Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Query - incivil conduct I can't seem to resolve on my own

I've been having a bit of an issue with SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) that has gotten a bit distressing as of late.

Note: I wasn't interested in a sanction so I posted here rather than on ANI. If you feel this is the wrong place to request admin related assistance, feel free to move it there.

I've been receiving numerous offensive comments and false claims from her recently that have nothing to do with the content discussion.

• "I don't think we should be held hostage like this"(?)
  "in the direction of a tiny-minority POV,"(?)
  "has been going on now very disruptively for nearly three years."(??)[1]

• "people disagreed with these changes on talk;"(?) [2]

• "Your usual thing is to start pointless arguments and keep them going"(?) [3]

Here are several example diffs of my bids from SlimVirgin for clarification on her uncollaborative conduct (and what feels like blind reverts).

• [4], [5], [6]-[7]-[8]-[9], [10], [11]
• Sample: "I'm not sure what your concerns were in regards to the recent content changes as you haven't taken the time to explain any such concerns. I'm fairly certain that there's nothing to be concerned with, but I promise to take note and try to work with your concerns once they are explained."[12]

I went to trouble to add sources to support my points of concern and responded to all the queries presented by fellow wikipedians.[13], [14], [15] Also, some of my notes and changes were seen as being accurate even by people I've been at major odds with even recently (per "Jaakobou wants to replace... I think on this issue he might have a point."[16]). I also don't have a clue as to why I'm being charged for promoting a "tiny-minority POV" when I've done nothing of the sorts, let alone been doing it for 3 years(?!). Maybe a clarification is in order to explain exactly where my recent suggested changes to the article are doing that.

Would appreciate a suggestion to me or a kind word noted to her, to help get our discussion focused on the points of concern I raised and getting the hostility -- which is really unclear and uncalled for -- down. I admit that in the past couple months (nothing close to three years) a few people were demonstratively unhappy by my objecting a few faulty interpretations of the sources and some incivility was a problem then as well. However, as it turns out, I was correct and everyone agreed (eventually) leading to the article currently reflecting these issues as a matter of established consensus (sample).

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Based on my extensive experience with Jaakobou at multiple other pages, and having followed the discussion at Muhammed al-Durrah, I have to say that I have nothing but sympathy for SlimVirgin, whose characterizations of his tendentious and POV pushing behaviour is rather mild considering. Tiamut^talk 15:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Tiamut,

A behavioral pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may actually result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks. Please avoid making generic smears against Israeli editors.

Thank you, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you Israeli? I didn't even know. That's not my problem with your editing. It's your editing that is the problem and your tendency to not hear the objections of your fellow editors and you persistence in trying to get your POV to dominate on a given page. Tiamut^talk 21:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I see no issue on incivility that needs any kind of admin attention. SlimVirgin and others have engaged in lengthy and detailed discussion on the talk page. People disagreeing with you is an expected feature of editing Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 16:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Fences and windows,

SlimVirign participated with a revert explained by a false assertion and responded to the discussion with an ad hominem. "Participation" seems quite hostile in that sense. Side commentary (per "hostage") in response to source based replies seems drama inducing and something that could be improved upon. I wouldn't mind hearing where my recent edit was so offensive as to elicit such a reaction.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of writing-up these events is to get an NPOV article, Wikipedia's reputation suffers when unfit people holding extreme views persist in POV pushing. SlimVirgin's comments are mild and she's being over-reasonable. 86.159.67.125 (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like "drama inducing", don't post here! If you want to hear why your editing elicited SlimVirgin's comment, you'd better ask her. There is nothing for admins to do here. Fences&Windows 22:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Jaakobou has a long history of aggressively promoting his POV. I have no idea why he thought it would be a good idea to come here and tell us how hard he's been trying to provoke SV, but I suspect he might be starting to regret it. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• • Wow JzG,
    How is was the edit provocative exactly? I'm thinking you should really explain since I don't see removing the suggestion that the boy might be alive or that Israeli investigations stated (rather than 'suggested') as provocative. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Jaaokou has been trying for nearly three years to slant the article toward the view that Muhammad al-Durrah wasn't shot by the Israeli army, may not have been shot at all, probably isn't dead, and that the whole incident may have been staged by Palestinians for propaganda purposes. He uses poor sources, uses them badly, argues endlessly on talk, and if people don't respond to him, complains that he's being reverted without discussion and treated unfairly. I'll give one example from October of how time-wasting, and even offensive, his editing is:

The Palestinian cameraman who filmed the killing explains in a German documentary that, when he compiled his initial report, he thought the boy's name was Rami. But another journalist who had married into the al-Durrah family recognized Muhammad in the footage and supplied the correct name. Therefore, the cameraman corrected the name in his subsequent reports. (See here around 6:30 mins, in German.) Jaakobou used this documentary as a source to add to the article [17] that the cameraman had "switched" the name for no reason: "Abu Rahma stated in an interview that he showed his footage to the other cameramen and one of them told him the boy's name was Rami al-Durrah, which he decided to switch to Muhammad al-Durrah." This is part of Jaakobou's tiny-minority theory that perhaps another boy called Rami was killed that day, not Muhammad. But the cameraman explains in the documentary that he simply made a mistake when he initially called the boy Rami.

When challenged on talk, Jaakobou said the cameraman might have changed the name because "Muhammad" was likely to trigger more sympathy in the Muslim world than "Rami." He said that "the issue of The Truth in Arab media is very complex," and "I'll assume that they figured the name 'Muhammad' would sell better in the Arab world than 'Rami'. In the Arab media, the 'truth' is more about storytelling than about minute facts ...," and when on to explain that Arab journalists may believe they are telling the truth, when anyone can see that they are not. [18] [19]

We asked an uninvolved German-English translator, User:Bamse, to confirm that the documentary said the name had been changed because a family member had corrected it. Jaakobou then acknowledged that he doesn't, in fact, understand German, and that he had simply heard somewhere that the name was changed for no reason i.e. he had, in fact, no source for his original edit.

This whole pointless discussion took up three days, involved six editors, 54 posts, and the services of an uninvolved translator. This is what editing with Jaakobou is like. But if we ignore him, he complains that he's being reverted without discussion, and if he's told off, that people are being rude to him. SlimVirgin 03:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate SlimVirign taking the time to elaborate on the raised query and will address a few of the issues:

Old News: I hate to have my explanations distorted by SlimVirign. In short, I've already explained myself and we resolved the issue of the possibly faulty English translation and moved on. We've also resolved the issue of SlimVirign's own errors, such as the citing the length of the incident video to be several minutes or the timestamp issue; which all (despite some incivility and an RSN I was forced to start -- took considerably longer than 3 days) eventually agreed I was right about.[20] I also have had immediate support on part of my recent edit (per "on this issue he might have a point."[21]) and was quite willing to explain the other changes using reliable sources and discussion.

Relevance: Old news aside, I haven't seen you address why the recent edit elicited such strong emotions out of you. Maybe you're harboring old bad blood, but we still need to find a way to collaborate without making any faulty and personal insults.

Misrepresentations: You've written above: "Jaaokou has been trying for nearly three years to slant the article toward the view that Muhammad al-Durrah ... probably isn't dead." However, I've done exactly the opposite by removing "it remains unclear whether the boy died" from the lead.[22] If anything, you've slanted the article toward the view that "it remains unclear whether [Muhammad al-Durrah] died"[23] by reverting me.

(offtopic-general knowledge):
Muqawama (lit. "resistance"), aka "Popular struggle" or "the doctrine of constant combat", includes exaggerating by people of power to their public in order to promote civilian support and religious fervor. A multitude of sources include Palestinian and Arab. Sample documentary 1, Documentary 2 (see Palestinian official 1 (24:34-24:46) Palestinian doctor (28:40-31:24)).

On Point: I hope that when I use a source to substantiate a fairly called for change I am suggesting (such as "suggested" to "stated" about IDF investigations), it should not be followed by an uncalled for and exaggerated personal smear. If SlimVirgin doesn't understand the changes, they can make note and I will do my best to explain. However, it is improper to respond to citation including explanations with personal attacks that you're held hostage for 3 years when nothing of the sorts has occurred.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe the discussion as pointless, although I would sympathise with tedious and frustrating, since the evidence is now in place and referable should the same or similar claim be made. It is difficult to require one person to accept consensus that there is no basis to include their viewpoint, per good faith, if the consensus holders will not accept that the individual is making their point in good faith. If the claim is not being made in good faith, or otherwise the consensus view is taken in bad faith by the individual, then there is a problem that might require third party input to resolve. It is part of this projects process to discuss and evidence where possible the decision what content appears on the article page; it looks like this has been followed scrupulously, which reflects well on the participants. It now only requires Jaakobou to recognise the legitimacy of the process, and to accept that consensus needs to be evidenced as being mistaken and a new one agreed before controversial edits are made. This would be a prime indicator of good faith. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Heyo LessHeard,

I've shown a diff supporting that at least part of my change was immediately accepted by another editor and, if you review the thread properly, you can see that we were in the process of discussing the merit of the other changes when SlimVirgin made the personal accusation. Please review the provided diffs.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

LHvU, Jaakobou has a POV wihch is close to one extreme of a highly polarised spectrum. I have strong recollections of other issues with Jaakobou's advancing of highly biased content on the flimsiest of grounds, and the problem is not with others failing to assume good faith - rather, it's with good faith being extended past breaking point. I suspect that we should close this report with a mental note that next time it happens Jaakobou should be subject to a topic ban for a period, say three months. If people can't bring themselves to wait for next time then they can start and RfC now. Guy (Help!) 11:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

POV is one matter - even extreme ones which, unless it is subject to an existing topic ban/AE issue, still requires good faith discussion - and claims of incivility are another. As I may not have made clear, that edits may be summarily reverted - and especially in controversial areas - per WP:BRD is not uncivil, it is part of the process. I don't think the merit of Jaakobou's complaint is upheld, and the rest of it is a content dispute that has no place here. Complaining about use (rather than abuse) of process, when it removes ones viewpoint, is inappropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed to see this complaint on AN/I. Over the last few months Jaakobou has become virtually a single-purpose editor, focusing almost exclusively on this one article. SlimVirgin has done an excellent job of fixing many problems with it. Unfortunately Jaakobou's contributions have been much less positive. Although some of his suggestions have had merit and have been implemented, too much of his involvement has been frankly tendentious. Many of his proposals have the clear intent of slanting the article in the direction of his favoured POV. He engages far too much in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour by making the same arguments over and over until other editors get fed up. He has also sought to exclude sources on overtly racist grounds, viz. that Arabs / Palestinians have a "generic storytelling culture" and therefore nothing they say can be considered a reliable source. This was the subject of a Wikiquette alert a couple of months ago, which resulted in a general consensus that such claims are clearly racist.

This seems to be to be a fairly straightforward pattern of disruptive editing motivated by a strong commitment to a particular POV. Considering how long it's been going on for, I think some remedial action is necessary. I don't think a block would be appropriate at this stage but I think a topic ban or article ban would be proportionate; as Guy notes above, Jaakobou has a long history of this kind of thing across a range of articles. I disagree with Guy that we should address it next time; this has been going on long enough. It's time Jaakobou spent more time editing other parts of the encyclopedia where his POV doesn't get in the way so much.

I'm going to propose a topic ban on Jaakobou for a period of three months per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions, which empowers uninvolved administrators to impose sanctions on any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process, on articles concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict. Please comment below on whether you support or oppose this proposal. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I'm sorry, but Tiamut and others are using this space to make a smear campaign against me. That the Israeli-Palestinian topic is contentious is known and editors have tried on numerous occasions to win arguments with me through sanctions. Non of this or all the warnings and blocks given to ChrisO (for example) for his misconduct on the Al-Durrah article,[24][25][26][27][28][29][30] are relevant though to the current post. If you want to start a complaint about me, find some relevant diffs and do it. I've removed Tiamut smearing through sample of the rejected complaints she and a few of her friends opened against me due to their irrelevance to this post.[31] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, you have warned previously not to remove other editors' comments per WP:TALK. I am restoring my comment directly below. Please refrain from removing it again. Thank you. Tiamut^talk 12:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Support (ChrisO's proposal for a three-month topic ban) I ask those who may not be familiar with Jaakobou's history to review the following list of some cases at WP:AE that he has been involved with:

• 02.2008: AE complaint filed by Eleland re Jaakobou (No result)
• 02.2008: AE complaint filed by Jaakobou against Number 57 (No result)
• 02.2008: AE complaint filed by Jaakobou re Eleland (No result)
• 02.2008: 2nd AE complant filed by Jaakobou re Eleland (Result: Jaakobou received a final warning about using AE as a weapon for block shopping)
• 03.2008: AE complaint by El C re Jaakobou's mocking of my user page (No result after Jaakobou apologizes for the "misunderstanding")
• 03.2008: AE complaint filed by tiamut re Jaakobou (Result: Jaakobou is banned from all Israel and Palestine related pages for a week for inappropriate talk page behaviour.)
• 03.2008: Jaakobou's AE request "other editors' activity, specifically Tiamut, Nickhh, Sm8900 and Nishidani, should be given proper examination and possible sanctions should be considered when their activity is placed in comparison with my own." (Result: Discussion closed by Thatcher with "THIS ENDS NOW"]
• 04.2008: 3rd AE complaint by Jaakobou re Eleland (No result)
• 04/05.2008: 4th AE complaint by Jaakobou re Eleland (No result)
• 06.2008: Pedrito's AE complaint re Jaakobou (No result)
• 11.2008: Tiamut's second complaint at AE re Jaakobou (Result: Jaakobou given a final warning about soapboxing.)
• 05.2009: SlimVirgin complaint at AE re Jaakobou (No result)

The Wikiquette alert from October 2009 that ChrisO linked to above should have resulted in an automatic topic ban given the last final warning he received less than a year previous regarding soapboxing (which was also borderline racist or racist depending on one's perspective). This complaint too is indicative of Jaakobou's pattern of filing unfounded complaints (for which he has been previously warned, as evidenced in the links above). Tiamut^talk 11:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut, there's a reason that all of those cases closed with no action—it's because of the baseless block shopping frenzy in general in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict area, much of it against Jaakobou. I don't see how it is relevant to this AN/I case. If you have a current and specific problem with Jaakobou, please file a complaint, although it would probably just be a waste of administrators' time. I believe it's time to close this case as well. Hopefully all parties stop with the pointless complaints and start contributing to the article. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ynhockey, half of the AE complaints listed above were filed by Jaakobou against others, all of which resulted in no action. Of the six filed against him, two resulted in some action, one was dismissed after he apologized, and the other three simply went stale. I must say, I find your lack concern regarding his tendentious editing style, racist commentary and soapboxing unsurprising, given your consistent defense of his actions. Tiamut^talk 15:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

DragonflySixtyseven has graciously volunteered his limited time to help me through this dispute. I would like to note that I apologize to everyone for the inconvenience; please trust me when I say that my only goal is to improve the encyclopedia as a whole and I wanted to get to a more collaborative situation as recent comments felt to start to become a bit personal and conflict inducing. This thread seemed to have had a bit of drama as well, but I hope we can start focusing on the content from now on. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to note that Jaakobou's problematic behavior continues even here. He has removed a post of Tiamut's, and acknowledged that the removal was deliberate, [32] then tried himself to close the discussion down. [33] SlimVirgin 15:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I personally asked him to close this discussion. Usually I try to avoid A/N as if it had a virulently infectious case of explosive diarrhea, so I'm not 100% familiar with what is and is not acceptable protocol. I thought that, since Jaakobou had been the one to begin this section (by filing a complaint against SV), he could also be the one to end it (by retracting the complaint). I apologize for the confusion that this may have caused. DS (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I also support Chris's proposal of a three-month topic ban. Jaakobou has become practically a single-purpose account, editing Muhammad al-Durrah almost to the exclusion of anything else. He has very strong feelings about it, and tries to impose a tiny-minority POV to the effect that the shooting incident was staged. He makes these feelings clear offwiki. He has uploaded a video about it to YouTube, and has posted there that the incident was staged, and that "people were massacred because of this blood libel." [34] He's entitled to that view, but he's not entitled to bring that same strength of feeling to the Wikipedia article, and basically to filibuster on talk in an attempt to wear everyone else down. A three-month break would benefit both him and the article. SlimVirgin 15:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I feel that it would be premature to impose such involuntary sanctions on Jaakobou at this time. DS (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you please state, for the record, how you came to be involved, since you tend to avoid WP:AN? Tiamut^talk 16:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Here. Now leave me out of this. I said I'd help him if his suggestions on the talk page were not at least openly addressed, so so do me a favor and - when he makes suggestions on the talk page - openly address them. DS (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Wasn't the disruptive editing guideline originally crafted to prevent people from topic banning editors who hold legitimate minority views? Jaakobou hasn't been blocked in a year and a half. Disclaimer: I used to mentor him. But it would seem that an editor who brings forth the Columbia Journalism Review and other established sources to support his supposedly fringe position might not be advocating a fringe position. Formal mediation might help; you're all reasonable and experienced people. Durova³⁷¹ 16:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen Jaakobou bring forth any good or mainstream source. All the work on that article has been done by others. His position—that the incident was staged—is a tiny minority one that even in Israel is regarded as somewhat off the wall. SlimVirgin 16:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

