he has been behaving. When you are called on that fact your answer is always that either the issues resolved themselves or you don't think Anupam has done anything wrong in the first place. When people call you on the idea that Anupam (or Lionelt for that matter) has done nothing wrong you claim you never said such a thing, but instead that you're simply "assuming good faith." At the end of the day, what disturbs me is this: Despite all the complaints I've never seen you validate any of them. Instead you skirt around these issues in a number of ways, especially the ones I've outlined above. Most problematic is the idea that you seem to think that saying that you AGF gets you out of both acknowledging any wrong doing by Anupam and having to own up to doing so. In relying this heavily on "intentions" you are undermining Misplaced Pages's ability to adequately govern itself. Disruption is not a matter of intention, it is a matter of action. When people accuse Anupam of problematic behavior they refer to what he's doing not to what is in his head. An administrator reviewing the situation needs to respond to Anupam's actions, and not dismiss them based on presumed intentions.Griswaldo (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I feel like we've had this exact same discussion a few times. I've agreed a dozen that Anupam has done some things wrong, as have multiple other editors, yet you claim I don't acknowledge said wrong doings. I've already warned Anupam on issues others have raised, yet you say I'm skirting around them. I don't know how else to tell you: I do not share your views on Anupam's supposed 'ownership'. No amount of discussion will change that. If you can find evidence of actual ownership (not moving active topics around on a talk page or asking people to edit according to consensus), then I'll investigate those claims. For now, let's stop rehashing old topics. m.o.p 05:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of your "warnings" to Anupam and your "agreements" about specific things that Anupam has done wrong. That's the only way to settle this. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 06:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the edit history of User talk:Anupam reveals that User:Master of Puppets has never edited that page. Reviewing Master of Puppet's 16 edits on Talk:Militant atheism, I could not find any edits where MoP warns Anupam. Reviewing User talk:Master of Puppets, there is no warning of Anupam there either. aprock (talk) 06:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No, not really. There's nothing here to settle. I don't see eye to eye with your opinion of another editor, and that's that. I've already entertained this long enough - I refuse to start fetching "proof" of my own actions. If you wish to discuss other things, such as my upcoming closure of the RfC, that's fine. Cheers, m.o.p 06:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

m.o.p.: I want to make it clear that what I said was that Anupam isn't doing OWN. I did not say that Anupam is doing everything right. If you really think there is no problem at all, then Griswaldo may be right. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I never said Anupam was doing everything "right" either. I just don't believe that some of the accusations being thrown are valid - this article has seen some strong opinions rise up, and a few of them concern the composure of certain editors. Yes, Anupam's name has risen up a few times. Each time it has, the dispute has been cleared up and settled. So no, I don't think there's a problem with Anupam that we haven't covered. m.o.p 03:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for making that clearer. I agree that there isn't anything here that would require the typical ANI kinds of actions, although I also believe that there are things that will eventually have to be "covered" elsewhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

"Each time it has, the dispute has been cleared up and settled." This seems like an odd statement. That many new editors from the most recent RfC appear to be echoing problems that have been brought up in the past indicates the contrary. aprock (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I feel that I've addressed all real concerns. If I haven't, I welcome people to point out issues that they feel need to see more attention (provided they're backed by policy). m.o.p 05:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to respond to the claim that Anupam has been engaging in discussion and compromising. I don't think this is true. His substantive contributions are almost entirely posting the same arguments again and again, claiming some past (often nonexistent) consensus is a reason not to have a discussion at all, or ignoring attempts at discussion outright. Here is a brief (and incomplete) list of posts I've personally made to him which he's entirely ignored: 1, 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. That's just me... but I'm not the only one he's shut out. (e.g. 1 - no response) This happens all the time.

He prefers to edit war and wikilawyer rather than discuss, even going as far as lying about past discussions to justify his behavior. See this starting from the middle (2:49 pm, 13 July 2011), then read his supposed "compromise" here and here. It was also brought up and ignored here. This behavior has persisted, distorting events and attempting to shut down discussion (bottom reply). This is, of course, among a multitude of other inappropriate behavior (1, 2).

I believe the claim that he engages in discussion and compromises is misinformed, at least any more than superficially. Yes, he posts text to the talk page, but that itself isn't discussion... reopening the same proposal to change the lead over and over again without addressing any of the actual concerns isn't "discussion and compromise", neither is copy/pasting comments over and over again, masqueraded as responses to different editors (1, 2 - just one example).

