Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arakunem (talk | contribs) at 21:28, 31 January 2011 (→‎Incivility blocks: corr). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    Catherine Huebscher (further post)

    User:Catherine Huebscher has been making unacceptable personal attacks, again, on the talk page of Paul Robeson. I raised her behaviour here before, in December. [1]. Since then, I have tried extremely hard to engage her in proper discussion. I've been working through the Paul Robeson article carefully to improve the referencing, but Catherine is impervious to information about sourcing policy, and has reverted many well-intentioned edits.

    On the talk page: [2] and [3] are vicious personal attacks on User: Radh. She retracted the worst of them, but what she says about Radh is still outrageous, and she went on to add this addressed to me.

    You can see from the article history and talk page the very many attempts to engage this user civilly. Some firm action is needed now, please. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Considering the number of NPA warnings on her talkpage, a block seemed appropriate. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse block. And the editor's response, "User:Itsmejudith is a conniving racist," doesn't make it any better. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious, are "well-intentioned" but unsourced edits subject to deletion? Is it possible that such constant "well-intentioned" editing may in fact drive someone to become abusive with the intention of provoking just such a blocking proposal as a blocking strategy Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, block her, Radh is a straight up victim who always treats others with respect... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive658#User:_Catherine_Huebscher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Radh#Talk:Paul_Robeson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peekskill_Riots#Recent_Revisions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Radh#Paul_Robeson_2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.57.212.56 (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    With all due respect, 31 hours was excessive given I've had six years with no blocks. I feel Radh is over due for a block. I have Radh slandering me and accusing me of being a "Stalinist" on many places on wikipedia while he follows me from article to article, looks me up offline and outs me. I hate Stalin. He has some vested interest in "exposing Blacks and Communism" and we are all supposed agree with his povs and hate speech like "niggers" and "Uncle Tom". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Robeson/Archive_3#The_recent_edits Judith ignored his nasty "Neo-Stalinist bully" comment(s) (as the admins predictably did) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Robeson#Neutrality and defended him again. As one can clearly see, Radh has done nothing for the article apart from leave a few small sometimes snarky edits and complain and display his hatred of Robeson. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive658#User:_Catherine_Huebscher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Radh#Talk:Paul_Robeson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peekskill_Riots#Recent_Revisions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Radh#Paul_Robeson_2 Catherine Huebscher (talk) 8:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

    • Without even looking at Radh's edits, this is simply unacceptable. You should be pleased that 31 hours is all it was--now it's time to walk away and not make matters worse for yourself, which is the only thing you can hope to accomplish with this battlefield mentality. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks. Do you think that the accusations about me being a racist should be refactored so they don't appear on Catherine's talk page? All I did, you know, was advise her that it was probably not worth challenging a statement by Radh after the event, after I volunteered have a look at what he said. By the way, is there previous discussion in WP of the use of the phrase "uncle Tom"? Is it unequivocally racist to use it about a third party? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if I'd say "unequivocally", but there are a lot more racist ways to use it than there are safe ways. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Poor English

    Are there any standards, rules or guidelines, or even ideas, as to what we can do with contributors from non-English-language countries who think (even assert) that their English is good, yet continue to contribute article text which is incomprehensible, in spite of being asked cordially to be more careful? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:COMPETENCE might help as a link. A tricky situation but not likely blockable unless very disruptive. What admin action are you after Serge? Pedro :  Chat  00:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As a side note - we have had users whose contributions were such bad quality english that it was disruptive, for a long period of time, and more than one has been blocked for it eventually.
    That said - it's much preferable to explain the situation to them and get them to focus on their language skills, on editing their native language Wikipedia, and / or work via talk page discussions rather than edits to articles which then need significant repair work. Blocking is the absolute last ditch resort.
    If you can provide specific examples and get other admins / long term users involved, that's a good thing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A cautionary tale. I not that long ago began a response to an editor whose contributions were at times very mangulated English, by politely saying something like "It seems that English is not your first language...." We were both posting on a very Australian topic. He responded very aggressively, condemning me for suggesting that he was a "foreigner", and pointing out that he was born and bred in Australia, and English was his native tongue. (We do speak English here. ;-) ) He later alleged that I hated him. Turns out he was a 15 year old kid whose efforts since have led to a permanent ban. But do be careful with what you assume. HiLo48 (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm an Australian who edits a lot of Indonesia related articles. I'm often cleaning up English in otherwise good contributions. It doesn't bother me that much if there's some good amongst appalling grammar. It's a different story when the additions are incomprehensible then I revert immediately as there are normally other problems such as no references. However, it's rare that edits are completely unusable because of language problems. But then again, my native speaker grammar and speling are not always prefect being niether. --Merbabu (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, please handle this all carefully. There are lots of possible explanations, and putting someone off or insulting them accidentally are strong risks here.
    Don't ignore the issue, but be sensitive when you talk to people about it. Calling an experienced editor or admin for help in communicating may be a good course. This noticeboard is fine for asking for an admin to talk to someone who is in need of gentle counseling and not a huge hammer. We'd all be better off if problems were brought here earlier before people are angry...
    Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    From my experience, there have been cases where poor English has led to administrative sanctions in the past, but usually they were cases where the lack of English was not the only problem but an aggravating factor in an already problematic situation. Pumpie (talk · contribs), Rjecina (talk · contribs), Masonfamily (talk · contribs) or Opp2 (talk · contribs) come to mind. The important issue is that poor English can be tolerated if the edits are so good, content-wise, that it is reasonable to expect somebody else will be willing to correct them. Where this is not the case (for instance because the edits are all unsourced, or tendentious, or particularly trivial), poor English edits may become a net damage to the project. Another problem can occur when people with very limited English skills persistently engage in POV disputes, but lack the competence to uphold a meaningful debate, or their edits degrade article quality in an article that is already prone to edit-wars for POV reasons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Dyslexia?Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    No, that is not what I meant to bring up; dyslexia is another matter.
    What I have seen for years now, in a couple of cases, is Swedish editors (2 in particular) who do not want to hear about any problems with their English, continue to contribute Swenglish which you have to know Swedish (how many of us do?) to comprehend or even to be able to correct, and who intend to go on doing so no matter how diplomatically we ask them to be more careful. One is extremely demonstrative about h. right do do that and has "near-native level" about h. English on h. Swedish user page, which is way off base.
    Thank you all very mich for this balanced and valuable input! SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    PS This is particularly helpful.
    And here is one concrete example. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    One of those reversals of h.'s was in response to my edit summary here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be me but I prefer any to several. As to unkowable, it is an english wrod. I am not sure there is anything here to look at. Can you give an example of actualy bad English.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Any" is correct if there were none; "several" if there was at least one, I believe. Yes "unknowable" exists but it is inappropriate here as also POV-related, whereas "unknown" is neutral and accurate.
    Latest examples: here and here and "If there were any Swedish monarchs named Eric before Eric the Victorious is unknown" here. Have corrected h. many many times but feel less and less motivated to keep that up because of unconstructive attitude bordering om disruptive. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Any V's several then is a content dispute (based on whether or not there was at least one Eric before Eric), so I susgest that that is taken to the talk page. As to your otehr example, yes that is bad English, but yours seems a bit iff too in places ((unless you are accusing them of being spiratualy disruptive?). I would (for example) point out that several means more then one, but you are claiming that there was at least one (not several). So the passage as you have writen it is incorrect as well.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You asked about "any" on that article's talk page - thank you! - and I have replied there. H. has claimed that "any" "several" is incorrect English, that's the problem addressed here, not the content.
    What is "spiratualy disruptive" (I'm not being facetious, I don't know the term)?SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I will admit that I was taking the piss a little, I was pointing out an error in one of your posts here where you write "om disruptive", in order to illustrate why we should not go about reporting users for bad English. Which is H your differances seem to refer to user:Andejons and he seems to be saying that any is the correct English not that its not.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Om! Thanx for that - a sense of humor will save our lives!
    Sorry! You're right - I meant "several" as the word he labeled incorrect where he wantes "any".
    Are you an administrator? (I'm not being facetious there either, but I had hoped to involve at least one adiministrator here - that's the only reason I posted this). SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    NO, but as you are at 3RR and this seems more content dispute then disruption I think that one showing up might not be that good.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What is "3RR"? SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you mean the three revert rule I honestly don't see how that applies here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators please note: I have not accused anyone of disruptive editing, and that was not the reason I started this discussion. I do feel that 1-2 known editors' attitudes about correct English and their text contributions according to that attitude, are beginning to border on disruptive. This is not a debate about article content but about the claims of some editors with limited English that their English is near perfect; their faulty edits along those lines; their linguistically incompetent complaints about the correct English of others; and the problem in general as identified above at the start. If that is not still clear, I may be at fault for wandering into side matters that do not stick explicitly to the more exact section subject. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Woodzing is a bit of a besserwisser (aren't we all?) - this was a funny comment on this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Use of blatant Swenglish is definitely a concern; I encounter it fairly frequently as well. There are two issues involved: first, that many Swedes (not all, but many) have an inflated sense of their own ability to speak or write perfect English, because most Swedes have sufficient English to communicate with English-speakers - which obviously doesn't imply a perfect grasp of the language. Second, Swedish and English are sufficiently closely related to fool speakers of one language into thinking that the other language is pretty much the same, only with different words. That is not at all the case, because there are many important differences in sentence structure and other grammatical features, as well as a lot of false friends in the vocabularies of the two languages. (Btw, the reason I feel reasonably competent to comment on this is that I am a native speaker of Swedish, and I teach English grammar at university level in Sweden. I don't claim native competence in English, but I do consider my English to be sufficient for most purposes in Wikipedia.) Competence in English is a sore point with many Swedes, though, so there is unfortunately real potential for making people upset. While I'm not particularly good at handling conflicts (and am not an administrator), I could try helping out, because I do have some experience in explaining English grammar to Swedes. No guarantees that it will work, mind. --bonadea contributions talk 14:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Along those lines, I can say it's true, non-native speakers of any language can easily misunderstand their successes with informal conversation or writing as meaning they can write that language at a native level, or even speak it at levels needed in, say, meaningful business or technical settings. Syntax, cognates, even idiom often don't quite make the jump between two given languages, so even if one has thousands of vocabulary words at their beck and call, along with knowing how to conjugate lots of verbs, the outcome can still be fraught with glitches, gaps and wrong meanings which thoroughly thwart understanding and flow. Even native speakers must at least be aware of their audience and may need or want to shift their usage to get whatever outcome they hope for from other native speakers. Long tale put too short, understanding is easier than rendering and there are reasons why skilled translators into a given language are almost always native speakers of that language. Vladimir Nabokov was very Russian, but he could write such slick English because he grew up speaking it at home, from babyhood, along with Russian and French. Our brains are hard-wired, so to speak, for language, but a language has to be soaked up at an early age. There's a cut-off age for by far most folks, I've forgotten what it is, say seven or eight at the latest, after which, if one isn't already fluently speaking a language, one will more or less never speak that language at what most would take as a native level. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Bonadea and Gwen! I have never been anywhere near as pleased, with any response to anything I have been involved in at Wikipedia in all the years I've been contributing, as I am with your two replies. Thank you so very much for every word you wrote! So well written, intelligently understood and accurately described.
    This matter is extremely important to me, for readable text, and it's nice to know two people now who understand. I feel today like I have a couple of allies in this matter at last, and I truly cherish the thought, after such a long time of feeling very lonely about it.
    For Bonadea and me (who know Swedish) it is valuable to know somebody who can assess text at times (if we then may impose on Gwen), where it may be necessary to run something by a reader who does not know Swedish to determine whether or not it is comprehensible at all to non-Swedes. Thus we may be able to get a few contributors to take the problem more seriously and be more careful. That, of course, is my objective with this.
    Both of you are probably better at wording things like this that I am, for example in my attempt to explain my attitude and worries about some of the problem on my own talk page in a section called What is phonetic empathy?.
    Do you think Wikipedia's good essay on competence covers this matter - Poor English - fully enough to be really helpful?
    Thank you again! Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    When you can write like this: [4], [5], you'll be awarded the "excellence in proper English writing" barnstar by Jimbo. Count Iblis (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    ??? Sorry, I don't get it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Some non native English speaking Europeans are known to use (or very much misuse) way too much slang, contractions and idiom (which they've picked up in English language Internet pop culture and movies, which swarm the continent) when they try to write English, such as in those links. I think that's what Iblis may have been getting at. Don't even get me started on non native English speakers trying to use the word fuck. Ouch. It's as bad as an Aussie trying to cuss like she does in Oz, but in French, in Paris. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a Brit living in the US, don't get me started on language issues... – ukexpat (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oy! Mind the gap! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Worsening talk page abuse at Talk:Aspartame controversy

