Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive722

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Problem with aggressive user Nmate[edit]

I have a problem with aggressive user Nmate. I think Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia if you continue making personal attacks on me and Pov pushing ,and I will report to ArbCom whose outcome won't be as auspicious as it was last time.I think he has any mental disorder, because I don´t attack someone. Also I think his behavior will be more aggressive in future 6 7 8. Please resolve my problem with Nmate´s personal attacks, because I'm tired already. --Omen1229 (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


Don`t want to "pour oil on fire" but it seems that the main activity of User:Nmate is to cause conflicts and write various reports (according to his contributions). There is a pattern and whenever he re-appears a new conflict is created with various users. Adrian (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Nmate edits and personal attacks have been motivated by a nationalist standpoint regarding the history of Eastern Europe. Per Wikipedia:DIGWUREN and Wikipedia is not a battleground should be Nmate blocked forever. --195.28.75.114 (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I see a lot of Wikistalking accross many articles [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. I also see talk page issues such as reverting someone else's talk page message by a third user. This behavior is highly disruptive and I am on the edge of a block for Wikistalking. The only thing holding me back is that the edits that are reverted appear to be slightly POV. I would say that they are sourced and in good faith and this is a content dispute that should be resolved by discussion and not by edit warring. I strongly suggest Nmate knock it off and find something better to do.--v/r - TP 13:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
It appears that Nmate is already under editing restriction regarding Eastern European topics due to his past violations of policy. It seems that his continued edit warring and incivility over these articles constitutes a knowing and purposeful violation of the Digwuren ArbCom decision, and that violations like this have been enforced by either topic ban or block. Please note that any blocks or bans need to be documented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans. I would say the severity of his incivility would merit at least a lengthy topic ban, but I'm just one editor. VanIsaacWScontribs 13:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I read the restrictions and I see that Nmate was notified of the restriction in 2008. As it is within admin discretion and I can see how Nmate would think his edits were justified, I am going to WP:AGF on Nmate and leave a reminder on his talk page that Wikistalking and undoing good faith edits are disruptive. I'm not going to personally issue a block at this time, but another admin may decide otherwise.--v/r - TP 15:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Seems like the warning got ignored. [7]. Wladthemlat (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Take two[edit]

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

Yeah, there is some pretty consistent POV pushing going on here. To have undertaken such an edit less than a day after being reminded of the ArbCom policies on Eastern European subjects is pretty damning. I'm not sure Nmate is ever going to get it. VanIsaacWScontribs 11:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
If I remember correctly it was stated before that Omen is not a new user, but a self evident sockpuppet of someone. If blatantly obvious sockpuppet accounts, with openly throwaway names (such as Omen1229, or Sky8872, user22365, Wikp227612 et cetera), are allowed to write to this noticeboard, I think the net effect will be a big negative for Wikipedia. There is nothing to be discussed with a throwaway account, because after a time, well it's thrown away anyway and a new one is created. I am being straightforward here, because I don't believe that any honest person with experience in dealing with sockpuppets (like an admin at SPI) could say that the omen account is a real, legitimate and first account at Wikipedia. Hobartimus (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I thought that Omen1229 is a new user... Anyway we should avoid confusing the subjects and if there is a valid suspicion about Omen then there should be a SPI report - separated from this discussion. Adrian (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I´m a new user. I don´t know who are Sky8872, user22365, Wikp227612... lol --Omen1229 (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
250 edits since February? Doesn't sound very suspicious to me. On what basis do you have this concern? VanIsaacWScontribs 12:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
@Hobartimus: You state above "If I remember correctly it was stated before that Omen is not a new user, but a self evident sockpuppet of someone." Do you have any diffs to back up your memory of this? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Complaint about 2 editors[edit]

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 Wikipedia 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: [8] 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 Wikipedia 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 [9]

An editor believes that that they want to "fast track" their editing power to Admin and are ”hit and run tagging “.[10][11]


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)[12]. Jasper Deng says "it would be very unfortunate if we had to block you from editing because of this"[13] implying that he will block me from Wikipedia. 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/wiki/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" [14] 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 [15]

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”.[16]

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 [17] But it was a draft and another editor agrees[18] I have a limited amount on the computer and had more pressing issues to deal with regarding research for editing Wikipedia 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"[19], when I have said it in my previous posts I posted to another editor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adam_Schuck In this instance, ConcernedVancouverite picked me out on a gramatical error[20]. Regarding this, I meant "comments on" instead of "re-affirmed" [21] 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. [22] and that is the last straw. [23] 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 [24] 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: [25].