As far as the OWN accusation, I'll add that I feel Anupam lords over discussions, insisting everything meets his approval before entering the article, (accepting and rejecting content as he sees fit). Now he's saying that "even if" consensus is to split the article, we can't actually do it (1, 2). I don't really know what should be done about this, but something is necessary to prevent it from continuing.

If all this, on top of the proliferation of socking, the canvassing on and off-site, the swaths of SPAs, and other absurd behavior doesn't warrant some kind of action, then that's really disheartening. This behavior has driven away several editors (1, 2 (bottom)), and with the multitude of established editors saying there's a problem (1, 2, 3), I have yet to see as much as a real, legitimate warning issued (outside of a single 3rr report).

It looks like the article will be split, so this particular dispute will subside, but the behavior exhibited on this article is seriously concerning.   — Jess· Δ♥ 08:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that there have been many editors (more than 4), including myself, who left this article because of Anupam's disruptive editing and WP:OWN. Here are various users complaining about it to m.o.p.] Abhishikt (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Unlock the page, please!

I'd like to propose Militant atheism for deletion, but can't run it to AfD since the page is locked. There is no such encylopedic concept as "Militant atheism" any more than there is "Hardcore conservatism" or "Wild-eyed liberalism." The whole thing is an elaborate POV-driven original essay which is in practice a fork of the authentic encyclopedic concept, atheism. Thanks. Carrite (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Count Iblis (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Note - There is an RfC currently running on the talk page that proposes a similar result. The proposal is to turn the page into a disambiguation page, and to merge any quality content into other entries. See Talk:Militant_atheism#Should_the_article_be_split_or_made_into_a_disambiguation_page.3F. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Once the RfC has run its course, whether or not an AfD is appropriate can be looked discussed. m.o.p 03:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd advise against deletion or turning it into a disambig. I'd say either:

• Merge material into History of atheism and Atheism (discarding the coatrack material), redirect to Atheism. The most valuable parts of the current article appear to mainly concern history on politics and atheism, therefore History of atheism will be the most likely recipient of the content; or
• Move/redirect to Political atheism or similar; move non-political content into other articles and rework to fit new article title discussing the political side specifically.

I believe these are the two least controversial, and hopefully most productive, solutions to the POV/coatrack/topic-as-OR trouble with the article. --Tristessa (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah hah! This explains the recent efforts to shove add some of this crap stuff into Atheism. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The same thing occurred to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Obnoxious user

Tomballguy (talk · contribs) has been going around various movie articles, "zapping" negative criticism without adequate edit summaries, and when I reverted one of his contributions he reverted me back, calling it "vandalism" in the edit summary; he also did that to another user. When I tried a polite conversation on his talk page, he reverted it with the following edit summary: "goodbye, stalker". Diffs can be provided upon request. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Diffs please. GiantSnowman 21:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that Tomballguy has been whitewashing a few film articles, stating in his edit summaries that "razzies are not notable awards." Unless there has been consensus somewhere that these are not notable enough for inclusion, it appears that Tomballguy has been incorrectly marking edits as vandalism, not adhering to NPOV by removing criticism, and attacking other editors. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Diffs for whitewashing: , , , , , , , . Diff for incivility: . Another troubling diff: . Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The rules of his talk page ("and around the site") are interesting. The AN/I notice apparently broke Rule #1 as a possible "administrative threat". But "Pornography, Hentai, etc., is NOT allowed, especially if it's in a sexual content." How could it not be in a sexual content? Competence issue, I wager. He's also relatively young, as he used to sign his name as "It's my Junior year in High School!". Doc talk 21:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Right....which would make him possibly a college freshman at this point. Still a baby, yes, but theoretically approaching the age of responsibility... ---jpgordon 21:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

He's posted this on his talk page (apparently unable to edit this page?). Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The last sentence indicates that this erroneous interpretation of notabilty is one he is going to be sticking to. The Razzies are notable enough to have their own article here since 2003 and to be mentioned by sources like the BBC and AP. Doc talk 21:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

He claims he'll do better but I'm not convinced he understands the basics of working with others and being civil. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 21:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

One thing I have been completely unable to find (perhaps I did not look long enough) was any attempt to resolve this directly with the editor on their user talkpage ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Check the page history: the attempt to discuss; the response. 28bytes (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) A few people just don't "get" it, no matter for how long you counsel. AGK 22:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