He showed me a list of sources a few weeks ago which I can't recall the link to now, but which included the Columbia Journalism Review and several other very respectable sources, one of which may have been The Wall Street Journal. I know very little about the underlying content dispute, but if those sources are relevant then the idea doesn't seem to be fringe. Certainly not topic bannable. Durova³⁷¹ 18:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There are mainstream sources who have discussed other issues about the al-Durrah case—sources found by other editors—but the particular position Jaakobou is trying to push is a tiny-minority one. In any event, the issue is his behavior, as well as the particular POV, and the length of time it has been a problem. SlimVirgin 18:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If memory serves, I skimmed a couple of the better sources including the Columbia Journalism Review and they appeared, surprisingly enough, to be discussing that position as a credible possibility. In my experience Jaakobou has an easily identifiable POV, yet he is generally good about producing reliable sources for it and amenable to discussion about the due weight those sources should receive. My experience with you, SlimVirgin, is that you do not always acknowledge the existence of evidence that conflicts with your own opinion--even after it has been provided per your request. Haven't followed the current dispute closely enough to tell whether that might be a factor here, but we all have our strengths and our weaknesses. I would hate to see anyone topic banned because of that type of misunderstanding. Durova³⁷¹ 18:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment—I agree with Durova. We should not impose bans on users who engage in a content dispute but edit within policy, just because their opinions (backed by sources) are in the minority. SlimVirgin is also claiming things about Jaakobou that aren't true (like the notion that he supports a conspiracy theory on al-Durrah) to push the ban, which I consider especially worrying. Content disputes are a part of editing, and if done properly, they can significantly increase the quality and neutrality of articles. Needless to say, if Jaakobou is banned, it would be an award to persistent tendentious editing, unnecessary blanket reverts, and personal attacks by the other side. My suggestion as someone who is familiar with the case and mildly involved, is to start a formal mediation process, or if possible have the parties work out their differences before edit-warring in the article. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

A couple of people seem to be commenting here without reading the previous posts. Ynhockey, I posted diffs above that Jaakobou thinks Arab journalists are unable to tell the truth. Do you regard that as acceptable comment on a talk page? I posted a link to comments of his on YouTube that the al-Durrah tape is a fake and that the allegations are a blood libel. That is the conspiracy theory.

Mediation is the last thing we need. What we want is less talk from him, not more.

I have seen e-mails from Jaakobou on another site that suggest he's an online activist on behalf of Israel, similar to Zeq, and that Wikipedia is just one of his outlets. I'm reluctant to link to the posts here because they lead to a name. The bottom line is that the degree of POV pushing J engages in is beyond the normal give-and-take of editing, even within the I/P area, and it needs to stop, one way or another. SlimVirgin 18:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• There's been all types of reports on the Al-Durrah incident, and I am sorry for bringing it up here. In any event, I withdraw from this discussion; for more details, please read my post on Talk:Muhammad_al-Durrah_incident#Suggested_vs_stated. I apologize for the inconvenience. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I just found out about this case. First, let me say that SlimVirgin has done an exemplary job on this article, almost single-handedly taking it from start class to GA or possibly FA quality, while having to deal with an extremely tedious editor. Second, after reviewing past AN/I cases filed by or against Jaakobou, I'm truly amazed he hasn't been topic banned already. He's been tediously editing various articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since at least 2007. Here are some quotes, taken from various discussions, about Jaakobou's problematic behavior:

Quotes

• "[Jaakobou] has accused me of vandalism for editing my own user page. He has accused me of making personal attacks from my user page, but declined to provide the text of these attacks (the simple reason being that no personal attacks were made by me). He has mischaracterised my reply to his "warnings" without providing a link to the text and accused me of making two (unspecified) misrepresentations. If you examine his contributions you will find a mixture of personal attacks on other editors and aggrassive POV pushing. Of course Jaakobou is intitled to his opinions. And his conduct on Wikipedia (including his current attempt to ban me) is totally consistent with his ideology." - Abu ali 11:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• "There seems to be a tendency among some users - you, Jaakobou are one... - to constantly assume bad faith on anything to do with edits on Middle Eastern matters that don't meet their personal POV. It's more than just inappropriate - it's creating a hostile and intimidatory atmosphere concerning the entire subject area on Wikipedia." -- ChrisO 10:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Jaakobou has acted in a deliberately offensive way, he has breached WP:NPA, he is making libellous attacks, and unless he is blocked for a significant period, then a precedent will have been established and other editors are likely to take advantage of this... Jaakobou is now trying to divert attention from my complaint by bringing up all sorts of untrue and irrelevant allegations." - RolandR 16:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Jaakobou could benefit from taking a less confrontational approach towards his fellow editors. He does seem to have a habit of assuming bad faith and making claims of wrongdoing; this seems to be more of the same. It's the kind of approach that just ends up annoying people." -- ChrisO 22:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• "I'm finding User:Jaakobou to be quite disruptive... I'm starting to see the words 'exhausted the community's patience'." --kingboyk 12:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Jaakobou is trying to conflate a content dispute with a policy violation... his behaviour in this discussion has been sadly typical of his general behaviour on Wikipedia." - CJCurrie 16:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• "Jaakobou seems to me to be acting against consensus (his claims otherwise notwithstanding) and keeps backing away from discussion on the Talk page." - Bondegezou 15:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• "I do not intend to escalate this disruption and retaliate in any fashion, but I am waiting for the community to announce that they're sick of Jaakobou and that his disruption in articles, in Talk and on people's TalkPages has to stop. I'm not aware he does any good to any articles, and clearly does a lot of harm to some of them. His behaviour drives numerous good editors away" - PalestineRemembered 17:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• "As I have said, the difficulty in editing pages with Jaakobou is that one has to persist over long stretches of Talk in explaining to him elementary aspects of English syntax, grammar and what is or is not implied by a standard sentence in that language." - Nishidani 13:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• "But Jaakobou makes no secret of the intensely motivated POV which drives many of his edits in here." - Nishidani 21:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• "What I cannot do is bring to your attention the many more bad-faith cases brought by my main accuser, Jaakobou against a range of (overwhelmingly) knowledgeable and patient editors in the I-P conflict area... In the same vein, it's clear that the community is pretty sick of Jaakobou." - PR 12:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• "...there's a difference between assuming bad faith and concluding that somebody is just not a productive editor. Essentially all of Jaakobou's edits fall into one of two categories: 1) Adding contentious, unsourced or inappropriately sourced, and awkwardly written "pro-Israel" information to articles about that country, 2) Reverting edits on articles about that country, often edits which repair the damage caused by #1. No matter how hard one tries to reach him, Jaakobou remains aloof to the ideas of reliable sources, neutral point of view, and consensus building. When he bothers to explain his actions, it's generally in the form of 'This version is better,' or 'More NPOV this way,' with no indication that he has even read the statements made by others... Obviously, this leads to an exasperated reaction. Jaakobou then seizes on this reaction with cries of WP:CIV and WP:NPA, allowing him to further evade discussion. - eleland 20:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• "In this case it appears to be a case of Jaakobou alone against 3 editors. Also, insisting that a user follow wikipedia rules is not a 'weapon to beat opponents with'." - Bless sins (talk) 07:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• "It is extremely disturbing that an editor with a track record like Jaakobou's can come by and repeatedly delete this material, using only the most cursory of attempts to engage in talk. I request that an administrator review the situation and that Jaakobou be sanctioned for this pattern of disruptive editing and/or be assigned a mentor." - Tiamut 18:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Jaakobou's comments on the talk page mostly amount to 'i hate the subject matter, therefore i must harry the messengers'. His behavior is not conducive to creating an encyclopedia. I'd support yet ANOTHER long block on Jaakobou." - ThuranX (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• "This seems to me a pattern in Jaakobou's editing, one that has warded away many good faith editors from other articles." - Tiamut 19:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• "WP:TE is definitely an issue with Jaakobou - multiple instances of blocked for breaking WP:3RR, of reverting "vandalism" of others [119][120][121] [122][123] [124][125], accusing others of censorship [126][127][128][129][130][131] and violations of WP:UNDUE (constant reinsertion of a massive criticism section at Gideon Levy). I would suggest a Middle East politics topic ban." - Number 57 19:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• "I would just add that Jaakobou use sources which are highly controversial... Jaakobou has been around a while now, and I cannot detect any great change in his editing style. I suspect yet another ban will not change his style... a Middle East politics topic ban, sounds very sensible to me." - Huldra (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Jaakobou came straight back from his 3.5 day block to plunge into revert-warring again. His 2nd edit was a revert at Saeb Erekat, where he has single-handedly, edit-warred against the consensus of 8 other editors - this is the entire 16 month existence, every topic and every contributor at this TalkPage! This is on top of the 4 articles that were listed at the ANI leading to his block, and there are many others again. Blocking or topic-banning an editor is intended to be preventative - action in this case would be a service to the project, protecting a great swathe of articles from his pervasive, un-encyclopedic and anti-scholarly influence." - PR 22:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• "A widely cast topic ban or fully community ban [of Jaakobou] is in order. After reviewing some of his actions in this matter, he reverted and came to my talk page stating that my edits would be reverted because they fail to match his standards. My edits consisted of reverting to a FAR more sourced version, and then removing some cumbersome wording. He can't be pleased, short of having his way, whether or not they are actually valid." - ThuranX (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• "This is sadly typical of Jaakobou's edits; he seems to rely almost exclusively on his personal opinion for determining what belongs in an article or what does not, with no apparent effort to consider policies and guidelines." - eleland 00:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• "I've had my fair deal of aggravation with Jaakobou in the past and present. I posted here a while back (here) regarding his WP:POINTiness and WP:TE... Attempts at WP:DR were all useless. Jaakobou rants on for days on end and then just disappears, showing up later only to block compromises worked out by other editors, over disputes that he himself started. It appears that for User:Jaakobou, WP:DR is only a tool to block a discussion over longer periods of time. For examples of his recent "work", check out Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt and Gilad Shalit." - pedro gonnet - talk - 07.01.2008 07:54

• "Jaakobou has a long record of disrupting articles under the pretence that a source or statement is biased or POVed, inserting POVed material himself and edit-warring until either all parties lose interest or until any serious mediation (i.e. RfCs) goes against his wishes, upon which he just disappears. In my experience, there has nevern been any consensus on any issue with User:Jaakobou. The cases in which consensus was eventually reached were only possible once User:Jaakobou lost interest and left. When he leaves, it is usually only a matter of days before he jumps on a new topic or article to push the same views and arguments there." - pedro gonnet - 07.01.2008 12:44

• "Jaakobou isn't acting in Good Faith. He's here at AN/I so often he's got frequent flyer miles and his own chair. And it's always the same thing - promoting his POV against all consensus using hostility nad WP:TE to try to get his way. He'll ramp all opposition up tillthey violate WP:CIVIL, or it gets sent to one of our processes (DR, RfC, whatever), whereupon he'll split, leaving everyone else to 'fix' the mess, wasting lots of their time. then he jumps to a new article, and starts again. He's a persistent Tendentious Editor, and he needs a community ban." - ThuranX (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Many people will have undoubtedly assumed that Jaakobou is here in good faith - a close look at his actual editing would quickly persuade you otherwise... on top of the bullying, Jaakobou operates in a totally un-encyclopedic fashion to use/abuse sources. Not only does this damage articles, it has a profoundly discouraging effect on real scholars attempting to edit. In at least three cases I can think of, Jaakobou appears to have driven such people away in double frustration, both as regards the material itself and the absurdly tendentious way it is defended." - PR 15:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• "...a multitude of respected, trusted editors and admins find there to be something seriously amiss with Jaakobou's actions on the Wikipedia." - <eleland/talkedits> 23:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• "The issue is Jaakobou's tendentious and disruptive editing. Many editors and admins have suggested arbitration." - pedro gonnet - talk - 08.01.2008 13:34

• "...it's not a content dispute we are talking about here, it's the hundreds of content disputes which User:Jaakobou starts and then drags on for ever and ever to no avail... It's disruptive and tendentious editing that are the issue here and it's just plain annoying for anyone and everyone trying to make decent encyclopaedic material out of the I/P articles." - pedro gonnet 08.01.2008 13:40

• "Jaakobou starts content disputes over bogus material as a way of blocking articles he doesn't like. That's WP:POINT, WP:DISRUPT and WP:TE all in one." - pedro gonnet - talk - 08.01.2008 14:00

• "Jaakobou has a long history of abusing procedures, including calling for RfC and then refused to abide by the results...in this case as in so many others, Jaakobou's determination not to abide by policy is infectious, and results in other editors slipping into these consensus trashing and article damaging behaviors." - PR 15:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Don't; I've dealt with Jaakobou before, and he's got a problem with POV." - Sceptre, 18:29, 18 April 2008

• "I'd like to suggest that rather than locking the article down, Jaakobou be counselled to avoid editing of this article, due to his inability to edit collaboratively. Since his arrival at the page two days ago, he has done nothing but make inflammatory comments, editing with little regard to core policies, including WP:Consensus. His efforts to censor... go against WP:NPOV." - Tiamut 15:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Jaakobou, please, there is no accusation being made in this article. Please stop this. The purpose is to produce an encyclopedia article that presents a verifiable description of objective reality for this event based on reliable sources. It's not there yet, but really you aren't helping by doing this." - Sean.hoyland - talk 16:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• "I fail to see how this complaint by a user at what the majority of editors determined to be acceptable, which the latecomer Jaakobou tried one-handedly to elide, and then failed to find a consensus for review, constitutes an 'incident'. The procedures for establishing consensus, gathering numerous reliable sources, etc., were all observed before a substantial number of editors from both sides. Can one use this noticeboard to attempt to get administrative review of a consensual edit one dislikes?" - Nishidani (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In short, these editors have said that Jaakobou is a biased editor, intent on pushing his own point of view; he will stand in the way of consensus building, even in the face of overwhelming support for an edit; he ignores questions put to him directly, or just ignores the entire dispute resolution process, long-term edit warring and skirting 3RR; he exploits the administrators' noticeboard as a weapon in content disputes, conflating such disputes with policy violations, accusing those who disagree with his edits of incivility or failing to assume good faith. I've seen similar behavior from him, but had no idea it was so rampant or long term. ← George ^talk 18:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent space in which to use wiki-processes to ban editors for POV-pushing purposes. Really, this page was tailor-made for that purpose, and also for rehashing whatever the IP conflict du jour may be. </sarcasm> There's no need for a topic ban for Jaak. He's adding measurably to the discussion, and almost certainly keeping the article from being slanted. Mediation might be a good thing here. IronDuke 18:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

IronDuke, I've noticed you generally supporting Jaakobou's position on the Muhammed al-Durrah page. Opinions he expressed on the talk there were widely characterized as racist soapboxing by uninvolved commentators following this Wikiquette alert. You did not comment there (nor here) on whether you think such views should be expressed on Wikipedia talk pages. Do you think such statements are conducive to the collaborative building of content in an encyclopedia hoping to express a worldwide perspective? Tiamut^talk 19:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

One part of Jaakobou's chat with Dragonfly shows clearly what the problem is for anyone not familiar with the content issue:

• <Dragonfly6-7> by the way, this is about an incident in which a child died. Correct?
• <Jaakobou> probably
• <Dragonfly6-7> Rephrase.
• <Dragonfly6-7> This article is about an incident which led to the death of a child.
• <Dragonfly6-7> Correct?
• <Jaakobou> well... one died for sure
• <Jaakobou> there's conflicting versions about the second child
• <Dragonfly6-7> but in the end, two children died?

[snip]

• <Dragonfly6-7> Can we agree that at least one child died?
• <Jaakobou> yes... I can't be so I can't be blamed for promoting that he might *be alive though.
• <Jaakobou> I don't recall ever promoting that one no matter how hard they claim I have

Jaakobou's theory is that Muhammad al-Durrah did not die that day. His theory is that another boy called Rami died, and people are pretending it was Muhammad. This is what allows Jaakobou to claim, "But I'm not saying the boy is alive!" when in fact that's precisely what he's saying, while playing on the confusion he has created over the two boys. One German documentary has reported this theory (the idea, I think, is that Muhammad was part of a staged scene, so they filmed Rami's funeral and pretended it was Muhammad's, which requires that two Palestinian boys of the same age who looked almost identical died in the same area on the same day). No mainstream source other than the German documentary has reported this that I know of.