    There are two major current problems at Talk:Aspartame controversy (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs): accusations of conflict of interest and general talk page abuse. The issue of conflict of interest accusations was discussed here (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive652#Ongoing accusations of conflict of interest) and things have gone downhill. Since then, the tone had been maintained by
    Immortale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)—(accusation, advisory and rejecting AGF)— and
    TickleMeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)—accusation, other disruptive claims. These are cold and the editors are currently inactive. They are mentioned to show the duration of the problem and how the tone was set for other editors who have recently picked up the banner:


    Jmpunit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) accusation and advice
    Arydberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) accusation and advice — failure to assume good faith

    The latter has been flooding the page with claims, but nothing constructive that could ever be used in the article, despite numerous warnings about talk page abuse. Warnings on his page and in response to his posts (see User talk:Novangelis/Archive 1#Re aspartame controversy editing for diffs and third party involvement) have gone unheeded. It is established that he knows how to ask for help on his talk page even if it is only about concern of who might generate a block, not why. If talk page guidelines had been instilled successfully, we would not have seen a challenge to debate the issue.

    He was told that if he wanted to rewrite the article he could do so on his talk page. Instead, he used the article talk page to rewrite a section, then a detailed critique was demanded by Jmpunit, and promptly rejected by Arydberg. As a final example, he posted a conference announcement in French and was told it was not a reliable source. Rather than move on, he reposted it with a machine translation.

    The talk page mushroomed to almost 200kB (I just tweaked the archiving gently, so it decreased a bit) with little to show; the useful content is hard to find amid the postings of links followed by explanations of WP:RS, and the accusations followed by WP:TPA/WP:AGF. I'm not going to claim to be a saint. I recognize that I've been curt or even snippy at times and responded on the page (rather than user talk) more than I should have, but no one on the page seems to be able to get basic policies to be followed. The ongoing accusations of COI probably have been contributing to the rejection of the policy advisories—experienced editors are undercut when perceived as "shills". I'm hoping that some outside admin involvement can reign things in. Some semblance of order needs to be restored to the page. Thank you.Novangelis (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Warning left for soapboxing. This is clearly past the acceptable advocacy level here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that this page is covered by the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions, and was preparing to submit this to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. If GWH's warning suffices, though, I am satisfied and will forbear. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's something I've collected to show the extent of the problem:

    Articles
    User(s)/socks .. (are we actually only dealing with maybe two people)....and EXTREMELY good examples of SPAs
    Boards, SPIs, discussions

    I don't know how much it helps, but it shows where to start digging. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ticklemeister's parting shot is worth noting: I'm taking a very long break from fighting the PR men. In spite of everything, he still assumes bad faith in a blockable manner. I don't think he should be allowed back. Just lock the door. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a response from Arydberg.Novangelis (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If Arydberg's 'goodbye' is genuine, then this thread may have served its purpose. If he returns to continue his previous line of argument at Talk:Aspartame controversy, then a 24-hour block for disruption may be needed. Our article talk pages are not open to endless soapboxing by people who aren't paying attention. EdJohnston (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    After that was deleted, he then repeated it, with more, here. He's basically canvassing for support and hopes that Kingoomieiii will help him. Sigh... A 24 hr. block is far too little. Give him at least a month considering he's been wasting the time of numerous editors for more than that. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    LMFAO! A brilliant reply. Read the whole paragraph. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that message wasn't so funny at 3 AM. --King Öomie 18:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The goodbye was not very durable.Novangelis (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A number of editors are soapboxing on these articles, pushing a fringe view, which is disruptive. They have also accused other editors of being paid by the manufacturers of Aspartame. TFD (talk) 05:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    98.149.114.34 (talk) has added to the list of COI accusers with this edit and adds a previously discussed blog link which currently is discussed in its own section on the current active page.Novangelis (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record: When critique was "demanded" by me I was referring to TFD's comment not to Arydberg's. Also I am not a "Sock" nor do I collaborate with anyone else; the link that says "note" refers to a message on Ticklemeister's page which was a response to a message he/she left on my page. The title of this section should be "Aspartame Controversy: NPOV issues" rather than its present title as many of the editors that are mentioned here including myself (and others) believe that the Aspartame Controversy article is mostly one sided. When an editor brings a source that could be used in the article that challenges this bias it is immediately shot down in a rude and arrogant way (the talk pages will confirm this). I and others have even asked that the NPOV tag be placed on the article to reflect this and an edit war began: when one would put the tag up another would take it down. Many of the users brought up here are frustrated at the lack of cooperation and lack of willingness of others to work together on this page. I feel this is far more disruptive than the above issues that are mentioned.Jmpunit (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, when the critique was given, you shot back with "Nope" and refused to explain. --King Öomie 18:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:WikiProject United States

    This page is in the middle of an RFC discussing the role of WPUS and its relationship to other WikiProjects. It is the subject of an ANI last week.

    We are getting closer to resolution, and have agreed to seek mediation. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-01-26/WT:WikiProject United States. However, a few hours ago, one editor unilaterally changed the mission paragraph on the project page diff, which I have reverted diff. It would be helpful to put the project page under full protection until the discussion is concluded. I would hope that we could talk things out in the RFC instead of engage in an edit war. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Not true. Nobody has agreed to seek mediation. Racepacket, apparently without notifying anybody else discussing the issues, made a unilateral request.
    As far as the allegation that the article was "unilaterally changed", there was a clear consensus for the change. Seven people spoke in favor of the language and only Racepacket opposed it. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#A More Modest Proposal
    I notified the discussion that I felt consensus was reached and nobody disagreed. Racepacket in this edit [6] acknowledges the situation and asked for an extension of time for others to participate until 11:00 pm last night. The change was made after Racepacket's requested deadline.
    This request is frivolous and an attempt to game the system. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    However, before 11 p.m. I left this and this and then he retracted it with this so there was no agreement and no attempt to incoporate the changes listed when he edited the main page. I think that full protection would be helpful. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The sole dissenting voice continuing to express his dissent does not represent a change in the clear consensus. The issue of the "Scope" material was never part of the proposal adopted by consensus and I made that clear. We can certainly continue to discuss this additional issue, but that is no reason why language agreed to by consensus should not be added now.
    Racepacket TODAY made a request (see [7] that says, "I know that you are trying to be helpful, but please let's keep the discussion on the talk page until we get consensus, and let's give everyone at least 24 hours to comment before we assume that any draft is acceptable to the group." Seems like this is a clear indication that absent any new parties joining the discussion (or current participators changing their support) in the section "A More Modest Proposal" at this time tomorrow the consensus language should be restored. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two "camps" of editors who have invested a lot of time in discussing this. At least one editor in the "narrow scope" camp has been chased off with incivility. Another has made helpful suggestions that I incorporated into proposals that were made after North Shoreman's. It is clear that North Shoreman's proposal is confusing as to what it is intended to replace, and at least two other proposals have been advanced since his. Since his proposal has been overtaken by events, it is disruptive to claim that he has more "votes" on his and therefore it is the "consensus." The concerns being raised by the "narrow scope" camp are not trivial, and it is better to reach a clear understanding now than to wikilawyer the contradictory language for years to come. If the page is fully protected, we can avoid future misunderstandings about "consensus" because an uninvolved administrator, and not North Shoreman, would be making the call. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're trying to make this over complicated. A proposal was made -- seven people support it -- one person opposes it. The two subsequent proposals (See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#A further revised proposal and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#Consolidating the two above proposals) received no support and very little interest, hardly a sign that the consensus proposal "has been overtaken by events." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Since knowone has actually said that it should not be done and since there was consensus with the project members (Racepacket just didn't like it) I reverted Racepackets reversion of Toms change. Its still in the history though so if need be it can be recalled again later. I personally feel that this is pointless and represents forumshopping by Racepacket as a means of continuing to Fillibuster the discussion on the talk page. The bottom line that needs to be addressed here is:

    Does a project have the right for its members to set their own scope or should Wikipedia allow a minority of editors out side that project to force a scope upon them restricting what they will do?

    --Kumioko (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Response Kumioko's question was answered in the prior ANI where several admins explained to him that there is no rigid WikiProject membership. Here is he is defending the participation rights of someone who agrees with him even though he joined this month, while attacking me (who has been leaving comments since November) as a "non-member." Racepacket (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I just noticed that Racepacket with this edit [[8]] of the discussion page deliberately changed the language of my proposal to alter the record of both the discussion of the proposal and to make it appear as if the consensus had been achieved for different language than it actually was. Seems like a clear indication of bad faith. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As a fellow member of the WikiProject, I believe Racepacket to have behaved abominably. He has not only challenged consensus several times and attempted to force a proposal very few, if any at all, have supported. In addition, he has filled the project talk page with so much banter as to render it unnavigable. I think that it's perfectly acceptable for Tom to have reverted the edit in question, and also for another admin to close the discussion in favor of North Shoreman's proposal, which has 7-1 consensus. With regard to Racepacket, editing restrictions may be in order Purplebackpack89 16:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Response As I noted on the talk page, this was an inadvertent deletion which was quickly caught and fixed and not a bad faith edit. WP:AGF Racepacket (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Another reason why full page protection is needed is that there are a lot of games being played. As noted above, I asked North Shoreman if problem language under the "Scope" heading would be deleted. He said yes, and I responded that we were close. He then said that I was misquoting him and that the deletion was not a part of his proposal. Since starting this ANI, and after breaking up the near consensus by insisting the language must be kept, they deleted it. If someone "votes" over the next 24 hours, is it on the basis of it being in or out? Full protection is needed until we can pin down an agreement. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Still not true. That language was in a separate section of the main page of the project and was NEVER subject of my proposal. After all, my proposal was a counter to both your original and first revised proposals -- all we had ever discussed was the modification of a single paragraph and it was NEVER part of your proposals until the very last minute to include this other section. In any event, the entire issue is moot since this separate section has been deleted. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you were not following the discussion. For example, see this diff where I took your proposal, combined it with the later suggestions from other users and asked for responses. The question is whether we will all agree to the deletion on the talk page, or whether someone will quickly change his mind about this next week, as has been the case repeatedly in this WikiProject. Racepacket (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The bottom line is that nobody accepted your proposal, did they? And your proposal was made AFTER there was a clear consensus for my proposal. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your response doesn't hold up under the facts Racepacket fro reasons explained by Tom on the projects talk page. Also, why are you know talking about full page protection? Where did that come from. There is no reason for full page protection. It is already semi protected so that only established editors can edit it and that is sufficient. Most of the editors in this discussion who disagree with you are not admins and wouldn't even be able to edit the page (Me, Tom and Purple in particular). This suggestion IMO is just another way for you to control these discussions in an attempt to push your POV and it needs to stop. Quite trying to game the system! Also per a reply at one of the other forums you left comments on here answers the question about who owns the articles, who can tag what and what say projects have over what articles can be tagged by other articles. Here is a direct quote copy and pasted from that guide for clarification "A WikiProject's members have the exclusive right to define the scope of their project, which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project. Similarly, if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner." This statement pretty much sums up the discussion that has drug out for months in endless debate. Racepacket, if you want to change policy then do so but stop this nonsense so we can get back to editing articles! YOUR ACTIONS are hurting the 'pedia. --Kumioko (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This Wikiproject has been around for four years. On October 12, 2010, User Kumioko, without prior discussion adds "The project generally considers any article related to the United States of America to be within its direct scope. People who actively work on such articles have a right to a civil discussion about his unilateral decision to dramatically expand the scope of the project and to contact 2400 user talk pages and 211 other WikiProject talk pages. We need to talk about the scope in an organized way and reach an understanding without resorting to a protracted edit war. Full page protection will help by having admins review consensus, because consensus does not equate to WikiBullying. Racepacket (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The language that you are so upset about is gone. I told you that above but you continue to harp on it. Here [[9]] is the diff. Its removal was possible after we added the consensus language that made this other language unnecessary
    We talked about the scope in an organized way. You made four proposals that received little support. I made one proposal that received consensus support with only you dissenting. Time to move on. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Go back and see all the changes that were proposed by a number of users in response to your proposal. That is why Kumioko and I each posted another proposal in response. An hour ago, I have also posted a detail response to each of your questions on the WT:WPUS page. The question here is whether someone can protect the Project page or whether we are going to shift from discussion on the talk page to resolving this by a series or hard-to-follow edits on the Project page. I do appreciate the deletion of the problematic language, and do appreciate calling my attention to passages in the WikiProject Guide (which is not a guideline or policy). However, I still believe the best solution is to work this out to agreement on the talk page and then take the final result to the Project page, rather than shift from discussion to a long editing process on the Project page. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true. The WikiProject Guide is clearly labelled as a guideline. Perhaps now that you understand this, you will stop making claims that are contradicted by these guidelines.
    The reference to "a long editing process on the Project page" has no relevance to this discussion. In fact, since January 23 there have been a total of four edits and only 11 in the entire month of January. People have been very good about discussing issues before editing the main page.
    The edit that I made (which initiated this complaint) was based on consensus. Your revert of this was disruptive and was properly reverted by Kumioka. Kumioka then made the non-controversial deletion of the language that you found so objectionable.
    There is nothing in this pattern of relative inactivity that warrants page protection -- all pages should run so smoothly. Time to move on. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to reiterate that to protect the main page would allow Racepacket (who is an admin) to control what changes are made because none of the main responders that disagree with him (Myself, North Shoreman and Purplebackpack) are not. I believe his suggestion is just another way for him to try and control a change he does not agree with and is innapropriate IMO. I also want to clarify that the reason WikiProject got along as he put it was because it was dormant with no activity. There was no action to object too. --Kumioko (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Is anything going to be done about this?

    This has gone on long enough. I was willing to disconnect from the project but this just encouraged Racepacket to step up his barrage if meaningless arguments and complaints. Can some admin please step forward and do something about this. Racepacket has been told by the members of the project to stop but continues to harass the project, forumshop, campaign and employ any other tactic he can think of to fillibuster and block discussions on the talk page of WikiProject United States and it needs to stop. --Kumioko (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe the reason for inaction here is that to the outsider it is not immediately clear what the dispute is about. Seriously, the first few posts in the thread above don't really explain it at all, and then it drifted off into "tl;dr". Why do people quarrel about the scope of wikiprojects? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I can certainly see that and have been contending with that myself for the past few months now. The very short background is (this discussion has been raging for three months and about 500K of words in multiple forums) that some editors including Racepacket disagreed with the scope of WPUS. The scope was rewritten and consensus was garnered and the scope implemented. Racepacket didn't like it and has added more and more discussions (many of which had nothing to do with the original complaint), has forumshopped, Campaigned, Votestacked, reverted and nearly anything else he can think of with his experience with WP policies to block or confuse discussions. I am asking for someone to ask him to move on. I am fine if he wants to participate in the project to improve content or participate in discussions but it appears that his intent is just to drag them out until any opposition gives up in frustration.
    My suggestion would be a temporary topic ban but I will leave that to someone else to decide. --Kumioko (talk)
    The problem Racepacket is presenting is described at Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building pitfalls and errors, specifically the part that links to Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Whatever may have gone on in the months before, the issues have been talked to death. We received a consensus on one issue but Racepacket has refused to accept it. Instead he tries to inject his agenda into every issue. If he were to stop editing today, all of the controversy would disappear. Rather than building consensus for his positions, he has simply created a battleground that must be intimidating to anyone else wishing to participate. Nobody else is supporting him. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User Racepacket just reported me at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. How much of this do I have to take? --Kumioko (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Future Perfect at Sunrise. This ANI thread is getting too long. The issue here is quite simple, should the Wikipedia:WikiProject United States page be fully protected to ensure that we will iron out our differences on the talk page instead of edit warring on the project page. North Shoreman has posted a proposal, and people have responded by commenting with changes. Both Kumioko and I have posted revised alternative proposals to his proposal incorporated changes. Although North Shoreman has proposed text, he gives inconsistent answers as to what the text is supposed to replace. His position is "I have the most support so I am going to declare consensus and edit the Project page, and shut down discussion." My request was based on the hope that we could fully protect the project page and get an impartial administrator to determine consensus. Although many people have concerns with the WikiProject since October, this RFC has been only widely noticed since January 23 and I left my first comment on this subject on January 22. So, I don't see it having been "talked to death."
    A completely separate question is whether Kumioko has violated WP:NPA which properly belongs at WP:WQA Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As shown above, there is no edit warring on the project page which Racepacket wants to protect. There have been a dozen edits all month, despite the overly active discussion page.
    Nobody other than Racepacket, the sole dissenting voice opposing the change, disputes that consensus was achieved. When 7 are for and 1 is against it is not even a close call. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The point here is on your conduct. The section above is for the protection level of the page which IMO is just another way for you to control the situation since you are the only one that is an admin so we (myself, tom and Purple) would be powerless to stop you. That Sir is an abuse of your admin rights.
    My revised proposal included many of the points you and others had and it was implemented. It just did not include the overly restrictive language that knowone else but you supports.
    In regards to the WikiAlert submitted on me by Racepacket it should be noted that Racepacket has explored nearly every other venue with no success so IMO this is just a desperate attempt to silence my opposition to his bullying and constent harrassment. --Kumioko (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is this admin that you say is abusing their rights exactly? --Onorem♠Dil 20:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Racepacket. At least I think hes an admin.--Kumioko (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't look like it... --Onorem♠Dil 21:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my fault I sincerely apologize I honestly thought he was. Any chance I can talk you into reviewing this issue for a temporary topic ban for a couple weeks? --Kumioko (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not an admin either, but I am a WPUS member who agrees that a topic ban is perhaps appropriate for Racepacket Purplebackpack89 21:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Could we perhaps, as a start, simply agree that everybody should just stop talking about the scope of wikiprojects? I mean, come on, seriously. What does it even matter? Who would ever care about what blurb a project page has in its header? Editors will edit whatever they like, and editors who frequent wikiproject pages will use them for discussing whatever they like, wherever they like. Who cares about any definition of a "scope"? It's all a great big piece of WP:LAME, if you ask me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with that but unfortunately there are a lot of editors who do care. --Kumioko (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It has been three days since I requested full page protection to allow us to resolve our issues on the talk page before editing on the project page. I gather that will not happen, so I am withdrawing my request for page protection and understand that we will shift to BRD where editors make changes on the project page, subject to further edits or reversions and then we go back to the talk page for discussion. I think had we stuck to the talk page, we would have been finished in a few more hours, but we are now embarking on a path that will probably take weeks or months instead. I say this from experience because it is very difficult to follow edit summaries and people editing over each other. Look at the users who have expressed concerns on the talk page not addressed by the current claim to consensus: Mudwater, Casliber, JonRidinger, Jason Quinn, Markvs88, among others. Consensus is not a matter of counting noses. Racepacket (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm uninvolved and uninterested (also not an admin) so forgive me for jumping in, but I don't think this is going to be solved here. It seems both "sides" have ended up in entrenched positions and all that's happening now is sniping. My reason for watching this page is to learn about dispute resolution, and right now this isn't teaching me anything. Might I suggest both sides take 24 hours off and concentrate their efforts elsewhere? Clearer heads might lead to a solution. --rpeh •T•C•E• 05:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-Administrator's Note As a editor who attempted to wade in and pull the 2 combatants apart during last weeks ANI thread, I reiterate my request for both editors to Drop It. Your dancing across many different pages and expressing various concerns is bordering on the line of forum shopping and beyond the point of editing collegially on a shared encyclopedia. It's obvious that this issue (and it's many underlying clauses) are so much a part of the interaction that neither side is willing to let go. I would suggest that both editors enter into a voluntary non-interaction agreement. Hasteur (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Do adminstrators normally solve problems here?

    Thinking that I know what this page is for, I have now tried to use it a couple of times (only) regarding the behavior of 1-2 other users which I found difficult, non-constructive.

    My impression is that sometimes administrators pitch in and try to help, sometimes none of them do, and you get quite a debate, mostly with non-admimistrators, quite a bit of admonishment yourself (by them), the subject changed to content disputes (which I am well aware belong on article talk pages and not here) or other issues you did not compian about, and little or no administrator help with the actual behavioral issue you tried to raise.

    Some non-administrators seem to have or assume a position which is intended to diffuse the issue, often by finding more-or-less well founded faults with the plaintiffs, so that administrators will be spared having to deal with difficult people.

    I make mistakes like we all do, and I truly appreciate constructive criticism, some of which has been very helpful, but mainly I'd like to know if I have completely misundertood what this page is for.

    Sorry if I'm perceived as difficult now (again?), especially if this turns into another massive bout of criticism of me, with little or nothing on what I'm asking.

    Is this page mainly for us to argue with other users, mostly for the sake of argument, whether or not we stick to the issues (as per original questions) brought up by users needing the assistance of administrators to solve problems they feel are serious enough to bring up here?

    If so, and given all the "edit conflicts" that make it almost impossible to use this forum at times, I wonder why we bother.

    I would like to be shown, preferably by a non-argumentative administrator or two, that I have the wrong impression about this.

    What do I (we?) need to grasp and learn here? SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we have a link to the 2 times you used it so we can see examples please? Fainites barleyscribs 22:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Forget that. I have found all the previous threads you have been involved in. Fainites barleyscribs 22:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The first second time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Poor_English.Slatersteven (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Then, you were asking a general question: "What happens to users who write English poorly?" The answer, which you got, was 'a variety of things, depending on how poor their English is and how useful their contributions are.' Today, you are also asking a general question: "Do administrators help solve problems?" The answer to that question is also, 'sometimes.' If there's a specific problem you want help solving, it helps to explain clearly who the problem editor is, with diffs of exactly what they're doing, and with a clear statement of what you'd like admins to do. I looked at a few of the diffs you gave, and I didn't see what the problem was. You said that another user was writing incomprehensible English, but the three diffs you gave were of you doing helpful minor grammar cleanups, which are appreciated, but which didn't tell me who the user is who is writing the incomprehensible English. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! So far I've learned about clearer formatting. That's helpful. Let's hope I won't need to use it. Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Koakhtzvigad

    Koakhtzvigad (talk · contribs) is engaged in Wikilawyering, filibustering, and IDONTHEARYOU behavior on the talk pages of several articles related to the Israel–Palestine conflict. His latest shtick is that he won't abide by the community consensus that was developed pursuant to WP:ARBPIA2.

    Among the pages in question are Israel and the apartheid analogy and African-American – Jewish relations.

    I would like some uninvolved administrators to review the talk pages of those articles and see whether there's a problem. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The place where attention is most needed is at Talk:African-American – Jewish relations#POV-pushing? It appears that Koakhtzvigad is planning to edit war on the terminology used in this article to refer to occupied territories:
    "Your support is irrelevant. The sources provided are unreliable. All I have said is a matter of historical fact. I'll be returning to revise the sources." Koakhtzvigad (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC).
    Previous discussions have led to the accepted terminology for occupied territory given at WP:WESTBANK. Other editors on the talk page have been urging him to follow this convention. Koakhtzvigad has been rejecting this advice, and the strong tone of his answers may be what caused Malik to post the matter here for review. EdJohnston (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    EdJohnston, you are wrong, on several counts. I suggest you read WP:WESTBANK. As for "other editors", there was one, and not very helpful.
    Malik Shabazz - this is a long statement.
    "Wikilawyering, filibustering, and IDONTHEARYOU behavior"!!! - Excuse me for breathing Malik Shabazz! My invitation to discuss on the Talk:African-American – Jewish relations was answered by this submission, which is the Wikipedia equivalent of a court! So who is WikiLawyering?
    Filibustering? Gee, would that be like in politics (...whereby a lone member can elect to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a proposal)? But as I recall this is a practice that is used to prevent change, and here you are attempting to prevent me editing an article, through initiating a groundless AN/I. Can you pick the filibusterer here?
    IDONTHEARYOU behavior? I can't hear you, but could read you, IF you were making a point. However, you use TL DR, and not me. In the case with Talk:African-American – Jewish relations, you refuse to participate in the discussion you initiated!. Instead you shoved the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(West_Bank) in front of me, which in fact doesn't deal with the case in point - i.e. a specific reference to Israeli occupation of the territory following the cessation of the 1967 war. Did you happen to read that naming convention? I'll quote it here
    • 5) When discussing specifically the administrative area of Judea and Samaria, in the context of that administration and not merely referring to a specific land area, the term "the administrative area of Judea and Samaria" or Judea and Samaria Area (with the last word capitalised as here) may be used, subject to clause 6 below, namely that it cannot be used without qualification as though it is the NPOV position.. So you started AN/I because I didn't put in the words "the administrative area of"? This is what you just couldn't discuss in the talk?
    I have news for you. Saying that I won't follow the WP:Naming conventions (West Bank) as community consensus that was developed pursuant to WP:ARBPIA2 is WikiLawyering - i.e. you seem to know WikiCASELAW better than the subject matter of the article in question. (Israel and the apartheid analogy has absolutely NOTHING to do with this, and I hadn't edited there for about a week)
    The above consensus decision was based on "The underlying naming issue is the use of the names "Judea", "Samaria" and "Judea and Samaria" for the southern, northern and entire West Bank respectively as general geographical identifiers or toponyms." geographical as I pointed out in the talk page, but you exhibited IDONTHEARYOU behavior, replying with a threat.
    What I am editing is the historical fact that after 1967 (the context of the relevant text in the article) Israel introduced military administration of the area, and that military administration used Judea and Samaria as the administrative region names. It is a fact recognised in numerous official documents, including those by the Palestinian Authority after the 1993 Oslo Accords. It can not be changed by Wikipedia censorship, because if this is done, it would constitute editing not of articles, but of pseudohistory. Wikipedai does not censor history, only records it.
    It seems to me that Malik is trying to make the purpose of Wikipedia something it is not by attempting to erase parts of Arab-Israeli conflict history. His editor conduct seems to me to be questionable due to assumptions of bad faith, harassment (though AN/I), disruptive point-making (claiming I'm POV-pushing), and gaming the system (i.e. using administrative procedures). Malik has declined to participate in the Wikipedia editorial process that encourages discussion in the first instance. Common sense would suggest that naming conventions are still subject to the content context, and not the reverse, yet this seems to have escaped Malik's notice. This is not the first time that Malik displayed a lack of Good faith and disruption of my editing, but every time he was invited to discuss, he evaded doing so. Malik Shabazz is simply disrupting the editing process without actively participating in one, seemingly because he is "too busy", but not busy enough to disrupt others. While he has used his administrative privileges to good effect in the past, it seems he is also given to occasional unjustified pursuit of editors he doesn't agree with.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had the displeasure of dealing with this user at the Israeli apartheid article. What we have here has been seen a million times, and will be seen am million more times; someone armed with "the truth" is bound and determined to bend articles towards his/her preferred version of events. Israel-Palestine, global warming, the Troubles, American politics, whatever the hot-button topic is, they're there to fight the good fight. Tarc (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there something relevant to the subject of the AN/I that you would like to express? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have clashed with this editor on B'Tselem, where he has edit-warred in an attempt to insert original research based on his own unsubstantiated interpretation of a list of the ethnic origins of people based on their names. Both there and on other articles he has adopted a highly confrontational approach, posting long and legalistic texts to talk pages,[10][11] exhibiting IDHT behaviour, belittling the contributions of other editors,[12] arguing that Wikipedia rules should not apply to him[13] and other disruptive editing. And I note that, in response to Malik's 78-word submission above, Koakhtzvigad posted a 712-word rebuttal, accusing Malik of TLDR! This editor should receive a clear warning that he is bound by the same Wikipedia rules as the rest of us regarding edit-warring, original research and civility, and that breaches will lead to sanctions. RolandR (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Koakhtzvigad, I did express something relevant to the subject of the ANI; you are a problematic editor. Tarc (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    From User:Koakhtzvigad (editing from mobile - no password to account on hand) I am fascinated how issues completely irrelevant to the question at hand are brought out to try and "pile on" supposed vices to enact a block, to prevent me from editing, the reason why Wikipedia is here.
    • RolandR, as I patiently explained before, the list came from B'Tselem's website, and since Israelis are not allowed to enter the Palestinian territories, and the names were obviously Arabic, there is virtually a 100% probabalility they are in fact residents of the Palestinian territories. However, evenually consensus was achieved, wasn't it? And, what is the point of bringing up an article where I hadn't edited for at least two weeks (even on talk)? I was blocked over the 1RR at the time because having never been blocked before I was unaware of the definition of editing, thinking it only involves creative contributions to article - something I am trying to do despite this event.
    • Tarc, I am only problematic to you because I do not support the views you hold on certain subjects. However, the subject here is the editing of African-Americans criticism of Zionism, and more specifically in the immediate period after the 1967 war. Do you have something to contribute to that? If you felt I was "problematic" before, why did you wait until now to express this?
    • EdJohnston, I know how this works. BECAUSE I have a previous "WikiCONVICTION", I should be shot now to spare the expanse of the trial :) However, my "bombastic defense" is based on trying to get the editors, namely Malik, to abide by the Arbitration decision! That decision was to define West Bank as a geographic toponym. I pointed this out in talk without bothering to use fancy WP:thisWP:that links, but Malik failed to listen.
    "the way is clear for an admin who was so inclined to issue a sanction under WP:ARBPIA" - you are actually inciting somone to block a contributing editor because you don't like his attitude? And what attitude should I have? Is wanting to edit in Wikipedia not enough anymore? Have you never before encountered editors that defend their position based on actual sources? The particular section in question is poorly sourced (article dealing with 17th century used to support events post-1967), and that is not my fault. My "fault" seems to be in attempting to edit the contents to reflect events in question rather than go along with Malik's belief in what it should say. And it was he that labled me a "POV-pusher", which seems to be OK by Wikipedia civility standards.
    Now I see that RolandR and Malik are both on the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, and Malik made a pledge to be cool, yet the four of you, insead of collaborating are fishing for a block (any excuse will do), and Malik went to AN/I at a drop of a hat! I can only suggest that you may need to review Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#Dealing_with_disputes Koakhtzvigad (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 58.178.163.234 (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Danielhill1990 and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

    Resolved
     – for now anyway. Named user and ip blocked, article PC protected. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Danielhill1990 has taken it upon himself (and presumably his IP sock prior to his logging in} to edit The Protocols of the Elders of Zion so that the article no longer claims that it's fraudulent and anti-Semitic. I see no point in furthering my reversions of his unsourced edits, and I don't think we need to have an edit war on this subject. Anybody who wants to make claims that the subject of the article is not fraudulent, and is not anti-Semitic needs to discuss the matter with reliable sources on the article's Talk page, and not just willy-nilly remove decades of research and scholarship on the subject with their own personal opinion. Corvus cornixtalk 08:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    No, you're just posting other peoples personal opinions. I'm just saying don't post opinions on Wikipedia, only facts. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielhill1990 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Danielhill1990 should be blocked as a VOA account. Almost all of their edits to articles have been the subject of warnings on their talk page. They don't really seem to be here to help build an encyclopedia, but to disrupt. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok Danielhill, let me explain a few things to you real quick:
    • If you are going to blank out large sections of an article you better have a very good reason
    • Wikipedia has an extremely low tolerance for anything that smacks of racism
    • The Protocols have in fact been widely discredited by academics as a forgery/hoax/fabrication perpetrated by anti-semites, as is evidenced at the article itself
    • Continuing to edit war on this subject can and will lead to your account being blocked. If you honestly believe you have a valid point discuss it on the talk page as you have already been reverted, meaning your changes are disputed.
    You may consider yourself warned about all of these factors, how you choose to proceed is entirely up to you. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. He now appears to have logged out to continue the edit war. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    User(s) blocked., and I added level 1 PC protection to the page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Brewcrewer and V7-sport

    Resolved
     – Being handled on talk page

    Both of these users have been edit warring at Richard A. Falk (a page under ARBPIA sanctions among other things), trying to insert a claim (in Wikipedia's narrative voice) that Falk is a 9/11 truther.[14][15] The added a heap of citations (wp:CITECLUTTER) that support various levels of truther sympathy on Falk's part, but none of which actually call him a truther. The situation seems to be that Falk is taking heat for saying the official 9/11 report has gaps and expressing admiration for some truther publications (he wrote a foreword for one of them), but he explicitly rejected the truther narrative; see the talk page[16] for more info.

    V7-sport's editing does not look very neutral in general, and s/he has a habit of incivility in edit summaries.[17][18][19]

    Brewcrewer's edits (per usertalk discussion) also have been problematic.

    Falk is in the news lately, which may be drawing the soapboxers out of the woodwork.

    Can someone have a chat with these editors? I'm not up for it at the moment. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    "9-11 truther" was originally placed in the article by another editor. I once added sources that--unlike IP's claim-- discussed his statement regarding being a "9-11 truther." Perhaps under our BLP polices it would make more sense to simply elaborate on his statement regarding 9-11 instead of simply categorizing him as a "9-11 truther." Regardless, the better forum for this discussion would be the article talk page.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There was already a thread open on the talk page when you re-inserted the label. Since you ignored it, I came here. (Sorry, I got the timestamps confused.) "Perhaps under our BLP polices it would make more sense..." is quite the understatement. That WP:SYNTH categorization (given how contentious it is, and that he disputes it, and that the sources cited don't actually label him as a truther), in the article lede even, is completely unacceptable under just about every content policy this place has. Obviously the 9/11 stuff should be discussed in the article, but without undue weight in the context of the subject's entire life, without synthesis, and with all viewpoints properly attributed rather than given in the narrative voice. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there was a thread that addressed the specific issue of the truther label in the lead on the talk page at the time Brewcrewer restored the label with additional sources. He offered to start a thread and so did I. Neither of us got around to it. You have started the thread now so I think this issue will be resolved on the talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I now see what happened. I didn't realize that your edit linked in the talk page thread was from before the talk thread started rather than after, and that made it very confusing who did what when. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Great to hear I was in an "edit war", I had no idea. My last edit was simply adding citations. A better place to discuss this would be the articles talk page. V7-sport (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Blatant block-avoiding sock

    User:Dies Orbis Terrarum Scamnum Etiam is a blatant sock of User:Vir In Scaena and User:Refragatio Est Vacuus, both blocked earlier today - PRODing "List of shopping mall" articles, many of which have survived AfD. I don't think an SPI is needed, as it is so blatant. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. I think I know who it is but I'm not sure. I also do not want to spill the beans. --Bsadowski1 13:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, and understood. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I have my suspicions too, but "mum" for now. I've also now watchlisted all "List of shopping malls" articles, and I'll revert any PRODs - unless I'm beaten to it :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    And the next one - User:Nequam Impleo Ero Pessum Ire -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Blocked. I didn't realize that he was a sock until I saw him posting on ANI, I just was drawn to this by a recent changes feed. Had I known, I would have just blocked right away. —Soap— 15:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, thanks - ironic, really, that the sock drew your attention to himself by editing here :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    All these accounts are from banned user Editor XXV (talk · contribs), who has been abusing open proxies. –MuZemike 20:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep, that's who I suspected - I remember him as User:Divebomb. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Same person I was thinking of. Thanks MuZemike for confirming. --Bsadowski1 03:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Meatpuppetry (User:Jprw)

    Page: Right-wing politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Roger Scruton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Jprw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Both these articles and their talk pages have been semi-protected due to socks of a dynamic IP, However, Jprw has been posting comments by the dynamic IP to the discussion pages despite being told that he should not do so. There is an open SPI case.[20] Furthermore the comments posted by the IP are uncivil.

    After an administrator removed the IP's comments and protected a talk page, Jprw restored the comments, saying he is "Reverting utterly unjustified censorship"[21] and removed the semi-protection template, writing "This now not needed".[22]

    Jprw had restored the IP's comments earlier:

    • "Stop censoring people who do not agree with you or who have thought more deeply about this issue than you have"[23]
    • "(Undoing blanking by The Four Deuces. It may not be convenient for your methods to be exposed on this talk page but it is important for other editors to be aware of them and hear both sides"[24]

    After Talk:Roger Scruton was semi-protected, Jprw posted the IP's remarks to the talk page.[25] When they were removed he restored them, writing, "reinstating unjustly censored entry".[26]

    Furthermore the IP's comments that were posted by Jprw are offensive.

    • "What a truly nasty woman." (referring to another editor)
    • "This may make you uncomfortable, and you would prefer that it was not the case, but if the aim is truth rather than deception, ignorance is no defence."

    Jprw also retains comments by the IP on his talk page and enters into discussion with him.

    Jprw should be blocked until he agrees not to help the IP with block evasion.

    TFD (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Forum shopping -- reported at SPI with obvious negative results. Posting here is not warranted. "Meat puppetry" is a specific allegation, and where no evidence was educed before to make the specific alegation, I doubt that this report avails a lot. Collect (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Proxying for users who were prevented from posting on a talk page for fairly good reasons is not a good idea, whether it's actually meatpuppetry or not. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been a problem for some time, and I've considered opening a thread about it too. Jprw is repeatedly proxying for someone who posts from dynamic IPs that geolocate to the ISP Tiscali in the north of England—including Yorkshire, Leeds, Scunthorpe, and Nottingham. There is a list of the known IPs here, if you open up the extended content.
    There is a suspicion that it's banned Yorkshirian (talk · contribs), but I'm not familiar with Yorkshirian so I don't know how justified that suspicion is. The IP (I call him the "right-wing politics IP") focuses on Right-wing politics and Roger Scruton. He has caused problems by adding plagiarism, and by liberally insulting anyone who disagrees with him, calling other editors liars, stupid, bigots, and so on. The plagiarism on one article was so extensive that it had to be deleted and rewritten; see discussion here. Several articles and talk pages have had to be semi-protected because of him, and at least one range block put in place.
    Jprw invariably defends him, attacks editors using the same language, and restores the IP's personal attacks. Jprw has edited logged out, and the IP he edited from resolved to a different country, so there's no technical evidence suggesting they're one person. But Jprw is without question proxying for the IP, and the restoration of the personal attacks has been quite disruptive. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 03:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SyberGod

    Resolved
     – user indef blocked again by Fetchcomms. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor has been disruptive for a long time and i dont know what else to do with him. He was blocked as a newbie for trolling and personal attacks, but was unblocked and given a second chance. Since then he has got himself blocked again for edit warring. He then claimed he was going away from wikipedia because he was not ready to debate with dumb cry babies like me. But he hasn't and has stayed to cause more disruption. When someone reverts his poorly thought out edits, he immediately retaliates by reverting their edits with dubious rationale.

    Example 1 - he follows me around and reverts my revert of an unsourced addition and inserts content with the edit summary no source

    Example 2 - when administrator Kinu removed a fair use image from his userpage, he followed Kinu and reverted a content rewording in retaliation with edit summary as "no source"

    Since then, he has been edit warring in multiple articles, attacking other editors (including me) in Afd pages. Now he is back to edit warring to add the same content which resulted in a 3rr block for him. When another editor advised him not to edit war against consensus, he claims he doesn't care whoever opposes and says he will continue to add the content.

    The latest retaliatory edit was today for reverting him. He undid my addition of a geotag and advised me to "stop crying everywhere".

    I have given up trying to reason with this editor. Can someone do something? Previous blocks and warnings [27] [28] have done nothing to change his behaviour--Sodabottle (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    And the response for the ANI notice was "blah blah blah , i don't care"--Sodabottle (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We've got an issue of WP:COMPETENCE at multiple levels; when presented with academic sources/books, he says "no point arguing with some ####, no books , come up with multiple reliable links", removes maintenance tags and page protection tags from pages without any comment, removes sourced content he doesn't like etc etc. —SpacemanSpiff 17:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think there is enough for an indef-block? I am sitting on the fence here. --Diannaa (Talk) 18:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reason I didn't bring this to ANI earlier (and Sodabottle beat me to it) was that I was hoping that something would change, but it appears to be highly unlikely at this point. (Oh, and I'm also WP:INVOLVED in this case) —SpacemanSpiff 18:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like the "nothing against wikipedia rules , added clear sources , i don't care whoever opposes" which he put on a message about Tendulkar earlier on his talk page. Has any formal mentoring been offered? Is this the first time the user has been advised that he could face editing sanctions for his attitude? I think both these avenues need to be fully explored before we do anything like block him. S.G.(GH) ping! 18:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    SyberGod also proudly declares on his userpage that "I believe copyright is shit, copying is never a crime." That kind of attitude won't work on Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 18:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He's been blocked twice before, and has had plenty of warnings - he's blanked archived them all from his Talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    See this version. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Since he blanks his talk page, it's difficult to see the communication history, but his unblock note from Floquenbeam was pretty elaborate. —SpacemanSpiff 18:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Good eye, SpacemanSpiff. I am not happy when people forge admin signatures Sorry, I misread what happened --Diannaa (Talk)
    Just a minor point: saying that he blanks his talk page sounds a bit negative given that he actually archives it. --rpeh •T•C•E• 18:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And in response to Diana's appeal to respond more seriously we get sarcasm "so how do i respond this guy sodabottle , "sorry sodabottle i didn't meant to hurt you , i know you kind of like reverting , but i believe reverts are not good contributions , please don't follow me everywhere i go on wikipedia and revert as much as you like" is this how i should reply @ Diannaa ?--Sodabottle (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    multiple(edit conflict)s: Dianaa -- I didn't see any forgery going on, am I missing something? Sorry for the blanking note, that was an error on my part -- struck now. —SpacemanSpiff 18:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I was wrong about that, so sorry. --Diannaa (Talk) 18:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, sorry about my blanking note too - I hadn't spotted the archive. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    on 1st block who on wikipedia would support a page about a site supporting and selling hidden cam contents ?

    i was blocked for opposing criminal sites Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exbii and called vandalism only account !

    great start !

    on 2nd block

    reverted by people opposing sachin's fan following content

    people here are more involved in reverting,deleting and blocking than good contributions

    and is archiving called blanking here ?

    SyberGod (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think an indef is called for because the user in question doesn't really seem to understand why he or she was blocked previously or what the real problem is now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You may be right unfortunately. There seems to be competence and behavioural issues; someone who tells people to STFU within days of their arrival might not be one of the people who gets it. --Diannaa (Talk) 18:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    when wikipedia admins too wanted the criminal content to stay ! how do i react ? SyberGod (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This event happened in November; perhaps the more recent behavior should be examined instead --Diannaa (Talk) 19:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that the events in November and the most recent events are related. They show a complete lack of knowledge of how Wikipedia works, or the slightest interest in learning how. Assuming good faith, perhaps there is some kind of language barrier. Or maybe it's on purpose. In any case, there should be either an understanding by the editor before editing again(instructed by a member who wants to take the time), or a block until he does 'get it'. Otherwise these issues will continue over and over. Dave Dial (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    now or early , not commenting on that means wikipedia supports such activities and doesn't see the harm in it , my recent behavior is not bad as this !!! SyberGod (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    He still doesnt get the difference between wikipedia having an article on an site allegedly containing illegal material and wikipedia endorsing that site. He has shown multiple times he is unwilling to learn and will retaliate at anyone trying to correct him. Every time he is warned or advised, he goes straight to the other editors recent contributions and reverts something in retaliation. How much more do we have to put up with this guy. For every good contribution he makes, he compensates with 7 or 8 personal attacks/disruption and trolling. If we let him off now, i bet he will be back to his old habits in no time. Block this guy before he wastes more of our time--Sodabottle (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    who is the one bringing friends to escape multiple reverts of content and claiming revert rules to get me blocked ! there are many instances i spotted this guy doing such things ! kind of ruling a page with a team ! SyberGod (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for RfC close

    Not strictly an admin function, but could someone close this RfC: Talk:Gokkun#RFC on Image Inclusion? It's old and has gone fallow, but it would be worthwhile to have decision one way or the other (or no consensus). It's long and was contentious, and thanking in advance anyone who volunteers to do this. Herostratus (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? Herostratus (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I looked at doing a non-admin close, but chose not to. I think it's pretty clearly no consensus. I personally think the right answer is to find a better picture. But that too will be gross as heck. Hobit (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A pluton sock

    Per this practically incomprehensible post to my talk page, would someone please block the self-admitted sock User:A pluton sock? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:AIV Backlog

    Could an admin take a look at AIV, it has been in backlog for a few. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    121.72.205.214 is vandalizing?

    121.72.205.214 on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matsubayashi-ryū regularly removes verified and referenced information and refused to enter the discussion board to resolve his issues. What more needs to be said, except what can be done about this? you can't go into dispute resolution, because he refused to discuss.

    at a minimum he should have to enter the discussion board or refrain from making changes.

    Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.172.177.210 (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Mario!... But our Princess is in another castle! —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 23:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I requested semi-protection, but it was declined - I've asked for reconsideration. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone65: Violation of 3RR under aggravated circumstances

    Please pardon my diffs, I'm not good with archives. Asking for sanctions against Someone65 (talk · contribs) for this 3RR, in order to prevent further damage, due to the following circumstances.

    1. Violation of 3RR: These reverts on January 30th to replace material I was trying to correct. In fact, you will notice some portions were reverted four times today by Someone65.

    2. Note the misleading edit summaries on the most recent reverts, this is part of a pattern of misleading edit summaries.

    3. History of destructive edits followed by denials and attempts at deception.

    • Here Someone65 executed a mass rename of "Islamic" articles to "Caliphate" articles. When called out, the editor claims authority under an RFC/U the editor was not associated with. This ended the same day in sanctions for Someone65 due to apparent unrelated sockpuppetry.
    • Here, the editor becomes frustrated and attacks an article I was working on previously, for purposes of revenge. Again, no responsibility is taken. This incident ended in sanctions due to misrepresentation and retaliation. Note in this ANI Someone65 is complaining about the same person who is currently the subject of abuse from this editor.

    4. Insulting, demeaning, wiki-threatening dialog directed against another editor on their talk page. Outside the bounds of civility. Here, near the end of the section, Someone65 feels compelled to remind Imadjafar he has forgotten Islam rejects the bible. A provocative allegation against the religion of other editors.

    5. Tendentious editing: Someone65 repeatedly cycles through a pattern of aggressive editing, with misrepresentative edit summaries and few sources. This will eventually lead to an incident where the editor denies responsibility for their actions. After enforcement actions are taken against the editor, things will go along quietly for a while, punctuated by requests for additional administrative authority and editing on a broadened range of topics. Eventually, though, it will lead to another incident in the Islamic articles. The current 3RR violation stems from the dispute in December which ended in sanction for the editor.

    Aquib (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The Tausch deletion from the English language pages of Wikipedia

    Resolved
     – Go to WP:DRV Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the decision is absolutely not unjustified. To throw out from the pages of Wikipedia's English edition someone whose works were published or re-published in 7 languages and 28 countries is a nonsense. Let us take first of all the claim that the Tausch work has been reflected not sufficiently enough in the peer-reviewed journals of the world. Here is the list of the major peer reviewed journals of the world, which refer to the works he authored or to which he contributed:

    see User:Hichem Khaldoun/Tausch list

    So, the decision to delete is simply unjustified. Hichem Khaldoun (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)User Hichem Khaldoun[reply]

    WP:DRV is where you need to move this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've moved the long list to User:Hichem Khaldoun/Tausch list to keep things manageable. As suggested, you may wish to consider whether Wikipedia:Deletion review is a more appropriate way to raise this issue. Adambro (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin misusing rollback

    Resolved
     – Edits explained, nothing untoward going on. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If I'm not mistaken, administrators are held to the same standards as non-admins and are bound to the proper use of rollback. Stephen (talk · contribs) has frequently misused rollback ([29], [30], [31], [32], and most recently [33]). While the later two fall under "To revert edits in your own user space", in the other diffs Stephen has not shown understanding of rollback and continues to misuse it when undoing good faith changes. Is this a cause for concern, or does this happen everyday? Goodvac (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I couldn't see the third diff, but really, rollback (by my understanding) should only be used for vandalism not to make reverts in userspace easier. That's what "undo" or TWINKLE's "rollback" buttons are for. But the first two, they strike me as being a misuse of rollback. The second one is clearly a misuse cause the article proves what profession that person works in. Recommend a stern warning and then removal if it continues. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Removal of what? You can't remove rollback from an admin without desysopping. Pedro :  Chat  10:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Rollback can be used to make reverts in one's own userspace - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, it was by my understanding. I never use it for userspace stuff. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What gives with the first diff [34] - something can't have stayed as a "db" since 2007; what am I misreading? Pedro :  Chat  10:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The examples of this in article space do, at face value, seem to be using rollback where a regular undo would be more appropriate. I'd suggest to Stephen that he take more care with this tool in the future (and, of course, to leave edit summaries). However, I don't see any discussion of this on Stephen's talk page - it would have been better to have (politely) raised it there in the first instance and only escalated to this forum if it had proved necessary. Including diffs in an ANI report of actions which you yourself say is not a violation of any policy is also rather pointless. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was deleted in 2007, history restored in 2010 and the last edit with the db tag was reverted. —SpacemanSpiff 10:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nick, it was raised at Stephen's talk page, but he reverted that too (here) - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The first one (Spira) was me restoring an article after 3 years or so, and then reverting the tag that had been applied 3 years earlier. The second was reverting an edit warring user who had just been blocked for a legal threat. The third was a slip to revert a speedy tag by Goodvac. The fourth and fifth were reverts to my user space which are specifically allowed, (the fifth being reverting a warning by Goodvac for an error which I hadn't realised.) Apologies to all concerned, I will endeavour to avoid my finger slippage in the future. Stephen 11:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "My finger slipped": classic defense ;) -- œ™ 11:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So, nothing more to do here, right? This can just be archived? NW (Talk) 14:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Finger slippage is well within administrative discretion. Thincat (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Finger slippage occurred only when you were viewing my edits? Quite odd, but I'm willing to let this go. Feel free to close this discussion. Goodvac (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    user:PANONIAN MAP issues, canvassing

    There seem to be some issues with MAPs created by User:PANONIAN, more and more people notice the maps being questionable. It seems, PANONIAN has a unique view in NPOV as far as maps go.

    By the Wikimedia Commons policy, POV disputes like this one are solved in the way that each of the sides upload its own file with preferred descriptions, but original file usually remains in accordance with point of view of original uploader, which would be me in this case. So, I heard your point of view, I do not agree with it, and I do not agree with any change in original files. So, please, do not disturb me with this any more - just draw and upload your own map and use it where ever you want or pick another one from category in Wikimedia Commons. Ok? PANONIAN 21:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

    According to this he is free to make any extremely POV maps, and by commons policy, it doesn't matter how POV it is, because the "POV of the original uploader is what usually" matters? Is there any truth to this? I thought all material was GDFL and freely editable by anyone and there is no such thing as special rights retained over material that is already contributed under GDFL. This is crucial because this can lead to major POV pushing campaigns on Wikipeda.

    A long discussion on POV pushing issues in PANONIAN's maps is here.

    Another issue is canvassing by PANONIAN. He proposed a request for move and contacted several people after in an effort to slant the result. He contacted fourteen people total, you can check the full list here [35]. Is this allowed? Hobartimus (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hobartimus, it is fair to inform an editor when you file a report against him. The policies say it clearly: "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion." (Iaaasi (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    PANONIAN was notified. Would you mind telling the admins how did YOU find this post a few minutes after it was written and formatted? Hobartimus (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You notified PANONIAN only after I've reminded you that informing the accused party is a must. You did not at least say "thanks" for my help
    And to answer your question: I have this noticeboard on my watchlist(Iaaasi (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    Answer: First of all, maps that we speak about are located in Wikimedia Commons and English Wikipedia is not right place where accuracy of such maps should be discussed. Second, info in these maps is sourced and the only POV problem with these maps is personal opinion of one Wikipedia user that different terminology should be used there. However, as I already pointed out, these maps are located in Wikimedia Commons and issues related to them should be discussed there (as for my comment about policy in Wikimedia Commons related to POV disputes, I was informed by administrators in Wikimedia Commons that the proper way of solving disputes of two parties about one file is that each of the parties upload its own file. It is exactly how Wikimedia Commons administrators solved my dispute with user Mladifilozof where I had to upload my file version under different name and version created by user Mladifilozof remained in original file since he was original uploader). I am not aware that there is recent change in this Wikimedia Commons policy, and, as I said, my maps are sourced and objections raised against them are related to personal POV opinion of one Wikipedia user, not to general problems with their accuracy. Third, user Hobartimus trying to post all kinds of accusations against me for years attempting to discredit me. The true issue that should be examined by English Wikipedia administrators is behaviour of user Hobartimus who is involved in constant revert warring with multiple users, trying to push Greater Hungarian nationalistic POV. I was not very active in English Wikipedia for long time and I do not see that my recent behavior is violation of Wikipedia rules. I do not think that informing other users about ongoing voting is violation of Wikipedia rules. If it is, I sincerely apologize for that and I will not do it in the future. PANONIAN 12:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I just noticed that Iaaasi was in fact one of the people canvassed by PANONIAN evidence here Few more examples [36][37] I wonder why he was specificly targeted by PANONIAN to comment on that specific RFM? Hobartimus (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Content disputes aren't part of ANI, but of other boards like WP:ECCN. The messages of PANONIAN may be a violation of WP:CANVASS, because while they were neutral and open, they also include mass posting and the audience may be considered partly partisan. I would probably support the renaming of the article too, but he shouldn't notify about the move discussion only users, which he might consider supportive.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, if that is a problem, I will notify all ethnic Hungarian users about this voting too. PANONIAN 12:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is the disruptive actions of PANONIAN. He should be following policy by himself and because he is constantly forced to do so. He is editing here for how many years now? It's not like he is unaware of NPA and the other policies. "Putting on a show for the admins" to avoid the block after being disruptive when they are not looking is a cheap way of trying to avoid blocks. Agreeing to follow policy ONLY after being caught is not good enough. Now he is saying he "will notify all ethnic Hungarian users". Who was notified in the first round then if the supposed solution to the canvassing is this? Who was the first 14 users notified if it will make it all better by this action? Who exactly was the target of the first round of canvassing???? I hope he doesn't have a database with the family trees of all wikipedia users. You would think the most someone would be able to tell if someone speaks a certain language or not. How can he discern whether someone's ethnicity is mixed between German and Romanian, or Jewish or any other ethnicity? This mentality in my view is exactly what WP:BATTLE is about. We don't need all this drama just because a user is unhappy with an article title. Hobartimus (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is very good proof that user Hobartimus harassing me with false accusations against me. If there is any evidence for such accusations I would like to see them presented here. PANONIAN 14:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I just notified several active Hungarian users for whom I know about this voting (except user Hobartimus, who is obviously already aware of it). If there are some other active Hungarian users for whom I do not know, user Hobartimus is free to notify them about this voting. PANONIAN 13:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I still feel that the POV pushing in the MAPS is a very serious issue. Short of going to Arbcom, is there any way to completely root out all these POV maps, from Wikipedia? We clearly heard that they are extremely POV PANONIAN himself even admitted it. He thinks he can just get away with whatever POV he wants by saying original file usually remains in accordance with point of view of original uploader, which would be me in this case. I heard your point of view, I do not agree with it, and I do not agree with any change in original files. He clearly thinks that is the end of it, and it does not matter how POV the maps are. Hobartimus (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To which maps you refer to? The question was only about 3 maps of WW2 Yugoslavia and since these maps are located in Wikimedia Commons, you are free to say your comments or opinions about them on their talk pages there. And now I want that you apologize to me for accusing me for creating "extremely POV maps" and that "I admitted it". I never admitted such thing, so this is clear example of your personal insult addressed towards me. PANONIAN 14:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes you admitted it. You admitted it very clearly. I qoute: "but original file usually remains in accordance with point of view of original uploader, which would be me in this case. So, I heard your point of view, I do not agree with it, and I do not agree with any change in original files." You said this to a user, who very clearly explained to you that your maps are POV, containing unacceptable fringe views. The user explained this to you using sources and you said the above to him. That since you are the uploader your POV wins, even though there were numerous sources brought against your maps. Hobartimus (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The full discussion was here I encourage everyone to read it fully. I only quote the stuff about POV maps because you admitted it that they are POV, but you can win or game the system by being the original uploader. Hobartimus (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I also explained that such maps are made in accordance with point of view of Yugoslav and one part of western scholars and that Wikipedia policy does not forbid the existence of work that is based on academic views (even if there are other opposite academic views). Neither myself or user with whom I had dispute used words "unacceptable fringe views" (that came from your mouth only). Also, if you read the whole discussion, you will see that I proposed to this user that he can use what ever other map in what ever article he wants and that I did not insisted that my maps are used in articles in English Wikipedia. The only thing that I am insisting at is that my own work is not based on POV that is not accepted by historians in my own country. Whether my work should be used in articles in English Wikipedia is another question. PANONIAN 15:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I just made a search on that discussion and " These are advancing a minority fringe-view." was definitely in that discussion. (just search the discussion for "fringe"). So I did not make it up. I think representing fringe views is unacceptable as it gives them undue weight in Wikipedia. I am however more concerned about the original uploader winning by default on wikipedia commons. If that's true that's a huge problem by itself, a lot bigger than any map you ever created. Hobartimus (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, no matter if that word came from you or from other user, you fail to see that I also presented academic sources for my claims and I will present them here too: Hungarian fascists (Barry M. Lituchy, Jasenovac and the Holocaust in Yugoslavia: analyses and survivor testimonies), Bulgarian fascists (Matjaž Klemenčič, Mitja Žagar - The former Yugoslavia's diverse peoples) - clear evidence that term "fascist" is used for WW2 Hungarian and Bulgarian state. PANONIAN 15:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether Panonian is POV pushing or not is a content dispute and can't be dealt with on ANI, so please use WP:ECCN or WP:NPOVN.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's true on one hand but there is a larger issue here if this is true? That someone can upload any fringe POV map so long as he/she is the original uploader? That would be a real problem for wikipedia in my opinion. Hobartimus (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Maps of WW2 occupied Yugoslavia cannot be ever completely NPOV because various scholars are supporting various points of view about that issue. The only possible solution for that problem would be creation of multiple files based on each POV or inclusions of all POVs into one file (which is exactly what I proposed as compromise solution in the end of discussion to which you refer too). For you, opinion of Yugoslav historians is an "fringe POV", but for people in some other countries opinion of historians for your country is an real example of "fringe POV". PANONIAN 15:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack by User:PANONIAN

    I'd like to ask for administrators to review the following edit by user:PANONIAN [38]. In my view it was a clear personal attack, violating WP:NPA. It didn't even make an attempt to provide any evidence or supporting diffs for hugely offensive attacks, as such it is not possible to AGF here it was a clear case of bad faith on the part of PANONIAN. Hobartimus (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I opened a new thread because it is a new issue and in my view demands immediate action. Hobartimus (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would kindly ask administrators to protect me from this person. Both his posts against me are clear examples of personal harassment. PANONIAN 12:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Writing about another user the following "who is involved in constant revert warring with multiple users, trying to push Greater Hungarian nationalistic POV." is clearly a personal attack.Hobartimus (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if it is, then I kindly apologize to you. PANONIAN 12:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How nice, a conditional non-apology "If it is...", while the original personal attack remains in place above. Hobartimus (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you insulted me with accusations for "extreme POV": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&action=historysubmit&diff=411166743&oldid=411161757 Would you be so kind to apologize? PANONIAN 14:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes you admitted it. You admitted it very clearly. I qoute: "but original file usually remains in accordance with point of view of original uploader, which would be me in this case. So, I heard your point of view, I do not agree with it, and I do not agree with any change in original files." You said this to a user, who very clearly explained to you that your maps are POV, containing unacceptable fringe views. The user explained this to you using sources and you said the above to him. That since you are the uploader your POV wins, even though there were numerous sources brought against your maps. Hobartimus (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You said in other words : You make POV maps, but they will remain anyway, because the POV of the original uploader is winner by default. And from this stance you rejected the arguments of another user which were based on sources. You spoke like you were some sort of admin or superior to the other user I heard your point of view, I do not agree with it, and I do not agree with any change in original files. You heard his silly arguments but they are rejected and the debate is now over. Hobartimus (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I already gave you answer to all that in previous section: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&action=historysubmit&diff=411175725&oldid=411174548 Why you repeating same posts twice? PANONIAN 15:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally unless someone publicly declares his goals, we shouldn't attribute motives to him.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    English Defence League

    Resolved
     – Appears to be resolved for now. Hans Adler 12:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The article English Defence League could do with a bit more admin attention. Actually, the real problem is that both WP:3RR/N and CAT:PER appear to be understaffed at the moment.

    First we had an edit war on the article that was won (yes, won, not just "won") by a user who has since been blocked indefinitely. The user made about a dozen reverts on the article in 24 hours, not even stopping after the 3RR report was open for a while and there had been no less than three 3RR warnings on his talk page. Around that time the user created a new account which he used for another revert right before the page was protected.

    There is a consensus that the section which the blocked user had added and was defending does not belong in the article at all, per WP:NOTNEWS. (It is a non-notable news story reporting unproven allegations by the leader of a xenophobic organisation that some Asians threw stones at his house.) Yet no admin reacted to the "edit protected" template. I just discovered that after it had been on the talk page for 29 hours, the blocked editor (now editing anonymously) simply removed the template with nobody noticing. Hans Adler 11:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Hans, I didn't notice that the sock's edit had slipped through literally as I was protecting it. And to add to that, somehow the article dropped off my watchlist. It's removed now. And the article is back on my watch list. Next time it would be faster to contact the Admin who protected the article, me in this case. I had blocked the puppetmaster at 3RR at the same time. Do you want to report the IP to SPI?Dougweller (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked the IP now and will add it to the current SPI. Dougweller (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. With all that pushing of the "admins are not allowed to use their brains" ideology recently I thought you were just overly cautious (for which I wouldn't have blamed you), so I thought it was better to look for a different admin, which normally should not have been a problem. But thanks for the explanation. Hans Adler 12:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Admins should use their brains/judgement and we should trust and expect them to do so until such time as they clearly don't deserve our trust. This was a no-brainer though, a sock puppet edit. Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Candid advice requested about sock detection

    Hi all. Since things seem relatively quiet here at the moment, I hope people won't mind if I pose a question that I've wanted to ask here for a long while: Is there anything at all that can be done by a checkuser when you see a new account that very obviously is not a new user, but you have no idea whose sock it might be? ( Yes, I know not every such account is a sock, e.g. could be a former ip editor. ) And more, is there any way to avoid "spilling the beans" in such a case, so as not to just educate a sockmaster about how to avoid detection next time he creates a sock account? I'm aware that there are both official and unofficial ways to proceed in such a case, and would be especially grateful for any candid advice about the unofficial-but-permitted ones, if anyone is willing to provide that, or perhaps to e-mail me with the same. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is what I do:
    • If the new account's behaviour is not actually problematic and the new account does not belong to a faction in a conflict, I just don't worry. Often editors in good standing do a legitimate restart, e.g. for privacy reasons after being outed.
    • Otherwise watchlist the user's talk page. If the user starts misbehaving, someone will warn them and I will be reminded of the suspicion.
    • If I really think the user is a problem and might be a serial reincarnator, I consult WP:LTA to see if they fit any known pattern. If so, I would quietly contact a functionary who has experience with the banned user in question. Hans Adler 13:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would look at the history of the articles they are editing to see if there has been edit-warring or other disruptive editing in the past. A previous editor may have been banned. Compare their writing style, articles edited and the time of day they edit. Be aware that controversial articles may have attracted more than one sockmaster. If there is a gap in time between the old and new editing, it may not be possible to conduct a checkuser, and you will have to rely on editing similarity. TFD (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Hans; thanks Four Deuces. Those are helpful suggestions. But maybe I can be more specific? There were two accounts that caught my eye this time the question came up for me:
    − One immediately began his career by multiply-reverting another user he claimed (accurately) was a sock, and striking out that sock's talk-page comments, and then he jumped into one of our most conflict-ridden areas on the opposite side of the known sock, and into an acrimonious AfD in that same subject area.
    − The other, in his 4th edit, started PRODing articles left and right, nominating something like 15 articles straight away, then !voting in maybe another 15 AfDs (also in very controversial areas), and also accused others of being socks, accurately, as it turned out.
    Neither account has more than about 50 edits. My inclination is not to disclose the account names here, but can I ask for counsel about these instances, as good examples for when I notice similar accounts in the future? That is, am I right to be concerned about such behavior and, if so, is there any real alternative to playing the sleuth, which is, of course, very time-consuming? Thanks again,  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Question

    Why is AN so dead silent lately? I've tried to inform admins of a huge backlog at MFD but no one's said a word. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 13:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The "huge backlog" being, what, two days of nominations of material that won't exactly cause problems if it hangs around for another few days? It's hardly worth reporting at WP:AN, let alone here. BencherliteTalk 14:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To you and me, maybe. But it drives deletionists crazy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to comment on editors in this thread, please. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't recall naming any names. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You folks are complaining about the lack of drama lately? AN has not only been rather dead, but so is ANI. But I thought that would be A Good Thing. –MuZemike 16:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed its so dull the only thing left is to accuse Jimbo of running a Good Hand, Bad Hand account with the Larry Sanger Persona... The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for a laugh, David Gerard was blocked in November on Citizendium for "Extremely offensive insults or personal attacks; direct and harsh attacks on the moral character, or personal or professional credibility of a project member", despite not having edited there since 2007. Gotta love 'em. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor making personal attacks and engaging in sockpuppetry

    Earlier, an IP address blanked reliably-sourced information from the article Jash, and I reverted the unexplained blanking [39]. Later, an account that rarely edits shows up on the talk page, asks why the sourced content should not be blanked, and then makes a personal attack against me calling me an "Islamophobe". It's fairly evident to me that the account and the IP are the same person engaging in sockpuppetry. The account has been contributing to Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed, including adding a photo of a corpse, and the IP has been doing the same [40]. The editor appears to be regularly logging in and out while editing, directly in violation of WP:SOCK. The account has existed since 2005, yet he claims just the other day he's "still learning how to use Wikipedia [41]. Can a checkuser look into this? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Regardless of the rights or wrongs of editors, this 'article' is a rather dubious specimen. Frankly, I'd say it should be deleted. Modern Kurdish slang, and a citation from the Battle of Badr (624 AD)? What the....? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I prodded it. We'll see if that sticks. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It didn't stick. It was already prodded once before. If you want to delete it, send it to AfD. The citation is from a book, not the battle itself. Oh, and thanks a lot for actually looking at the sockpuppetry and personal attacks. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for not seeing the previous prod. I'm not an administrator, so I don't have much to say about the conduct issue. In the meantime, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jash exists now and is the proper place for the content discussion. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Incivility blocks

    In light of recent events, I'm going to start blocking for incivility - something I don't normally do. This will be a contentious decision, I know, but my mind is made up. What lengths do other admins currently use for this sort of thing? Is a 12 hour block the standard? Is there a 'gradual scale', as with 3RR blocks - 24,48,1 week etc? Thoughts welcome. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Usually about a half hour, then a right thinking admin makes the unblock.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally it depends on the degree to which you dislike your victim. Some admins start with 10-second blocks and work up from there. In fact it isn't even necessary that your victims are actually incivil, just that you claim they are. Malleus Fatuorum 20:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and if you're looking to block or otherwise sanction someone for questioning authority, remember that revenge is a dish best served cold. Also, IRC is your friend. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've only seen one or two people ever get blocked for incivility, but I've seen many have their blocks extended or indef'ed, and then have talk page access revoked because of incivility. ... Is it possible to revoke talk page access without blocking them? There've been a few users I've seen that that'd help ("Oh, I was never warned about that... More than 4 times... On more than five occasions... By three people..."). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm talking about big incivility - long rants attacking a user personally, disruption-style stuff, even repeatedly using edit summaries such as "reverting: your edit, while well meant, was fucking awful and you're a shit editor". Not blocking for this tiny stuff people complain about - that's best handled by a cup of tea. The concept of block of less than 12 hours is rather worrying, to be honest. I'd never make one of those. Malleus, in good faith - and because I honestly want your opinion on this - can I ask you what sort of incivility would be appropriate for, say, a 12 hour block? Direct it at me if it'll make you feel better :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm neither Malleus nor an admin, but I already have a Reichstag model and a Spiderman action figure: I guess (this is directed at noone) that "bitch-ass smegma-brained cock-sucking father-fucking cunt-faced needle-dicked shit-breath'd piss-blooded cum-saliva'd meekrab" would be worth at least 48 hours if it were actually directed at someone. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If I ruled the world I doubt that I would ever block any editor for incivility, but not for the reasons that so many might think. The incivility would have to be causing a problem for the project somewhere for me to become concerned about it. Simply expressing an unpopular opinion (have I ever told you about the time I was blocked for using the word "sycophantic"?) or asking another another editor to "fuck off" aren't things I'd be worried about. The real reason to block is to prevent whatever damage is being caused to the project by the perceived incivility; very often it's none at all, just some civility policeman sticking his nose in where it's neither necessary nor welcome. Malleus Fatuorum 21:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    With the above comments in mind, how do you folks go about dealing with editor who are consistently rude and abusive, and assume bad faith, even to new editors? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends on whether or not they're an administrator. If they're not then block; if they are, then start making excuses for their behaviour. Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My plan in such situations is to issue three warnings (elaborate, detailed, and personal, not the automated {{uw-whatever}} message), a short block, a longer block, and a report (and it hardly ever reaches the "short block" part). That is, of course, if you are not personally involved in the matter... in which case you might want to report it first and let other admins deal with it. But that's just me.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 31, 2011; 20:53 (UTC)
    Thanks! Serious answers anyone else? I know about the problems we have with incivility blocks, different rules for admins/editors, and the problems we have with incivility, and I'm hoping to come up with a solution. I'm listening to everyone about this - even banned users - because I want something that will work for everyone. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As is readily apparent from the snarky replies here, there has been significant resistance to blocking for incivility, per se. If I were you, I would stick to blocking only for clear and specific violations of WP:No personal attacks. Anything else is a can of worms best left unopened. — Satori Son 21:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree with that. Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can come up with a way of blocking Jimbo, Arbs, and Admins that will actually stick - well done you. As it is, it is the immunity these people have from being blocked for incivility that makes it so unproductive (to put it kindly) to contemplate blocking anyone else for incivility. DuncanHill (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I'm hoping to do. One rule for all of us, although either a very simple or very complex one. Either way, I think the final solution should not rely on blocks as an incentive. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If it were a single NPA event, I'd probably block for 24 hours. Since you seem to be talking about persistent incivility in the face of previous warnings, I'd guess 72 hours would be a reasonable place to start. (I haven't looked to see if I can figure out who you mean, I'm just answering from personal experience.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't a 24-hour block for a single occurrence of anything essentially punitive? ArakunemTalk 21:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shouldn't this be at WP:AN (if anywhere at all) ? Where is the "incident"? Where is the urgent admin action? Why are we clogging up this cess-pit of a board even further? From an arb as well - disapointing. Pedro :  Chat  20:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone (scroll up) said the board needed more drama. In any case, shall we move to AN? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, always short on drama on ANI.... I'd have thought AN was the most obvious place for this. Pedro :  Chat  21:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope you don't mind a few thoughts from a non-admin. I don't think there's any one rule that can work for incivility, and the only consideration should be whether a block is going to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. Someone being abusive to a newcomer or a content creator and risking driving them away - yes, block (but not punitively - only to get their attention when talking has failed). If someone is rude to an admin, a block should only be appropriate if it is serious or long-term abuse - admins should be able to take a bit of flak (I work partly in online community moderation, and minor abuse is usually just a short term emotional reaction, and is almost always best countered by civility). And as an aside, I think the now near-legendary 10-second block was one of the worst admin actions I've seen here. I don't know who did it (and I don't want to), and I don't apologize for saying so - whoever did it should be prepared to accept honest feedback. Anyway, my main suggestion here is do not go overboard on the civility thing. The faceless nature of online communication leads people to be less civil than they would be face to face, and it can usually be diffused more effectively by civil engagement than by lashing out with punishment -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I got the 10-second block, and the perpetrator is very easily seen in my block log. I doubt you'd be surprised to discover who it was. Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So Malleus, you are a bit of an expert on blocks from the victim's point of view. Did you find over time that you have changed your behaviour to avoid being blocked? Or have you just gone on being your gruff old self? My point being that people are who they are, and don't change much. :) --Diannaa (Talk) 21:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=411245402"