As KillerChihuahua points out, Tomballguy has said he'll cut it out, so as far as I'm concerned we should take him at his word. If that doesn't work out we can always reconvene here. 28bytes (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It's too bad that several editors needed to intervene for the user in question to quit being aggressive. Let's hope the good faith pays off this time. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

NBG Radio Network legal threat

I'm not sure what's going on here. It's an article about a defunct-in-2003 Oregon radio network. A look at the page history from the past few days shows an unregistered user (from Switzerland) who may have been connected with the company trying to get the page deleted, apparently thinking that defunct companies don't need articles. Today a different unregistered user (from New Jersey) adding a prod tag that includes a legal threat regarding a similarly named IT company. I reverted the tag because of the threat and because it wasn't a legit reason to propose deletion. (The company seems notable enough, so it would probably pass an AfD.) I didn't block the anon per WP:DOLT. I think it is a coincidence that the two IPs have tried to get the article deleted recently, as they seem to have different motivations, but maybe something more is going on here? Anyway, I'm hoping someone with more experience (and interest--I don't particularly care about the topic) in these matters could advise. Valfontis (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. It's a pretty clear legal threat and it's not a biography of a living person. I'll leave a message on their talk page they can email OTRS or the Wikimedia foundation.--v/r - TP 01:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Valfontis (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

IP removal of citation request

This may seem petty, but I'm not sure what to do. Earlier this month I tagged what appears to be an OR statement with a "Citation Necessary" on Boko Haram. For some unexplained reason, a range of similar IPs continues to remove the citation request. No details are given in the edit summary nor on the talk page. I continue to revert the removal (which I suppose puts me in violation of the 3RR, but it thus far has been a one-way conversation). Since the IP keeps changing, it really does no good to place a warning on the user talk page.

Diffs:

• OR statement added:
• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

IPs:

• 188.28.183.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 188.29.5.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 188.28.214.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 188.28.11.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 188.29.23.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks. --RDavi404 (talk) 04:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest you request semi-protection. Nil Einne (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. --RDavi404 (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

IP vandalizing talk page.

User:108.18.228.162 has vandalized my talk page a number of times tonight. Has been warned 3 times not to do it. Notified of ANI . Niteshift36 (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked, but in the future please refrain from tossing insults like this and using edit summaries like this. 28bytes (talk) 04:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll conceed the edit summary to his blatant and ridiculous vandalism was probably not called for, but I won't apologize for the other comment. I think telling him to "go hump someone elses leg" is a fairly mild response to "go fuck yourself buddy". Niteshift36 (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Calling him a "simpleton", while a fairly novel term as it doesn't often turn up here, is an insult to the non-vandalistc simpletons of the world. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

i've already conceeded that it was probably uncalled for. Not sure what else anyone is expecting. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Bugs was just joking with you. I'll mark this resolved. 28bytes (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Couldn't tell if he wanted another mea culpa. A smilie might help :p Niteshift36 (talk) 16:25, 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)

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)

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)

Request

I have retired from active editing. I would like to have my user page deleted, and my sandbox pages deleted as well. Thanks. Joyson Noel 10:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Just blank them and tag them for speedy deletion, criterion U1 (user request). N419BH 10:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Little point in that, now that he's here with it. Working on it. lifebaka++ 13:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I've left your subpages that weren't sandboxes, such as your useboxen, alone. Reply here, drop me a line at my talk page, or tag them with {{db-u1}} if you also want them deleted. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Further opinion

Per this guideline is the "joke" at Talk:Pregnancy appropriate? It starts "A bad taste joke (not entirely unrelated to the current discussion) In a psychiatric hospital, a patient is submitted to a test aimed at assessing the evolution of his condition. The doctor shows him a piece of paper on which a triangle is drawn, and asks him "What is this?". The patient answers: - A woman's pubis..." I do not see how it relates to this topic? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I am the author of the challenged contribution. Please see my explanation at . Dessources (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete as per the article talkpage guidelines, massive warning, and a gigantic WP:TROUT (with no WP:CHIPS) for even trying to defend its use. If you have to preface the "joke" advising that it's in bad taste, then you know already that it will offend people, and it does not add whatsoever to the improvement of the article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• The poster was making a satirical comment on the efforts of a few prudes at getting a rather tame photo censored. Also, that's a somewhat more explicit variation on a very old joke. "Bob" used it in What About Bob?, for example, a film from 20 years ago or so.About 1:20 of this clip ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• I thought it was funny and I rather think that people on whose contributions the joke was a comment could rise to the occasion and laugh at how silly other people's perception of them is. But if offense is taken, I guess it becomes a matter of CIV, see . But let's not get too upset about the whole thing. At most, it was a tame breach of CIV, and of much much less significance than many other breaches of CIV on that page. B——C_{ritical__Talk} 13:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• It is hard to convey humor on Misplaced Pages. Best to avoid it IMO. The text has been removed thus this issue I hope has been resolved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
  • That joke is no issue. The issue is the attempt at censorship in the article. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Aciyokrocky and Fenerbahçe S.K. (football team)