This was the issue I was referring to above, [35] when I wrote that Jaakobou added to the article that the Palestinian cameraman had decided to change the boy's name for no reason. Not only is this a tiny-minority theory, it's also a BLP violation against the cameraman, because no source—not even the German conspiracy documentary—says that the cameraman decided to switch the name for no reason. That is Jaakobou's unique interpretation of the conspiracy theory, where he out-theorizes the theorizers, and which he added to the article, [36] explaining afterwards on talk that Arab journalists are incapable of telling the truth, and they probably switched the name because "Muhammad" would elicit more sympathy in the Muslim world than "Rami." This kind of editing is clearly enough to justify a topic ban. It's racist, and it violates BLP, NOR, and V. SlimVirgin 20:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirign,

I believe it was actually your theory that it "remains unclear whether the boy died." and not mine. I tried removing that fringe perspective noting it is "less notable and highly controversial issue of alleged living status." and you reverted me. If it were my theory, then why are you putting it into the article[37] while I am removing[38] it? This role reversal where you're doing something and accusing me for it is quite discombobulating.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC) to Slim 21:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Support a ban of three months. Having first read this thread, then checked the diffs then read the AE I am astounded that Jaakobou is still editing. On multiple occasion she has shown that he does not care for the facts. Trying to push falsehoods and a biased POV, wasting editors time with discussion that go nowhere, a distinct lack of care for any of the basic rules of WP. I know that AGF is the watchword, but good faith is about twenty miles back and Jaakobou is way past it. PS: Given the voluntary withdrawal from the article I would also say Defer, but with extreme prejudice. One more edit should result in a ban. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support Three month ban. Resource drain. Unomi (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Hasn't been blocked in a year and a half, and has voluntarily withdrawn from the article. Sanctions are preventative not punitive. Durova³⁷¹ 22:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally I do not view the topic ban as a punitive measure but rather one aimed at preventing further drain of resources, having read the diffs above the preoccupations seems singular and the recent chat with Anisoptera seems to indicate that the 'self-imposed' sanction was embraced only for likelihood of avoiding community action. We can defer, I find that a sympathetic show of good faith, but at what cost and for which perceived benefit?. Unomi (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what the cost is at all: he hasn't merited any block in the last year and a half. The benefit is obvious: he brings reliable sources to the table to represent the right wing Israeli perspective, and is willing to collaborate with other editors to achieve appropriate balance. Certainly that will rankle a few individuals. Yet it is a notable perspective and deserves a place in articles. Try mediation, please. He doesn't bite. :) Durova³⁷¹ 04:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Durova, please do read through the manner in which Jaakobou engaged in this discussion. Red herrings, misrepresenting statements and complete failure to address the concerns raised. Is this really the sort of behavior that you support and wish to enable? Unomi (talk) 04:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Defer until the next event. A last warning should be sufficient at this stage. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support a permanent Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic ban. Let me be clear here: I think Jaakobou is an intelligent editor capable of improving Wikipedia, but after reading the numerous AN/I cases he's been involved in, as well as his recent discussion with DragonflySixtyseven, I believe he views disputes within this topic space like battles to be won or lost (rather than as collaborative efforts to improve an encyclopedia), and uses reports of policy violations as weapons in that battle. There are millions of articles that could benefit from his contributions - the vast majority of which aren't a part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - and I think this topic area would benefit from a ban for a tedious, disruptive editor. ← George ^talk 02:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - looking through the edits and the AE complaints it doesn't seem that the problem is mainly Jaakobou. I would propose formal mediation including all involved editors. Pantherskin (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Not viable. Mediation is for users who don't entirely know what they are doing. Jaakobou knows exactly what he is doing.©Geni 16:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou has mediated amicably in the past, and his actions were heavily scrutinized at arbitration this year with no findings of fact or remedies against him. He has offered reliable sources for his suggestions--which SlimVirgin has not only ignored, but she has also claimed he pushed a POV which he actually removed from the article. There is reasonable grounds to doubt whether she would mediate in good faith, but that is not a reason to sanction him. Durova³⁷¹ 16:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

but she has also claimed he pushed a POV which he actually removed from the article. Please see the edit summaries of those who undo those edits, first of all the removal of the text goes back to at least the 27th Nov, considering the amount of text in the article regarding the defamation suit, the unpublished and disavowed report as well as media coverage such claims have had it is difficult to understand how it can be considered both less notable and highly controversial. Engaged editors George, SV and ChrisO reinstate citing the ongoing discussions as well as those which had taken place since at least 31 Oct where Jaakobou, ironically, argues for greater weight to be given to the denial of death pov. Editors who had not previously engaged in discussion and did not do so later, User:Mbz1 and User:Matt57 revert to Jaakobou's version. It seems apparent that SV was supported by local consensus, it also seems apparent that Jaakobou's contributions have centered entirely around presenting the denial of death material not as simply part of the article but as the framework for the article. Unomi (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Unomi,

It seems that a clarification on the material in question is in order. Certainly, you can't deny that I was removing this content on 27th Nov. Yes? Anyways, your assertion that my objection to ChrisO's move -- which was basically ignoring sources such as The Daily Telegraph, Columbia Journalism Review, International Herald Tribune, The Jerusalem Post, Atlantic Monthly, The National Post, Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, The New York Sun, etc. -- amounts to promoting that the child is supposed to be alive is presumptuous and without merit. Chris, George and I basically agreed that we should avoid mention of the less notable "might be alive" theory in the lead. Still, a "date of death" ignores the above sources. At least that is how I saw it and while ChrisO still argues that the sources in question are a tiny minority, SlimVirgin[39] and others[40][41][42][43] agreed with my assessment there and moved on to fix the issue by changing the article from a biography to an event article. At the initial point I was not in favor of either of the suggestions and was hoping that more research can be made in order for everyone to come to an agreement (see my comment). I hope that clarifies what you perceived as irony and that it clarifies why I removed a mention of his possible living status from the lead while also starting a discussion to hear views on the issue that a death certificate is not a good, long lasting point for the page. There's really no irony involved and only an attempt to find a version that gives due weight to all viewpoints based on the level of coverage in mainstream sources. Anyways, I wouldn't mind to hear an explanation on why I was reverted on that one since SlimVirign hasn't expressed why she wants to mention that he might be alive, a less notable issue, in the lead while others, myself included, have expressed that it might be undue for mention there.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC) few fixes 20:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't deny that you are removing material in the lead, however, that material is represented in the article proper, appears a notable claim and as such belongs in the lead. Your presentation of ChrisO and George agreeing with you regarding removing it from the lead is somewhat at odds with the fact that they reverted attempts at removing it from there[44] [45]. I have made no comment, much less any assertions regarding the page move. There certainly is an irony there as you point to sources[46] which I understand are taken to support the premise that it was a hoax / he is still alive, yet you seem to resist the inclusion of such information in the lead. This strikes me as especially curious as per your comment above, you argue that the date of death should be removed per those very sources. You seem to be inclined to let the 'less notable issue' inform the manner in which the article is presented. Unomi (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually,

Three years to slant the article - several of the editors active on the talk page have accused me* of being a disruptive POV pusher for promoting the exact material that you are now supporting for the lead in the article (per "and as such belongs in the lead").

* SlimVirgin: "Jaaokou has been trying for nearly three years to slant the article toward the view that Muhammad al-Durrah wasn't shot by the Israeli army, may not have been shot at all, probably isn't dead."[47]

ChrisO and George - said they think it should not be noted in the lead and have never argued that it should be there. George at one point compared any inclusion of the staged point of view with holocaust denial and ChrisO has compared it to 9/11 trutherism.

• ChrisO: "As I've said below, it's an extreme minority claim and does not belong in Wikipedia, period. I will remove any attempts to add it."[48]

I can't explain his insertion of this content but, personally, I think the words "suggested it may have been staged" are fitting while the phrase "remains unclear whether the boy died."[49] is a little over the top for the lead. If ChrisO and/or George want to argue for its inclusion, an explanation was not yet presented.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Lets be clear, the lead does not state that it actually "remains unclear whether the boy has died" but rather lists the various claims that have been laid forth, I don't quite understand how you can on one hand argue against the inclusion of his death date, and on the other seem to not want the claims pointed out. I have made no mention of '3 years' and I sincerely wish that you would stop introducing arguments which have nothing to do with the issues I present. The diff of ChrisO which you present is over 2 months old. We are not discussing the content of the article here but rather the manner in which you participate and what you are displaying here in terms of red herrings and deflection are not helping you. Looking at your earliest edits tells its own story, with this unsourced addition perhaps providing a summary. Unomi (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• As has too often been the case, this appears to be yet another attempt to turn a discussion about editor behavior into a dispute about content. My concern here is the long-term pattern of tedious, disruptive editing, dating back at least a couple years, characterized by exploitation of Wikipedia's policies. If anyone is concerned about any particular edit, I'd be happy to discuss it on the article's talk page. ← George ^talk 07:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose per Pantherskin and per Durova. @ Unomi you're talking about me reverting to Jaakobou changes is silly, and BTW you forgot to mention IP that reverted me few minutes later. Was it george or slimvirgin, who forgot to log in? About the article itself. Of course all episode was staged up. I've no doubt about that. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Statements like "Of course all episode was staged up. I've no doubt about that." is part of the reason we're here in the first place. Personal views do not dictate how an article is written. Articles are written based on reliable sources, proportionally weighed by the prevalence of differing views in said sources. ← George ^talk 07:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

When I said "Of course all episode was staged up. I've no doubt about that." I meant that I believe reliable sources that I read, and do not believe you, slimvirgin and Palestinian propaganda. Any problems with that? --Mbz1 (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Mila, just out of curiosity, how did you become aware of the Mohammed Al-Durrah article? Your only appearance there was a recent single revert in the middle of an edit dispute with an edit summary "rv see talk" before ever having participated on the talk page. Were you also approached by Jaakobou (talk · contribs) on IRC? Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 09:42 07.12.2009

Nobody ever contacted me.I do occasionally edit Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles on my own. If I am not doing it more often, it is only because I see no use in doing that. For every voice, who speaks the truth there are dozens, who speaks propaganda, just look at the world's map to see that it is the case. So I decided to let the History to be the judge.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Block User:Jacobolus and then quickly change the name when someone points out it's wrong :) --NE2 05:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• Block And block Durova, since the Columbia Journalism Review does not support the conspiracy theories, have a look.[50] The CJR was discussing what James Fallows said on his blog, and he's in two minds, not convinced of the main-stream view but also "skeptical that large-scale conspiracies can be pulled off — and kept secret for seven years" Well, of course, unless it says somewhere that racists are free to mangle the record and insert their POV against people they hate in which case there's no problem. 86.159.67.40 (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There's really no need for a straw man here. ← George ^talk 19:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support ban of Jaakobou from the article for 3 or more months. I've kinda had it with POV pushers that "cite" a source saying the the sky is blue as blue whales are covering the whole sky. I've seen that often enough on contentious articles, and it does not bode well for Wikipedia. Editors that engage in that kind of behavior repeatedly should be shown the door for good. NPOV is tricky enough to achieve by correctly balancing sources, and some editorial disagreement is to be expected in that area given human nature, but allowing editors that grossly misquote sources to do their bidding is something I cannot let slide. FYI: I've not edited this article, I'm uninvolved in IP articles in general, and don't recall ever interacting with Jaakobou. Pcap ping 05:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

AfDs of unsourced BLPs of gay porn performers

Since I have nominated a number of unsourced or very poorly sourced BLPs of gay porn performers for AfD recently, and may nominate more if I happen across them, I am posting here to state that my actions are neither intended to make a point nor part of any specific effort to delete gay porn content. Biographies of gay porn performers seem to suffer from an excess of promotional material and a lack reliable sources, so it is likely that until someone with a solid grasp of sourcing and BLP policy takes an interest in this subject area, it will remain a problem area. My reasons for nominating these articles is that they are unsourced BLPs (many have been tagged as such for literally years) which make contentious claims (ie porn perfomer). Here is a list of AfDs:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger (pornographic actor)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Donovan
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawn Jamieson
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lance (pornographic actor)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cort Stevens
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Davis (actor)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christy twins
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladimir Correa
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergio Canali (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Hunt
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Lawrence (entrepreneur)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve_Regis

Unfortunately, my actions have been perceived as destructive rather than an attempt to address long-standing BLP issues, which has prompted me to post this clarification. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Regardless of notability, if AfDing such articles is the only way that people can be persuaded to improve them to meet our BLP policy, then such AfDs can never be destructive. If they can't be improved to meet it, then they need to be deleted anyway. Black Kite 19:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Nominating biographies for deletion without trying to establish whether or not they are sourcable is disruptive, and expressly contrary to community norms on deletion. While many articles are not appropriate for inclusion, frivolous nominations such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Ford are disrespectful to the contributing editors, negatively impact the single/noise ratio of AfD and are a waste of the communities time. It's not terribly difficult or time-consuming to research a topic before initiating a discussion on its encyclopaedic worthiness.  Skomorokh  19:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

See my comment here, which notes that I did attempt to find sourcing and was unsuccessful. At the AfD a number of searches showing passing references (in some cases only because of a misattributed image on a Smiths single) are offered as proof that WP:GNG has been met. I disagree, but neither that nor my nomination for AfD should be seen as disrespectful. This article was prod'ed by User:Rodhullandemu and the prod was removed by User:Benjiboi without the addition of any sources but with the edit summary "a quick search provides numerous sources". As Black Kite notes, it is unfortunate that it sometimes takes an AfD to get sources added to unsourced BLPs, but if you feel that result is a waste of the communities time, you are welcome to that opinion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree on Ford (apart from anything else, he's been dead for 18 years, and thus not a BLP) but there are a lot of these articles in terrible shape, and it's not always easy to differentiate the notable from the non-notable in such areas. To be honest, I'd assume good faith - nothing is going to get deleted that shouldn't be, and for genuinely notable people the end result - like Leo Ford - is usually a massively improved article. It's just a shame that no-one is trying to improve such bios before someone takes the AfD hatchet to them. This, for example, shouldn't even have the courtesy of an AfD. Black Kite 19:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh, you're wrong here. Porn is so pervasive on teh internets that a Google test is worthless, and most of the sources will trip the filters in a lot of companies and other institutions. The WP:ONUS is on the author to provide sources, and AfD is a great way of rapidly resolving sourcing issues: either the article gets sourced (which is fine) or it gets nuked. People who close BLP AfDs usually have enough WP:CLUE to ignore WP:ILIKEIT and stick with policy; if people want to source the articles then there's really no problem at all. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Afding these article is not acceptable. The correct response to an unsourced or badly sourced BLP which claims someone is a gay porn star is to speedy delete under G10. If anyone asks for an undeletion and undertakes to source it, then undeletion should be allowed. We cannot allow articles making such unsourced claims to remain even for a day or two, and whilst afd might force people to clean them up it is not what AfD is for, and runs the risk that they will be kept, but not sourced. People who want such articles need to understand that the onus is on them to source them NOW- or not to complain when they are summery deleted. Policy is quite clear on this issue.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ding ding ding. We have a winner. Actually, should be "correct response to an unsourced or badly sourced BLP which claims anything about anyone is speedy delete under G10." But close enough. Tell Scott what he won johnny.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I *told* you there where some serious people you needed to meet ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

DC hasn't presented his case very well here, but his accuracy rate in targeting articles qualifying for deletion is pretty high, certainly higher than the average for AFD as a whole. There's a real problem here, in that certain editors creating and maintaining articles in the area are simply ignoring the specialized WP:PORNBIO notability guideline, the WP:BLP standards that call for "high quality references," "neutral and factual" writing style, and far too often the prohibition (incorporated by reference) against "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products," and the standards of WP:RS. Many articles are constructed with just enough content to survive speedy nominations, but nowhere near enough to meet BLP or satisfy notability. The controversial List of male performers in gay porn films, with scores and scores of redlinks to common names which likely correspond to notable individuals who do not yet have article (eg, Ben Andrews, UK athlete, UK television personality, American politician, US NAACP official convicted in financial scandal, member of Harlem Globetroters; Matt Cole, various college athletes, and ironically enough, an almost identically named ACLU official who is a prominent spokesman on LGBT issues, who is quite unlikely to be amused if he is associated with the star of "Manly Heat: Quenched" and "Arcade on Route 9.") Alternate IDs and supposed "birthnames" are particularly ad problems, both on the list and on independent articles. Personal attacks like this are increasing [51], and there's certainly enough inappropriate conduct to create suspicion that there's a strategy of exhaustion rather than a good faith effort to satisfy policy requirements.
Would this discussion be better located at AN/I? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely adore the one named bio on "Roger." Didn't his mother call him Mr. Something when she was mad at him? And if you can't establish a real name, what of value can you establish (by the way, it wasn't ford's butt on the smith single).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

While it would be nice to see an open and frank discussion of this particular subject area and involved editors, I'm not really presenting a case here. I was only trying undercut some of the speculations about my motivations made in various places, including those AfDs. While I am not terribly bothered by most of them, admins who are unaware of the situation may assume that my AfD nominations are pointy or in some way an attack on gay editors and evaluate them differently on that basis. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Speculation on motives is dangerous territory, which is why I'm not going to venture an opinion on Benjiboi here, other than to characterise him as being particularly passionate on anything related to gay culture (which is not a problem). If he wants to find and add good quality sources, then Wikipedia is the winner. Rise above the prickly comments of those with particular hot buttons and keep reviewing badly sourced biographies. I've handled the complaints, yes, it really does matter. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

May I ask why the nominations are only for supposed gay porn actors and not for straight porn actors? Woogee (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Only if you say what the name of your former account was. Fair is fair.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Woogee, all of these nominations came about as the result of a dispute over an image in the lede section of List of male performers in gay porn films‎ which lead me to look more carefully at the article. (If you're interested, you can see that article's talk page, or my post at WP:BLPN which summarizes my BLP concerns with that article.) Not surprisingly, the linked articles are biographies of gay porn performers. Articles on non-notable female porn performers are routinely deleted, as you can see from the AfD listings on Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion. I have no concerns with the level of scrutiny given to female porn BLPs, which isn't the case for gay male porn BLPs. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, cleanup on the straight porn nominations started earlier, and led to a significant controversy and an attempt to reinstate older, weaker notability guidelines. See, for example, this long discussion [52] on a notability guideline talk page. And it's still going on. The discussion on the straight porn nominations is generally focused on the guidelines now, so it's lower profile. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, Delicious carbuncle for your work here. Unsourced biographies of living people are unquestionably the most important (content) issue facing this project. Any work that seeks to address the massive number of unreferenced biographies on this site is absolutely commendable. This holds especially true for pornography-related biographies as they're even more likely to cause real-world harm. Regardless of what others say, you're doing good work and I hope you continue. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I second MZMcBride's comments, although I disaggree with deleting the article Aaron Lawrence (entrepreneur). This article is well sourced, and I feel that the business aspects of gay porn are notable.RadManCF (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

One caveat

Yonks ago I discovered an article that purported to be a bio of a living gay porn star but in reality was a vandalized article that had originally been about (IIRC) a 19th century legislator. I've found at least three similar articles since. Editors might want to check the first version of any article before tagging G10 in case the porn bio is actually vandalism, and the actual subject is not a porn star. --NellieBly (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Which is yet another reason for a zero-tolerance approach to unreferenced porn BLPs - we could be dealing with vandalism or a nasty attack. The correct response is to check for any valid version in the history and then speedy delete.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarify

So to clarify we're assuming bad faith on just gay (and maybe all) porn BLPs and treating to a different standard than other BLPs? Not to mention the various AFDs listed above that are not of living people? The correct response is to tag for sources and if your hunch is that it's a hoax article - I've yet to see even one in this area - then look for yourself to see if the person has indeed done any gay porn - this immediately would answer the BLP concern without any drama. If no reliable sources in the field or mainstream press support the assertion then there may be cause for speedy. Porn is increasingly mainstream and despite culture hang-ups is seen as not quite the badge of shame implied here. Many porn stars of all sexualities and orientations are indeed proud of their work and parlay it into other careers. Whatever DC's motivations are I could care less, my "passion" is in LGBT areas on Wikipedia as similar double-standards seem common, LGBT articles seem to be under constant stress and compared to like articles with no LGBT connection have to quickly rise to exceed standards to be considered passable. I can't remember a time when the project didn't have at least one article at AfD, and it's usually been more. Once the lengthy overhauling of the list of male actors in gay porn films is more complete we should have a better picture of our coverage in this area. DC, and now their posse, seem to want to simply antagonize these efforts but just maybe the articles that have survived thus far have done so for good reasons. Laying ground-work here to bolster their actions instead of simply doing more homework before attempting to delete article in these areas would likely solve all these concerns. -- Banjeboi 01:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, no matter how proud some porn stars may be of their work, the label "porn star" is still a controversial label because much of society thinks poorly on porn stars. Using it carelessly can ruin peoples' lives. As such we should do all we can to prevent these unsourced claims, and I'm in total agreement that an unsourced/unsourcable article which focuses totally on one's profession as as a pornstar is in line with the spirit behind G10, which is to prevent harm. LGBT areas are under constant stress because it is a contentious area offwiki as well, with strong opinions going both ways (no pun intended). While you may not feel that homosexuality is a big deal, many people differ. Even if they are ignorant and bigoted, as long as they think poorly on gays and pornstars being gay and being a pornstar would still need to be considered controversial labels and as such need extra care when being claimed and sourced.

This isn't a matter of antagonizing the situation, it's a matter of reliably sourcing some very controversial claims for the dignity of those who have been falsely accused. ThemFromSpace 02:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Great job in maintaining the collegiate and constructive tone of this discussion Benjiboi. Er... Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been wikihounded by Delicious carbuncle for many months now, perhaps my patience with their "special concern" has worn thin. Additionally they seem to be regularly involved at Wikipedia Review which seems to have nothing positive to say about me. I'll let other decide if there is any connection here. This thread, BTW, is the third one from them that I'm aware on this one list (ANI and BLP) being the others. If they didn't intend to start drama about this list so others could claim it as "causing needless headaches" they sure seem to be doing a stellar job. Coupled with their seeming eagerness to take digs at me as well as deleting content on gay pornography actors applying Occum's razor gives us the most likely reasoning.
As I stated above, if the actual concern is that we are adding "very controversial claims" thus compromising the "dignity of those who have been falsely accused" then usually a basic search would clear that up thus freeing everyone of the drama. Instead of applying WP:Before, the community resources are spent doing a triage job and looking at the history of many of the articles we indeed got it wrong as quite a few fly past WP:Pornbio as well as WP:GNG. Frankly things would go much smoother without DC's "help". -- Banjeboi 14:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, the attacks on other editors you disagree with are wearing exceedingly thin now. You seem to be unable to approach disagreements with anything other then a battlefield mentality and that is ultimately destructive. DC raised a valid point which was being dealt with calmly and sensitively without rancour - until you contributed and lowered the tone. I strongly suggest that if you can't edit an issue calmly then you step back and do something less contentious for a while. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I recall trying, some months ago, to go through this list and delink the names in entries where the links led to completely irrelevant people with the same names (sports figures, mostly), as well as do some other basic cleanup, such as alphabetization. When my every effort met with reversion by Benjiboi, I just gave up. Deor (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In each of those cases you seemed to be removing wikilinks rather than simply disambiguating them. Those have all since been cleaned up. Most of the cases, BTW, meet WP:Pornbio as well so an article for them could be justified but a winkilink seems acceptable and likely would be added by someone regardless. We'd rather have a wikilink pre-disambiguated instead of added and pointing to the wrong person thus causing a potential BLP issue. -- Banjeboi 16:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed? Go to your list and click on the name Michael Parks. Look at the BLP article you wind up at. Do you think that he's the right guy? Do you want to bet? Deor (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

First off it's not my list I'm just the main contributor there. Secondly, that's a perfect example, I've added the disambiguation so it's not linked to the actor we already have an article for. If there are others feel free to note on the talkpage. -- Banjeboi 21:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Good motto: "The free encyclopedia that anyone can write on the talk pages of." Deor (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There are very few editors who I actually disagree and I'm the one being wikihounded. Overlooking the context of what seems to be simply aggressive editing in one area makes it all seem somehow noble. Adding in the ongoing civility breaches seems to shed more light and shows where the battleground mentality seems to generate. Everyone else at that list seems to be able to collaborate just fine. DC's point seems to be to justify their continued rancour in this subject area whereas I have done exactly as has been suggested above - added sourcing and demonstrated notability. Where needed merging and deletion is of course acceptable. That we call editors to account for their incivility and tenditious editing in one subject area seems appropriate if they are looking for endorsement of more of the same. No one disputes that more and better sourcing would be helpful but instead of simply doing that they seem to be more eager to simply delete entire articles and content in this area. Whatever their keen interest it seems to have been raised, by them, in numerous public forums and an AFD all resulting in a lot of what I consider needless drama. You could ask the real zinger of why was this even originally posted here. As far as I can tell it's simply a pre-emptive move but others may have a different read. -- Banjeboi 16:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, I have asked you repeatedly to stop trying to sully my reputation by associating me with Wikipedia Review, yet you persist, even here on AN. Please stop.

The "aggressive editing" and "civility" allegations you seem to be directing at me actually reflect your actions, not mine. A quick look at the history of List of male performers in gay porn films‎ will show your WP:OWNERSHIP of this article, and the talk page is littered with personal attacks you have made on me rather than discussing the issues I have raised. I have attempted to both remain civil and, as much as possible, not respond to your attacks. I may not always have been successful.

Up until he was recently blocked, your claims were that I was wikihounding David Shankbone and that I bore some grudge against Michael Lucas (director). Given what we now know about David's alternate accounts here and on Commons, it would be interesting to revisit the earlier discussion on WP:COIN.

I have no grudge against Michael Lucas. I have never met nor interacted with Michael Lucas so it is difficult to fathom how I may have a grudge against him. On the other hand, the fact that you have met Michael Lucas is easily verified from this posting showing you DJ'ing at an event sponsored by Lucas. Which one of us is more likely to have a neutral viewpoint regarding him?

I stated at the outset why I was starting this thread here. I am surprised by the number of supportive comments made here, but I am not surprised that you have a different interpretation of my actions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that as regretable as it was for Shankbone to use alternative accounts, some specifically at odds with Sock policies, they did so because of your wikihounding. Your opening statement includes the rather general insult to all past editors in this content area by stating "until someone with a solid grasp of sourcing and BLP policy takes an interest in this subject area". Perhaps I am misreading that but it does seem like you'r insinuating every other previous editor of lacking "a solid grasp of sourcing and BLP policy". If I misread that or you meant something else then I apologize. And you assert I've sullied your reputation by associating you with Wikipedia Review, are you stating that you have not been active there, in any way, and indeed have not been involved with threads there about myself, Shankbone or any other editors? If you have indeed not been so involved there could you state that definitively? I will be happy to strike my comments if I'm in error. -- Banjeboi 17:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Your theory that David's use of sockpuppets was the result of my actions would require him to have access to a working time machine. Perhaps this would be a good time to apply Occam's razor? David sent me quite a gracious email following his block, so I don't think he feels quite the same way you do about the situation. As for my offsite activities, I have no reason to confirm or deny anything about Wikipedia Review or any other site that you may believe I'm involved in. In fact, WP:OUTING recommends against it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi routinely accuses other editors of harassment, working for wikipedia review, being part of a cabal out to get them, being a homophobe, anything that avoids dealing with issues that arise over articles they are associated with - this is simply more of the same and should have no bearing on this discussion. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That is patently false and misleading. I have generally dealt with what I see as homophobia by simply working on improving articles, presumably why we are here. I reserve my "accusations" for editors - who motivations remain inside their own heads - of harassment when it arises to that point. Many editors certainly are homophobic but as long as they abide by our civility and editing policies I really don't care. That certain editors seem to solely focus on deleting content regarding LGBT people and culture is hardly new but when it becomes disruptive and a net loss to the Wikipedia project it certainly deserves more attention. Despite all the arm-flailing here and repeated assertions that they are grave BLP concerns there remains just the same sky-is-falling hysteria that seems more at place on Wikipedia Review which seems to have no end of drama-stirring and sock-producing capabilities. My immediate re-action to the stated concerns on articles I'm involved in is to see what merit the issues have regardless if the messenger may have other motives; just because they act WP:Dick-like they still may have a good point. Removing the hysterics has indeed netted some useful dialog on the subject but unfortunately there still seems to be a readiness to claim insurmountable issues or inflated concern where neither is needed. If you or someone has been unjustly called a homophobe there are numerous ways to address it including looking to why they would even do so. If the claim has no merit then repeating denials time and time again is unlikely to be needed. -- Banjeboi 01:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, your last statement is somewhat tautological. I don't want to suggest that it is itself a poorly disguised accusation, but it can certainly be read that way. See how this sounds to you - "If you or someone has been unjustly accused of COI there are numerous ways to address it including looking to why they would even do so. If the claim has no merit then repeating denials time and time again is unlikely to be needed." I think you see what I mean. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to attempt a more clear statement. As far as I'm aware I've never accused Delicious carbuncle of being homophobic yet they bring it up again and again as to infer that I must be. I'm not. I care not about about other editor's motivations, belief systems, etc. What I care about is the ongoing disruption, if someone is homophobic, who cares? As for your odd link? Well, seems like more of the harassment you seem to have no end for. Again, and you should well know this by now - and I'm shocked everyone else isn't tired of this nonsense - a likely connection to a subject remains not proof of a COI problem. Why you bother to repeat the same <yawn> issues that have been asked and answered again and again is for others to resolve if you can't seem to let it go. I invite you again to move on but of course the choice is yours. -- Banjeboi 04:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

A comparison

It may be enlightening to compare the recent AfD of List of male performers in gay porn films‎ with the current AfD for List of actresses in the MILF porn genre. They share similar BLP issues, but they appear to be being dealt with somewhat differently, both in the AfD-inspired clean-up efforts and in the AfDs themselves. (Note that neither of these was my nomination and I do not think either should necessarily be deleted.) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on that slightly enigmatic comparison? Fences&Windows 21:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I see that my comment probably was enigmatic for those unfamiliar with the background. There seems to be a suggestion that gay porn articles are treated differently than straight porn articles. Benjiboi earlier stated "...my "passion" is in LGBT areas on Wikipedia as similar double-standards seem common, LGBT articles seem to be under constant stress and compared to like articles with no LGBT connection have to quickly rise to exceed standards to be considered passable". While it is undeniable that there are editors who are homophobic and that there are editors who are opposed to porn in general, and probable that there is a systemic bias against any minority viewpoint or interest, there doesn't seem to be any basis for the suggestion that gay porn BLPs are treated more harshly. In fact, they seem to be given far less scrutiny and attention than straight porn articles.

I am not going to speculate as to why this is the case, but a look at the two AfDs should illustrate that it is true. The two articles share the same BLP concerns and are similar in structure (as opposed to List of pornographic actresses by decade which is simply links to articles). When the list of gay porn performers was nominated for AfD, the response was to leave red links in, stuff the article with extraneous questionable sources, and expand the prose descriptions. When the list of MILF performers was nominated, the response was to cull all the red links and improve the sourcing. Look at the AfDs themselves - based on the same underlying BLP concerns, the gay porn one closed as no consensus and remains a magnet for BLP issues. The straight porn one will very likely close as delete despite being greatly improved. Gay porn content should be judged on the same standard as straight porn content (and vice versa). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Community ban for Bharatveer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – There is a clear consensus to establish a community ban. Jehochman ^Talk 20:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• N.B: probably time to close this tomorrow, if someone wants to do the honours. Moreschi (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Main page: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer

Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - one of the more obsessive of the Hindutva brigade, Bharatveer has a long and thoroughly ignominious history of trolling, as documented at the evidence page of the RFAR. He was initially put on a comprehensive editing restriction, but after multiple violations in short order he was banned by motion of the AC for a year. He's just returned from that ban and is back to pushing the same fringe Hindutva-cruft nonsense that got him banned in the first place at Talk:Max Muller and Talk:Romila Thapar (see also WP:FTN#Max Muller). I suppose it's a mild improvement in that he's no longer edit-warring, just trolling talkpages, but really, there comes a certain level of addiction to ideology where rational dialogue simply becomes impossible. His arguments make precisely zero sense and he simply cannot follow a coherent argument. We have no hope of getting anything productive here. I ask for a community ban. Moreschi (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It is most disappointing to see this kind of response. I request WP editors to look at my edits in Talk:Max Muller and Talk:Romila Thapar. I don't understand moreschi's charge of "hindutva" edits. In either of these articles, my edits do not have even remote connections to hindutva.-Bharatveer (talk) 11:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the assessment by Moreschi. The bit at Talk:Max Muller by the user in question seems especially tendentious. Cirt (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

At Talk:Max Müller the question appears to be the legitimacy of Müller's academic degrees, on which Bharatveer cites a source whose reliability is challenged. At Talk:Romila Thapar multiple sources are cited calling the subject a Marxist historian, and the question is whether and how to reflect that in the article — a robust debate in which Bharatveer is only one of several people voicing his position. I don't see this as trolling, just as content disputes; I'd think RfCs on content would be more appropriate than a call for a ban. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 13:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

At Muller he cites a source whose reliability is non-existent and whose credibility is zilch. No comment on Thapar, as I'm less familiar with the subject matter, noting in passing that genuine Marxists generally self-identify as such, and that Indian academia is so riven that anyone who isn't a nationalist will generally get labelled a Marxist by those who disagree with them, although normally they will self-identify anyway. But have you actually bothered to check this guy's history? The evidence page at RFAR is really quite extensive, as indeed is his block log. Moreschi (talk) 13:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The past RFAR imposed a one-year ban, which has expired. The past blocks likewise expired or were lifted. Imposing a new ban because of past bans or blocks is not our practice as I understand it; nor is doing so over content disputes. Holding an RfC (or straw poll, or whatever terms you settle upon at the talk pages) would at least settle where consensus stands; then there's something to guide content editing. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 13:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, this is simply not true. Blocks and bans are not simply standalone: they indicate a pattern of disruptive editing, which in this case involves fringe theory POV-pushing of the most tendentious nationalist sort. We don't simply ignore such patterns; we act on them. In this case the user has returned from the ban and is straightaway simply pushing nonsense at Talk:Max Muller, which it would be laughable to dignify with a straw poll or RFC. Consensus is clear from the discussion. Block lengths are cumulative, and traditionally with each successive sanction the community's patience for further transgressions becomes shorter. Bharatveer must have known that post-ban he was living on borrowed time, and yet here we are again. Moreschi (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi is right, there is no need for further processes at Talk:Max Muller, when consensus there is already quite clear. Cirt (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

And really that's the only talkpage of which this can be said, since at Talk:Romila Thapar in fact a number of people agree with Bharatveer. And Bharatveer is not editwarring this time around, but presenting grounds on the talkpages for edits to be made — which sounds like an improvement. So what it should come down to is a clear ultimatum to Bharatveer to abide by consensus and shut up at Talk:Max Müller (about the degrees) or be banned again, correct? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 16:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi's argument does have merit, that after Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer, Bharatveer (talk · contribs)'s actions of continually pushing this fringe tendentious POV and inappropriate sources in the face of consensus to the contrary, is inappropriate. Cirt (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Arguing a minority viewpoint, citing a source not satisfactory to others, in a single section of a single talkpage, may well be "inappropriate", but is it ban-worthy? And if you're going to impose a ban for it without even giving the ultimatum first, then is that preventative or punitive?

How would it look at WP:BANNED? "Banned for citing an unreliable source on a talkpage, and arguing against consensus." Talk about a chilling effect! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 16:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Rather, banned for continuing same pattern of behavior user was previously banned for, pursuant to a prior arbcom case that had the eponymous name of the user in question. Cirt (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the previous pattern included editwarring, which Moreschi notes above is no longer the case. Discussing proposed edits on talkpages is the desired pattern of behavior. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Support community ban of Bharatveer. The evidence collected in WP:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer suggest a long history of flawed judgment, POV pushing, and edit warring. The fact that the edit warring has not resumed since his last ban expired on 24 November gives us little reason to hope for anything better in the future. The data which Bharatveer has provided us about his ongoing intentions at Talk:Max Muller I think is evidence that he will be unable to work with others to improve the encyclopedia. I think we would need to see a dramatic change of heart to justify him resuming contributions to Wikipedia. Anyone whose block log fills more than one screen should get special, accelerated handling when new problems are reported here. He was not obliged when his ban expired to cause new problems by offering strange reasoning from bad sources at Talk:Max Muller. He could have tried to redeem himself by doing humble but useful work on non-controversial articles. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

«The fact that the edit warring has not resumed since his last ban expired on 24 November gives us little reason to hope for anything better in the future.» [underlines added] — The fact that the user has amended his behavior, to avoid what was chiefly complained of earlier, gives us little reason to hope...??? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

For the moment he has refrained from edit warring, but we still have the flawed judgment and the nationalist POV-pushing. An editor in the 2007 RFAR complained:

Bharatveer is a non-collaborative, disruptive and tendacious editor with apparent agendas, including one relative to hinduism and hindu nationalism, and in particular with documented bias against "whites", "westerners" etc., and that he is consistently not complying with Wikipedian standards.

The original RFAR closed in October 2007. It appears that the problem continued, and the Arbitration Committee imposed a one-year ban in response to a new motion in November, 2008. That ban expired in November, 2009. Do you see anything in Bharatveer's conduct since 24 November to suggest he has given up his poor attitude? EdJohnston (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

So now the problem is... poor attitude? Looking at Talk:Max Müller, do you see incivility on his part? Or rather a plea for civility from others? Has he resorted to personal attacks, or has he stayed civil and on-topic? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 20:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Support community ban. Wikipedia needs more fringe nationalists like we need a hole in the head. *** Crotalus *** 19:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

So the problem is not behavior but beliefs? He could be perfectly well behaved, but as long as his political opinions remain the same, out he goes? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

He is engaging in tendentious editing and fringe POV-pushing. And that all stems from the fact that he's an extreme nationalist. If he kept his views to himself, no one would care. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and he seems unable or unwilling to comprehend this. *** Crotalus *** 21:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

But he's not spouting "his views". In the case of Talk:Max Müller, he wanted to add a {{fact}} tag to Müller's degrees because a book he'd read disputed them. In the case of Talk:Romila Thapar, he had six or so sources characterizing the historian as "Marxist", and want to add that characterization. These were not out of his own head, his own imagination, but from sources he cited. It's fair to rebut cited sources as unreliable, Crotalus, but to then link the flaws of the cited sources to purported flaws of the editor who cited them seems like another form of ad hominem. (I've been editing Byron-related articles, but that doesn't mean I share his flaws, nor he mine!) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support community ban (barring further information). For the record I'm completely uninvolved with this situation and had never heard of the user in question before. The stuff here at the Max Muller talk page is classic tendentious/POV pushing editing. Such tactics waste an extraordinary amount of community time, and Bharatveer is really on his third go around here in terms of taxing the community's patience. No way would I support a ban if this was the first (or probably even second) time that matters had come to a head, but the pattern here is obvious, and we need to be able to show editors the door who clearly come to Wikipedia with an agenda and in the process prevent other editors from doing useful work. That seems to be exactly what is happening here, and we're not obliged to assume good faith to the end of time when there is clear evidence to the contrary. If some admin or other experienced editor is willing to vouch and be responsible for Bharatveer's editing behavior down the road (basically a mentor situation) then I would reconsider support for a ban, but in the absence of such a sponsor I think the smart move is to say "this pattern isn't changing" and bring it to a stop before it further hinders the process of writing an encyclopedia. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: the editors who run into difficulty yet really intend to reform usually seek out mentorship on their own initiative. Nearly anyone will accept a mentor as an alternative to getting blocked, if one is offered to them. The latter kind of person generally follows up by tactically maneuvering the mentor and prolonging the misery for everyone. See WP:TURNIP. Durova³⁷³ 22:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I basically agree with that. I just came across this situation randomly and decided to look into it and weigh in, but in my comment above I wanted to leave the door open somewhat for further information coming in that could change my view of the situation (given my lack of familiarity with the background). For example if someone stepped in and said, "I know Bharatveer, think he or she can be a constructive editor, and am willing to take responsibility as their mentor" then perhaps a ban would not be necessary for now. If no one like that comes forward (which I'm guessing will be the case) then that itself rather says something and makes it almost certain that a community ban is the right move. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support community ban. As someone about to come out of arbitration restrictions, I take special offense when a fellow recent unconditional parolee seems to fail so spectacularly at not learning from their time away from Wikipedia. An indefinite break until such time as this user contacts us with evidence that they will change their ways is warranted. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

He seems to have learned, at least, and changed his ways far enough, not to editwar, but to discuss edits on talkpages instead. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

While refraining from edit-warring is a laudable characteristic, the evidence provided looks clearly to me like he's treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I do not see evidence that he is interested in collaborating or hearing from any other editors. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support From an uninvolved editor. We've given him a chance to return and already he's being disruptive, so it appears that he has no intent on changing. Normally I would oppose a siteban and support a topic ban in this situation, but all of Bharatveer's edits are under the topic of India and they all give credance to the notion that he is only here to insert his disruptive POV into articles. This is the last thing we need and I don't see any place where the encyclopedia benefits from his editing. ThemFromSpace 22:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Then a topic ban on articles related to India and its immediate vicinity, as though there were a CoI, would fit the ticket, wouldn't it? He could edit articles in which his political leanings took no stance. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be a solution, except that all of his edits are India-related. He doesn't have a side-project such as cleaning up a particular part of the encyclopedia or participating in discussions that aren't India-related. If he would specifically ask for a very broadly-construed topic ban related to India and Hindutva than I'd probably accept this but he only seems here for that specific cause. ThemFromSpace 23:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

So...? Then he can either edit outside "that specific cause" (where he may attain NPOV), or not edit. Would you have a problem with either outcome? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Repeated Nationalistic disruption, seemingly without any improvement. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban, alternatives not exhausted. Bharatveer no longer editwars; this is now about (civil) content disputes. Note that, once the source he cited on Talk:Max Müller was definitely debunked, Bharatveer stopped arguing, rather than continuing. Count his posts there; not many; hardly "tendentious". If the problem is Bharatveer's Hindutva politics, why not seek a topic ban on articles where Hindutva takes a stance, leaving Bharatveer free to edit only what he may possibly attain NPOV for? If he breaks that ban, then, well.... — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • A topic ban may work. At least it might encourage him to become less of a single-purpose account and branch out. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• There is nothing very noteworthy at Talk:Romila Thapar or at FTN. And at Talk:Max Muller it looks like the discussion that arbcom called for instead of edit-warring. Is there a secret codicil to the arbcom case perhaps? I seem to be missing something that is transparently obvious to others. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You and me both, Angus. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support community ban or topic ban. Bharatveer is a minor problem as long as he doesn't edit war, but a problem nonetheless. His recent activity at Talk:Romila Thapar is disruptive, though it may not seem so to editors who haven't followed the article. Before his one-year ban, Bharatveer edit warred and argued on the talk page that Thapar should be labelled a Marxist. Thapar does not embrace the characterization, and has written that it's used as partisan rhetoric [53]. Thus it would be a BLP violation for the article to claim that she is--yet before the arb case that's what Bharatveer wanted the article to say (see [54] and this topic in the archives of the article's talk page. So Bharatveer comes back from his one-year ban and starts right up on the same issue. This time, at least he has presented us with some sources for his desired edit--but, as an IP editor and User:RegentsPark have shown at Talk:Romila_Thapar#Reliable_sources_for_the_term_.27Marxist_Historian.27, the sources don't say what Bharatveer claims they do. We don't need ideologically motivated axe grinders here, especially ones that can't let go of an issue after a one-year ban, and definitely not ones that push BLP violations. Add tendentious misinterpretation of sources to the mix, and I think Bharatveer needs to find something else to do. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support community ban. Akhilleus puts the problem well. Despite myths to the contrary, tendentious editing is in itself a sanctionable form of misbehaviour, even without revert-warring or incivility. Continued, persistent pushing for a BLP violation is serious, and the issue on Max Muller also showed a serious lack of responsible self-scrutiny of his POV agenda. I would be sympathetic to the alternative of a mere topic ban, but I doubt one can be defined adequately – the set of "topics on which a Hindu nationalist POV might have an ideological axe to grind" is just too large and too fuzzy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support a ban reluctantly - problem editing needs to stop. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support community ban. Good analysis above by Akhilleus, Future Perfect at Sunrise, and Moreschi. Cirt (talk) 10:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support community ban if he won't accept a mentor. I just read Talk:Max Müller after Sizzle Flambe brought up the attempt to add a fact tag and that has convinced me that his problem editing has to stop. I can't see how we could frame a topic ban that would work, but if someone could I might support that. Dougweller (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• It's not so much that the most recent talkpage edits are atrocious in and of themselves. But they underline the fact that we cannot realistically expect anything from this account besides a narrow and unrelenting focus on promoting material that runs counter to this site's goal of creating a serious, respectable reference work. It's the straw that broke the camel's back, as far as I'm concerned - individually, it's minor, but added to the previous issues it acquires a bit more meaning. There must be some point at which we, as a community, decide that someone's likelihood of constructive contribution to the site has asymptotically reached zero. For me, this does it. A topic ban would be fine, but given the contrib history, I think that would be equivalent in a practical sense to a full siteban. MastCell ^Talk 19:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic-ban from India-related content if the editor is capable of finding an acceptable mentor. This ban, like other similar ones, could potentially be lifted upon good conduct. Should he not be able to do so, support site ban. Enough is enough. John Carter (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support community ban, or at least topic-ban from India or South Asia related articles. The editor has a long history of disruption and pov-pushing. (see WP:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer). Despite a 1 year ban, he has not changed, and I doubt his behavior pattern will ever change (even with a mentor). --Ragib (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support community ban. At this point, I don't think half-measures like mentoring or topic-bans are adequate responses. Bharatveer currently surpasses my tolerance limits for tendentious editing. With such a long history of contentious and argumentative engagement, I hold little hope of constructive improvement in Bharatveer's behaviour. Pigman☿/talk 00:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support community ban. The arbcom link above shows that this dubious sourcing has been going on for many years. And, the Max Muller assertions are fascinating because of their extreme fringe nature. I don't see why we need editors who do nothing but use up the goodwill and time of other editors.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Slp1 Is Gender Biased and Preventing the contruction on a fact based Article on Alimony

I would like to request that Slp1 stop editing the page on Alimony. He/she has a gender bias and is not allowing the contruction of a fact based article. I am sure Slp1 is a good editor, but he/she cannot maintain "editorial" neutrality on this subject.

Please see the countless roadblocks she has put up in the discussion area and in the History section.

Thank you,

PTiger1985 (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

On the surface this appears to be a simple content dispute, but PTiger1985 is an SPA. Contributions to other articles include editng Slavery in the United States to add a wikilink to alimony at the "See also" section,[55] with similar focus elsewhere. More pertinent to AN, though, is copyvio and unreliable sourcing. See warnings at User talk:PTiger1985. Among other things, this editor has been citing a self-published source[56] and a copyvio YouTube hosting of a comedy monologue by Chris Rock. Durova³⁷⁵ 02:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Now as a female editor I obviously have a conflict of interest here so heading away while you menfolk sort this out. Won't worry my pretty little head about this any longer...but might search the Library of Congress site for full frontal male nudes to restore... ;)

That's disgusting, Durova. :P Personally, I can't see what's wrong with this. I've had flicks through the contribution log and all seems normal. To be honest, though, I think PTiger1985 has a few issues. You accuse of "gender bias" but you haven't pointed to any diffs and you don't even know what gender Slp1 is... --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 02:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I call WP:PLAXICO now? SirFozzie (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I propose a topic ban for PTiger1985, his continued disruptive editing pattern, shows that this is a necessary step. I would do it myself, but I would like other admins to comment as well. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a good idea. Prior block, plenty of polite engagement and warnings. Tendentious. Durova³⁷⁹ 04:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. As the "biased" administrator involved I was hoping that a topic ban would not be necessary, since I see some signs of progress and declarations (at least) that the editor wants to try to be of NPOV and follow policy better[57] [58]. I still hope this is the case but unfortunately the problems are ongoing, including plagiarism/copyvio, unreliable sources, material that is not in the sources given. See these posts to PTiger1985's talkpage [59] and [60]. I'm getting tired of needing to check every single edit and compare it to the source, and repeating the same guidelines/policies to this editor. I haven't totally given up, but am pretty darn close to it. --Slp1 (talk) 13:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on alimony and alimony related articles. Okay, that was quick. I've had it. This edit [61] promotes the views of alimony activists up the article; and this one [62] reinserts very clearly unverifiable material ([63]) that I had already explained in detail here.[64]. My patience is exhausted. --Slp1 (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions imposed by admins instead of community?

While I can appreciate the most recent entry at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Administrators and why it may have been imposed, what I don't understand is why the status of the Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions page has not changed. We really need to develop guidelines and policies on this point, so I welcome all input in helping achieve that. Should we retry Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions or a similar proposal for a community wide discussion? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• My understanding is that the principal objection to the proposal was fear of abuse. To address this, maybe we should highlight - or if possible improve - the proposal's appeals procedure, which should ideally ensure that any sanction unsupported by community consensus is overturned on appeal.  Sandstein  06:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Would that be set up on a separate page though, or would the same proposal page be used, with the previous discussion archived? I'm not sure about what needs to be done to "re-discuss" a proposal of that sort. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a bit of confusion to me. An admin declaring a sanction does so as a member of the community, not out of a specific authority that separates them from the community. I assume community sanctions are normally codified by administrators, so how is an "admin sanction" going to be different from a community sanction? Mackan79 (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Have responded further below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless this query is addressing something else and I misinterpreted it: It is already the case that any sanction or action by an admin is overturned without community support. There's no reason to make the system more bureaucratic. Just as happens with blocks, if consensus is against it than it's undone. NJA (t/c) 06:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that such users use an unblock request to appeal their sanctions? I thought that was discussed and did not receive a community consensus - perhaps on the talk page of the Discretionary sanctions proposal (linked above)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think NJA is suggesting that. An administrator imposed sanction can be reviewed and overturned by any individual administrator, same as a block. A community imposed sanction, like a community sanction, cannot be overturned by an individual administrator. Jehochman ^Talk 14:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You really don't seem to be getting it, Jehochman. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Try nonexistent without community support: no single administrator speaks for the community. Outside the narrow bounds of arbitration enforcement, no administrator has the sole authority to impose broad sanctions. When a nuanced sanction is necessary (page ban, revert limits, etc.) it's more likely to achieve a workable solution by open community discussion, rather than by forcing the discussion into an appeal of one person's arbitrary idea. Durova³⁷⁵ 06:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree. If I can block somebody, I can give them a final warning instead. Don't do X or you will be blocked, where X is something blockable. I've restricted Kils from further sockpuppetry, and from further disruptive editing in the form of self-promotion, conflict of interest, and spamming. Furthermore, my action was the result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kils and had input from several administrators who all agreed that this sanction was the correct course of action. Jehochman ^Talk 14:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Unless you expect the community to patrol SPI investigations, the lack of community notification was problematic. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• To respond to Mackan79, it does seem like confusion. It does not matter whether the admin or editor is a member of the community. Admins who unilaterally declare a sanction are taking actions unilaterally on their own view - they do not have any endorsement or opposition by the broad community. By this token, in the absence of any guidelines or policies that are supported by the community for such actions, any admin can come along and reverse that action, or enforcement of that action, upon an appeal being made (like an unblock request). So admins who impose unilateral sanctions, or those with a limited amount of input, are putting themselves (and others) at risk where they do not have explicit authority to impose that sanction. A community sanction, on the other hand, is imposed after a discussion has been conducted by the community, normally at this venue, or WP:ANI, for an extended period of time (meant to be a few days or something). Uninvolved users, whether an editor or an admin, weigh in with their views, and usually express their support or opposition, and in most cases, the subject of the sanction also participates either from his user talk or directly at the venue depending on how far the situation has escalated. It is depending on the outcome of that discussion that a particular sanction is imposed by the community and enforcible in its true sense (or not). No admin can unilaterally lift such a community sanction; instead, the community would again need to conduct another discussion and reach a consensus on whether the sanction should be lifted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree, with the conclusion that admins can attempt to set community sanctions, but where these are disputed the two steps remain 1.) community consensus, and 2.) ArbCom appeal. Individual admins do not have special authority to set themselves up somehow apart from these processes. Meaning that the single entry added now to Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Administrators should probably be folded into Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community, or otherwise removed. Mackan79 (talk) 07:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'll ask the imposing admin whether they want to get a community consensus or drop it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• I am non-plussed that somebody would start an ANI discussion about something I did without inviting me to comment. Instead, after two or three outside views, they come to my talk page and tell me I did something wrong.[65] No, Ncmvocalist, your behavior is improper. If you have a concern about my actions, you should ask me first. The sanction was the result of a discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kils. The logging is a mere formality, to make the sanction visible to other administrators. It is not a community sanction per se; it is a final warning from an administrator about a severe behavioral problem, one that may warrant an indefinite block if the problem does not cease immediately. The sanction can be removed by any administrator when it is no longer needed. Jehochman ^Talk 14:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Jehochman, what is problematic here is your response and your own glaringly improper approach. My comment at the top of this thread seeked clarification on procedure, policy, guidelines and practice - your action was secondary. It was at the point your action turned into the primary point of the discussion that I gave you a dual purpose comment - so that you voluntarily reconsider what you have done, and are aware of (that is, notified of) the discussion from which I came to that conclusion. Repeatedly making unwarranted accusations against others who criticise your approach (gently or otherwise) is becoming a tired pattern with you - my fault was actually bothering to give you the benefit of the doubt, again. I've explained why I find your logging problematic, below, and at our user talk pages. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Editing restrictions is a process page that User:Kirill Lokshin created out of the blue, and I populated the original data.[66] There was no proposal, nor any sort of discussion. We just made the page as a convenient way to track existing sanctions. I've now added a section at the bottom of the page for tracking administrator imposed "sanctions", which are really nothing more than final warnings, centrally logged. Since there's already been a discussion at WP:SPI, it would be wasteful to have another discussion at WP:AN to confirm the decision there. If a user wants to appeal, of course they an start a thread at WP:AN. Kils has apparently agreed to follow the sanction and does not seem interested in appealing. This thread is superfluous. Jehochman ^Talk 14:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, and a lot has changed since the point at which that page was created. You neither discussed your new decision(s) here, nor did you notify the community of that, nor did you bother to even mention it on the talk page. That a few admins participated is insufficient, on principle, without the community endorsing that such a limited amount of input is sufficient in a particular set of circumstances. Creating your own new procedures on your whim without broader input creates strife in this day and age - any perceptions of potential abuse that led to no consensus on discretionary sanctions stemmed from admins propensity to take precisely such unilateral actions. What would have been acceptable is to have a particular log dedicated to logging such warnings for any user rather than inequitably or prejudicially treating any one user in that way - most important was raising awareness of, and discussing the system. Reminders/warnings would then be logged when issued against repeat offenders who've engaged in far more problematic conduct, or far less for that matter. However, even if I endorsed that system, whether that idea would receive broad community consensus is questionable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and new proposals can be started without discussion, even if you don't personally agree with them. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree. But enacting new proposals that were in part or in full explicitly unsupported by consensus is problematic. I'd like to make these actions un-problematic so that any admin can take such actions without risk or fear. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
        • I think that this is exactly the sort of proposal that everyone makes a fuss about, then one day someone manages to implement correctly, and suddenly it turns out that it was a good proposal after all, that it should have been implemented before, that people were opposing out of fear for implausible consequences, and that WP:BURO was written to prevent this sort of stuff. (but it still needs a bit more time to know if this is one of those cases, and we shouldn't be killing it prematurely) --Enric Naval (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• One glib response followed by a more serious one: obviously administrators can block accounts unilaterally, so if you make it more trouble than it is worth to apply some lesser sanction to solve a problem, I'll just use the block button instead. As for the serious response, I respect the fact that no strong consensus exists regarding the application of unilateral sanctions, but we also have to come to terms with the fact that many admin actions to reign in behavior are de facto sanctions. We don't log them in a page or declare them, but when we tell an editor "don't disrupt page XYZ or you'll be blocked", that is effectively a sanction imposed unilaterally. I also agree that this thread is largely superfluous. Protonk (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps that is obvious because the community explicitly came to a consensus to that effect, Protonk. The community did not agree to discretionary sanctions for a number of reasons - I think it's counterproductive to suggest that this discussion is superfluous because it attempted to find ways/venue/format to effectively address those reasons. I also thought you'd have been interested in finding a way to codify the ability for admins to do so that there isn't so much controversy. Seeing I'm mistaken, we might as well close this thread as "superfluous". Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I gather you're disappointed in my response. Let's take a recent example to flesh out my concern. I blocked User:Die4Dixie indefinitely for trolling, hurling various anti-semetic accusations and disrupting some article pages. You objected to that block. It was reversed and then later re-inserted as a community ban. I'm telling you that in order to simply tell him to avoid anything related to Jews writ large (assuming that was the only source of the problems), I would have to request community input or go to Arbcom, even though that is a much lesser restriction (and conveys a smaller cost to the encyclopedia) than an indefinite block. And even though I have the technical means (and often the social prerogative) to enact an indefinite block, I cannot enact 'lesser' measures without some rigmarole. That is a gigantic incentive problem. I now have an incentive to wait until an editor crosses a hard threshold like WP:SOCK or WP:HOUND or WP:OUTING in order to unilaterally undertake actions in response to disruptive behavior. instead of dealing with the issue in context (which would require a community discussion), I have to use an incidental offense as a precondition to deal with the disruption (note that this is not unique to the admin corps]). My formulation was glib, but the problem is serious. I understand that there are countervailing concerns (e.g. lower "punishments" attract less attention from outsiders and could be used abusively and surreptitiously by admins). But the concern remains. Protonk (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
      • If the community fears admins are going to abusively and surreptitiously use extra sanctions that would help them, then the only users who can remedy those concerns are admins - yourself included. Each admin is accountable for their actions. We all agreed with site ban, but why did I oppose the original block? Did you state anything about "trolling, hurling various anti-semetic accusations and disrupting some article pages" in your rationales? OK, maybe not - but at least it was documented and established somewhere, right? No, which is why I was helpless in opposing procedurally until one of these points was addressed, after which I did not oppose any measure. It was one of the few times (perhaps the first time) I directed a criticism with your approach - how long would've it taken to document the problems more effectively, or to at least write a better rationale than "My patience is certainly limited" (block log) or "I don't normally block for "venting", but he needed to be shown the door months ago"? Which approach is likely to remedy the community's fear? Am I responsible for remedying that fear? You and I both know what disruptive editing is with a look at a handful of contributions - others, particularly less established contributors who step into this area, need to be able to follow what has happened, particularly as the block came about from what was already an ANI discussion to begin with. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Well the bulk of my comment wasn't meant to begin a retreading of that block. I just wanted to bring it up as an example. My point is that establishing some bureaucratic apparatus around lesser measures than are already at my disposal only incentivizes me to choose those greater measures. As for the fear that admins will misuse the privilege, I have no doubt that some will, just as some abuse the technical and social tools at their disposal now. But we can't wish away the incentive problem. Protonk (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
          • I don't think that gives you any incentive though. See, if an admin had the choice between leaving a warning (and logging it) as opposed to executing a block with a proper block rationale, and responding to the concerns of the user blocked, and potentially having the block discussed at ANI, which is more bureaucratic? Moreover, is fear (read: chilling effect) or incentive the bigger problem? I guess it depends on the situation, but a lot of editors tend to separate admins as a separate class of user not because policy tells them to, but some admins conduct makes them feel that way. It would be less of an issue if it was a relatively new user who engaged in disruption and felt that way, but very established contributors are fearing just what lengths admins will go to. This is evidenced by the community becoming more and more keen to develop its own desysop process, with adequate safeguards, yet with the ability to faster achieve the outcome that they want: they don't want to feel this way about admins in general, and that means weeding out the ones who are unfit to retain their privilleges. Despite this, I still believe incentive plays an important role as you say, but I don't think it's because of bureaucracy - it's more because admins prefer to do what they are used to rather than newer and novel (read: lesser) measures that are likely to be placed under an unpredictable level of scrutiny. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• One thing that seems to be missing from this discussion is the realization that had a less lenient administrator come across that SPI case, User:Kils would have been blocked indefinitely. There would have been no discussion about that on AN/ANI; the block would be made by one administrator and no one else would have commented. So I fail to see why, when a less harsh restriction is applied, we must discuss it. 72.93.78.209 (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Read the discussions at Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions? Perhaps you can explain why does the community prefer keeping the status quo of having to discuss such sanctions? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I have read the discussions there, and I still cannot understand it. DGG's question, for example, was never fully answered. The best answer to "What is the difference between saying "if you continue editing disruptively at article X, I shall block you to prevent further disruption" and "I prohibit you from continuing to edit at article X for a short time."" was Christopher Parham's answer of "The editor is permitted to make non-disruptive edits under #1 and not under #2, while disruptive edits meet the same response under each." I do not intend to rehash the debates of WT:DSN, but I do not see why you believe that saying "Don’t act disruptively or I’ll block you” (as Jehochman did with his restriction) is worse than Jehochman saying “you are blocked indefinitely for violating WP:SOCK. In the latter, we lose someone who could be a great contributor, while we only slightly restrict them in the former. 72.93.78.209 (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC) I realize I seem like a sock, but since I had posted in this thread as an IP by accident, I shall not jump into this thread with my account
      • That is exactly my point (noted at the top of the thread): I cannot understand it. As I've tried very hard to express to many who have commented now, I'd like to find a way so that it I (and others) can understand it, so that the community has a page to refer to for guidance, and so that admins have explicit authority to do so. How to achieve that - that was what I wanted input on, and so far, Sandstein is the only user who has focussed on (and began addressing) that. If others could respond to my reply to him, that would be the most useful (and appreciated). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
        • User:Kils was lucky not to be blocked indefinitely. Those restrictions are entirely reasonable. Do you want him to be editing pages on which he has a conflict of interest and !votestacking AfDs with his sockpuppets, or are you just Wikilawyering for the sake of it? Fences&Windows 17:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Does your input help "develop guidelines and policies on" Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions or a similar proposal? I fail to see it, but if you could point it out to me, that would be great. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
            • It would've been a lot less drama to bring the proposal to the community for approval before trying to enact the would-be sanction. Durova³⁷⁹ 18:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
              • I respect the sentiment but frankly I doubt it. Protonk (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
                • The last time it went to ArbCom and is still sitting there; probably could have been resolved at the community level if the cart hadn't jumped in front of the horse. When an admin thinks the community would agree, just ask the community up front. Durova³⁷⁹ 23:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
            • Please don't try to regulate what I can and can't say on this board. The thread on AN/I about Kil's editing received a lot of attention and the SPI was linked to from it. Nobody involved in that thread or SPI raised any objections to the editing sanctions, nor anyone at the reopened AfD. If your only issue is whether the sanctions should have been noted at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, then why not discuss it there rather than here? Unless anyone has substantial objections to the sanctions on User:Kils, objecting to them on grounds of bureaucracy isn't helpful. Fences&Windows 19:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to improve policy, Ncmvocalist, I recommend starting a discussion at the relevant policy or process pages, such as Wikipedia:Administrators and Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Get some initial feedback, develop a proposal, and then if you need more feedback, start an WP:RfC, post to WP:AN or list the discussion at WP:CENT. If you want to dispute the sanction on User:Kils, and that would be an odd thing to do since Kils seems to be happy with the sanction in lieu of a long block, start by explaining why you think the sanction is an inappropriate response to the problem. Jehochman ^Talk 20:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to be too pointed, Jehochman, but on your ArbCom candidacy page you list one of your three most important principles on Wikipedia as follows: "All editors have equal stature. Some gain access to additional tools through experience, but this does not entitle them to deferential treatment. We have no royalty." Yet here you seem to think that administrators should be able to declare and log sanctions apart from the general community. Then above you tell Ncmvocalist that his "behavior is inappropriate" rather than responding to the points raised (Ncmvocalist's comment to you seems to me entirely courteous); you then reaffirm that only another administrator act further on the matter as if the community is irrelevant. With all due respect, I am not understanding your position at all. Mackan79 (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Kils was editing in a way that warranted an indefinite block. Instead, I decided to give him another chance. To help ensure that he would not repeat the problematic behavior and get himself blocked, I and several other editors at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kils worked out a list of restrictions, and recorded them at User:Kils/Restriction with a convenience link at Wikipedia: Editing restrictions (for great transparency, and reliable enforcement). As yet, nobody has challenged the restrictions on the merits, not even Kils. What we have on this thread are a few editors who apparently delight in creating bureaucracy and stirring up controversy. They seem to think Wikipedia is a sport or a battleground. It's not. We do whatever makes sense to prevent disruption of the project. Kils was behaving disruptively, and we found a way to stop that without having to resort to a block. You think that people who appreciate a creative solution that helps retain a valuable editor, but sadly, no. Every opportunity to debate and challenge must be taken at Wikipedia, even when doing so creates no benefit. This makes me very sad. Jehochman ^Talk 00:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I just saw this, pardon my not responding here. I agree with your attempt at a nuanced sanction, actually. The only problem I see is with suggesting that it is somehow different from a community sanction. I see that many of the community sanctions listed on Wikipedia:Editing restrictions were discussed not just on this page, but on the COI notice board, or on user pages, or in other places. I don't think this was different from several of them. Thus I think what you did should be listed as a community sanction, end of problem. Mackan79 (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I just posted a few minutes ago! You're very prompt. All participants, please see WP:BAN. I'm going to make a bold edit over there explaining how things actually work. Mackan79, you're right. Feel free to move the Kils sanction up into the Community Sanction area, and get rid of the subsection I created. Jehochman ^Talk 01:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Just an idea- perhaps require that discretionary sanctions can only be issued by an ad-hoc group of 3 admins? This would possibly avoid concern that a single admin could abuse the process. Basket of Puppies 21:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • This isn't a discretionary sanction. That's a strawman argument advanced by those who apparently prefer to argue than to write articles. Kils has been subject to an editing restriction based on existing policy that simply precludes Kils from doing that which is already forbidden, under pain of an immediate block. It's logically equivalent to a final warning. Jehochman ^Talk 00:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
    • The character of your warnings is no different from a discretionary sanction Jonathon - they result in blocks for violations and they are logged publically at your discretion. Perhaps if you tried being more receptive to feedback rather than furthering an incredibly clumsy approach to such matters, there would be no issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• On occasion I have done something similar to Jehochman, I don't give warnings for anything but strict policy matters (e.g. be discuss your changes, don't edit war), but once a user is blocked, I may offer to unblock them (in response to a request) if they agree to conditions that are not strict policy matters, and are more like editing restrictions. These conditions would be something like I will unblock you now if you agree not to edit articles related to Africa, or similar (until the block would have expired). My reasoning is that if they are going to productively contribute elsewhere, there is no reason to block them from editing in places they were not causing a problem. Prodego ^talk 21:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Right, but where do you log those conditions, other than the user's talk page? Do you think we should have a system where all conditionally unblocked users, and all otherwise warned users, have a central log that is no different to current community sanctions? Or should that be discretionary? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Déjà vu: [67]. --GoRight (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the argument we need more bureaucracy, does anybody think the sanction is improper on the merits, to wit:

1. Kils should not be restricted because his socking and COI editing weren't that severe, or
2. Kils should be blocked instead of restricted because his offenses are so bad he does not deserve another chance.

Speak now, or else this thread should be closed. If you would like to discuss policy, this board isn't as good as the relevant policy talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 00:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Come on Jehochman, please don't ask that we quickly close a thread about a change in process that you apparently would like to implement. That nobody here has a problem with the sanction suggests it is community imposed, so why would we differentiate it? Needless distinctions, different forms for functionally the same thing, I'd think that's what most people consider bureaucracy. Mackan79 (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting for someone to explain how an "adminsitrator sanction" is different from a "community sanction," and why we would differentiate between the two. Is the idea to encourage admins to issue detailed sanctions without community input? Jehochman says this was discussed at WP:SPI, and that an additional discussion would be superfluous. This suggests to me that he believes it is a community sanction as it stands (I have no reason to contest this). So why differentiate it from a community sanction? It's odd to me the suggestion that it would be bureaucratic not to separate two things that aren't actually different. Mackan79 (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Well, aside from the idea that the Kril thing may put WP:SOCK at slight odds with WP:ROLE in the sense that we are saying "anyone is welcome to edit" - but, you can't use somebody else's computer and/or IP etc. Oh, yea, the discussion at the "Discretionary sanctions" talk page (here), seems to indicate that the community not only does not achieve consensus for such things (individual admin. imposed sanctions), but that they did achieve consensus to reject such things. My take on that is that the community does not want individual admins. attempting to make "law". Indeed, I do share that view. Since these so called "restrictions" posted on User:Kils/Restriction simply re-state what we have in policy and have done in practice - perhaps we should consider moving that little "Admin Restrictions" thing up into the community sanctions area. Especially since we don't even have such a thing mentioned (the last time I looked anyway) in the context of explanation on Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. While I normally would expect such "consensus" to be developed at WP:AN or WP:ANI, Jonathan does have valid points in the SPI discussion. Perhaps if an admin feels we need to set these particular "sanctioning acts" apart from current practice, we could look at developing a Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Sanctions board. There, we get both the ability of the admin to bring ideas to light, and still give the community the opportunity to add their weight to such things. — Ched :  ?  01:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • On a historical note, we had a community sanctions board, but it was moved into AN/I before my time. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard (second nomination). Protonk (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Ched, re: "Well, aside from the idea that the Kril thing may put WP:SOCK at slight odds with WP:ROLE in the sense that we are saying "anyone is welcome to edit" - but, you can't use somebody else's computer and/or IP etc", there were in fact no role accounts, this was all just one person, at least for the recent edits. The behavioural and language evidence is pretty final on that. Fences&Windows 02:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

thank you both. Protonk - I wasn't aware of that page - before my time and all. F&W, thank you as well - I've never been real big on the whole "sock" thing - and just reading through the restriction page at the users "/page" - I thought perhaps it was several friends, co-workers etc. that were using his PC to edit. I don't question the restriction by the way, and in fact I'm always glad to see someone make an effort to bring a user into conformity rather than just blocking or site banning. My thoughts are simply that perhaps it raises more heat than light if just 1 or 2 admins. try to impose a "restriction" rather than getting some consensus from the community in general. I thought a centralized "sanctions" page might offer the best of both worlds so to speak. — Ched :  ?  02:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy update

I have updated policy to reflect the common sense idea and existing practice that a lengthy discussion is not necessary when the subject willingly accepts the sanction. Please see this edit, and feel free to revise or discuss. Jehochman ^Talk 01:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I see you replied to Mackan79's comment, in which he implied that your particular sanction was discussed in multiple locations, validating calling it a community sanction. The edit you've made to WP:BAN suggests those discussions aren't necessarily needed. I'm not really sure that the above discussion supports that conclusion. Equazcion (talk) 01:45, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I'm tentatively planning to revert this edit. Whether one deems it common sense or not, this would be a permeating declaration: that any editor can impose restrictions on any other, without discussion. The discussion above is more or less about this, and is far from resolved to the point that policy can be changed based on it. Equazcion (talk) 01:56, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

This change does not take into account people with an disposition to subordination to any kind of authority. An admin who spots this trait might abuse it. Hans Adler 02:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

@Jehochman - That update to the policy has never been supported by a community consensus that I am aware of, and indeed that topic has been discussed there at length as I pointed to above. Can you point me to any discussion of that which has reached such a consensus?

You assert that this discussion constitutes a community ban on Kils yet the word "ban" does not appear in the discussion at all. Can you please explain this apparent discrepency? (Note that I am not taking a stand either way on Kils)

Finally, you assert that if the subject does not object to the ban then it may be logged due to that fact. What happens if the subject later changes their mind and revokes their consent? Is the log entry automatically removed? --GoRight (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the change, for the reasons I explained above. Equazcion (talk) 02:24, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Equazcion, and the place to discuss changes to policy is at policy talk, not here. Administrators have no special standing in determining policy. Durova³⁷⁹ 03:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If the same discussion occurred on the policy talk page, could the edit still be committed? Protonk (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Depends on whether or not the discussion shows consensus, and on whether or not the person posing the question is being cheekily rhetorical. Equazcion (talk) 04:48, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Responding to one other point raised by Mackan about sanctions being imposed at COI noticeboards etc., those discussions were announced at AN and ANI so that maximum input was received. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

A lot of useful (and not-so-useful) issues have been raised here. Administrators are authorised to issue blocks in accordance with block policy, and the appeal grounds for blocks have also been authorised. Administrators are expected to issue warnings, where appropriate, before issuing blocks. However, these warnings are generally logged at user talk pages, and in block logs. (The same goes with conditional unblocks.) Whether to block or warn (or sanction) is at the discretion of the admin imposing the measure.

Admins who log certain users warnings/sanctions in a more public central location (like Wikipedia:Editing restrictions) are exercising the sort of discretion that was being proposed at Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions which is what may make it problematic. There are only 2 ways out of this:

1. Log all conditional unblocks, warnings, imposed on users, in a central public log dedicated to logging such warnings, or;
2. Give admins that kind of discretion via another form of Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions.

Unless I've missed something (in which case I invite comments to that effect), the input needed at this time is which is preferrable, and how to discuss or rediscuss these so that we have effective guidance on the matter. (i.e. should a new Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions be created or can the original be modified? what do we do about the existing discussion on the relevant talk page? what's the best format for conducting that discussion?). I'm assuming new pages need to be created? Should we just continue that format of discussion, or should we do an ArbCom RfC style discussion? Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This thread was undesirable and uncivil. You posted excessively in an apparent attempt to dominate the discussion with your view. The discussion has become so long that I doubt many uninvolved editors will bother to read it all and participate. Administrators are selected for their judgment, and they are expected to use it to benefit the project. If an editor does something particularly disruptive, it is within an administrator's powers to tell that user what they did wrong, and create a record for the user, and others, to reference. It is not sensible to suggest that administrators can block at will, but that they must have a length, bureaucratic discussion before issuing and logging a warning. You're seriously confusing two different issues:

1. Discretionary sanctions that can prohibit otherwise acceptable editing (e.g. topic ban, one revert per week limitation).
2. Editing restrictions that specifically prohibit a user from further violations of policy, under penalty of block for failure to comply.

The first type of sanctions require ArbCom or community approval. The second type can be done by any individual administrator when necessary to protect the project. Jehochman ^Talk 11:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There's sometimes a fine line between those two. Calling your #2 case "restrictions" probably adds to the ambiguousness and confusion. User:Kils/Restriction, by title alone, and by it having been listed on this page, seems more like community sanctions of "otherwise acceptable" actions than what you intended. Why not just call those cases "warnings", and avoid the confusion? When someone is in danger of crossing the line, what they're issued are defined as "warnings", not "restrictions". Additionally, your attempted change to WP:BAN doesn't seem to agree with what you've said here; unless you take "community sanctions" to mean "prohibiting a user from further policy violation". In the end, Kils' "restrictions", which sparked this discussion, may have been a misunderstanding falling under your issue #2. Nevertheless, the larger issue, and the question of changing WP:BAN, seem to still fall under #1. Equazcion (talk) 11:49, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

We generally have a problem that we don't follow up well on long term behavioral issues. A talk page warning is insufficient because it gets buried, removed or archived by the time subsequent editors need to see it. Wikipedia:Editing restrictions is a process page that can be used for any productive purpose. If we want to log "final warnings" there as "restrictions", that is allowed. I am open to discussing nomenclature. What we call things affects how people understand them. Lastly, I did not create User:Kils/Restriction. That was User:NuclearWarfare's doing. Maybe that page should be moved to User:Kils/Final warning, and we should create another process page such as Wikipedia:Final warnings to keep track of such user pages. I am open to naming things however people like, as long as we have an efficient means of record keeping. Jehochman ^Talk 13:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A new page could be one way to go. A new section could also just be added to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions entitled "Final warnings" or something. Equazcion (talk) 13:28, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I created a new section. Let's see what happens. If the idea catches on and the list becomes too long, it can be broken out into a separate page. Jehochman ^Talk 13:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Equazcion (talk) 13:35, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Kils specific case: Items #3 and #4 are actual editing restrictions, rather than warnings. They should either be removed, or Kils' listing needs to remain under the other section. Equazcion (talk) 13:42, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of consistency, and to exercise the new process, I have changed the wording of #3 and #4 to "should avoid", matching the wording of WP:COI. They could potentially make non-controversial edits to those pages, but any sort of troublesome editing is likely to result in a block. The purpose is to hold them to WP:COI, not to create novel obligations. Jehochman ^Talk 13:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Jehochman, you imposed this "sanction" in the same way as last time - feedback is having zero % impact on you or you would've clearly marked it a warning earlier. Still, my request in this thread was narrowly framed to deal with processes, and any appearance of me dominating were attempts to focus on such issues that I required input on - the reason this thread was created. The fact that the discussion returns to you suggests your judgement has been bleeding from foolishness and causing a mess, which was not what you were given the mop for. I suggest you find ways to improve your understanding of what you are meant to do (in full, rather than the clumsy partial-jobs you've been doing) when exercising the judgement that the community perceived you would have. That is, fully reading comments/feedback directed to you so that you can be receptive to it, actually using noticeboards properly (case announcements are also listed at WP:AN), practising the courtesy you preach and supposedly enforce, etc. There are ways to avoid controversy, but your comments and actions, Jehochman, have jointly and repeatedly been text book examples of How to cause Wikipedia controversy with maximum drama. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Lengthy

As someone who tried to "sort out" the Kils matter for literally several straight nights, I openly applauded Jehochman for an incredibly high level of restraint in the matter and find it asinine to see here like this. If you actually go look at the whole case, you'll find that the SPI and "regulations" imposed were after a block and unblock less than a week earlier, 5 ANIs, about a hundred "final warnings" on talk page, about 500 messages sent to any editor speaking in opposition to anything, about 1000 messages sent running around soliciting support, and the constant attention of about a dozen editors to keep things in order.

Other issues included requests for preferential treatment at AfD because of supposed large Foundation donation which was already flaunted as reason for an unblock (but failed), and open lies in several forums of discussion at every step in the process. Really... Ncmvocalist, it's the most admin restraint I've ever seen and a lot of others would have just up and blocked the user a half dozen incidents prior. A number of editors around were pretty shocked at those SPI results. Even after the restrictions with immediate violations even after further warnings, Jehochman figured we should all disappear for a few days instead of wait for whatever was next.

The User:Kils case is the last thing to criticize over. It's more like a case study. Considering Kils could just have been given an indef block with likely no objections whatsoever and that many editors are often blocked for far, far less, seeing this as "evidence" is really sad. I can appreciate how long it might take to read over the entire case file, though. Would a better solution to this be that SPI closers just block anyone, avoiding sanctions? All ANI trouble-makers? Perhaps admims should actively bait one another into wheel warring by singling out sensitive matters that are more likely to "suggest" block vs talk. Any restrictions on that list are better than a block, is how I see it. Every case is different. People are trusted to make these decisions for a reason, after much logic, common sense and even some level of mercy applied (such as with Kils). Let them do their thing. If you don't like it, remind of the appeals process. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Now the dust has swirled into a nice shaped dustdevil ... perhaps it's time for a comment composed when I misunderstood the matter (Kils matrix coefficients still seem order of magnitude off :-), but anyway, I'm sure this applies to something, even if not this.

  + One (good!) administrator may well speak more clearly in the voice of the community than ad hoc attract-ees.

  + And one admin "signing their name" (glad to see table expanded for that column) is more easily held accountable than transient outlaw gang momentarily donning "community" t-shirts.

  Perhaps only for extraordinary occasions, but I support (good!) administrator sanctions section. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism question

Having recently witnessed a debate where one user claims that repeatedly changing facts in an article into obviously-incorrect info should be considered a content dispute and the other claims it should be considered vandalism: I have a question, which I'll phrase as a hypothetical rather than muddy the waters by using an actual example: User X comes along to the Rolling Stones article. His first edit is to change Keith Richards to the lead vocalist, put Charlie Watts on bass, and Mick Jagger on drums. Now, it is absolutely clear as day that User X is either A)taking the piss, or B)just totally as wrong as he can be. Neither of these is a net positive to the article, so User Y reverts the edit with "rv wrong info". Then X comes back and re-adds the same incorrect information, and then it happens again. I would agree that on the first edit, AGF applies and the edit can't be called "vandalism"...the FIRST time. But what about the second and third time? (Let's for the moment leave 3RR on the table; I'm interested in clarifying "vandalism".)If the second and third time are not vandalism, what about these situations?

1. User X leaves no edit summary for any of these edits, nor comments on talk page.

2. User X leaves edit summaries "no, you're wrong".

3. User X leaves edit summary "for great justice and epic lulz".

4. User X comes back the next day and does three MORE reverts to the same totally incorrect material despite attempts to engage him on both talkpages--the article's, and User Y's.

My issue here is that I have a really, REALLY hard time categorizing "deliberately adding and re-adding clearly wrong info" as "content dispute". If I were basing it on my opinion, that's vandalism--but WP policy says differently. I guess the main question I'm asking here is, where do we draw the line on deliberate misinformation and good-faith misinformation? Is it still a content dispute if someone adds that the sky is green? And if not, what is the line? Right now, I'd be hesitant to block anyone based on these situations, simply because even after studying the policy, I'm not sure I'm interpreting correctly. Any input would ba appreciad...GJC 20:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• It's tough. There is "wrong" and then there is "wrong". Let's take The Rolling Stones as an example. The current genres listed are "Rock, rock and roll, rhythm and blues, blues". If I edited the article to include psychedelic rock as a genre, you could pretty easily treat that as "wrong", but I would be uncomfortable just treating it as "wrong" (ie vandalism). So we are kinda in the grey area where bright lines go to die--the edits are obviously disruptive but not necessarily made in bad faith (though adjusting genres can often be in bad faith, see User:Scarian/Genre trolls). The pat answer is that you seek DR and hope to some consensus...but that's kinda bullshit. What happens in practice is that we hope someone else is watchlisting the article too and when they revert too many times in order to insert the "info", we block them for 3RR (I know you didn't want to involve that, but it is too intertwined in practice). Or, perhaps more common in practice is that all unhelpful/semi-disruptive additions are reverted as vandalism (in clear contravention to our expectations about dealing with new users).
• Here's my suggestion (if we are avoiding 3RR). Wikipedia:Disruptive editing is a guideline. The first revert can and should be undone with an explanatory edit summary and or a talk page note (it is what I do for the relatively popular articles on my watchlist). The second revert can probably be undone in the same fashion, but you would want to start a discussion on the article or editor's talk page. By the third or fourth revert, we are beyond normal discussion. Bring in another admin to deal w/ the problem using the buttons. Protonk (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You've obviously forgotten about Their Satanic Majesties Request, Protonk. Deor (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

My personal guideline on this is that if somebody adds a false fact to an article that is at least plausible and it is possible that somebody somewhere might believe this, then I revert and explain why this is wrong in an edit summary. eg diff However, if the "fact" is so absurd nobody could possibly believe it, I revert and warn for vandalism eg diff. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Basically, if someone harms the encyclopedia by replacing article text with "Bush is teh gay" or a string of repeating characters, then that is vandalism and we block them expeditiously. If someone harms the encyclopedia by waging a relentless 6-month, 2,000-edit crusade to claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, or garlic cures cancer, or the gold standard is the root of all human misery, then it's just a content dispute, and sanctioning them would be a value judgment. Groups of editors who revert such claims are a tag-team or "majority POV-pushers". Because obviously "Bush it teh gay" is the bigger threat to the project's goal of creating a serious, respectable reference work.

Ouch, it looks like I got up on the wrong side of the bed today :| MastCell ^Talk 00:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

True, but this is also sometimes also the evil behavior of paid agents of the worldwide pharmaceutical conspiracy to sap and impurify our precious natural remedies. Now go back to bed. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious ediotors breach actionable policies: they fail to source, use unreliable sources, or misuse reliable sources. Anyone can make a few mistakes at first, but the ones who refuse to rise on the learning curve need to rise to the attention of the sysops. One disruptive editor can drive a dozen productive ones off the project. That's why it's dangerous when the admin corps gives the brush-off by calling situations content disputes that aren't. Durova³⁷⁹ 19:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Quack quack

CharlesJohnson22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) would appear to be John Bambenek on his quarterly drive-by to get his article created. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

We should have an edit filter put in place so no one can type his name on the English Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Really.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Damn. There's more where that came from.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I love this one: "We still (reluctantly) allow them to edit". Didn't the Fat Man just return to editing a week ago?--Atlan (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the departure was voluntary or the result of an autoblock placed on an IP he used to vandalize with or something. He has had a colorful history, no more than my own though.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of both your histories, I've been around long enough. What I meant was that he speaks of allowing you to edit reluctantly, while he's hardly been around to allow or disallow you much of anything.--Atlan (talk) 08:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The block logs are merely asides. I do think something should be done concerning the currently "recreated" article and its author if I am correct about him.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

←CharlesJohnson22 blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 09:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• So, to the comments by The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This suggests pro-LaRouche activism and WP:ABF (incidentally, I don't know about anyone else, but I had absolutely no idea that Bambenek is a LaRouche supporter, and I wouldn't care even if I did because I know virtually nothing about LaRouche other than that it is a long-running source of conflict on Wikipedia). Guy (Help!) 15:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

More likely it suggests trolling, considering his subsequent delete vote at the Mfd: [68].--Atlan (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have no previous memory of this user, but considering that he has a block record for such issues as "Ban evasion, troublemaking, vandalism, disruptive editing, and appaling humor", as well as apparently an IP dedicated to Wikipedia vandalism, and now seems to continue to disrupt Wikipedia after a "last chance" unblock of his IP, any reason why we should not issue an indef block?  Sandstein  15:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was getting at. It seems his return to active editing is not with any constructive intent.--Atlan (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it would not be overly harsh to characterise him as a serial timewaster. How thin people's patience has worn I would not know, but I don't see much evidence of good to offset the downright tiresome. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Is he allowed to do this?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I've seen it done before. It's called "transuserfying", I believe. @Kate (parlez) 20:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the more specific question is "is he doing this solely to spite everyone else?"—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering he voted delete at the Mfd (a vote that still stands despite the pagemove), and considering he claims to get the article to featured status with his "team of experts" and needs 18 days to do that, I still assume he's trolling.--Atlan (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to disagree with that analysis. Some action would seem to me to be appropriate, perhaps beginning with a restriction on senseless meta-drama. Can anyone find examples of things he's done which offset the cost of managing his foolishness? Guy (Help!) 15:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

TFM has made very few constructive contributions in the past 3 and half years (I believe he has fewer than 70 mainspace edits), but his 2006-2008 talk page is highly entertaining. Also, his Arbcom candidacy (which finished with a majority of support votes) Q&A was an enlightening read.--The Fat Man Who Left but Returned a Short While Later (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, it's a girl!

Mahalia Merita Angela Smith (6lb 11oz) was born this week, delivered by Wikipedia. Who needs a midwife, when you've got the collective knowledge of wikipedians. "The kid that anyone can deliver". See here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

We should probably delete whichever article he used. WP:NOTGUIDE. Equazcion (talk) 10:35, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Maybe we should also rename the project to "Wikipedia, the midwife encyclopedia"? On a side note, I think we can expect a donation from the father soon. I do hope he adds "for delivering my child" or something as a reason. Regards SoWhy 10:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Aww... There's my feel-good story for the day! Thanks, Scott MacDonald! --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Are we really sure it was us and not WikiHow? Reading our articles on Childbirth, Home birth, and Unassisted childbirth wouldn't give much help, and we're not in the top results for Google. Not to burst the bubble or anything... ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I do hate to whine, but this isn't an issue for administrative action (or even for the attention only of administrators) and would perhaps be better suited at the Village Pump? ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 15:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be taken to yet another place in addition to (at least) here, User talk:Jimbo Wales and WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions. Hans Adler 15:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That guy now needs to read Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

And why couldn't they have stuck Wikipe-tan in that name somewhere? People have given stranger names to people for less reason. John Carter (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It is the holiday season, so anything to put a smile on our faces is welcomed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently he used the"Internet guide wikiHow," so I don't know if they changed the article or if OP was wrong... Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 22:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

They changed the article.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

A8UDI Vandalism warnings again

A8UDI (talk · contribs · count) has been templeting and giving out warnings for edits that are clearly not vandalism, this issue has already been discussed once here [69], After this revert [70], and warning [71]. I began watching to see if he was doing it to others and found [72], [73], [74] ,[75]. That's three people so far this morning.

When I left a message on his talk page regarding his warnings, he removed the message commenting that he dose more good then harm and to calm down [76]. Ridernyc (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Final warning given. This has become a significant problem with this editor. Tan | 39 17:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

igloo gone A8UDI 17:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That was the first warning ever given to me, and it wasn't fun. Kleuske (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem has nothing to do with igloo. Ridernyc (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

IGNORE THE RED TEXT AND RED BUTTONS. There's my advice. No Huggle! Hey, use all green if you want since you get a custom summary to fill in. ...Or just voluntarily remove Twinkle for awhile? Or is it possible to just get rid of the evil red text if you paste in the full TW script? Would be hard to do if you literally couldn't do it even by mistake. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to take a break for a little while. Obviously I'm incapable of using software. tom67.241.191.198 (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Time to commence head to desk repetition. I was trying to be entirely helpful in good faith, is the ironically clueless bit on my part. Has nothing to do with software, just something as simple as a mis-click, and you even removed igloo on your own. I've done the same thing before a few times, was chewed out by some very experienced editors and had not-terribly polite messages left even after I correct it, etc. (I entirely deserved it), just not all combined at once like this. I'd expect to have been in the same situation, and I learned a lot overall. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Unblock template problem

Template:Unblock either needs better instructions or perhaps amending. user:Moonriddengirl and I have both had problems making it look right when declining. As Moonridden girl has said, " I've tested it, and the only way that I can get it to work is to replace{{subst:Decline reason here}} with the reason for the decline. I tested it here. It includes your signature in quotation marks, which is odd." If that is what you are supposed to do, then why does it say {{subst:Decline reason here}}? Have I misunderstood something? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're asking here, sorry. :-( --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Not quite sure I'm understanding. Are you confusing {{Decline reason here}}'s existence in the cut and paste when you go to decline with a function of {{unblock}} or {{unblock-reviewed}}? Syrthiss (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so that's why there's a preview button. :-) Sorry, forgot to use nowiki or preview, slap me with a wet mackerel (I don't like trout). Is it clearer now? Dougweller (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Much. :-) You're supposed to replace the whole thing -- the subst is so that something useful shows up if you forget to. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) User:Syrthiss/unblocktest. It encloses both the original reason given by the unblock requester, and then your response in quotations...regardless if you supply a reason or if you use decline reason here. Syrthiss (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. The instructions say "If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following as notification. If you do not edit the text after "decline=", a default reason why the request was declined will be inserted." Maybe they could be clearer, saying that the whole subst bit should be replaced by the decline reason? I understand now why it's there. I put my decline reason after subst: because it says "Decline reason here". Dougweller (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've amended the template. I'm not the most tech person in the world, but if two of us found it confusing, there are likely to be others. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin needed to close Bharatveer ban discussion above

Resolved

Is there an admin who has not voted who wants to decide if there is consensus for a ban at WP:AN#Community ban for Bharatveer, above? It appears that enough time has run, according to Moreschi who opened the complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll get it right smartly. Steve Smith (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman got it while I was reading the discussion. I'd have closed it the same way, in any event. Steve Smith (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

So did I - edit conflict.  Sandstein  20:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It's good that we all reviewed it independently and came to the same conclusion. Jehochman ^Talk 20:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Abuse filter issue?

This edit [77] appears to have tripped a filter of some kind (see [78], notice it's tagged for repeating characters, obviously from the nearby "billion" link, although editor did not touch said link). This is either a bug in the filter or a limitation in the abuse filter extension. It would be handy to know which. --Thinboy00 @010, i.e. 23:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Please drop a note at Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives. The folks working there will be able to sort it out. Protonk (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Its the latter, it is possible (but much more intensive) to create a filter that only checks things that are added, instead it checks the added lines - the green areas in diffs. There is a way around this that involves counting the number of matches before an edit, and the number after and seeing if it increased, but that isn't worth it for a filter that just tags anyway. Prodego ^talk 14:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.

• Editors of articles related to the topic of socionics are reminded to be civil and seek consensus whenever possible. Editors are encouraged to seek dispute resolution assistance as needed.
• Rmcnew (talk · contribs) and Tcaudilllg (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic banned from all Socionics-related topics, pages, and discussions, broadly construed.
• Rmcnew (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of six months.
• Tcaudilllg (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of twelve months.
• Users not previously involved in Socionics and Socionics-related articles are asked to give attention to any remaining issues with the articles, including the reliability of sources used. Users should carefully review the articles for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case. Participation from uninvolved editors fluent in the Russian language would be especially helpful.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

WP:UAA backlog

Resolved

 – Cleared Rodhullandemu 02:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As of 10.08 UTC, the user reported area of WP:UAA is heavily backlogged, though my quick scan shows quite a few are not blatant violations of policy. Anyhow, assistance by any available admins would be appreciated. NJA (t/c) 10:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Roman Polanski article again. Editor refuses to stop inserting information to whitewash case

moved to ANI. Equazcion (talk) 06:40, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Long-term unsourced articles

I wonder what one is supposed to do with articles which have gone completely unsourced for a very long time, but which are not obvious ads or WP:BLP or copyvio violations (or at least not obviously so). An example would be this: Games for Good. This has been created on 3 January 2006, and in its almost 4-year-long (but pretty uneventful) history it has never had a single source -- reliable or unreliable. What is one to do with articles such as this? The orignal creator has apparently stopped editing in January 2006. Nothing of note links to this, and googling '"Games for Good" "Hal Halpin"' or '"Games for Good" IEMA' doesn't bring any good-looking sources, either. The original creator's user name brings obvious COI associations with IEMA, but other than that I don't have anything to go on. The article text isn't an obvious ad, so I can't see that any CSD apply. I don't really want to take this to AfD, as I know next to nothing about the subject. Should I just PROD it? Again, I admit that I know nothing about the subject, only that in its entire history the article has never had a single source. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a clear prod candidate. On the other hand, don't be reluctant to take an article to AfD--sometimes that results in editors finding good sources and greatly improving an article. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, prodded. Will take to AfD if disputed. On the other hand, I imagine there's plenty of similar unsourced articles around -- nothing terribly urgent, no immediate BLP or copyvio problems, but on the whole pretty useless in any case -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You might find "Category:Articles_lacking_sources" an interesting read.  :) ArcAngel (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Life is short. Wikipedia is long. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

In this case, I've found some sources for the article, and so I am disputing the prod. Obviously, the general case still stands. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 13:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Generally, m:eventualism is the guiding philosophy. Although, I think eventualism is a creed we cannot afford for BLPs. I've argued before we really could do we a new process for unreferenced BLPs which basically says "this article is on notice - it will be deleted after 14 days unless at least rudimentary referencing is provided. Please feel free to remove this if you are willing to supply a reference or two". A sort of long prod, which is illegitimate to remove unless you reference it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 04:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, as a mathematician I like to think in terms of local and global properties... A Wikipedia article may be true locally, i.e. in some (small) neighbourhood surrounding it. (Read: when edited by involved editors.) But that does not mean that it is necessarily true globally! -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I recall discussing something similar a while ago, when there was a discussion about the CSD categories.Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to give it a slightly longer window (something on the order of a full month or two), particularly at first, while there is (unfortunately) such a long backlog of unsourced BLPs. (Which is not to suggest that unsourced contentious or potentially libelous claims shouldn't be removed immediately, per our usual BLP standards.) In any event, I agree with the gist of the suggestion. We have articles that have had {unsourced} templates for years; eventualists or not, at some point we're going to need to prod (or PROD) our fellow editors to get off their asses and source these articles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

On of of potential drawbacks to this is that it encourages authors to add any source, preferably an off-line one, regardless of whether it's actually a supporting reference for the article. And since references make an article look more reliable, it may mislead readers more than would a totally unref'd article. Guettarda (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

One would hope someone would still eventually figure that out (especially if the editor in question made a habit of it), and that we would treat falsification of sources as a very serious form of editing abuse. I proposed a system for deletion or userfication of unsourced articles under a prod type system (where the "prod" could be removed by anyone providing a source). It did not gain consensus at the time, but maybe time to revisit something to that effect? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Another problem with this group of articles is that while unsourced, they are generally correct, but either were created then forgotten back in the early days of Wikipedia (when adding sources was not required), or fall into that area of unwatched articles & could go through the deletion process without anyone with the knowledge to fix them ever knowing that the article is now gone. Now if someone were to do as Ekjon Lok did with Games for Good -- first make a good-faith effort to find sources, then consider nominating it for AfD (as well as mentioning that step in the nomination) -- I wouldn't object to some of these articles eventually going bye-bye. -- llywrch (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with llywrch that the key here is that editors need to try to find sources first before doing the prodding. The real issue here, for example, is not so much the lack of sources in articles but that none can be found. No reliable, secondary sources = does not meet WP's guidelines for notability. I would hate to give license to people to march around tagging without unsourced articles for deletion without first seeing whether the problem could be fixed first. --Slp1 (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

ꆇꉙ

I would like to redirect ꆇꉙ to Nuosu language, but it is blacklisted. AGENT SMITH 05:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to redirect 𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌹𐍃𐌺 to Gothic language. AGENT SMITH 05:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Why? Are there any incoming links to these terms from other Wikipedia articles? Are they likely English search terms. I know redirects are cheap, but what about these words makes you think that someone using the English wikipedia would be typing them into the search box, or using them in an article as a wikilink? --Jayron32 05:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

They are the names of those languages in their respective alphabets/scripts and are listed as such on Special:SiteMatrix. AGENT SMITH 06:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Last chance to vote in the Arbitration Committee Elections

This is a brief reminder to all interested editors that today is the final day to vote in the December 2009 elections to elect new members to the Arbitration Committee. The voting this year is by secret ballot using the SecurePoll extension. All unblocked editors who had at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 are eligible to vote (check your account). Prospective voters are invited to review the candidate statements and the candidates' individual questions pages. Although voting is by secret ballots, and only votes submitted in this way will be counted, you are invited to leave brief comments on the candidates' comment pages and discuss candidates at length on the attached talkpages. If you have any questions or difficulties with the voting setup, please ask at the election talkpage. For live discussion, join #wikipedia-en-ace on freenode.

Update: The voting period opened on 1 December and will close on 14 December 2009 as advertised. However, that due to the configuration of the SecurePoll extension, the voting period may not extend to the previously announced time of 23:59 UTC on 14 December 2009. The software developers have been contacted and we are working to extend the voting period to the full two week period. This message will be updated to reflect any such changes, but barring intervention, votes cast after 00:00 UTC on 14 December 2009 (midnight tonight) will not be accepted by the software.

Follow this link to cast your vote

For the coordinators,  Skomorokh  12:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright backlogs; trying to generate solutions

In an effort to try to come up with some solutions for massive and/or chronic backlogs on copyright issues (such as at WP:PUF, WP:SCV and WP:CCI), I've opened a discussion at Areas for Reform. Please contribute, if you have any ideas. I think there's a critical need. At this moment, WP:PUF has images that have been listed for over three months, while there are literally hundreds of articles and images still waiting review at WP:CCI. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)