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 [Talk][RFF] 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? VanIsaacWScontribs 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 [Talk][RFF] 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 [26]. Later on September 27, 2011 I removed a BLP claim that did not match what it was citing [27] - 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 [28] - 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 [29] and later made a comment and struck out a double !vote by Domenico here [30] - 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 Wikipedia: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 [31] and [32]. 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 [Talk][RFF] 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 [33] and states, "I Davina Reichman created this work entirely by myself." Additionally this promo photo of Davina Reichman which is attributed to Domenico Yousef [34] was uploaded by Domenico.y. Additionally, in this diff [35] 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 Wikipedia 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 [36], edit warring warning from Off2riorob [37]. I think part of the AN/I closure in addition to Jasper and I agreeing to not communicate with him on his talk page should include Domenico.y being banned from editing those conflicted articles until he learns the ropes of Wiki and how a conflicted editor can and should interact with the community. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
It appears that Marcus now agrees that Domenico.y has a COI as per his post here [38]. Since it is relevant to this discussion, I thought it would be important to provide the diff to make sure others who are just reading this discussion are aware that Marcus has now understood the COI issue more clearly. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I think your comment is a damned impertinence. How dare you accuse me of "agreeing" with anyone - I made efforts to search and confirm or disprove any COI, and happened to come across a link - that they were in the same class in Uni - hardly bedfellows. You were making guesses, and casting aspersions, so don't try to wrangle your way out of your unjustifed behaviour with "see, I was right" malarkey or hide behind my methods. In this day and age we don't cast guilt without proof - you did. As such, I support the proposal below. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 23:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Also going to add that your request that he be subject banned is further tripe, which would effectively have Domenico leave Wiki for good, because he only has one subject on interest, at present. As with any author of a new article it is respectful to give them room to develop the content with guidance. Not let them donate the ingredients but not bake the cake. The entire proposition is self-righteous nonsense, which I oppose strongly, and consider as further biting also - newbies aren't going to learn the ropes if you make them stop working on articles that they are interested in, are they? Logic is a virtue - use it. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 00:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
"You were making guesses" - actually is not correct. I based my conclusions on the research I had done - both the research documented here on the AN/I and additional research which I will not post here as I do not want to out the editor. Suffice to say though that such research conclusively demonstrates a strong prior relationship between all three (the editor and the two subjects of the articles) including photos of them celebrating together, as well as major pieces of work co-authored by them. The COI is not a guess. It is very clear. And as such, since the editor has also demonstrated a tendency to edit articles of subjects closely related in a way that is not appropriate considering the very clear COI. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Bollocks, you're taking the matter out of proportion. Being a friend of someone is no different to being a huge fan of a band/singer, or worshipper of a particular religion, or viewer or a favourite TV show - if we had members announce all their hobbies, interests and friendships and YouTube subscriptions to cover all the bases, everyone on Wiki would have a vague COI - 99% of people edit articles that interest them - so there's always a degree of COI. Being a friend is much lower down the scale than working with or for someone, which you are implying there is a personal, possibly commercial, relationship. Until he admits of denies that, it is pure OR speculation! Celebrating - haha - could be a New Year Party far all you know - don't draw conclusions unless you can support them! Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 15:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

  • Support interaction ban. I'm not familiar with ConcernedVancouverite, but I know Jasper Deng has a long history of biting users and assuming bad faith. I'd also propose, at least in Jasper's case, a topic ban from areas on Wikipedia 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. WormTT · (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? WormTT · (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
    Maybe content writing? Looking over his contributions, it seems the only time he has ever edited an article is when he reverts another user's edit (vandalism or not), but I've never seen him actually sit down and work on an article. Could be worth a shot. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I opposed being lumped together and being blamed for actions of another editor I have no connection with, and would request specific diffs to support the claims made against me such as:
  • AfD of "draft" on userpage, when moving to a sandbox would have helped - no AGF.
  • Disruptive Edits Warning - no AGF.
  • Undid a barnstar which was clearly placed accidentally on the wrong (his own) talk page with "WikiLove" and accusational edit summary left - no AGF.
  • ...various actions seem to treat him more like a "retard" than non-English editor - no AGF, very condescending attitudes.
  • Accused of sock puppetry based on ONE post - no AGF, no justification - also a COI as accuser of socks filed AfD that he seeks to defend.
My read is that the bulk of the complaint actions were not based upon my edits and that I am being unfairly accused of such actions. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
(Non-admin observation) I agree with ConcernedVancouverite here. I have had many indirect dealings with the user in the past when dealing with new editors and new editor contributions, and have not found any WP:BITE issues. This seems to be one experienced editor being BITEy with a new editor, and another experienced editor interacting with the same new editor at the same time in a manner which would not normally be considered improper (i.e. properly tagging, removing improper content, executing normal AFD etiquette, and informing the new editor in question of the user's concerns). Whether or not Jasper was acting improperly, the interactions between Jasper and Domenico.y and the interactions between CV and Domenico.y should be reviewed seperately. It makes no sense to judge one of these editors based on the other editor's behaviour. Singularity42 (talk) 03:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
The ban is a moot point since I pretty much self-interaction-banned myself from Domenico.y. This self-ban may be enforced as MuZemike describes above.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - though I feel Jasper deserves twice as long as ConcernedVancouverite, but in the end both were rude, aggressive and more to the point have not apologised for their conduct to the person they were distressing. As for Jasper, there's no way he should be granted Admin, after this conduct, imo, at least not for a long time yet - I feel if I had not interjected, this pair would have chased Domenico right off Wiki, and kept it hush. Abhorrent behaviour as noted by MuZemike. I didn't want to push the matter this far, but seeing as it's been done I stand by it- and the defence of CV is plain wiki-lawyering, imo. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 23:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Despite ConcernedVancouverite's replies here, it appears to me that he is still only interested in domineering over the AfDs in question, or more to the point, is attempting to rub salt into the wounds rather than admit to his own hounding: [39] I request this matter of interaction ban be considered, as there is little response to MuZemike's proposal thus far. Even Jasper has kept his distance, so no reason why CV should not be discouraged from continuing his propaganda charade, also. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 15:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