This user (User:Aciyokrocky) has been making repeated problematic edits to Fenerbahçe S.K. (football team)‎ and refuses to engage in discussion. This article was created as a spin-off from Fenerbahçe S.K. so that there were two separate articles for the multi-sport club and the football section of that same club. It took a long time for them to stop trying to make the two articles identical. Now, they are repeatedly reinstating info that shouldn't be on this article, such as unreferenced POV OR regarding Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and Şükrü Saracoğlu as well as the club's museum and honours won. Much info here is also repeated on the same article. They keep putting copyvios in the infobox - kit patterns including adidas logos. There's also problems with recentism and formatting. I have brought this to the attention of relevant project WP:FOOTY. This most recent diff is my undoing of a load of the problems that the editor had reintroduced. Thanks. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Help

Someone please look at my recent history and the blocks I handed out. There is a massive attack going on at things that I think are video games (I started with Ninja Theory; the editors I've blocked, including some IPs, have also vandalized other articles (General Butt Naked, for instance). I think you know what I think this is. We need some admins to hand out blocks and protect some articles; I have to run to class in a minute or two. Thanks for your speedy attention. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm at work right now and I can't promise anything, but I'll throw some eyes that direction.--v/r - TP 14:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks to User:Closedmouth also. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyone want my giant duck?

Due to an MFD a page I created has been userfied (here) and I don't particularly want it, does anyone else want it before I ask for it to be speedied? Egg Centric 16:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll move it. 28bytes (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Per Jorgenev's comment I have moved it into his userspace. I'll clean up the redirects shortly. 28bytes (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. 28bytes (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Help

Moved from WT:AN. Ks0stm 18:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place but honestly I'm tired of navigating through the entangled bureaucracy here at WP. Anyway, there's this user "User talk: Calabe1992" who is exclusively dedicated to revert vandalism and report so-called vandals, but some times he reverts good faith edits and just keep posting baseless warnings on people's talk pages and scaring away good editors. I wanted to edit some articles here but I really don't want to engage in a discussion with this annoying user who doesn't even add actual content to WP. Please do something, at least to temper/moderate his habits. --Seignard (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I suspect this user who reported me is a sock of User:Xerotic and subsequently User:Spotfixer; see Xerotic's previous contributions. Also, I received no notification that this report was issued, as required. SPI already requested. Calabe1992 (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I was going to say this smelled rather sockish, as a new user's first edits are to WP:AN and WP:AIV? Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, he's already been blocked for quacking, so I'll wait and see if CheckUser gets anything also. Calabe1992 (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed sock. Something tells me however that we have not heard the last of him. Calabe1992 (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Trust me, Calabe, if it were *that* easy to get rid of persistent gimmickeers.... —Jeremy v^_^v 21:00, 28 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)

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)

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 from February to this month:
  

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

Since that RfC 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 RfC 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 RfC started by Floydian against me. It hasn't been resolved because Floydian has ignored that RfC 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)

Suspicious links on BLPs

97198 (talk · contribs) is adding many links to http://www.qx.se/ to many pages (example). Is this appropriate for BLP pages? It seems a bit dodgy. →Στc. 06:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, QX (magazine) is a Swedish LGBT magazine. I've used this article (in Swedish) as a source for the sexual orientations of only seven Swedish politicians (specifically the last paragraph, listing the nine openly gay/lesbian politicians in the Riksdag). Considering it's also a printed magazine, it doesn't look too suss to me, and I figure an LGBT magazine is unlikely to present intentionally false claims about the sexual orientations of the people in question. 97198 (talk) 06:33, 29 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)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards