Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive668

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

Noticeboard archives


User:Black Kite & associated actions[edit]

There is nothing to do here. Black Kite has been notified. Black Kite will either not return, in which case there is no need to unprotect the talk page, or return, in which case there will be a need to do so. pablo 09:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I was surprised by this outburst (most notably the profanity in the edit summary), but what concerned me more was the fact that this admin decided to prevent any communication with him whatsoever [1][2]. E-mails have seem to gone unanswered. I think it is worth suspending admin privileges until said user comes back to explain his actions (I'd put a notice on his page...but I can't) — BQZip01 — talk 05:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless it appears there's imminent danger of Black Kite doing damage to the wiki--and there isn't--I think calling for a desysopping is excessive. Fully protecting his talk page may constitute abuse of the tools though. Seth Kellerman (talk) 05:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I suspect you would have to prove a long history of comments and edit summaries like this to block an admin like Black Kite, even for a short period. (Agree that the self full protection on his talk page is unique in my experience.) But it is my view that BK is way out of line, and if a fellow admin hasn't formally warned him in an Email or elsewhere, it should happen soon. Sadly, in my experience if an IP or lightly established editor were to pull this kind of meltdown, a block would quite possibly be in the offing. Full disclosure: prior to making this comment, I !voted against BK's position at the Afd that is the cause of BK's uncivil rant. Suggest BK refactor the rant asap to stop more drama. Jusdafax 05:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
BK has done the right thing when an editor becomes disgruntled: backing away from the project for a while on their own volition. Is there any reason to communicate with BK at the moment? Why would it not just be the best thing all around to leave this well alone and let BK come back when he feels like it? --Mkativerata (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed; let's not poke angry bears now, just leave him be. I don't see this going anywhere productive. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Backing away is one thing, using admin tools to make it impossible to write on your talk page is another. This is a trick most of us are unable to duplicate and is therefore of questionable morality, in my opinion. So since when is freaking out because you don't get your way in a piddling Afd discussion, leaving a snippy note with an obscene edit summary, threatening to quit Wikipedia, the "right thing" for an admin... compared to striking through the comment and taking constructive criticism like every non-admin has to? Frankly, I wonder deeply at this. It seems to me we are defining the difference between a childish tantrum and adult behavior. Every editor should know better, but it is a requirement in an admin, as I see it. Jusdafax 06:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
If/when he edits again, then we can reduce the protection on the talk page. If he doesn't, then what do you suggest we do? Unprotect his talk page so we can wag our fingers at him? Protonk (talk) 06:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Acting like an adult at all times is a requirement for all admins. And outbursts like this is definitely not the "right thing". But we can chose to deal with it with calmness in a way that doesn't exacerbate the situation. That doesn't excuse or condone the Black Kites behavior. Responding with calmness is something we should do in all cases, which unfortunately doesn't happen all times. henriktalk 07:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
BK understands Wikipedia well enough that hassling him with "formal warnings" over this isn't going to help anything. The localized impropriety of BK protecting his talk page is insignificant compared to the cost to the project of stressing out a good editor and admin who is already fed up (see Raul's first law). Just leave him alone for a while. If some editor who gets along with him is in contact with him by email, send him a note of sympathy and assurance that the encyclopedia will still be here if and when he gets back. Protonk's approach to the talk page protection seems about right. (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Sounds like BK is pissed off about something and has withdrawn to think about it. No admin action required here, recommend speedy close. Leave him alone for a few days, per 67.122. --John (talk) 06:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

(Double ec) Since you ask, Protonk, as a non-admin I'd say no, that's not the way as long as he has stopped participation in Wikipedia. But some authority figure should take note of this, and if he returns and fails to refactor the clearly objectionable material, BK really needs to be informed that his behavior is unacceptable on several levels. As it is, I'm astonished at what he has left on his page regarding WP:ARS and his insults to the entire Wikipedia community. So the precedent being established is that this is OK, just leave him alone? Wow. Jusdafax 06:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure we need to run with torches and pitchforks, however, I do think that since there seems to be some form of objectionable material, a sysop needs to edit his page and notify him of this ANI discussion at the very least. Dusti*poke* 07:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Let his talk page stay protected for a bit. It'll keep him from being fed. -- œ 07:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
A sysop needs to at least edit through the protection to notify him of this discussion. Non-Sysops can't, and AN/I policy requires the notification. Dusti*poke* 07:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I suspect the odds are at least 50-50 that BK is already aware. OE's point is well taken, and brings a lot of light into the heat. Strictly speaking, however, Dusti is right, of course. It says at the top of the page that the subject must be notified. Though it fails to say when, so "a bit" is good. Jusdafax 07:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I have, in essence, notified him by sending an email informing him of this thread. So, for all intent and purposes, BK's been notified. Dusti*poke* 07:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • We might give Black Kite a few days to calm down, but if he keeps on editing he can't have a fully protected talk page and go around insulting fellow editors. Calling fellow editors twats is completely unacceptable, and I would encourage him to redact and apologize when he gets back: civility applies to us all (in fact, it applies especially to admins). DGG and Black Kite may have different views, but they both have this encyclopedia's best interest at heart. henriktalk 07:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
    • For a lot of us, 'twat' just means idiot, it is not profanity. Can we please treat his use as a synonym. It's an uncivil outburst, but speaking for myself I really would not want to lose Black Kite either as an editor or an administrator. I don't think anyone should unprotect his talk page right now, let's hear from him first. Nothing terrible will happen if we wait. Dougweller (talk) 08:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
      • And am I missing something here? We also have another editor writing "What on Earth are you all thinking? The authority is what to go with. The sheer perversity of the approach by you, Black Kite, and the sheer thoughtless destructiveness of what Hrafn did in following in your footsteps, is astounding. " Is Black Kite's comment really so much worse than that? Dougweller (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Putting personal animosity against Colonel Warden above improving a poor article on a philosophy of art subject, a combination of areas where Wikipedia is traditionally said to be weak (although there's some interesting recent research on our philosophy coverage), with a citation of Nelson Goodman is the point where one has crossed a line and put writing the encyclopaedia very clearly second. (The philosophy of art is most definitely not "trivial shite". Indeed, far from writing about it being the "destruction of Wikipedia", writing about philosophy was what some Wikipedia editors started off the entire project, ten years ago, by doing. It was the creation of Wikipedia.)

    It's a good thing that Black Kite has decided to do something else for a while. Perhaps xe will regain the sense of perspective that xe certainly once had, after a period where life is not about Come Look At The Latest Outrage From Editor X. Leave xem in peace in the mean time. Wikipedia is not all about The Latest Outrage From Black Kite either, you know. Funnily enough, there's this matter of improving subjects dealing with art and philosophy by finding what experts have to say on the subject …. Uncle G (talk) 10:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unfortunate votes[edit]

I have created the article David Wood (Christian apologist) and unfortunately people started voting several hours before i was finished referencing and gave all sorts of uncited and not-notable-enough objections. I was done referencing the next day (today) but people were already voting at 12 noon. Ideally i'd like you to somehow restart the process all over or renew the voting for Articles for deletion. It was hard to find references because his name is so common. Thanks Someone65 (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:Help desk would be a better bet for this question. In any case you probably want to start off with WP:VOTE and Wikipedia:Guide to deletion Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

And although AfDing an article quickly after creation is discouraged, it is really the author's responsibility to have a well-referenced article right when it goes into mainspace. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I was the person who started the AfD. It was started about an hour (I believe) after the article was created, plenty enough time for referencing.
Also, being the starter of the AfD, I was not notified of this ANI thread, nor were the other editors. - NeutralhomerTalk • 06:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Christian apologist? What the heck is that? It's not a profession that I know of and is probably a form of POV "name calling" that is completely inappropriate in an article, especially a BLP. —Farix (t | c) 12:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
See Christian apologetics and there appears to be a reference for calling Wood that. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed - "apologist" is not a derogatory term as some seem to think, it's a genuinely accepted term for those who defend a religion. In fact, it means something like "defender", and should not be confused with the modern usage of "apology" as in saying sorry. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Still seems rather opinion pushing and derogatory as it implies someone who apologizes for Christianity or being a Christian. So I would recommend either removing or replaced with a more neutral term. —Farix (t | c) 00:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
No, it simply doesn't mean "to apologize" at all - "apologist" is the correct term and is a formal term used in theology. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Right. It's not in common usage anymore, so it's confusing people a bit here, but it's a term of art / jargon term in theology. It's being used correctly here and is not derogatory, as far as I can tell. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Farix, see the article apologetics for info related to non-Christian religions. Or G. H. Hardy's A Mathematician's Apology for a non-religious example, or Apology (Plato) for the original(?) use of the term. (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
NeutralHomer, I disagree with some of the things you did:
  • You had no binding obligation to first raise your concerns before nominating the article for deletion, but I think you should have using one or more of the following methods:
    • Article templates (such as {{notability}}),
    • Comments on the article talk page, and/or
    • Comments on Someone65's user talk page.
  • I think you should have considered that Someone65 was actively building the article as indicated by the article's page history: 16 edits in the prior 70 minutes, the most recent 6 minutes before the nomination.
  • The fact that the article's creator, Someone65 is an established Wikipedia editor with thousands of edits. That doesn't automatically obligate you to show special trust or deference, but personally I try to give a little extra consideration in these situations. Think how you felt when you learned of this ANI discussion without any prior warning from Someone65 -- that's probably how Someone65 felt when you nominated his article for deletion without trying to discuss or improve it first.
  • While the article's creator, not the AfD nominator, is technically required to provide the references, a quick Google News archive search would have shown lots of mainstream media coverage. I always do a news archive search before considering article deletion. With a common name like "David Wood" sometimes you have to be creative and specific; in this case I added the last name of one of his colleagues, "Qureshi".
Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion -- it's got good guidance on how to handle articles prior to bringing them to AfD. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 18:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I agree with the above by A. B.. It seems rather hasty to nomimate for deletion an article that is actively being worked on, which it was in this instance. There has been a lot of improvement made to the article and I think that some time (perhaps one week, or whatever is standard, as most editors have real world commitments too) should have been given to establish notability better before adding it to AfD. It also should have been templated to request improvement first. DMSBel (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
This is not good advice, as these comments are characteristic of the WP:ARS point of view of how to handle bad articles, a point of view that is not universally accepted here. Other than a quick glance through a google search, I pretty much reject WP:BEFORE when bringing a article to AfD. Tarc (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't read ARS (but have given it a quick glance now), however regardless of that what A. B. pointed out above seems to me the better way to have proceeded, we are talking here about an article being worked on, we don't know how notable or not the subject of the article is until it is finished. If it had been found to have had no-one working on it for weeks or months that would be another matter, but that has been far from the case here. DMSBel (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Then it should have been worked up better in user space, the article incubator, or somesuch. "It's just new" should never an excuse to retain a bad article; doubly so if we are talking about an article about a living person, which should never see the light of day until it is properly and reliably sourced. Maybe a new article about a movie or a novel could have a bit more leeway in regards to time to properly source, but there should be Zero wiggle room for BLPs. Tarc (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Obviously it would have been better to have had the page underway in his userspace, if he was aware that was an option. I would not have known that either, except it was mentioned here by yourself. I think that efforts to continue to improve and establish notability should be acknowledged here.DMSBel (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Tarc, "WP:BEFORE" (i.e., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion) is part of our procedure for deleting articles. Unlike WP:ARS (Article Rescue Squad), it's not just an essay. If you really think it's wrong and that it doesn't reflect community consensus, I recommend you start the process of changing it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 21:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the requirement for proper and reliable sources is good goal to aspire to when creating a BLP, however it would be a big ask to fully source everything before putting an article in mainspace. Would an article like Bill Clinton for instance have appeared even close to fully sourced initially? As I see it: in an admirable attempt at neutrality the creator of the article here has included several sources that might be less than sympathetic to the views of the article subject (some of these might not be the most reliable). Someone65 should certainly be commended for NPOV. And other editors could learn from him. Tarc is correct in stating that BLPs do need to meet a higher standard (in terms of getting reliable sources in quickly and if possible before going into mainspace) than maybe an article about a movie, but I think Someone65 has made considerable effort to do that. DMSBel (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
AB, as you note, "Before" is part of a procedure. Not policy, not even a guideline. I purposefully and intentionally ignore the bulk of it. Clear? As for Someone65 and the article, I note that some work has been done since the AfD was initiated, yes. Not enough to satisfy the notability concerns IMO, but at least it is better than when it began. But again, that effort should have preceded article creation. Tarc (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Tarc, I looked at your record of AfD nominations; you had a large percentage of your deletion nominations fail. Community consensus worked against you. I commend "WP:BEFORE" to you -- you might get better results in the future.
--A. B. (talkcontribs) 05:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
You need to refine your search parameters then, as my record is actually quite is unfortunate that some of the latest ones have run aground on the ARS "keep everything" battlefront, a few get saved by pro-israeli aggressors, and the like. I can also think of several off the top of my head that either didn't survive a subsequent AfD or were instead turned to redirects shortly after. Not to mention the many successful prods and speedy delete noms that will not show up there. So if you're done trolling through my edit history, then go take up my actions in the appropriate venue if you think you have a case to make. Otherwise, drop it. Tarc (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Tarc, a 33% AfD success rate (by your own reckoning) is "actually quite good"? 3 successful prods and 1 speedy delete nomination in the last 2 months = "many"? Clearly we do use different "parameters"!
Cheers, --A. B. (talkcontribs) 15:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps someone could create a notice/template for this type of situation, that says something like : Article is being worked on, please wait before nominating for deletion. Or something like that. Someone65 (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
You could use {{Under construction}} to show that you are working on it. – SMasters (talk) 06:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, i'll use that next time Someone65 (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I want this guy indeffed (User:AP1929)[edit]

I'm sick and tired of User:AP1929. I've just noticed this. Do I have to take this kind of abuse? Frankly I'm furious! Every now and again I discover some ridiculous reply like this one one of my posts, a personal attack that's been left standing for months. How many does it take? If someone has any doubts, please note the account's history of personal attacks. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That edit was four(!) months ago, and the guy hasn't edited in over a month. Grsz 11 02:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
You're kidding right? That isn't even close to a serious personal attack and if you were that concerned about it, you should've noticed it a 4 months ago when it was posted. You're just now finding it and seeing that the user hasn't edited in a month...? Dusti*poke* 02:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I do think the comment crosses the line into a personal attack, but it's a moot point. AP1929 has already been blocked twice since then for violations of WP:NPA, so we can't indef them for something that happened before those incidents. If it happens again, bring it here right away and folks will decide whether to block again and for how long. — Satori Son

I have notified the editor of this thread. Basket of Puppies 03:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

So... its ok to call someone a "paid propagandist", or state I "embarrass someone intellectually", as long as they only notice it a few months later? What an interesting aspect of WP:NPA. If I call someone an SoB in September, they don't notice, and in November I get blocked 2 weeks for telling this person to go f*** themselves, the fact that I called someone an SoB in September is now suddenly a moot point. The courts should adopt this same principle.

The fact of the matter is that a personal attack is all the worse for not being noticed. This guy's trolling "disclaimer" concerning myself remained posted on the talkpage for months. I'm also not seeing the significance of his temporary absence from editing (following his 2 week block for breaching WP:NPA). Again, this user's behaviour towards other users is beyond personal attack: its political and moral slander. "Comment on content?". This last "discovery" should be taken in the context of the user's history (e.g. COMRADE DIRECTOR!). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You've heard of the statue of limitation right? The fact that YOU didn't notice a comment about YOURSELF is the issue here. While it's an off color remark, you're bringing up a four month old diff and that individual hasn't edited in a month. What do you expect to be done? There's no recent editing activity and no sanctions against the user.I just noticed the block log If he comes back and start's another issue, the please, come back. Dusti*poke* 03:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I've heard of the statue of limitations - its closely defined in virtually all legal systems. Is there any objective criteria by which we can judge the comment to be dated? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes. It's objectively from before the last time he was blocked for personal attacks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The diff itself is stale. I'm surprised, however, that no one bothered mentioning WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions. Considering that
  • As a result of the two latter threads, they have been blocked twice for personal attacks;
  • The username "AP1929" is an abbreviation of "Ante Pavelić 1929", "1929" being the year Ustaše was founded;
  • Their recent edits in December 2010 do not reflect a substantial change in behavior from 2008, and there is no reason to expect such a change in the future; and
  • The user edits only sporadically, making timed blocks and topic bans ineffective;
I am convinced that anything short of an indefinite block and topic ban will be ineffective in preventing the disruption caused by the user's repeated tendentious editing and personal attacks. Accordingly, I'm blocking AP1929 (talk · contribs) indefinitely, the first year of which block is made under the authority of WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions and subject to the usual protections accorded to AE blocks specified by this motion of the arbitration committee. In addition, under the same authority, AP1929 is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Balkans, broadly construed, as specified in WP:TBAN. The topic ban is to run concurrently with the indef block, and shall come into effect if the block is lifted for any reason. T. Canens (talk) 03:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
You obviously have significant experience with this issue and this user, so I fully support your decision. Good catch on the name, too. — Satori Son 15:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The guy is an Ustaše-supporter (said so himself numerous times). The Ustaše are the Balkans equivalent of Nazis, different perhaps in that they were not quite as "gentle" as the latter (adding a bit of the old "Balkans touch" to Nazism). One of the most murderous genocidal military/political organizations of WWII, with some 400,000 victims to their name. Every now and then AP likes to post his pro-Ustaše tirades along with a few personal attacks/harassment etc. against me. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 04:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Good call, TC. I read AP1929's latest contribution at Talk:Ante_Pavelić#Suggestions_.2F_Concerns. Besides being an Ustase apologia, it ends with "I would much rather prefer to discuss these issues with people who aren't paid to be here to push the Republic of Croatia's alleged anti-fascist political agenda; who have legitimate Western educations and actually know how to communicate in the English language. AP1929 (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)" and a later "... you have demonstrated nothing beyond what kids in grades 4 to 8 learned in SFRY. AP1929 (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)" The previous NPA blocks were apparently ineffective in changing this user's conduct. He can hardly write a post without an ad hominem. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Good block. Call it an indef community ban, as far as I'm concerned. Fut.Perf. 09:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

John B. Kimble article deleted without cause[edit]

I was looking up John B. Kimble who is a United States politician from Maryland and the article was deleted using information that was almost three years old?? The article should be put back on as he is noteworthy and this issue was resolved years ago. He is a candidate in 2012 for the US Senate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Not here. Mention it at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion Purplebackpack89 04:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Previous deletion discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Kimble. If you believe the subject now meets the requirements of the general notability guideline, then please see Wikipedia:Deletion review. — Satori Son 15:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Mere candidacy doesn't make one notable; all the more so in the case of a perennial candidate. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Locked talk page[edit]

An indefinitely blocked user LouisPhilippeCharles created yet another sock puppet called "I'm From England" and on the talk page of that account LPC claimed that he could not edit User talk:LouisPhilippeCharles and produced a screen dump "LouisPhilippeCharles talk page.jpg" which he claims shows that the page is "locked" to the account LouisPhilippeCharles. Can anyone see a reason why this should be so? Has it happened before? -- PBS (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks a lot like he has faked that screen. --Errant (chat!) 07:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, he (LPC) is lying. His current block shows as "18:10, 7 January 2011 Favonian (talk | contribs) changed block settings for LouisPhilippeCharles (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ‎ (Block evasion: Block made indef per ANI discussion)". He can edit his LPC account talkpage just fine. Block the sock, block his range as well so no more socks can be made and then ignore everything else just for good measure. - NeutralhomerTalk • 07:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I guess the only reason why this might actually be happening (other than an out-of-the-blue software failure) would be if there was also a concurrent block on his IP, with talkpage-access-disabled? But that would likely be an indicator there's somewhere some additional good reason to not unblock him. Fut.Perf. 09:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Nope, the account is globally locked (lock log), and is therefore unable to edit. --Bsadowski1 09:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
For the record, given the global block, we should deal with this as WP:RBI, specifically ignoring anything he says. Just block him, clean up his mess, and move on. If he wishes to be unblocked, he can be directed to the arbcom mailing list for that purpose (WP:BASC). But there is functionally no reason to let this person keep wasting our time more than is needed to block him. --Jayron32 16:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


I am furious with this guy, Intoronto1125 (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email). He reverted edits without appropriate reason, and seems not getting the guidelines and cannot BOLD. Other than abuse the rollback tool, then he comes with a ridiculous message, cannot come together and denied he making any wrong, uncivil and cannot judging the source. This affected my improvement to article, though i cannot always can use the rollback tools, and have a ridiculous business to dealing. --Aleenf1 12:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Intoronto1125 does not have rollback. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The user in question is quite prolific. Please provide diffs to substantiate your complaint. Favonian (talk) 12:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
At least everyone have undo button. This is significant and more edit like this from his contributions for his "undo" abuse. He left ridiculous message all over my talk page. Cannot accept people bold move --Aleenf1 13:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, there is a content dispute, which we can't go into here, but with regard to behavior, the example you quote has a factual edit summary, whereas your preceding and succeeding ones are rather uncivil. The latter in fact accuses Intoronto1125 of vandalism, which is clearly not appropriate. Favonian (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) but was going to make the identical point. Neither of you has gone to the article talk page on this, which is where it belongs. Is this the only diff, or are there other examples? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I have notified Intoronto1125. Favonian (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
More revert: diff, diff, diff, diff. Either he is try to adapt his own way or maybe something? --Aleenf1 13:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Guys I reverted his last edit, because the other pages did not have what he had put on the 2011 edition. Moreover, the information provided is in the main article of that tournament and it is unnecessary to list it twice. With that being said, Aleenf1 is the one who is 'uncivil' i tried to apologize to him on his talk page but he rejected that. Intoronto1125 (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

By refering to 2010 ATP World Tour Masters 1000, can you say "that" article is repeated twice? I can't recognised that Intoronto1125 idea of removing summarize results is a very "constructive" decision. If administrator judgement of having that as my wrong. Then i have to say "thank you" enough. --Aleenf1 16:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, why this man always obsessed and calling 99% of my editing wrong, i can't imagine. I need his explanation why he want to be apologize but at the same time he always UNDID my editing. Is his priority to do that? --Aleenf1 16:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Another is the past season format did not mean you shall "carry" through all season, an improvement can be make. I think someone just very narrow minded and cannot think out of the box! --Aleenf1 16:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Aleen, please comment on edits, not editors. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
That still doesn't mean you have the right to call a constructive edit "vandalism". Semi-automated tools should only be used to revert obvious vandalism, unless you're providing a personalized edit summary. HeyMid (contribs) 16:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Guys it is clear Aleenf1 is being uncivil by calling me edits as vandalisim, and calling me names. Maybe some sort of block is due here? Although I have called many of his edits wrong, to be fair I have also went back and put some of his information provided back into the artice therefore the 99% is ridiculous. Intoronto1125 (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


USchick (talk · contribs) has continued to incorrectly tag pages for speedy deletion after being warned multiple times by editors on her talk page. Her only explanation for her taggings was the text of the A7 criterion, which was completely irrelevant to the discussion. She either needs editing restrictions for tagging pages for deletion or some other resolution. Logan Talk Contributions 15:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite: where was the "credible assertion of notability" in "Denys Wortman (2 May 1887-20 September 1958) was a painter, cartoonist and comic strip creator."? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
A poorly made assertion I agree, but it does cite the American National Biography. Wortman appears to be notable: a Google search brings up this which looks promising. I would have declined the speedy myself. But the point for AN/I is: does USchick make too many false positives on her tags? Or is the proportion acceptable for a busy editor who tags a lot of articles and does most of them well? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
A very quick scan shows about 30 successful deletion tags over the last three days, and six challenges reported on her talk page (it's possible there might be more where the editor declining the speedy failed to say so.) I think a one-in-six false positive rate is a little high and may indicate over-enthusiastic tagging. This account seems to have been dormant for nearly a year before starting up again in the last couple of days. Maybe she needs to review the criteria a bit more carefully? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not used drawing this kind of attention to myself, so perhaps I do need to review my actions. If you review my record, there were 39 pages deleted for good cause. Six were challenged, and out of those six, 3 were improved to the point where they are now acceptable. So that's 3 out of 39. For the record, I was not on a "deletion spree," I was working off the Dead-end Category and cleaning up as I went along. USchick (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Really? I see one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. In the last 24 hours, that is. This isn't just about the swing-to-miss ratio, but more a misunderstanding of what qualifies under speedy deletion. USChick's response to multiple warnings, declines and queries was to quote the A7 policy back to the person warning her, which seems rather amusing given that Zimao mountain and Vijayanarayanam, geographical locations - were tagged with A7. Ironholds (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Speaking as a fairly experienced New Page Patroller, I'd have definitely tagged Mix n Blend for G11; I'm not sure how that slipped by. The We are Trans-MIssion one is right on the border too, that would depend on the admin; I'd have PRODded it myself (I'm obviously not an admin), but that's not a totally unreasonable tag. The others are pretty cut and dry, though. If USchick would like, I'd be more than happy to spend some time and work on it with her; A7 can be tricky, and it took me a while to get a full grip on A7/A9, so I can relate. I've been doing NPP for around 8 months now, I pretty well know what I'm doing, and we really need more New Page Patrollers. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Totally agree, but it's a thankless task, due to problems like this where the patroller is always in the wrong. Corvus cornixtalk 20:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
A very select few of us (I won't name names, those who I'm referring to know who they are) do a disproportionately large chunk of NPP (i.e. almost all of it); I think what we need is more things like WP:GARAGE that highlight the lighter side of it. I love doing it, but we still desperately need more people, and even one more will be great; hence my above offer. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
The Blade of the Northern Lights, if I understand your offer correctly, you will teach me how to use WP:GARAGE as a criteria for speedy deletion? Ok, I'm in! :) Seriously, the real reason we're here today having a discussion on an Administrators' noticeboard (in my opinion) is because the person who started this discussion is an aspiring administrator, (but no one has taken him up on his offer). So I am at your mercy, do with me what you wish, and if I can be helpful in any way, I'll be happy to follow your instruction. USchick (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good; I'll get some stuff in order and get you going. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
All done, please check results on my talk page, thank you! USchick (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I would also refer folks to WP:WIHSD, one of the best essays we have on the subject, and one which should be required reading for NPP (imho). ArakunemTalk 17:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
    Absolutely; speaking as an NPPer, I love the title and the message. It's very helpful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
    Just spotted this change to a topic I thought was closed and had to look - I've not seen WP:WIHSD before but having looked, I can only recommend it very strongly! In practical terms, the 38 examples of speedy deletions give a great crash course in what CSD criteria really mean. I thought I knew CSD pretty well but some of these really got me thinking. I'd advise any editor who places CSD tags and any admin who acts on them to read the whole family of pages from this one. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 19:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Block needed for[edit]

User: (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) evidently from the subject academy's Swiss offices has repeatedly edited European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, inserting unreferenced content in an apparent violation of wp:COI and wp:NOTWEBHOST. This despite repeated warnings on the ipuser's talkpage. The editor has not engaged in discussion. My prior request for advice here (Archive 220) got no response. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not seeing "dastardly" editing from this account - although the content is not referenced to WP:RS there is nothing controversial in it. Per WP:NOTBLOG I suppose they can be removed, but then that is a content issue, which is not what this board is for. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Please help to stop this! Innapropriate bahavior by User:Racepacket[edit]

I respectfully ask for help in resolving a dispute that is spiraling out of control between myself and User:Racepacket. This user came to WikiProject United States(WPUS) a couple weeks ago and along with 3 or 4 other users voiced concerns about the scope of WPUS (for a full description please see the projects talk page). I started off being calm and nice and admit to losing my temper as I have become frustrated by this users continuous innapropriate tactics in trying to steer the discussion to their point of view by providing inaccurate details and misrepresenting what was said to other users.

Racepacket has made numorous accusations towards the activities of the project and its members (especially me) and has continued to display increasingly unnacceptable behavior. The project has made several attempts to appease this user by drafting a new mission statement (which Racepacket deemed not good enough), we rewrote the importance descriptions to clarify what importance an articles should be in the context of WPUS (also not good enough to Racepacket) and more. Specifically my concerns wiht the conduct of this users are as follows:

  1. Failure to allow and accept that the 180+ project members have the right to set their own mission and scope and not have that directed to them by 4 or 5 editors who are not members of the project.
  2. To stop his tactics of Forum Shopping, votestacking and campaigning which I have asked him to stop and he continues to do
  3. To stop misrepresenting the facts when leaving message such as "People from a variety of WikiProjects have had concerns about the scope of WikiProject United States and its relationship with other WikiProjects. We have created an RFC and invite all interested editors to discuss it at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject United States#Mission statement for WikiProject United States. Thanks," that he is currently spamming on the talk pages of every Wikiproject as seen here.
  4. Attempting to unfairly restrict the activities of one project (WPUS) over those of others by forcing the project to establish policies restricting them in ways that does not apply to any other project.

Thanks in advance for you assistance in dealing with this matter. --Kumioko (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

As a member of WPUS, as well as WPCALI, I generally am against what Racepacket is doing and agree with the majority of Kumioko's criticism, but also think that Kumioko has taken it a little too far. For example, when I wanted to discuss a topic, it quickly degenerated into a Kumioko-Racepacket slugfest. I'm not an admin, but I think an interaction ban between the two of them on any project is probably the way to go Purplebackpack89 16:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't think Racepacket is all that out of line. Some of what you are doing however, is crossing some lines. I suggest you tone down your replies and let others speak. The feeling I have been getting from you over at that project is that you think you own it. I know I have personally been staying out of the discussions because of how you hound anyone that is not agreeing with you and don't let others speak. I wager a bet the discussion would probably go along alot more smoothly if you pull back alot on your replies and let others speak. -DJSasso (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
By "you", you're referring to Kumioko, no? Purplebackpack89 18:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, which is why I am indented under him and not under you. :) -DJSasso (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I suspect that an RFC/U might be a better place to address the underlying problem than ANI. I am active in WikiProjects for Illinois, Virginia, and the Washington Metro. Since November 30, I have been commenting at WT:WikiProject United States on a number of issues regarding a rather aggressive stance that User:Kumioko is taking toward other WikiProjects. E.g., leaving messages challenging whether the project is still active, proposing to fold all other US-related WikiProject banner templates into the WikiProject United States, sending out 3000 "invitations" to join WPUS on editor talk pages, and sending repeated spam messages on the talk pages of related WikiProjects inviting them to participate in WPUS. The most recent one, sent on Jan 15, proposed that other WikiProjects nominate articles for new WPUS collaboration of the month even though the articles may not have nation-wide implications. The totality of his unilateral efforts have the effect of sucking all of the oxygen and enthusiasm out of other WikiProjects. This has prompted a number of people to leave messages on the WPUS talk page. Upon reading these other concerns, I posted an RFC and started a centralized discussion on that talk page. I have proposed that we get consensus on revising the first paragraph of the Project page as to what WikiProject United States' scope and mission are. I have also proposed that WPUS adopt a "Communications Policy" that instead of sending out postings on behalf of WPUS to 200 (according to Kumioko) other WikiProjects without any prior review or consensus, that no communications go out until at least 5 editors agree on the text.

The idea of a centralized discussion is having comments in one place, yet Kumioko leaves comments and starts discussion threads behind my notices. diff diff , then he accuses me of "forum shopping" only to actively resist my suggestion that we keep all of the RFC discussion together in one section. diff. Once the discussion got underway, Kumioko insists that people who are not "members" of WikiProject United States have no legitimate voice in the controversy and that the 180 members of WikiProject United States who are not interested in participating are assumed to "vote" in agreement with Kumioko's views. This has lead at least User Markvs88 to be chased away from the discussion. In order to assure that the affected editors have notice of the dispute, I posted what I considered a neutral description of the RFC on WikiProject talk pages, with Kumioko threatening me and the following up with POV-laden rebuttal notices. The bottom line is that his WP:OWNnership problems with WikiProject United States and his refusal to work toward consensus with people who have views different than his own has been disruptive for the work of a number of United States-related WikiProjects. I have tried to stay within the RFC guidelines for giving notice of centralized discussions and have tried to resolve the points of concern in a manner respectful of all interested editors. Also, I have gone out of my way to incorporate Kumioko's own language as we have drafted proposed text. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Although I feel compelled to reply to such blatant accusations I am not as promised other than to say that there have been comments and statements made by both of us that were at times crossing the lines of professoinalism but in the end most of the comments that Racepacket has made are baseless accusations and a general assumption of bad faith on the behalf of myself and WikiProject United States. A more detailed description of the problem can be seen by reading the unfortunately very long ongoing discussion on the WPUS talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you would care to explain what you mean by "Maybe they [Racepacket's actions] are perfectly acceptable, I'm not sure I will leave that to ANI to decide." [3][4]

This single sentence by Racepacket is a perfect example of the problems that Racepacket is creating:

"I have also proposed that WPUS adopt a "Communications Policy" that instead of sending out postings on behalf of WPUS to 200 (according to Kumioko) other WikiProjects without any prior review or consensus, that no communications go out until at least 5 editors agree on the text."

Racepacket's proposals all ASSUME BAD FAITH on behalf of the project. He is attempting to impose restrictions on this project that apply to no other projects. If the proposals have merit, they should apply to all wikiprojects. I can't think of any PRECEDENT for taking actions against a project based on alleged behavior of an individual.

There are WikiProject guidelines that govern the activity of wikiprojects. I don't see where anything done by any member of this project has violated those guidelines.

The guidelines provide:

"A WikiProject is fundamentally a social construct; its success depends on its ability to function as a cohesive group of editors working towards a common goal. Much of the work that members must do to sustain a successful WikiProject (quality assessment and peer review in particular, but almost anything beyond the actual writing of articles) is tedious, often unrewarding, and usually unappreciated. To be effective, a WikiProject must foster not only interest in the topic of the project, but also an esprit de corps among its members. When group cohesion is maintained—where, in other words, project members are willing to share in the less exciting work—a WikiProject can muster the energy and direction to produce excellent articles systematically rather than incidentally."

For outsiders trying to tell the group, as Racepacket is doing, that it must rewrite its mission statement, is destructive of the creation of a "cohesive group". Having expressed his problems with the group, it is up to the group to decide how to react. If the group fails to act, and there ARE ACTUAL VIOLATIONS OF WIKIPEDIA POLICY OR GUIDELINES, then the remedy is to pursue those avenues available for enforcing such policies AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL, not the group. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

How is he an outsider? You do realize any editor on wikipedia is able to comment on any discussion. Saying someone is an outsider borders on ownership issues. Wikiprojects don't own their articles. And anyone is able to be a part of creating the scope of a project. He has as much right as anyone to participate in that discussion and express his views. -DJSasso (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Read the guidelines that describe how projects should operate. I keep seeing words like "members" and "group". All issues regarding the internal operations of the group must be determined by a consensus of the group -- it defeats the whole purpose of even creating a project if non-members can dictate the internal operations of the project.
Ownership of articles is a different issue and the guidelines make it clear that ownership is forbidden for ANY WIKIPROJECT. If ALL PROJECTS should be required to have ownership disclaimers on their project page, then propose it on the discussion page for the guidelines. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
His commenting in the discussion makes him a member of the project, no one is required to sign a list for any project to say they are part of the project. Anyone interested in the workings of a particular project can be considered part of a project at any time. -DJSasso (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Tom on the idea that outsiders or newcomers, and with DJSasso that Kumioko's taking too much ownership. I disagree that WPUS is taking too much ownership Purplebackpack89 18:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The extent and frequency that WPUS posts promotional messages on the talk pages of other WikiProjects is not a matter of internal operations and should not be left to a single individual. If everyone agrees that the promotional messages will be discussed and that at least 5 different editors must approve them, WPUS can benefit from more thoughtful communication that would be free from spelling errors and potentially more diplomatically phrased. I am not trying to dictate adoption of the proposal, but am offering it as a win-win solution. I am willing to discuss my proposal further on the WT:WPUS page. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Racepacket, is it really necessary and appropriate to continue to spam POV messages of your own on the talk pages of all the projects if that is one of the complaints you had against me? --Kumioko (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I think an interaction ban of some sort might be helpful here. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I am fine with a ban however if we are banned from interacting with each other and he is allowed to continue to spam the talk pages of the projects with POV statements its not really fixing the problem. --Kumioko (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
His notices aren't POV Kumioko. They are neutrally worded. They don't say hey come to this discussion and vote against Kumioko's opinion or whatever. All they say is that there is a disagreement over something and to come and give your opinion. Nor is he cherry picking users that would support him, he is notifying entire projects where its likely people will both agree and disagree with him. These are completely valid notices. I really think you need to stop following him around and hounding him. By all means interact in the discussion if you have constructive things to say, but outside the direct RfC I think you two should not talk to each other. -DJSasso (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • May I suggest that both sides put down their sticks? Kumioko, for sake of argument, if the positions were reversed (Your project was being repeatedly invited to disband itself and join a broader topic one) how would you react to drive by spamming of some message that your project community has elected not to move forward on? Racepacket, if the positions were reversed how would you go about encouraging members of sub-projects to become involved in the larger scope project if no new members have been recieved from the sub-project? I think this stems from several cases of WP:OWN and NoticeSpam going on here. Perhaps if the original request to WPUS had been phrased as a "Please remove us from your notification list" instead of "Implement a policy that cuts down on your Project's SPAM" the entire event would have been better. Hasteur (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Due to this unending bickering and senselessness I have left the project and have disjoined myself from the conversation so the problem is solved. I restarted the project for one reason, to improve articles. But I can't do that if I have some bored editor constantly draggin me through the mudd. I personally still believe that much of what Racepacket is doing is against policy and is misleading other editors into his POV and Knowone ever asked a project to disband'...ever. But since knowone else seems to mind his canvassing, POV pushing or policy violations then who am I to argue with it. The bottom line is the project is up and running and it appears that ther are members of it who will take care of it from here so I feel like I accomplished what I came to do. --Kumioko (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hasteur. The purpose of the RFC was to work out how to live together, and if the state and federal governments have learned to get along, there is no reason why WikiProjects can't find a way as well. Again, I was proposing items for adoption by consensus, and not trying to dictate an outcome. I will try to work in a manner that does not adversly impact the morale of WPUS. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

New York Post a reliable source for charges of prostitution?[edit]

Is the New York Post a reliable source to cite for someone being arrested on charges of prostitution? Active Banana (bananaphone 22:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

NAMES OF LIVING PEOPLE WITHELD, who were arrested on prostitution charges, turned down their plea bargains and went to trial to prove their innocence. [1]

It seems like a straightforward fact. Which article is this about, and why are you bringing it to ANI instead of WP:RSN?   Will Beback  talk  22:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This would seem to be a job for the reliable sources noticeboard rather than ANI.
In general, the NY Post seems to meet our reliability standards by a wide margin. Whether that particular story does or not, in the context of a particular article, is open to discussion of course.
Which article is this about? That should be included in the RSN filing... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The New York Post is a tabloid. We, ostensibly, are not. So the question isn't one of reliability, but of whether material appropriate for the Post is necessarily appropriate for an aspiring serious, respectable reference work. I espouse no opinion on the specific content at issue here, only disappointment that a myopic focus on questions of "reliability" tends to trump more common-sense questions like "does this belong in a supposedly serious encyclopedic reference work?" MastCell Talk 22:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Sure, reliability is just one factor that needs to be addressed. But since this doesn't seem like an ANI issue it should be addressed elsewhere.   Will Beback  talk  22:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

How the heck is this notable, even if true? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not notable, and the article this was "included" in looks like it's not very notable either[5]. The strong consensus to delete it was even acknowledged by one of its main editors before being indeffed as a sock[6]. This should probably just be closed as "Resolved" for this board. Doc talk 23:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────This discussion should be marked Resolved and moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (shortcut → WP:RSN) where Wikipedians who monitor that noticeboard can participate. This discussion does not fit the criteria for the ANI noticeboard. — SpikeToronto 00:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ken Seiff[edit]

Article has been speedied twice already and has been recreated yet again. Suggest salting. [7] Qworty (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Done and done, and the creator has been blocked as the spam-only purpose of the account is painfully obvious. --Kinu t/c 23:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


After coming across a spam article (10ZiG), I spent a fair bit of time reviewing the (relatively strange pattern of) contributions from User:Jcalamity, the editor who created said promotional article. Aside from a few "good hand" early edits, almost all of their edits since have been to insert various spam or refspam into articles. It looks like 10ZiG has been their only article creation, however (unless there's something deleted that I can't see). Based on the significant breadth of the subject matter for their spamming, this seems likely to be some sort of paid editing or other "public relations" scenario. Given the lack of mop resources at WP:WPSPAM (case in point), I thought this might warrant closer scrutiny here. jæs (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with your assessment. I've removed a bunch, not sure if I've gotten them all yet. I'm on the fence about this particular link; I could imagine it being used in a good faith edit by a non-COI editor, but it's still commercial. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Hobartimus' aggressive behaviour[edit]

Hello! I'd like to ask administrators' opinion about the following situation:

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

Hobartimus (who was notified about this report) may have violated WP:WIKIHOUNDING, WP:AGF, WP:NOSPADE and WP:HUMAN (in my case, unblocked users are human too).

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

He has repeteadly following and reverting me (WP:WIKIHOUNDING)

  • He wanted to undo my obvious anti-vandalism edit at János Bolyai, but he immediately corrected himself: [8]
  • He reverted my edits at Lajos Kossuth article (rectification of information according to the provided source and some corrections according to WP:PLACE) with no valid reason
  • He undid my edits at John Hunyadi article, supporting blatant vandalism (readd of unreferenced text and removal of referenced text & valid sources). After leaving a general non-constructive note on his talk page [9] , he responded with WP:ABF attitude, quote: "if its not a problem I dont accept edits starting with "Welcoming me to Wikipedia." from people who recieved more than 13 indefinite blocks on various accounts". When I asked him to "comment on the content, not on the contributor." (WP:AGF) he responded again with a derogatory answer.

It seems that Hobartimus considers that my block history is an argument to consider me unrespectable (Wikipedia:Uncivil). He apparently thinks that unblocked users are not worth talking to.(WP:NOSPADE and WP:HUMAN). (Iaaasi (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

His request to an admin appears proper, and the addition of place names does not constitute a "reversion" of edits when he states it added place names. In other words, the content dispute about including Hungarian place names is not a thing to complain here about. Use the article talk page first. Which User:Adrian did on 20 Jan. Ditto the "Romanian" dispute. In short, have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I did not say that his request to the admin was against the policies, just wanted to show that his actions against me are deliberate
  • The inclusion of the Hungarian names was in fact a readd, because they were eliminated by me, so it really is a reversion. I deleted the alternative names according to WP:PLACE (use modern names) and the policy about the treatment of alternative names. As an experienced user, Hobartimus certainly knows this rule. In addition, he had restored this edit that altered the real information from the source (Britannica)
  • Collect, you did not give any opinion regarding his attitude towards me on his talk page after his vandalism on John Hunyadi page. (Iaaasi (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

Comment I've never encountered these two editors so am trying to look at the diffs. Some remarks:

  • Iaaasi's unblock discussion (per Hobartimus's query) is here, as Hobartimus could have found with the search box.
  • Hobartimus has been editing 3.5 years with 11000+ edits. Leaving him a vandal template[10] was a rather dumb idea for many reasons. I'd suggest Iaaasi quit using Twinkle for a while, stay away from conflicts with other users, preferably stay away (at least temporarily) from topic areas of past conflict in general, and just concentrate on making good edits.
  • This edit that Iaaasi describes as a revert, restores some Hungarian placenames that Iaaasi removed here. I don't think that removal was helpful, in a biography of a Hungarian historical figure. Iaaasi should concentrate for a while on adding stuff rather than removing stuff.
  • This (another random edit from Iaaasi's contribs) seems a little bit tendentious too.
  • Sourcing to Encyclopedia Britannica isn't so great, though. We're supposed to use and cite secondary sources (such as books about the subjects), not other encyclopedias.
  • Hobartimus too should tone down his hostility to Iaaasi. There was a long discussion (linked above) leading to consensus to unblock Iaaasi, so Hobartimus should give the unblock a chance. Remember this is supposed to be a civil and collegial environment.
  • Iaaasi, I'm not trying to be hostile or seeking to get rid of you by asking this, but I don't understand why you want to edit the English Wikipedia in the first place. We have over 3 million articles, which in my opinion is way too many more than enough, while the Romanian Wikipedia (rowiki) has only about 150,000. Wikipedia is trying to be an educational resource for everyone in the world, in every language, but unfortunately we English-speaking editors (who have most of the computers) are stuck editing here because we don't have the skills to edit in other languages. If you want to help the Romanian people and culture, why not contribute to a free encyclopedia written in Romanian? That is much more directly useful than getting into battles about mentions of Hungary in enwiki. There are sure to be tons of important subjects missing from rowiki that are already in enwiki. If you prefer to edit here, that's fine, but please try to stay away from this nationalistic stuff. (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand your assertion *This (another random edit from Iaaasi's contribs) seems a little bit tendentious too. Austria-Hungary did not exist in 1840, so the edit is 100% correct
*Sourcing to Encyclopedia Britannica isn't so great, though. We're supposed to use and cite secondary sources (such as books about the subjects), not other encyclopedias. I know secondary sources are preferred to the tertiary ones, but according to policies: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources.. So the solution is to bring a better secondary source, not to vandalize by distorting the information from Britannica
*Hobartimus has been editing 3.5 years with 11000+ edits. Leaving him a vandal template[11] was a rather dumb idea for many reasons. I'd suggest Iaaasi quit using Twinkle for a while, stay away from conflicts with other users, preferably stay away (at least temporarily) from topic areas of past conflict in general, and just concentrate on making good edits. The vandalism is obvious (I've already proven why). I am not the one who inflames conflicts, I've totally respected the rules since my comeback. That is the reason why I filed this report, to ask for assistance from admins regarding this problem (Iaaasi (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC))
Iaaasi, it really doesn't matter if Hobartimus's edit was vandalism or not; the template was a bad idea. 1) See WP:DTTR, if someone as experienced as Hobartimus makes a bad edit and you have to notify them, you should write a message in your own words, instead of leaving a template. 2) Because of your past conflict with Hobartimus, you should leave issues related to his editing to other users (and he should do the same about your editing). If his edit was really vandalism, someone else will fix it, so just leave it alone. If nobody fixes it, it wasn't vandalism. (In my opinion it was not vandalism). 3) You should only refer to a tertiary source like Britannica if there are already a lot of secondary sources in the article and you're trying to figure out how to balance them. In this particular situation, there's not a problem of factual accuracy, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia, not paraphrase another encyclopedia. Re inflaming conflicts: yes, your templating of Hobartimus was inflammatory, and in the other areas, you have been in conflict whether they were inflamed by you or by someone else. I am suggesting you stay away from those areas no matter who inflamed the conflict. There are plenty of other areas to edit. (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The tertiary source (Britannica) was not added by me, I was pointing at the fact that Hobartimus had denatured the text from the source
  • Maybe I was wrong to choose that notifying method (a template that contains the words "Welcome to Wikipedia"), but Hobartimus should have assumed good faith. per WP:DTTR ("Recipients should still assume good faith"). I was only asking for a explanation of his revert, I think he should have addressed the edit itself instead of complaining about the form of the message and referring to my blocking history.
  • I'd like to add that Hobartimus' hostile attitude is not new, it occured since my very first edits on English Wikipedia(Iaaasi (talk) 12:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC))


  • OK, don't worry about Britannica. It's a pretty minor thing. Re the vandal template, you certainly didn't assume good faith when you referred to that edit as vandalism. Yes, you can expect long-term editors to get upset when you leave those templates, just so you know. That's the reason it's a bad idea to leave them. You are right, Austria-Hungary didn't start until 1867, according to the article, which says it "was a monarchic union between the crowns of the Austrian Empire and the Kingdom of Hungary in Central Europe." Between those two kingdoms, as far as I can tell, Budapest was in the Kingdom of Hungary. I have asked at RDH for advice.[12]

    Moving on, I don't read Romanian but if I pretend it's garbled French, it looks to me like this is WP:SYNTH not supported by the cited source ( presumably page 25, the cite is missing a page number). Here is another tendentious-looking change (we're talking about a Hungarian writer living in a then-Hungarian-speaking region of Transylvania, from what I can tell, so including the "official name" may be fine but removing the Hungarian one is pointy). I have made a table of your mainspace edits since your unblock here and a really disturbingly high fraction of them are of the same sort (removing references to Hungary). This is just way too big a pattern of such edits to do without consensus, so unless you can point to a prior discussion or guideline that clarifies the issue, I'll suggest you start a content RFC before going on with such edits. Alternatively, it may be time for other editors to consider imposing an editing restriction, since it really does not look to me like you are trying to edit those topics neutrally.

    I don't know what to do about Hobartimus. I may look further at his edits later. Iaaasi's editing pattern is troubling either way. (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

All my edits were made according to wiki policies. I am not the subject of this report, but I am ready to have an open discussion about my edits if I am asked by the admins(Iaaasi (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC))
(edit conflict) Policy says to edit neutrally and I don't think you're doing that. Anyone who files dispute resolution gets their editing examined; it's part of how things work (WP:BOOMERANG). Anyway, "editing within policy" is not an appropriate goal for someone coming off a block, or anyone else for that matter. Instead, edit to be a good editor. We need more of those. We don't need more wikilawyering POV-pushers trying to operate at the outer fringes of policy to slant Wikipedia content. Anyway, geography isn't my thing, but maybe the table I made can help someone else assess your edits. I will defer to them. (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
This edit is made according to WP:PLACE and the policy about the treatment of alternative names. The settlement was in a region where the Romanians represented more than 50% of the population, and it was under Austrian rule. I've seen this practice in very many articles (historical official name and current name in parantheses), so I don't see what is wrong. Example :[13] (it is preferred the German name to the Hungarian or the Romanian one) (Iaaasi (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

Someone wrote this There was a long discussion (linked above) leading to consensus to unblock Iaaasi This is completely false in fact the opposite is true, that discussion (in September) lead to no unblock. Check the date of the unblock it is from December it was an unilateral decision by an admin that will have to be discussed at community level. These types of questions shouldn't be decided by a single admin. I will quote just two opinions from that discussion tho for relevance:

"Oppose. Socking as recent as August? No. And I dislike the IRC canvassing. T. Canens (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)"

This will certainly need more examination. And the second opinion from todds:

"this user has exhibited some seriously racist hatemongering. Please read [42]. This should have been logged as an WP:ARBMAC block. I think unblocking would be bad for the community in general even without the sockery. 15:27, 27 September 2010 Toddst1 (talk • contribs)

In light of these opinions especially about "IRC canvassing" it is quite certain that further investigation is needed here. Hobartimus (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That discussion was here. It was also based on a false premise, that WP:OFFER applies to someone who was confirmed socking about a month from WP:OFFER being applied, as that requires at least half a year of non-socking. (which was not observed with the eventual unblock either). And then we never talked about the unconfirmed socking which is always a bigger occurance than what can be confirmed. Hobartimus (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I also would like to point out for the record that Iaaasi claimed ownership for two more indefinitely blocked sockpuppet accounts since he was unblocked. These were previously unknown to the community OR the admin who conducted the unblocking. This raises the number of indef. blocked socks that are either claimed or confirmed to 15 or so. Hobartimus (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

All my after-unblock edits were made in good faith and in accordance with wiki rules. I hope the judging admins will concentrate firstly on the subject of this report, not on IP accusations. If the IP thinks that I've done something wrong, I'd like to ask him to make a separate report, because this thread is already difficult to read(Iaaasi (talk) 09:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC))


Resolved: misunderstanding corrected. Jclemens (talk) 07:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Justasked (talk · contribs) has stated on an AfD [14] that he is planning to solicit others to oppose the deletion of the article in question, against WP:MEAT. Believes as the author he must defend his page, which could be construed as a violation of WP:OWN. Could we please have admin and checkuser eyes on this please? Phearson (talk) 05:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but there's nothing for checkuser to do here at this time - Alison 06:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Justasked appears to be a confused newbie who has created an interesting and useful article that doesn't and probably can't be made to fit Wikipedia content policies. Try to be nice (WP:BITE). I've commented at the AfD advising moving the article to Wikia. (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks and yes...confused newbie here: Don't mean to cause a ruckus, just trying to be helpful to a community of people on Twitter. Sorry for any alarm/disruption to normal ops. I love the Wiki platform for asynchronous collaboration (I use it on a stand alone platform at work)...we don't have near the policy/criteria that you reasonably enforce. I will try to figure out the Wikia rules and post our information there..thanks for the tip! Justasked (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Once you've found a new home for the list and expanded it some, you might suggest at the talk page of one of Wikipedia's twitter-related articles that someone add a link from the article to the list. (It's considered inappropriate to add such a link yourself, given your relationship with the list). Good luck with it. (talk) 06:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I may have just made another either case, you can delete both, I've copied the code for the new location and will start fresh--again, apologies for the trouble! Justasked (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Just remember that we try to establish consensus in any discussion on most anything here in which there may be discussion about (deletion discussions are part of that). However, that comes from within the community as opposed to outside the community; that is because often the interests outside Wikipedia do not reflect those from within. That does not mean that Wikipedia operates inside a vacuum, but we try to implement guidelines and policies that are most consistent with a free content encyclopedia in which the most people out there are able to agree with. –MuZemike 07:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

IP talk page edit war[edit]

If someone could take a look at (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). He was blocked earlier today. Multiple users have been going back and forth blanking and unblanking his talk page. Either he's allowed to blank and the editors need to back off, or (my choice) he needs to be locked off talk page access.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BLANKING, they are allowed to remove those warnings, even the block notice. To me, there's a strong argument for requiring block notices to remain - but that's not how the community has defined the guideline. --- Barek (talk) - 20:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The justification is that even block notices don't serve any purpose to notify anyone but the intended recipient. Block logs and talk page histories are always publicly accessable, and admins get the full block log before they block anyone, so they already get a sense of what has gone on in the past. There's no need to maintain a badge of shame. --Jayron32 21:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe this is now resolved. The problem for me was not so much the blanking, but the game playing, and the taking of the bait. It appears to have been stoped which is the only resolution that really matters in my book.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
But the only action by the IP had been to blank their user-page - granted, their edit summaries could be viewed as their viewing re-blanking their page to be some sort of game - but it could also be an expression of frustration at having the content restored against their clear preference. The IP wasn't posting anything else to their page, just re-blanking it. Had the content not been continuously restored, it appears that the "game" would have ended much earlier. --- Barek (talk) - 21:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hence the dual nature of my request. Either the editors needed to be told to back off, or he needed to be prevented from editing.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I've also restored User talk: back to the last "blanked" version by the user. Breawycker (talk · contribs), TheRealFennShysa (talk · contribs), and NintendoFan11 (talk · contribs), who kept restoring the warnings on both IP talk pages in violation of WP:BLANKING, should themselves be warned and blocked for edit warring if they continue to restore the warnings. —Farix (t | c) 12:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Needs blocked[edit]

I see (talk · contribs) as intentionally trolling and trying to cause problems. In dire need of a block.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I see the user as having a strong opinion. Suggest calmly discussing, and if he carries on then raise it again here. AGF2 warning left. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion, Stifle. I'm not in any dispute with him. I picked up on him while patrolling pages and then reviewed his edits back to Dec. 16 (I didn't go further because I had seen enough). He's attempted to ignite fires...that is the net worth of his contribs. He's trolling talk pages and leaving inflammatory edit summaries. I thought it looked rather intentional.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
He was warned in October for BLP violations (having called a US politician a drug addict), to which he replied only "no." Just today he called another US politician an "insane clown" and similar insults. Clearly not here to build the encyclopedia, and has been warned plenty. Blocked for a week (IP address is stable). Fut.Perf. 15:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Incivility on the Hell in Christian beliefs article.[edit]

Two editors on the article are engaging in disruptive and uncivil behavior. Editors User:Pseudo-Richard and user:Esoglou. Editor User:Pseudo-Richard in specific. Whom have taken a rather uncivil tone and remain consistently uncivil to my contributions and also other editors suggestions on how to proceed with contributing to Wikipedia while engaging in respectful separation- Talk:Hell_in_Christian_beliefs#Break_it_up_guys. This individual is also posting to my talkpage ALLOT. Could someone please address. Thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive Moves by Admin User:Dbachmann at God of Israel[edit]

I take issue with User:Dbachmann Logs recent moves of Yaweh (now God of Israel) I normally would take it up with the user but this is the second "no consensus" move made at this article. On December 15th User:Dbachmann moved the page to Yahweh (Canaanite deity) initiating this discussion. I was disturbed by such behavior by an Admin but took it to be one off incident stupid move but not something worth making a big deal. Now I log on this morning and find once again with no consensus moved the page (using admin tools in the process) from Yahweh to God of Israel. I find this unacceptable behavior for an Admin as now we have had to initiate another move discussion again to move it back. Am I way off in thinking this inappropriate behavior for an Admin? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to say it's outright inappropriate, but I think we need an explanation here of why he thought it was a good idea. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Normally I would let border line cases go, but the article is move protected so only an Admin can move it and this is the second incident of such behavior at one article in lest than 6 weeks both times claiming consensus that did not exist. Both time we have had to have WP:RM discussion just to move back to the original name. That more what I take issue with. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Since these "issues" are related to content, in my experience it would be normal practice to raise them on article talk instead of on ANI. Otherwise I must assume this is just wikilawyering. It is never a good idea to avoid the issue and instead go straight for administrative red tape. It shows that you do not really have a case. Be that as it may, I seem no reason to repeat a content issue that belongs on article talk, and that has been discussed on article talk on ANI just for the hell of it. To call a move "disruptive" when it in fact resolves long-standing disputes and bickering related to article scope and content forking is disingenious to say the least. At least recognize that I am making an effort in best faith to resolve a hairy problem. --dab (𒁳) 19:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue belongs here as it was an admin action that was inappropriate, as TRA just explained above. The article is move protected, and you used an admin function to go against consensus. I agree that it belongs here for community discussion. Dusti*poke* 19:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The issue here is unilateral page (Twice in 6 weeks )moves without the discussion prior discussion of a move and use of Admin privilege to do it. Both times We have WP:RM that is the proper process to move it back The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe that these moves are tantamount to vandalism and an abuse of privileges. The last time that this happened, I was shocked, because an IP editor had made some sweeping edits against consensus for which I expected objection to be raised. Instead, Dbachmann (talk · contribs) followed their lead and did a page move. In the ensuing discussion about reversing the move, we didn't just acheive consensus, we acheived unanimity that it was a bad idea. Now this comes in the wake of some more discussion about the article's scope. It is unacceptable for him to force us to stop and derail ordinary discussion and consensus-building in order to undo his vandalism. Elizium23 (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x4@Dbachmann: That seems to be beyond disingenuous. This is an issue regarding an action, not about content. I have no idea which version of the title is correct, but I at least can recognize that moving an article which is the subject of an active dispute about its title, before that dispute is resolved, a second time, is definately something that should not be done. Calling it a content dispute may be true, but what we are discussing here is your actions during a content dispute, which involve moving an article which was fully move protected (an admin-only action) without clear consensus to do so. I have no horse in this race; I have never edited the article in question, and I have no idea which title is right or not. I really don't care. What I do care about is that admins don't act unilaterally in the case of contentious disputes, and more importantly refusing to stand and account for the use of one's tools, hiding behind some claim of "this is a content dispute". Yes it is, we are not being asked to rule on the content, rather this is a discussion of your actions in that dispute. --Jayron32 19:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Using admin abilities in the middle of a content dispute that the admin is involved in is a pretty big no-no. This looks seriously not good from my view of Dbachmann's actions. IMHO the page should be returned ASAP to it's previous location from before the inappropriate admin action was taken. It should not need a RM to move it back, when it should not have been moved in the first place. (And, to stress, from a content POV, I don't give a flip where it lives. My comments are purely process based.) - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Note that various related articles have been significantly modified by Dbachmann after the move, so a straight move-back will not resolve the issue.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, I'm disturbed at this diff. "I realize that there is plenty of childish Kurdish nationalism, just as for practically any nation of the 'second world'. It's somehow endemic to the region, I must assume."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you have any experience with nationalists from that region? Do you have any idea of how much crass history-faking is going on in the Balkan states, Greece, Turkey etc.? It's a huge problem for our articles about these regions, because for many topics there is little information in neutral sources, and the supposedly scholarly sources from the region are full of bizarre phantasies which, of course, contradict each other. You can thank Dbachmann, as one of very few admins who regularly work in that area, for the fact that it is handled with something akin to the no-nonsense approach of the German Wikipedia, rather than the English Wikipedia's standard "anything goes until we have total chaos and a huge Arbcom case" approach.
No comment on the page move. Hans Adler 20:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Abuse of admin tools in a content dispute. Take it to arbcom. -Atmoz (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
... Facepalm FacepalmThe Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Are you facepalming the misuse of tools, or the concept that misuse of tools should be taken to arbcom? It's a little unclear--Cube lurker (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
My guess why HTFY is facepalming is in response to the vicious reaction to Dbach. May I remind everyone in this thread -- some of whom are relative newcomers -- about Dbachmann's reputation, which Hans Adler set out above? While Dbach's input into this matter is (IMHO) short to the point of being cryptic, I urge everyone to wait until he explains himself before they declare him guilty & sanction him, then hold a trial. The worst case here is that Dbachmann finally lost his cool & over-reacted in a matter that could be calmly resolved without the loss of his useful contributions. -- llywrch (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
That is a well expressed, clear opinion. Much more valuable than making people guess what 'facepalm' is refering to.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
His contributions are one thing. Using the admin tools to gain an advantage in a content dispute is something else. This is exactly what "normal" users are talking about when they say admins are above the law. Any admin should know better than to use their tools in a dispute they are involved in. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Man, as the OP I really dont see a need for De-syopsing being an effective solution here The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I've asked him on his talk page to reverse his actions. He should also agree to self-ban from using his tools in this topic area again, as this is the second instance of unilaterally moving the article, and the second time there is a nearly unanimous consensus opposing the move. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I was actually facepalming that "abuse of tools" means "instant ArbCom case." My indentation was off a bit. If every potential abuse of admin tools went straight to ArbCom, the arbs would never get anything else done! That said, Dbach's non-response here is also facepalm-worthy. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks like he stopped editing for the day eight minutes after the message I left on his talk. Hopefully there will be a more reasoned response from him forthcoming in the near future. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I also agree that not every sysop misaction should go to ArbCom. That being said, if there's multiple abuse of sysop tools, then either an ArbCom case or Community Consensus for desysop'ing needs to take place. Dusti*poke* 00:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
As the OP, I agree, I see two extremely stupid actions. Based on several comments here it seems He is an Admin in good standing. Whether or not there is a wider pattern that would require action more than this thread is another question entirely... I dont see any one here presenting evidence of wider pattern of "wrong doing" thus Arbcom intervention does not seem warranted at this point. I think Beeblebrox recommendations are good advice that Dbachmann should take heed of. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Reading those talk pages, I see a great deal of sophistry, lack of focus on improving the articles, and confusion over scope, with very little discussion of the best way to reflect the best scholarly sources about the several topics. I see Dbachmann engaging in a lot of the latter sort of discussion without stooping to the former. Seriously - read through Yahweh (disambiguation) and linked articles, Jehovah (disambiguation), God in Abrahamic religions ... and you will still only scratch the surface. This is a complex topic that has been discussed in various ways for hundreds of years, and Wikipedia readers deserve a fair and historically accurate presentation of each aspect. This needs an article improvement drive or project-of-the-month for a WikiProject, not ArbCom. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why Dbachman did what he did and I don't support it - the world certainly expects an encyclopedia to have an article on Yahweh. Britannica has one. Unfortunately, I don't think Wikipedia will. There's just far too much passionate commitment to various views, as the Talk page shows. For example, one editor insists that we go into great detail on the exact vowels in that word Yahweh - he'd write the entire article on that subject if he was allowed. Another feels that great slabs of Biblical quotation are the way to go. And so on. Maybe Dbachman just got too frustrated and blew a fuse. He has a pretty good record apart from this. PiCo (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment - Moving the Page from "Yahweh" to "God of Israel" means to claim that Israelites only worshiped Yahweh and Only Israelites worshiped Yahweh. Both claims are simply wrong and entirely based on religious doctrine. What it always comes down to is the religious views of the editors. And of course it is unacceptable when an admin forces his opinion on all the readers of this encyclopedia. This is not just a question of scope of the article but a deliberate attempt of introducing systemic religious bias into Wikipedia. Of course, that problem is ubiquitous around here. I suggest that whoever is in charge of such issues should think about removing Dbachmann's admin privileges. ≡ CUSH ≡ 18:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment - This is a great example of how ANI should not be used. I agree that it was reckless for Dab to have acted without consensus in this way, but I don't think that running to ANI before trying to discuss the matter with Dab first is the right thing to do. It's just drama mongering. Maybe he made a mistake, or maybe he hasn't explained himself well enough yet, or maybe, even if he still vehemently disagrees with everyone the situation could be resolved without a report to the bully response bureau.Griswaldo (talk) 13:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted this move as it clearly did not have consensus, although it would have been preferable if Dbachmann had reverted himself in the face of such opposition. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I would ask why he did not move it back, this does look like abuse of admin privalidge to me.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

PR firm using at least two accounts to advertise its customers[edit]

Wcfallon, in its only edit, stated on the discussion page of the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) to be from INET's strategic communications/PR firm Keating & Co and to be working with INET "to develop a more comprehensive wikipedia page". Single purpose account Keatingco created Capital Institute, which, like INET, is based solely on the subject's website and which is written like an advertisement. Thanked them for revealing the conflict of interest, pointed to the guidelines especially about Conflict of interest and sockpuppetry and would suggest to permanently block Wcfallon. Help with both articles warmly appreciated. Knopffabrik (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

PeterTiso seems to fall under the same category (single purpose to promote E. F. Schumacher Society, which is related to the Capital Institute mentioned above, e.g., by adding photos "taken by the E. F. Schumacher Society of the inside of our (sic!) library". Also edited Community Land Trust, related to the Schumacher Society.
Kateeloop may also be related to this (prepares a similar article on a related think that that is "due for launch" in its user space).
There are even more think tank related single purpose accounts: EvelynFortunate, Kpforsyth, Jerrodmo, Kadup, KlipperP (this last one is even redirecting from its user page to a fundraising platform). Knopffabrik (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated the article for deletion at AFD. On the SPA's, I'll open up a CU case. Dusti*poke* 06:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
While the correct actions have been taken here, I think we are starting to see a disturbing trend emerge. While Wcfallon was naive enough to think we wouldn't mind them using us to legitimize their company, there are likely two dozen more who know full well the rules, and work to insert advocacy into articles. Note how much turnover the politician/political issues articles get edits from short-timer editors. Not saying the Illuminati is at work or anything; I think was the proper way to handle it. If discovered, they get perma-blocked, and all their contributions incinerated. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for taking care of this so fast. I however would like to ask why you just deleted the article Institute for New Economic Thinking? It had several real contributors and is for sure of encyclopedic relevance. Just because there is also a PR guy with a sockpuppet doesn't mean the whole article is needless. I cannot see it now, but when I started the article I think I used media references and should I have forgotten it for reasons I cannot even imagine right now it could easily be corrected. [15] The article also has neutral references in its German version. While you deleted the article, why did you not take action against the sockpuppet? Knopffabrik (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I restored an old version of the article which preceeded the spammer's massive re-write. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much. And I am sorry, I guess the checkuser is just still in the process. Knopffabrik (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Jenova20[edit]

This user is posting potentially libellous and defamatory information on their user talk page. They have been attempting to post this potentially libellous and false information on the Daily Mail article but were stopped from adding it. They are making some very bold but false claims about the newspaper. I was going to remove it from their talk page but they will then accuse me of 'bias'. Please read the top paragraph of their user talk page. Please remove it from the page. Thank You Christian1985 (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to say you're wrong on this one. While they're WP:SOAPboxing, it's only on their own Talk page, so there's no point in edit-warring to protect a newspaper. It is inappropriate to put on the article, but there's nothing against them putting this on their own Talk page. In addition, you were quite rude to the user on their own Talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
You should also have notified them of this discussion, as instructed by the giant eye-melting orange notice above the text field. I have notified him/her. l'aquatique[talk] 02:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Christian1985 from the very start has been unhelpful and constantly threatening me with administrators. He accuses me of bias, yet won't even allow discussion of anything the Mail have done that isn't positive. If i provide sources then he claims they're no good, if i provide the Mail's own site as the link then he says the same and so i've given up.

Looking at his talk page and the Daily Mail talk page and it's clear he has a personal interest in this article, whether as an employee of the Daily Mail or a die hard reader.

And in reference to the "libellious" information i posted, it's all from their own site so Christian is defending the Mail even from stuff you can read on their own site. Jenova20 (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have never 'threatened' you, you have been very abusive and rude to me and I simply warned you I may consult the Administrators which I have a right to do. You're at it again hurling accusations around with no proof. I am NOT 'protecting' the Mail article from negative information. What I am doing is stopping nonsense from being added to the article like the stuff you are trying to add. I am not a DM employees, stop making such ludicrous accusations against me. That information is NOT from their own site, it is YOUR biased spin on it. There is no evidence of the claims you are making against the Mail. But you can't accept that so you keep bullying me claiming I am 'claiming ownership' of the article. You are being very unhelpful by not listening to reason. You keep launching personal attacks on me and I am sick of it. I have done absolutely nothing wrong. Christian1985 (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2011


Also the reason I have said your 'sources' are no good is because they are not. They are biased and partisan sources which do not meet WP guidelines. That does not mean I am 'biased' I am following policy. The Mail's own site provides no evidence of the sort of stuff you are trying to claim. There is NO EVIDENCE for the ridiculous claims you are trying to make. They are simply YOUR opinions NOT facts. Why can you not accept that? Christian1985 (talk) 10:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No, no you're right, i've constantly threatened you and I've constantly been unhelpful. That's sarcasm if you didn't notice.

That's why i added all this stuff to Talk page for discussion rather than just in the article, never once edited the article, and got nothing but abuse from you and personal attacks, even on my talk page.

You can't even see anything wrong with this so your opinion means nothing to me. That clearly doesn't show a swastika or 666 tattoo on the left guy does it? It clearly doesn't show them as neo nazis does it? It's anti semitic and homophobic, and very controversial for the paper to have drew right after the couple won their discrimination case. Jenova20 (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The user talk page at issue clearly contains personal attacks, including charges of "stalking" and more. And unless a reliable source draws an inference and publishes it, it is not up to WP editors to do so (WP:OR). Collect (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree. My personal opinion on those cartoons aside, Jenova20, you need to find several mainstream sources which make that observation, i.e. this needs to be a major controversy outside of your head, before adding it to he article per WP:NOR and WP:DUE. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Jenvoa20 this is what you don't get, those articles prove NOTHING. It is just YOUR opinion on the article. Wikipedia is for facts not biased opinions. Just because YOU find the cartoon offensive doesn't mean it is, that is your opinion. I think it is perfectly inoffensive. I hhave never attacked or abused you, simply pointed out facts. You have abused and bullied me. The cartoon is NOT 'homophobic' or 'anti-semitic' only you think that. It is a perfectly legitimate cartoon. You are wrong Jenova20, you are trying to use the article with your biased spin on it, this constitutes Original Research which violates WP policy. You can't use a harmless cartoon as a reference to make the sort of claims you are trying to make. IT PROVES NOTHING. You need to accept that. Christian1985 (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I never tried to add that to the article, i was suggesting ways it could be added, which because of enough sources i haven't been able to do. The fact of the matter is that you (Christian1985) behaved in such a disgusting way that you've put off not just me, but many other contributors to that article and if they even try to build up sources or additions (even on their own talk pages) you attack them there aswell. That's not just underhand, but it's bullying aswell.

I would suggest that with how you have acted that you are biased in defending the Daily Mail, that or you work for them. I have added to quite a few automobile articles and welcome additions to them and constructive criticism. You treat this article as your personal interest and oppose any changes that do not go through you, or single out the paper from others though.

I'm not happy this dispute has got this far but at least the spotlight is now on your record of treatment towards other Wikipedians. Jenova20 (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"quite a few automobile articles"? [16] shows you with a grand total of 3 edits in article space, and 18 in article talk pace. In fact, counting every single edit you have ever made, you have a total of 10 total edits related to automobiles. Collect (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
You're at it again hurling accusations around about me. I have NOT bullied anyone. I do NOT work for the Mail. Stop making such ridiculous accusations. You are the one bullying me and it has got to stop. I do NOT oppose any changes, I opposed nonsense from being added to the article. I have not put anyone off the article, don't be so ridiculous. Just grow up and leave me alone. Stop spreading these lies about me. I have done nothing wrong and I have not treated Wikipedians in any underhand way. You need to stop with these rude comments because I am getting fed up with it. Christian1985 (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

They're my speciality, but unfortunately the research is often difficult to complete because of a lack of information or proof. And i generally don't edit much unless no-one in the discussion boards has noticed an error and generally i'll suggest it for others to do other than myself as i'm still learning as i go along. There's quite a few cars needing start and end years corrected for the UK aswell though so either that or just random corrections are what i focus on. Jenova20 (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

STOP! Will you two just stop? We get it that you're both angry, but this isn't helping. Just stop, and let's see what admins have to say about this, if anything.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's what I see: User:Jenova20 is repeatedly posting original research in an article, which is against policy. User:Christian1985 apparently took personal offense and began harassing Jenova on his/her userpage (also against policy). You guys are both being incredibly rude to each other and I want that to stop immediately- there is no reason you two cannot discuss this like adults (aka, without personal attacks, please!). Jenova- the material as-is is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article, find some reliable secondary sources that come to the same conclusion that you do and we'll talk- otherwise it's going to keep getting removed. Christian1985- you need to leave Jenova alone. You've passed on the original research problem to admins, that's the best you can do. Now it's time to back off, especially on Jenova's talk page. It is not your job to patrol other Wikipedians. You guys both need to step away for a little bit and cool down, we've got some serious angry mastodon issues going on here. l'aquatique[talk] 16:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Except for the part about adding to the article, i agree completely. And that's because i've not posted anything on the article and used only the talk page to suggest additions. I used the live chat feature yesterday and got the advice i needed pretty quick. Suggesting additions on an article shouldn't lead to personal attacks, insults on talk pages and threats. None of this should have happened when it could have ended two days ago by just saying that proper sources and not blogs are needed and giving a bit of guidance. None of this seems acceptable when a few minutes in live chat was more constructive than 3 days of arguing.

I'd like this pushed as far as possible as i don't see that any of this has been constructive or necessary and the way i've been hounded for 3 days is completely unbelievable. Jenova20 (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Jenova20 I have NOT 'hounded' you at all. I have simply pointed out how you are wrong. I am perfectly entitled to write on your talk page. Ihave done nothing wrong. I have tried to be reasonable but everytime I point out how Jenova20 is wrong they start saying I am 'biased' and a 'Daily Mail employee' and saying I am claiming 'ownership' of the article, which are all false claims. As the Admin rightly says Jenova20 you cannot publish original research. Wikipedia is for facts not opinions. That is all I have to say on the matter. Christian1985 (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Easy solution[edit]

Jenova20, stop responding to Christian1985. Christian1985, stop responding to Jenova20.

To address the actual issue: Jenova20, user pages are not for users to make allegations (of homophobia or anything else) against an organization. You should take it down and moving that to a blog or personal website.

The user page guidelines clearly says, "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed." It also says, "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive)" and does not permit: "Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia. Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc. Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article. (For example in the latter case, because it is pure original research, is in complete disregard of reliable sources, or is clearly unencyclopedic for other clear reasons.)"

I'm not demanding that you take it down, but just requesting it. If you decline, it's your user page in the end, but anyone else could nominate it for deletion or start a new thread on this page to get it removed. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well i started looking for sources on it again at the moment so it's still useful at the moment. I gave up for a while but figured someone must have noticed this high up the chain and thats why i neatened it up to help me, I also had to move it to my talk page stop Christian complaining about it, You don't mind it being there for a week tops if i'm still using it do you?

Thanks for ending the dispute, hopefully permanently. Jenova20 (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You can have it there if you're actively working on it and it doesn't make any attacks or allegations against the organization. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Jenova, instead of having it on your talk page have you considered moving it to a subpage of your userpage (i.e. User:Jenova20/dm)- that way it would still be easily accessible for you but less visible for the rest of us? l'aquatique[talk] 18:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Created it, what's the easies way to get back to it without looking in my contributions each time? Thanks Jenova20 (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Pop a link to your subpage onto your userpage like what I did with my subpage for the Boxer rebellion origins section. (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Ugh i keep forgetting to Login Blackmane (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandalous user impersonating an admin[edit]