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

This successive list of single purpose editors have all attempted over the past four years to add identical content to the article Ito calculus by an associate professor Hassan Allouba from Kent State University. The material that they are attempting to add has not received recognition in secondary sources, such as academic textbooks, or mathscinet, the main international journal that currently reviews all mathematical articles since 1940. A large number of users, including regular editors of the article, have been aware of the problem this has been causing. The last two editors are now acting as a tag-team to reinsert this WP:UNDUE content without any justification. The long-term pattern suggests that there is some form of conflict of interest in their edits. The first six accounts have probably been operated by the same user. A previous report was made by another user on WP:FTN over a month ago,[40] where I first noticed this collection of editors, but since then the problem only seems to have become worse. None of the editors listed above, of whom only the last two are active, seems to be here to improve the quality of this encyclopedia. I am not quite sure what action should be taken, but the current tag-teaming and edit warring seems highly problematic. Mathsci (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Some of those accounts are long stale, so don't expect much from them. Unless some kind of SPI investigation comes out, there not really relevant due to the time that has elapsed. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
This has been discussed before on WP:FTN. The first six users are single purpose accounts whose sole purpose has been to add exactly the same problematic content to the article. The large time gaps between the different accounts (the staleness mentioned above) ruled out any kind of SPI report but the conclusion about them being operated by the same user is hard to avoid. Mathsci (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • AaronKauf (talk · contribs) has not replied here but on his user talk page replied to the standard ANI notification as follows;[41] "Great, let's call a spade a spade then. Because your account along with your friends' will be in that discussion. Cheers!" In addition today he has made the following unsubstantiated comments on the talk page of the article:
  • [42] "Please read the above comments before issuing your regular veto. This behavior of vetoing and threatening is unethical and based on unsubstantiated claims. Your account along with the other British ones are WP:SPAs."
  • [43] "Why are you (along with Mathsci) enticing an edit war by constantly reverting and deleting any contribution we do to this section? You are not even willing to engage in a constructive mathematical discussion. It is obvious that you and your group are having personal issues with the author Allouba. And as I stated before, the Wiki is not a vehicle to settle scores. The constant harassment and threats issued by you and your friends are unethical, and against Wiki policies; and are being reported."
  • [44] "We are talking about the quadratic covariation derivative which has been published in peer-reviewed articles. We are contributing to this article like every other editor. However, each time the aforementioned theory is written, accounts like Mathsci and William M. Connolley, quickly either revert it or delete it. This has been their "single mission" these days. I always discuss my contribution on the talk page, and those accounts refuse to engage in a constructive mathematical discussion. They instead resort to harassment and threats. This behavior is not democratic and doesn't adhere to Wiki policy and should be reported."
This editor does not appear to understand wikipedia policies. In addition neither editor has explained why the chain of single purpose accounts has been adding identical content for the past four years. It is the notability and dueness of the mathematics that has not been established within the criteria of wikipedia. AaronKauf in several edits, including the ones above, has repeatedly suggested that those unconvinced about the unnotability of the material are single purpose accounts with a personal agenda against Hassan Allouba: that is not the case. RHarryd has repeatedly argued, in trying to justify why this work has been not cited, that the work of mathematicians who have won Fields medals is also not cited so often. That comparison is unhelpful, since the work of Fields medalists is cited very publicly at the International Congress of Mathematicians, where the recipients are announced and their research described. Mathsci (talk) 04:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Note I moved this thread back here because the user requested a chance to respond. Noformation Talk 19:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Note. AaronKauf was informed twice about this thread with an explicit clickable link the second time, but did not respond to either notification. He unilaterally made a disruptive request for "mediation" which was refused.[45] I gave yet another detailed commentary there about his edits. At present his edits indicate that he is not interested in contributing to this encyclopedia according to any of wikipedia's standard editing policies. Possibly he could provide some of kind of justification for his disruptive edits (unfamiliarity as a beginnner). If not, then perhaps this is not the place for him. Mathsci (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

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

It seems like a pretty clear case of tendentious editing by AaronKauf (talk · contribs), as well as mild edit-warring. The lack of clear violations makes it hard to make the usual WP:SPI and WP:3RR cases, though there is definitely a worrisome pattern there. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
He did actually make legal threats in his last comment, accusing me and others of defamation: "This defamation is liable here in the US. You don't need to know a person to discriminate against him or her.", which probably falls under no legal threats. I agree that WP:SPI is probably difficult to demonstrate at this stage. In the beginning, the pattern was that of a new single-purpose account being created every couple of weeks to give some additional "weight", but after being accused of sockpuppetry, this pattern changed. Now, only two accounts (AaronKauf and RHarryD) seem active and they might actually be operated by different users, even though their style remains suspiciously similar. Hairer (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Uninvolved admin's note: the diff Hairer is referring to is here. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, some arrangement should be made to ensure that the disruption won't continue. Reasoning with this editor does no good. He won't respond at ANI, but continues to make warlike statements on article talk pages. He takes the interesting view that he doesn't need to give his real name (we should trust him as an authority) but he criticizes other editors for not giving their real names. Since he really won't listen, an indef block is appropriate. This would not preclude a later negotiation if he belatedly decides to discuss things. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunatelty that does seem to be the only way forward. The diff from yesterday is extremely belligerent; it also shows an unawareness of how wikipedia works and why users edit anonymously. Unless something clicks with him, I can't see any prospect of constructive interactions between him and other editors. That could change and an indefinite block would always allow him to appeal the block if at some later stage things change. Mathsci (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin F. Shively[edit]

Resolved: Changes backed out. No administrative intervention needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

With the exeption of the infobox, this article is completely copied and pasted from [46] to the last word.--46.246.216.44 (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This is just an instance of low-level vandalism. I restored the article back to the way it was before the changes. I also backed out some other changes made by the same IP and posted a warning on the IP's Talk page. Administrative intervention is not needed at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Azerbaijani-American[edit]

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 [47] 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 [48])

Further, in a discussion thread on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard,[49] 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, and the same battling POVs are in play, because the same mindsets are involved (and maybe even some of the same editors, under different names, on all sides of the issues). Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Let's hear what the editors on the other side of the issue have to say. One question that occurs to me is whether the number of "Azerbaijani-Americans" is the same as the number of "Americans born in Azerbaijan"; I assume not, as say, a child born in the United States to two Azerbaijani immigrant parents would presumably be Azerbaijani. But it seems to me that either there would be a number of Azerbaijani-Americans (defined broadly) contained in the 2000 census results, or else there would be no comparable number expected to be reported in the 2010 census, or else the data to be reported have changed between the two censuses (in which case there would be an official source somewhere for that). Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
You're absolutely right that how one defines "Azerbaijani-American" is going to make a difference. (In fact, our article has a remaining bit of synthesis in the "demographics" section in which Census numbers are added to Homeland Security and numbers from other sources to come up with a 2000 A-A US population of 14,944.) I would doubt that official sources would want to deal with such vague categories, which is why we get "People born in Azerbaijan", a hard fact that's not further characterized. I don't think we're wrong to have an article called "Azerbaijani-Americans", but I do think that the facts presented in it should be of that variety, hard and from official (or otherwise very reliable) sources, not factoids which have been mixed up like batter and baked into a cake. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Beyond My Ken - as I've stated before (for example, here [50]), for the Armenia-Azerbaijan ArbCom to apply, the articles have to be directly and completely relevant to both Azerbaijan and Armenia, and in this case, the article Azerbaijani American it is neither directly relevant to Armenia, nor is it really that directly related to Azerbaijan. Yes, it's about Azerbaijani people, including those born in Azerbaijan, but it is primarily about America, and them being a minority and an ethnic group in U.S., not in any other region of the world. It is not about Azerbaijan, it is not about Armenia, it is not about Turkey or Iran. It is about United States of America. Otherwise, one can claim that pages about International Monetary Fund, World Bank, FIFA, United Nations, and anything else that has Azerbaijan's membership (and incidentally, Armenia's, Turkey's and Iran's) should all be part of the ArbCom, and that's just not the case. By the way, I hope you understand that your edits of anything directly relevant to Azerbaijan and Armenia falls under the Arbcom, too, then? Now that you've read it thoroughly, you should keep it in mind (and thanks for educating others such as myself, too). I won't mind at all if you will be restricted from reverts and edit warring to once per week - I won't have to report you then like here [51].
Meanwhile, Newyorkbrad, the article Azerbaijani American, just like the articles Iranian American or any other hyphenated Americans articles, is not about the Census. The Census is just one of the sources that can be used - albeit the most comprehensive one. So let's not bring everything down to Census as if it's the only source that can or should be listed. The estimate 400,000 is clearly labeled as a non-Census estimate. Same like the Iranian American article where I placed references that despite the 2000 Census reporting only about 338,000 Iranian-Americans, numerous US sources place their numbers at two million. No one has challenged that or removed that, either.
Secondly, as you've correctly predicted, the 2000 US Census figures reported Americans "Americans born in Azerbaijan". Considering that far more ethnic Azerbaijanis live in other countries than in Azerbaijan (there are too many sources on this question, I am more than happy to provide them if needed), then obviously the U.S. Census figures simply can't report the true numbers (we also added to that all the citizenships received by Azerbaijanis from Azerbaijan in years 2001-2010, which adds another 10,000 or so people, to bring the total of US citizens from Azerbaijan Republic to approximately 24,377. This number does not the refugee applications or any other data. All of the numbers are straight from the Department of Homeland Security, as cited in the article).
Especially when you compare and look at the Iranian American page, and check the MIT Iranian Student Group survey (a poll or survey done by Iranian-Americans at MIT - that's a scholarly source, and no one has removed or challenged it, even Beyond My Ken who likes to challenge everything "approves"), that at least 11% of Americans from Iran are actually ethnically Azerbaijani.[52] I inserted that source in that article, after it was cited or supported on a talk page by other active editors of that article, like Khodabende14, Alborz Fallah and Kurdo777. Since the U.S. Government (White House and State Department) say there are 2 million people from Iran (and not 338,000 that the 2000 Census reports - should we raise the same problems for the Iranian-American article like BMK is raising for Azerbaijani American?), that's some 240,000 Azerbaijani-Americans just from Iran alone. Doesn't include Azerbaijanis who came from Azerbaijan, Russia, Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, etc.
This is compounded with the problems of census undercount that are true for all ethnic and other minority groups - I've cited like a dozen high-quality sources on this subject, including three from the U.S. Census Bureau itself, one from a U.S. Senate testimony, and one from the U.S. House of Representatives. They all reveal a big problem across the board, which is applicable to all (but they don't name the Azerbaijani-Americans by name - and neither do they name 1,000 other ethnic groups in America by name, too).
Now, if you look carefully at the article version that Beyond My Ken blanked out [53], the 400,000 figure has well over a dozen citations (much more than needed), is available in a Google Books scholarly source, plus three (US local or state) government sources and from foreign government (such as statement from an Azerbaijani Consul General in Los Angeles, whose job is to know such things, as that's what consulates have to deal with: visas, passports, and other demographic questions all the time) and U.S. NGO organizations like AAC and USAN that were specifically chosen by the US Census Bureau for the Census 2010 partnership (to help with the census 2010), makes that estimate of 400,000 more than worthy of inclusion/retention.
So as you can see, there is plenty of evidence, direct and indirect. But more importantly - these sources and that paragraph specifically should not have been removed/blanked out by Beyond My Ken without explanation. All of the sources and the paragraph in question comply with WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE among other. It is more reliable than similar articles like Iranian American and Armenian American, for example.
And the paragraph in question does not make any predictions or speculations about the future that would violate WP:CRYSTAL as Beyond My Ken tries to allege. The admins should have restored my version and thus undone the damage that BMK has caused with his disruptive edit, which he did without any talk and discussion, whilst admitting not to be an expert on the issue. --Saygi1 (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The quality of the sources cited has been dealt with very thoroughly on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where the consensus of uninvolved editors was that they do not sufficiently support the claims made. For instance the Brooklyn Borough President, a county-level official, is cited in support of the 400,000 figure. (There are currently 3,143 counties or equivalent in the U.S., are we expecte to believe that every County Executive is an expert on ethnic demographics in the United States?) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Essentially, the argument being made here is:
  1. Some ethnic groups have been shown by studies to have been undercounted (reliably sourced)
  2. The census doesn't count "Azerbaijani-Americans", or American Azerbaijanis born in other countries, only Americans born in Azerbaijan (unsourced, but plausible)
  3. Therefore Azerbaijani Americans must have been undercounted (synthesis, no source)
  4. A number of different figures are floating around, in the neigborhood of 300,000 - 500,000, but 400,000 is often mentioned (sourced primarily but mostly indirectly to Azerbaijan-related entities, otherwise weakly sourced to entities not reliable for demographic figures; no official or intensive studies or surveys are cited)
  5. Therefore, there are probably 400,000 Azerbaijani Americans in the U.S. (synthesis, unsourced)
Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

More synthesis in the article[edit]

Copied this discussion to Talk:Azerbaijani American#Edit to this fully-protected article requested; new comments should be posted there.
Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)]]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

WP:SYNTHESIS states:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[8] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

The Demographics section of this article contains the following paragraphs:

According to the 2000 U.S. census, there were an estimated 14,205 Americans born in the Republic of Azerbaijan,[1] out of which 5,530 were naturalized U.S. Citizens[1] and 5,553 identified themselves as Azerbaijani in a primary or a secondary ancestry.[20] Census 2000 did not count Azerbaijani-Americans born in countries other than the Republic of Azerbaijan.

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

These statistics do not include the legal permanent residents (green card holders) who numbered 781 in 2010,[21] refugees, legal non-immigrant aliens (temporary visitors) who numbered 4,938 in 2009, as well as a very large number of ethnic Azerbaijanis born in other countries, such as Iran, Russia, and Turkey. Thus, based only on Census 2000 and DHS data, the official estimate of the U.S. citizens born in the Republic of Azerbaijan is approximately 14,944, and the number of U.S. residents born in Azerbaijan is approximately 24,377, minus the natural decline.

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

Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Adding up some numbers to reach a total is not, it seems to me, the sort of synthesis that the policy warns against. Although your concern that the 400,000 estimate may be speculative or exaggerated is a reasonable issue to raise for discussion, the figures you quote here do not seem to be reasonably subject to dispute by anyone, and hence your invocation of the policy here strikes me as hypertechnical and as detracting from the force of your earlier arguments.
A more serious concern about the paragraph you challenge is whether the emphasis on the exact numbers gives an impression of greater accuracy, to the last person, than is possible given the sizes of the numbers involved. But that probably is a nuance better suited for discussion on the article talkpage than on ANI. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Brad, I'm totally stunned by your comment that this is "hypertechnical". The paragraph I cited is a black and white example of the policy cited. Numbers from different sources (using the same? different? antithetical? methodologies) are added together to come up with figures which are mentioned in none of the sources. How can that not be a violation of WP:SYN, when it's precisely what the policy says not to do?

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

I really don't understand your take on this -- how can a policy not mean what it says? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The 2000 number and the 2001-10 numbers are both actual counts from official government statistics. It amounts (in round numbers) to "there were 15,000 Azerbaijan-born people living in the US in 2000, and another 10,000 more arrived since then, so there are about 25,000 now." The fact that the paragraph adds 15,000 and 10,000 and gets to 25,000 strikes me as not especially problematic, though of course others may disagree. As I said above, I think there are more serious issues with the paragraph, including whether there is an excess of misleadingly exact detail. Let's see what others have to say. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
To flesh out my thoughts a bit more, I would think that the policy against original research through synthesis is violated, in a fashion that should concern us, when an editor adds material to an article embodying an inference that is not present in those terms in the original sources and the accuracy of the inference could reasonably be questioned. Do you think the latter is the case here? (Not a rhetorical question—I'd like to know the specific reason you are concerned about the figures, which seem quite reasonable, as opposed to the figure you were questioning yesterday, which I had questions about too.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Brad: That the figures are the same order of magnitude as the official Census figure certainly lends them a certain believability, but that's really neither here nor there. My feelings about the numbers are pretty irrelevant -- there are many things I know as fact from personal experience, but I cannot add them to articles without a citation from a reliable source, because that what policy requires, so I go out and find a reliable source to back it up. I see no reason here that policy shouldn't be followed as well.

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

  • Sorry to butt in here, but a) isn't this a content dispute more suitable for another noticeboard and b) isn't this a case of WP:CALC? --John (talk) 05:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • John: Thanks, I was unaware of WP:CALC, which does seem applicable, as there is not the required consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The faster than light neutrinos may also have been an artifact of improper synthesis :) .Count Iblis (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

WalkerThrough[edit]

Resolved: User indeffed, with talk page privileges revoked. VanIsaacWScontribs

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

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

WalkerThrough (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

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

  • Canvassed for support [54][55]
  • Edit warred [56] [57] in his extreme ignorance to remove the simple statement that the Bible is regarded as a religious text, though not canon, to Abrahamic religions, including Islam, and the Baha'i. This resulted in this frustrated "ranty" post by the highly regarded and respected (and darn near unflappable) Tznkai[58]
  • Meanwhile, on my talk page, please see the section Maybe we can have a fresh start which will illuminate the issues with this editor's views of policy, Truth, and Wikipedia.
  • See also his poor reaction to a warning, even after I explained this was to his benefit: User_talk:WalkerThrough#September_2011

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

  • Unfortunately I will only be around for a short time too; it's 2.36am here and I'm only still awake because my daughter is. I think however that the user's talk page is clear enough; if anyone wants to unblock then that's fine, but I think the editor needs to promise to stop inserting POV (and one could argue OR) into religious articles exactly as the comment below my block statement represents. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I think an indefinite block for this is very harsh. Indefinite blocks should be used for wilfull malevolence and disruption, or for someone who has shown himself to be unable to conform over a longer period. This is not what we have here, Walkerthrough have responded quite well to calls for collaboration after initially getting of to a bad start for lack of understanding of the editing culture. We should help Walker Through to learn how to contribute well, not block him. If Walker Through wishes I could mentor him in this process. I agree with Black Kite that we need a clear statement that Walker Through understands that inserting Bible quotes into articles without prior consensus is not a good way to edit - because it is controversial when to do that. But I am quite certain that he can understand that. This is not religious discrimination, it is the way that secular encyclopedias are written. He also needs to show that he understands that he is not presenting "the christian viewpoint", but a particular Christian viewpoint that is likely to coincide primarily with his own. I am not going to review the unblock request because of my previous involvement with the case, but I do think that indefinite is excessive in the absence of any evidence of actual malevolence. I hope the reviewing admin will consider my statement.
    This is his second chance. He has shown himself to be resistant to following, or even caring about, policy. He has been edit warring to promote his POV, and stridently argues that he is following policy and attempts to guide him are "harassment". I'm not optimistic. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 01:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Considering that most editors on Wikipedia are American, and most Americans are Christian, it's safe to assume that at least a significant portion of Wikipedians are Christian. In this light, WalkerThrough's claims of religious discrimination honestly come across as a bit immature, and his continued insistance that he is presenting some monolithic Christian view on different subjects (looking at the varied nature of Christians) is outright haughty. All of it seems like he will never get WP:NPOV, and will screw up on other policies when in his favor. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
So now we use two strikes and you're indefinitely blocked. I didn't get the memo when that policy change was made. Contrary to what you state he has shown himself to be fully able to participate in civil discussion and consensus building.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Um, that's not what I stated, actually, so its not "contrary" to what I stated. I said I wanted more help watching his edits and guiding him, and listed problematic edits and patterns. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 01:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
You stated that "he has shown himself resistant to following or even caring about, policy". I think his actual behavior contradicts that. I agree that more eyes is good.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Resistant is not synonymous with incapable. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 02:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I AM a Christian and I fully endorse an indefinite block in this case. I have a high tolerance for giving second (and third, and fourth) chances, but not in the case of Truth-bearing SPA accounts. The only absolute guarantee with this individual is that giving him a third chance will mean having this discussion all over again a few weeks from now. If he were a more established editor, sure... but the amount of drama he has caused in such a short period of time makes him a liability to the project. I would support the standard offer in a couple months. Trusilver 04:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Endorse block. The way he went from Bible to Acts of the Apostles just to insert more or less the same contentious stuff there, right after he had been told he couldn't have it in Bible, shows he seriously isn't getting it. Fut.Perf. 05:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • An indefinite block is clearly the right thing. The editor clearly does not have any intention of stopping inserting his/her point of view, which he/she calls "the truth". I see no evidence at all to support the statements above that "Walkerthrough have responded quite well to calls for collaboration" and "he has shown himself to be fully able to participate in civil discussion and consensus building". What I do see is him/her showing some signs of going through the motions of discussing, but in fact using discussion only to provide arguments in favour of allowing him/her to continue to push a point of view, and showing no signs at all of any intention of actually changing the way he/she edits. There are statements such as "Please allow me to reassure you that I do want to follow WP policies", but in practice we have (1) quoting from policies and guidelines selectively and out of context, in such a way as to twist the policies to support what WalkerThrough thinks should be the policy, rather than what it is, (2) arguing against policy when it clearly does not support WalkerThrough's view (this occurs over the "verifiability not truth" issue) and (3) totally misunderstanding policy issues, as for example persisting in treating the "verifiability not truth" policy as though it said "truth is irrelevant, so posting outright lies is just as good as posting verifiable facts", which of course it does not say. Numerous editors have patiently tried to explain what the issues are, but we continue to get "I didn't hear that". WalkerThrough either can't or won't see that trying to force his/her own version of a christian view into articles is pushing a point of view. That is the primary problem, but we also have several other problems. For example, there is a strong battleground mentality. Editors who have attempted to be helpful by informing WalkerThrough of how to work within the framework of Wikipedia methods have been subject to assumptions of bad faith, accusations of harassment, threats of being "reported", etc etc. Thus we have, among many other examples, "some admins have proven to be irresponsible with their powers. One admin, Killer, has been harassing me." To represent KillerChihuahua's actions as harassment is absurd. Walkerthrough seems to be quite incapable of seeing the problems in any other terms than as an evil conspiracy to suppress his point of view as to what constitutes THE TRUTH. For example, here we have "It is clear to me that there are many non-Christian editors who are determined to censor the Bible and Christian faith views from being presented" We also have such remarks as "strong presentation of the anti-Christian side", which appears to mean "presentation of anything which is contrary to WalkerThrough's version of christianity": to refer to it as "anti-Christian" is nonsense. A very simple indication of WalkerThrough's attitude is given by a recent section heading used on his/her talk page, namely "Blocked again...This is religious discrimination". Despite every effort made by numerous editors to patiently explain what the problems are, we get "I didn't hear that": this is all a conspiracy to suppress christianity. It is clear that WalkerThrough either cannot or will not see what the problems are, and has no intention at all of changing their editing pattern. Going through the motions of agreeing to follow policy, by saying things such as "I agree not to promote a particular point of view" is meaningless if it is followed by "putting what I believe into articles is not promoting a point of view: it is telling THE TRUTH." There is no case at all for unblocking. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: someone might want to talk to WalkerThrough about this. He says he no longer wants unblock but has left the unblock template on his talk page. If he's really dropping his request to be unblocked, then he should remove the unblock template. If he is still wanting unblock, of course, this is just more grandstanding. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Unblock declined, talkpage locked to prevent future WP:SOAP. It's fundamentalists like this who refuse to compromise with others that give us Christians a bad bad bad name. Probably still believes only some aspects of Leviticus still apply (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, after reading through this & the talkpage I have struck my invitation for others to unblock, we're clearly better off without this editor. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I've archived the page since it seemed it was turning into a debacle with the protagonist unable to participate.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing[edit]

Resolved: Content dispute with a mild case of boomeranging. No need for admin intervention. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This user, BaboneCar (talk), sabotage me many times and I need help with that problem. Articles with disruptive editing: FC Universitatea Craiova, ACF Gloria 1922 Bistriţa, CFR Cluj, FCM Bacău, FC Farul Constanţa, CS Gaz Metan Mediaș, FC Vaslui, FC Brașov, FC UTA Arad. Please help me. Mortifervm (talk)

What exactly has he been doing? Could you provide some diffs? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
After doing your work for you and looking for evidence, what I'm seing are formatting disputes, and:
  • BaboneCar attempting discussion and even citing guidelines (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
And:
Failing to discuss edits is disruptive editing, reversion with discussion to meet site guidelines is not disruptive. Could an admin close this, please? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Problem user[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:71.190.2.186 It looks as though that this "person" is acting like an immature baby. I clearly said to this person that using speculation as a valid source isn't acceptable unless Univision themselves confirmed it. All I ever got was a nasty reply (and a very laughable one) and this person continues with the unnecessary bickering and name calling. Platinum Star (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks at all times on Wikipedia. Comments like "X is acting like an immature baby" are inflammatory, unproductive, and reflect badly on you as an editor. Please read and abide by WP:NPA hereafter. VanIsaacWScontribs 14:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, "acting like an immature baby" is a comment on behavior. Asking "what are you, a 5 year old troll?" is more of a personal attack. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Read the IP's post on the page, I'd agree that their actions are very immature as well. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Pot: meet kettle. The IP may be in error about reliable sources, but name-calling is not the best way of bringing on a new editor who does not know the rules here. Friendly guidance is much more likely to have the desired effect than dragging someone to AN/I. Here, have this minnow. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me. Platinum, please refrain from personal attacks at all times on Wikipedia. Comments like "X is acting like an immature baby" are inflammatory, unproductive, and reflect badly on you as an editor. Please read and abide by WP:CIVIL hereafter. VanIsaacWScontribs 22:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

User:68.226.153.93[edit]

The only edit by 68.226.153.93 (talk · contribs) has been a legal threat at WP:COIN regarding a song by an artist whose name they appear to share. OlYellerTalktome 21:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't make hide nor hair of what they're on about - aside from that obvious legal threat is obvious. I've given the IP a warning, but I have no idea about what else to do - does an IP get indeffed per WP:NLT like a user? I'll leave that up to those with more experience. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The WHOIS shows it as a major ISP with a /18 range allocation for that area...that's almost 17,000 potential addresses xe could conceivably cycle through. If xe is only active on the one topic, I'd say semi it and/or play Whac-a-troll™. My gut says it was a drive-by, though, so this may all be worrying about nothing. Just my 2p worth. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Redirect: Problematic User[edit]

Looks like a SPA to me...eight edits to date, all but two to Anti-Islam. I'm having a hard time reconciling the extremely low edit count with knowing how to edit a redirect. Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they aren't out to get you... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Page protected. Now he will have to discuss it, if he wants to change.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Since consensus was met not long ago, and since the page had been experiencing several problems with coming up with an exact definition, all the relevant users that had been involved took it towards deletion where external editors agreed that it should be redirected towards Islamophobia; as it makes more sense than arbitrarily redirecting it to "criticism of Islam". I'll use the example before that I'd used in that discussion that if someone is "Anti-Judaism" or "Anti-Semetic" it doesn't mean "criticism of Judaism" or "criticism of Semetism". Because everyone agreed to this consensus only a couple of months ago it's pointless trying to change it if only one person thinks otherwise. It would be equally pointless to hold another vote, so soon. NarSakSasLee (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Wikinews Importer Bot[edit]

Wikinews Importer Bot (talk · contribs) is adding full URLs to wikinews links. The owner Misza13 (talk · contribs) has been notified, but has yet to act and has not edited since May. I propose that the bot be blocked until the issue is settled, and for all of the full URL additions to be reverted. I posted this at the robot noticeboard but have yet to receive a response.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

  • (Non-administrator comment) This seems very reasonable. Ideally, we should be using {{Wikinews}} to link to Wikinews stories. That's what I've done all over the damn place. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Saw a version of an article from 10 September[edit]

So I look at Eritrean–Ethiopian War and I discover, in the leading paragraph, that Eritrea and Ethiopia are two of the world's richest countries. Go to history to revert obvious vandalism, and after a bit of investigation I discover the page doesn't say that. In fact it hasn't said it since some very quickly reverted vandalism on the 10 September, after which many edits have been made, none of which, so far as I can tell, included that phrase. Now, I'm aware of adding purging the cache and so on, but surely it should have been purged several times after all that time and edits? Is this a known issue? It definitely wasn't cached locally, although it's possible my ISP is doing so transparently somewhere Egg Centric 14:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds strange, but FTR this kind of thread really be posted at WP:VPT. Not that it matters much, but you'd probably have a better chance of getting an answer there as well. Acather96 (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Andy4190[edit]

I request to give this user a strong warning (assume good faith), as he already many article with hoax information and deleted. If assume good faith, which assume him obtained information from the web, which wrongly using rubbish information from transfermarketweb but not from himself. If assume him a vandal, please just block him.

The most recent hoax is Afonso Carson and newly discovered hoax is Adriano Quintão (see WP:footy for why it is a hoax, the first version his created is a hoax (his hoax French career) and someone edited the page but still hoax (his hoax Asia, Croatia and Italy career)), which created 2 years ago. Matthew_hk tc 09:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

yet Estanilau Li's content seems hoax. Matthew_hk tc 09:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Is this something for WP:ANI? And, have you notified the editor, as required? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
yes it should be ANI. Matthew_hk tc 11:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hoax has a specific meaning at Wikipedia, and an article that is indeed a hoax is normally a candidate for speedy deletion (criterion G3). I think what you're really saying is that Andy has created a lot of articles you consider non-notable and deletable. Many of those articles have been nominated for deletion and deleted. I suppose if an editor creates enough non-notable articles, at some point such behavior becomes disruptive, but other than all the AfDs listed on Andy's Talk page, I don't see any warning about his behavior in this regard. I also haven't checked to see how many articles Andy's created that are notable.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

some players likes Adriano Quintão do notable (or somewhat notable as a non-professional player) but all the content is hoax. However i can't assume bad faith (as i receive a lot of being bad faith warning) as the information i found in some other semi-wiki(community) project likes zerozero.pt and transfermarketweb. I won't object that he create hoax than good edits (the results list?) Matthew_hk tc 18:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

User:NickOrnstein[edit]

Please review User_talk:NickOrnstein#Stella_Nardari-Vecchioto. I've asked the editor to revert the edits he's made that amount to wiki-stalking. The diffs are cited there. I'd hoped the request would be folllowed. But a day later, he's made no self-reverts and an provided an answer that's a non sequiter. David in DC (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused here...where exactly is this "wiki-stalking" you're citing here? He reverted you on a page that he frequently edits...what makes that stalking? Also, what specifically has he violated in terms of ArbCom sanctions? Could you provide a link for us to the ArbCom case/sanction and detail what aspect of it he has violated? only (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Her name is coming from the Gerontology Research Group, an ORGANIZATION that tracks down people who have attained the age of 110 and older. Supercentenarians are validated via documenation - birth records, and 2 other documents. All 3 documents confirm that she was born Stella Nardini. David in DC previously thought that there needs to be another source (along with or besides) the GRG links because he considered the GRG unreliable.

The names are listed the way that they are [59] because the family of the validated supercentenarian CHOSE that particular name. An organization is far MORE trusted than a single news source.

I think all names listed on the GRG should be listed the way that it is, such as Maria Redaelli-Granoli rather than just Maria Redaelli or Leilia Denmark, M.D. instead of just Leila Denmark, but other Wikipedians have disagreed in the past.

David goes on calling me a "stalker"; he has cried to administrators and cited so MANY of my edits. You don't call that stalking???

God forbid if I or anyone else does not make an edit that is not appealing to King David in DC, he must report it.

I have been editing these longevity articles for over 3 years. I have made tons of mistakes and learned from them, I suggest David do the same. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The case can be found here. Please note the log of notifications at the bottom.
I was working on the Stella Nardari page and went back to the source. The source gave a different name. I inserted that name. We work from sources, not subjects' family's preferences. I inserted it on all of the lists the subject is on, too. Nick reverted me. In most of the places I inserted the name from the source. He also revert my update of the text of a reference. Again, the source says one thing, I used the info from the source, and Nick reverted me.
Please look at the source. Nick may well be rigfht about what he knows about the way GRG works. But the GRG document says something different. Quite clearly. The sanctions specifically warn against edit-warring and urge members of the World's Oldest People WikiProject to work together, recruiting mentors as need be. Instead, Nick's editing from a position of WP:OWN as to the name of this subject and the way refs to the GRG page should be written. And reverting accordingly. It's not stalking to keep track of when you are reverted and by whom. It is stalking to follow behind me and revert me on several different pages, within a day or less of my making initial edits. David in DC (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
The diffs that amount to stalking:
an IP editor inserts yet a third name, Nick edits back to the name he says the family prefers rather than the one on the GRG source page I'd inserted.
Nick reverts my edit back to what he says the family prefers and away from the name in the source
Here the revert-stalking isn't about Nardari-Vecchioto, it's about truth-in-citations. The document is clear on its face as to title, the multiplicity of authors, and the fact that its publication date is two days ago, not eight years ago.
Nick's link above to the source document is broken. Here's an unbroken link.
It's galling to be repeatedly reverted for the sin of conforming text in a wikipedia article to the source, and for updating the reference to the source when the source itself is updated. David in DC (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Antonio86[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Antonio68

This editor is using some pages as his own feud, personal attack me and who try to change those pages and keep to violate netiquette.

After Interlibertarians and Leonardo Facco pages have been deleted, he moved all the topics in another page.

This page is full of trivial contents, lacking of notability, but, if someone is trying to delete partially them, Antonio68 is keep to undoing the modification.

Finally, he also personal attacked me in various discussion (some deleted after the deletion of Interlibertarians and Leonardo Facco pages) and he used to delete part of discussion.

I had to ask to block him and his sock puppets, in order to keep in order some political page where he continue to add unuseful info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louisbeta (talkcontribs) 13:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Antonio86 has indeed been attacking Louisbeta at Talk:Libertarian Movement (Italy). He also has been changing other editors' comments on the same Talk page. I have left him two warnings on his Talk page. Louisbeta, you should not be accusing him of sockpuppetry without some evidence, and if you have evidence, you should open a report at WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

User:E2e3v6[edit]

E2e3v6 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) – Vandalism after final warning. Continued behavior after multiple warnings to not add information without a source.

Warnings:

Sottolacqua (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

See WP:AIV for vandal reporting. Noformation Talk 07:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
He had taken it there, but was told to take it here as it wasn't a clear cut case of vandalism. only (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • None of those edits are vandalism. They may be unsourced, but minor changes. Most of the links above are links to the warnings given to the editor, and are also over a month apart. He has a recent move with some arrogant edit-summaries that might be far more problematic, but he seems to make a lot of gnomish edits across a lot of gameshow articles. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
    • This is a very long term pattern of making unsourced or nonconstructive edits. The user has been warned multiple times about his/her activity—I only linked to the most recent activity and warnings. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
If you're establishing a long-term pattern, WP:RFC/U is the correct place. I honestly don't see anything worth taking there though. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:COIN[edit]

Resolved: Revisions deleted, reported to Oversight.

I could use some help over at WP:COIN. I try to assist as much as I can as a non-admin but there's a case there right now that I believe needs admin attention. The COI hasn't been established on-Wiki and the reporting user claims to have an email that links the user to a closely related company. I'm not completely familiar with WP:OUTING and regardless of whether or not there is a COI, I still think admin action is needed as the reported edit has called another user a racist, likened that user to Nazis, white supremacists, !voted twice in an AfD, and may be socking. OlYellerTalktome 18:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I should have included the section: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Ken_Sibanda. OlYellerTalktome 18:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
After reviewing WP:OUTING, there was a violation. I redacted the personal info but it's still visible in the history. OlYellerTalktome 18:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Taken care of, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Wheel warring by DragonflySixtyseven[edit]

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: [60], [61] and others by socks of Fahey [62], [63])
  • Admins Eagles247 (talk · contribs), EdJohnston (talk · contribs) both declined unblocking based on that evidence.[64], [65] 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 Wikipedia: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."[66] S/he reblocked the IP for being a recruit and continued disruption and attacks on editors. [67]. [68]
  • After the block the IP posted this uncivil unblock request.
  • kuru (talk · contribs) declined the unblock and removes ability to edit talk page [69]
  • 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.[70] (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 Wikipedia 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)
I've been watching this situation from the sidelines, and commented a while back on DS's original unblock of the IP. While the issue of whether or not the IP is a sock and/or meatpuppet seems debatable, I see DS's actions here as extremely problematic. As far as I know, there's no provision for "own"ing a problem user, such that you and only you may block them, and certainly no provision for unblocking someone simply because you didn't say they could be blocked. My impression here is that Dragonfly is bending over backwards to AGF, to the point where he's approaching suicide-pact levels.

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 What's up, Doc? 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 Wikipedia 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 y