Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Editor refusing to explain closure of MR against consensus

The move review discussion for 30 seconds to mars,was recently closed by User:Jreferee as no consensus despite only seven !votes being cast and of those only two were to endorse closure. Two editors including myself have requested an explanation with no result. Could someone please either get an explanation for their actions against consensus or reverse the disputed closure. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this ANI thread is a little early. Earthh asked the question and 8 hours later you took the issue to ANI. Give it 24 to 48 hours from Earthh's message and then come here.--v/r - TP 22:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Jreferee did respond;[1] PantherLeapord's own behavior is cause of the breakdown in communication.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Observation: The problem is that the 2 overturn-pending-explanation votes were not adjusted after the explanation is given. However, even when you toss those 2 votes out, there are 2 endorse close, 4 overturn, 1 relist. That is still sufficient evidence that the move is not supported, and the MR should not have been closed as such. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee just replied with the following:

The move review close was based on the strength of arguments regarding whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. In other words, it was a review of whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly, not whether the close was correct or incorrect. The iVotes that addressed the sufficiency of the close explanation were not directed to whether closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. SmokeyJoe only wanted an explanation, which BDD provided. SmokeyJoe did not provide much argument, so it seemed to be a week endorse. B2C appeared to indicated that B2C adopted BDD’s explanation, giving strength to B2C position as endorse. Cúchullain and BDD both had strong endorse arguments, with BDD close additionally benefitting from closer’s discretion. On the overturn side, there were strong arguments and additional comments which addressed whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly to varying degrees. BDDs additional details on his close (18:34, 28 August 2013) was there for twelve days, but did not significantly move the discussion one way or another. I did not see a general sense of agreement one way or another. Since BDDs additional details on his close seemed to quell general concern for his close and there appeared to be no consensus in the move review, which has the same effect as endorse close, I close the review as endorse close.

What confuses me is that this implies that votes not going either way were to be interpreted as "endorse". Is that how things are supposed to be done normally? PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 04:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have asked B2C and SmokeyJoe to comment here, as their comments (and lack of follow-up) contributed (inadvertently, most likely) to this report. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm interested to see how this turns out. I was initially alarmed when an administrator, Jreferee, was upset with PantherLeapord because, quite frankly, I don't want him to make any mistakes since I was his mentor a bit ago after he got into a bit of trouble and sought out the adopt-a-user program. However, quite frankly, there's no way this should have proceeded this way by my definition of "consensus." Though it may be wiki-career suicide, I, too, disagree with the actions of Jreferee. However, with that said, I'll stop short of accusing anything more than a hasty or accidental action. I've certainly made worse mistakes than this. I do think that the decision should be reversed, but Jreferee, who has a history of very positive contributions, should simply duly note this, and everyone should move on. --Jackson Peebles (talk • contribs) 06:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee spoke about the endorses but not the overturs. The majority of the users expressed an overturn, so there's a consensus. Almost everyone in the move review wrote that at the requested move there was no consensus to move the page to the current title.--Earthh (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at the whole; even the comments presents the official name is "Thirty Seconds". I like how the argument against "Thirty Seconds" is the Allmusic usage of "30 seconds..."[2], but the title is "Thirty Seconds" and the url changes as well to match it.[3]. Further evidence comes from the "Awards" which all list "Thirty Seconds".[4] MTV also lists "Thirty Seconds".[5] The official website is "Thirty Seconds to Mars".[6] Now let's not get into the limitations of Twitter where the short-hand is adequate. BBC uses it, but here is the interesting thing, other websites use "Thirty Seconds" and aside from the Youtube, the major sites all use it.[7] If anything, the usage in authoritative (not short hand) form is for "Thirty Seconds" and Wikipedia is a professional-level encyclopedia and should reflect that in both prose and title. The prose says "Thirty Seconds" not "30 seconds" throughout and when weighing the factors, seems to be a clear choice. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• You should read my comments on the move review. AllMusic changed the name recently, it was 30 Seconds to Mars when I posted it, but if you read the biography, they still use 30 Seconds to Mars. This also underline the fact that the "Thirty Seconds" is a new name. Since 1998 the band has been using "30 Seconds" while "Thirty Seconds" is used from 2013 onwards, that's why "Thirty Seconds" should remain a redirect (read WP:COMMONNAME).--Earthh (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hey, I just am pointing out what I see. For professionalism we should use the official name when it is recognized internationally as such, short or long form of "Thirty". Let's not get into the Manning issue, but this is not out of the Prince (musician) issue and its not like "Mammoth" to "Van Halen", but just whether or not you write out the number or don't. For appearances and professionalism combined with the adoption and official use of "Thirty" and not "30", the official use should trump over a shortening no matter how prevalent. Examples to this are rather rare, yes, but Wikipedia is the sole major site that doesn't use "Thirty". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• They currently use both "30 Seconds" and "Thirty Seconds". 30 Seconds to Mars has been the official name since 1998, only in 2013 Thirty Seconds to Mars became the official name. 30 Seconds to Mars should remain the title of the article since it has been the official name for almost the entire band's career and we should write that more recently the band is also known as Thirty Seconds to Mars.--Earthh (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think that you guys are getting a bit off-topic. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I failed to follow-up after posting this in the move review:

• Pending explanation - This close should have been made with a full explanation of how the closer found consensus in favor of the move. If this explanation is provided, as an addendum to the RM, and it's reasonable, I will fully endorse. Otherwise I will support an overturn. --B2C 06:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

However, the closer, BDD (talk · contribs) did provide a full explanation:

• Some editors here have asked for an explanation of the close: here goes. There were no real policy-based arguments to weigh. The nominator claimed the move per WP:COMMONNAME; the oppose voters thought the status quo was the common name. No one bothered to dredge up evidence. (And no, their Facebook and Twitter don't count; those "sources" conflicted anyway.) So I went with a headcount. After about two and a half weeks without decent arguments, I went with the majority position. So there you go. Not the most elegant decision, but you make closes with the arguments you have, not the arguments you might wish to have.

I disagree with BDD's finding; I think absent a policy based argument favoring the move, it was at best "no consensus". Finding WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in favor for the move by finding a marginal majority of such a small self-selected sample through counting !votes is not a reasonable explanation. If I had followed up, I would not have endorsed (I wish someone would have notified me to follow up before closing the move review...). Overturn.

What's relevant here is that my input should not have been viewed as an endorse in the closing of the move review. --B2C 23:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think closing it as no consensus is ridiculous. There's a 2.5-to-1 majority against endorsing the original closure, and this smacks as the SECOND !supervote in this case. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • You think closing "it" as no consensus is ridiculous? By "it" do you mean the original RM, or the RM review?

    You think "this" smacks as the SECOND !supervote in "this case"? What is the first "this" referring to? Does "this case" refer to the original RM, the RM review, or this ANI review of the RM review? --B2C 17:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• For fuck's sake, if you're going to make this pointless/stupid of a comment, then don't bother commenting at all. As a ten year old could tell, the move review closure is what was closed as no consensus (the RM wasn't closed as no consensus), both closures have been !supervote's, and you're wasting people's time when you attempt to distract from people's comments like this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • In my comment I wrote that the original RM (BDD's finding) was "at best 'no consensus'". You replied to that saying you "think closing it as no consensus is ridiculous". There was no way to know you were referring to the no consensus result that actually occurred at the RM review, and not to the "at best" comment I made about the original RM. Anyway, thanks for the clarification. We agree the no consensus finding in the RM review is incorrect. --B2C 04:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that during the requested move, the nominator had been canvassing, leaving a message on User:Noyes388 talk page to notify him of the requested move, which he supported (read this).--Earthh (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Overturn per above post by myself and failure to adequately explain actions in the interim as well as the input of B2C and PantherLeapord. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn original MR closure - Clearly a textbook supervote and should be reversed ASAP. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that we found a consensus. Could someone proceed and restore the original name?--Earthh (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The RM review and the original RM both need to be overturned. --B2C 04:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• The information page Wikipedia:Closing discussions provides process regarding Requested moves and reviewing requested moves. Consensus was decided at the Requested Move proposal and that close was reviewed at Move Review. Some of the same editors in the move request or move review discussions wanting to continue their move positions or move request positions in this AN thread. However, the discussion close and review of that close process provides for closure so that the community can move on. In regards to the request of this AN thread - "Editor refusing to explain closure of MR against consensus" - I was happy to provided it. In further details of that, I do appreciate the above feedback, but my reasoning reposted 04:40, 10 September 2013 above from here is still valid. I close the Move Review based on strength of arguments regarding whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I considered, but gave less weight, to arguments that merely posted a conclusory statement or did not focus on strength of arguments regarding whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly on arguments. B2C posted, "This close should have been made with a full explanation of how the closer found consensus in favor of the move. If this explanation is provided, as an addendum to the RM, and it's reasonable, I will fully endorse. Otherwise I will support an overturn." BDD provided that explanation on 28 August 2013, B2C did not reply, and the discussion was closed 9 September 2013, so I think reasonable to have seen B2C's position as fully endorse and give it the weight I did (more than SmokeyJoe, less than Cúchullain and BDD), within the confines of that discussion. B2C's position in the move review does not make or break the close any more than any one position does. In looking at the discussion as a whole, the collective move review endorse and overturn arguments - which both fell in the spectrum of weak to strong arguments - resulted in both sides providing strong arguments in their reasoning of whether BDD's interpreted the requested move proposal consensus incorrectly. There was no general sense of agreement one way or another. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

And the community has disagreed with that reading. Please do the right thing and undo your closure. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 01:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Repeated WP:GAME violations

I know people are tired of the Falklands units dispute, but I'm bringing this here because I really want it to stop.

User:Martinvl has spent the past four and a half years trying to push his POV on units on Falklands articles. His tactics have rarely reached above the standard of gaming the system, trying to force his POV by literally any means possible. I posted this evidence last night on the talk page currently under RFC here. Given his comment today I think it wants greater attention.

The RFC is, in and of itself, a clear example of gaming the system. He claims that it is not allowed for WikiProjects to have their own style guides, even where they only cover matters irrelevant outside the topic. I've pointed out that many do - one two three have all been brought up there. His insistence is that this must either be a Wikipedia-wide guideline or else a "failed proposal". He is [a]ttempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community.

Martin has spent the last year or so insisting that the page at hand never had consensus. I suggest we look at the history:

The page came into use in practice in July 2010. Neither Martin nor anyone else objected, though at that time it was rolled out across the WikiProject (a big change because the previous consensus was imperial-first everywhere). The single opponent (not Martin) opposed because he did not believe it would be implemented in good faith. In March 2011 Martin told users to follow it "to the letter". In June 2011 Martin was citing it ([8][9]) to back up his edits. In October 2012 he redirected it, and was reverted some time later when someone noticed (his claimed premise was rejected by RFC - also an apparent attempt at gaming). On 28 November 2012 he was still quoting it as a rationale for his edits. The very next day, he claimed it was never consensus. Martin treated the page as a consensus for well over two years - acted for all the world as though it was the standing consensus - and then one day he decided it never did. Stale? No, because Martin is still making that claim.

I contend that the insistence that the page never achieved consensus is another example of gaming the system. Again, [a]ttempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. An involved admin said in reference to precisely this situation that "anybody who is disruptive should have been sanctioned" (top part) - well I am asking for that sanction, as the disruption is still ongoing.

There are other examples. From making controversial edits on these topics under the disguise of misleading edit summaries to the argument that geography is "scientific" for the purposes of MOSNUM. I could go on and on.

I bring this up here now because he now one again trying to push that geography point. On previous evidence, his argument is that as geography is a science, geographic distances should not just be kilometres-first, but kilometres-only. And not just on Falklands articles or UK-related articles. By this interpretation, the article Nebraska may not mention miles at all. Is there anyone here who believes that this is what WP:UNITS says or means - even in theory?

I contend that this is arguing the word of policy to defeat the principles of policy and [s]puriously and knowingly claiming protection, justification or support under the words of a policy, for a viewpoint or stance which actually contradicts policy. And based on this comment I contend that the gaming has not ended, and will not end with the moratorium proposed there.

We have seen this sort of gaming continually from Martin on these articles the last four and a half years. This has been massively damaging to the topic. We cannot continue like this. Given that Martin will not stop on his own, he must be stopped by admins.

I ask for Martinvl to be topic banned, such that he is not allowed to add, modify, discuss or otherwise edit or have anything to do with units of measure on Falklands-related articles, or the rules that govern them, in order to prevent the disruption that this continual gaming causes. Kahastok talk 21:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This looks like sour grapes from not getting the wished-for consensus about metric units at the Falkland Islands, spillover from the above discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kahastok_is_disrupting_a_GA_attempt. I don't think you have a strong enough case to ban the guy who keeps you from getting your way. Binksternet (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Which wished-for consensus do you think I want? I was perfectly happy to leave it with the status quo, the consensus for WP:FALKLANDSUNITS which Martin suddenly and out-of-the-blue insisted never existed. I'm not entirely happy with the way the vote is going there, but the best thing for the article is for the whole thing to end. Now. Rather than in two or three years' time when after I or others have come here six or seven times to point out that the same thing is still going on, after who knows how many more editors have been driven away and after who knows how much improvement to the article will have been prevented.

I believe it is clear from Martin's comments that even with an (apparently toothless) moratorium we're not done here because Martin will continue to try and game the rule being proposed.

The only reason we have to keep on having this discussion is because Martin keeps insisting on bringing it up. And whenever he brings it up it's with yet another ruse to try and WP:GAME the system. Do you think that these articles are best off with endless discussion on units of measure, where there is practically no trust to be found because one editor keeps on gaming the system? I don't. Kahastok talk 22:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I think FALKLANDSUNITS should not exist. Binksternet (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, does that make it OK to repeatedly game the system in this area? Bear in mind that WP:FALKLANDSUNITS itself is one of the few agreed rules that he has not managed to game here. His focus is on removing it and using instead something more easily-gamable, like WP:UNITS. Kahastok talk 06:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• First off: I have just full-protected WP:FALKLANDSUNITS for 2 weeks because the editors can't seem to get together and discuss. That being said, I believe outside views are necessary. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• If WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is redundant to the existing WP:MOS, then should it not be MfDed? If it contradicts the MOS, then it shouldn't be valid either... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• As far as I see, it is redundant to the MOS. I linked to MOS:CONVERSIONS in the still open thread, where it covers the same things as WP:FALKLANDSUNITS, which is where the absurdity comes in. There is some sort of pro-<insert your units of preference>-comes-first thing going on, which some editors are trying to get locked in stone as a policy for articles relating the Falklands only. Ridiculous. Blackmane (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It has to be absolutely prescriptive because there is so much gaming going on. If we could trust editors to edit within the spirit of WP:UNITS then there would not be a problem with not having any additional rule. But we can't, so there is. The point of this ANI is to put us in a position where we can trust editors to edit within the spirit of WP:UNITS, so that the impact of the change is lessened. Kahastok talk 17:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be about a proposal under discussion at Talk:Falkland Islands#Weights and Measures Proposal in which Martinvl made the clever support of a motion to get rid of WP:FALKLANDUNITS, while interpreting WP:UNITS in a novel way that most other people voicing their support think is incorrect. Due to this, Kahastok has decided to oppose the proposal even though it is based on his own statement. Blocking or banning anyone or everyone involved for such a trivial cause seems overkill. (The argument has been added to WP:LAME - and not by me.) Adding voices to the proposal seems simpler and more likely to keep well meaning editors. --GRuban (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I was already opposed for lack of enforcement, a point that I have always made clear is needed if we're ever going to stop this from continually coming up. If there's supposed to be a moratorium, that's a waste of time if it's going to be ignored just as soon as Martin decides he doesn't like the rule proposed, and starts the entire argument back up again. And, based on experience, he will find an excuse - almost certainly one that violates WP:GAME. In the past we had people coming back to the page every three weeks (for well over a year) claiming that they wanted to see if consensus had changed this time. Admins did nothing about it then either.

Frankly, the way this conversation is going demonstrates why simply hoping he'll improve this time and saying call in the admins if he doesn't is futile and why we need explicit enforcement provisions. Kahastok talk 17:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• You do realize that the only other person who supports the same viewpoint as you is a community banned sockmaster? Perhaps that should show you that you may be wrong as well? I'm inclined to agree with Martinvl if he says FALKLANDSUNITS is redundant/invalid/whatever - because it is. A few people here have voiced the opinion that FALKLANDSUNITS should go. And your accusations of WP:GAME seem to be lacking in evidence, support, and seem to be incorrect as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no, that's not true. There are enough of us who've had enough of this debate, and enough of us who have a problem with the attempts at forcing the point. I am far from the the only one who said that this required a moratorium, and I am not exactly the only one who opposed in the poll, on the basis that it was not strong enough against gaming.

It is disappointing that you feel that instead of actually discussing genuine content issues, we should have to spend our entire time arguing over units of measure interminably, watching Martin try every trick in the book, and a few that are not, to enforce his POV.

I must admit, I have no idea what you think would violate WP:GAME. It seems to me that if repeatedly Wikilawyering and deliberately twisting the word of policy in attempt to force his POV - directly against the spirit of those same policies - is not gaming then nothing is. Let us not pretend that Martin is not an editors of many years' standing and who is well acquainted with the nuances of policy.

I find the fact that you make the attack about sockpuppets demonstrates the weakness of your point - it is ad hominem, and has nothing to do with anything in particular. The fact that your community banned sockmaster is a community banned sockmaster does not mean that he does not occasionally make good points. While we might revert the edits of the banned, we must always look toward the good of the encyclopædia, and it may well be that the good of the encyclopædia means accepting that even sockpuppets can make good and relevant points that, if they were supported by anyone else, would be significant here. Kahastok talk 21:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Rubbish on several counts there. There is absolutely no need for WP:FALKLANDSUNITS to exist - it either is superfluous to the MOS, or it goes against it; your accusations of WP:GAME, which are STILL lacking in any provided evidence, are not relevant as to whether FALKLANDSUNITS is superfluous or not. We do not write guidelines just to make one editor's actions invalid, that would be pointless. ANI is not for content issues anyway. And cut out the "ad hominem" bullshit - the only editor who has come to ANI and who has made the same points as you have is a community-banned sockmaster. Ergo, no one really supports your desire to topic ban this user, and certainly not as strongly as you, or the community-banned sockmaster, do. I could equally state that your opening of multiple ANI threads is an attempt to game the system, or forcing the point, or Wikilawyering, and the fact that they're present on this page or recent archives is stronger evidence than anything you've provided. And community-banned users can NEVER contribute to any debate, as that defeats the entire fucking point of a community ban, and their comments should be reverted the moment that the account/IP is found to be that community-banned user... Either provide evidence to show that he is truly violating WP:GAME, or drop the stick, and stop filing ANI threads willy-nilly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Now that's definitely ad hominem.

Let's start with the basics. How many ANI threads do you think I have opened here recently? I can't find any before this one within the last six months. So far as I can tell, the only other ANI that I have started in the last year was this one in December 2012, in which I objected to an editor disruptively reassigning Yugoslavia to Serbia on articles about sporting events. It seems to me that this is hardly "filing ANI threads willy-nilly". If you believe I am wrong, please prove it with diffs or links to the archives. If you cannot, please desist from throwing around wild accusations.

I have provided evidence to demonstrate my concerns here. Read my first comment and you'll see plenty. Do you not think that suddenly and out-of-the-blue insisting that a consensus that has held for three years was never consensus is not gaming? Do you not think that trying to force a totally novel interpretation of the MOS, that is clearly against the spirit of that rule and the application of the rule on all other articles, is gaming? As I say, I am at a loss to think what you might consider gaming since these would seem to fall perfectly into the conduct described at WP:GAME.

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS documents a consensus. It does not merely repeat WP:UNITS: rather, it makes it clear that WP:UNITS is to be interpreted prescriptively on Falklands articles. Even if the current proposal on Talk:Falkland Islands goes through, it will still be useful in documenting the consensus for a prescriptive interpretation of WP:UNITS, and also documenting the consensus that the Falklands are UK-related for the purposes of WP:UNITS. Both are points that editors have tried to game in the past. There are lots and lots of projects out there that have their own style guides, and there is no reason why the Falklands should not be allowed to as well, documenting points that are relevant only to that particular project.

Finally, it would be exceedingly foolish to dogmatically dismiss any comment without considering its contents - even if the point was made by a sockpuppet. There is no policy that says you are not allowed to agree with somebody who raises a good point, sockpuppet or not. To take an extreme example, if a sockpuppet points out that a negative claim in a BLP is unsourced and unlikely, we aren't going to leave it unchanged just because it was a sockpuppet who said it. Trying to argue guilt by association is unhelpful and not exactly likely to calm tempers. Kahastok talk 17:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

And what if "consensus" goes against policy? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't. WP:UNITS provides for a mix of units and WP:FALKLANDSUNITS mirrors that mix. The list of units applied is the same. So it isn't an issue. Kahastok talk 06:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question. What if "consensus" does go against policy? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

If it does not answer the question, it is because the question is not relevant to our current position. Ultimately, it depends on the precise circumstances of your hypothetical situation. Kahastok talk 14:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that there are two unanswered requests for clarification relating to a suspected conflict of interest wrt metric/imperial/customary systems of units to this editor at User_talk:Martinvl#A_serious_question and User_talk:Martinvl#September_2013. The answer to those may have a bearing on this discussion. R.stickler (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Given how often he quotes them as a source, it is clear that Martin is well aware of the UK Metric Association, and it is blindingly obvious from his editing that he favours metrication.

But I find it difficult to see what difference it makes if a biased editor happens to support an organisation that shares that POV. Bias is not conflict of interest. Though he has been known to cite UKMA arguments as fact (John Wilkins is still prominently featured as a major force behind the metric system - an important UKMA argument because they're trying to defeat the notion that the metric system is un-British - despite this discussion), I cannot see Martin's citing the UKMA as a source as "getting the word out" type activity and thus illegitimate under WP:COI. Kahastok talk 14:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it is important to state that WP:FALKLANDSUNITS and WP:MOSNUM are not the same.

• Falklandsunits says: In general, put metric units first and follow with imperial and US customary units as appropriate. Where this would create significant inconsistency with the exceptions to this rule noted below, put imperial units first and follow with metric and US customary units. Articles should be internally consistent with respect to the units used in a given context. [The words I have bolded are not a requirement of MOSNUM. Indeed, when followed they reverse the metric first rule that FALKLANDSUNITS purports to be the general rule.]
• MOSNUM is descriptive: "In non-science UK-related articles... imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts, including...miles..."
• FALKLANDSUNITS is prescriptive: "For geographical distances onshore (including coastlines), use statute miles or yards and follow with kilometres or metres"
• There is currently a vote at Talk:Falkland Islands to decide whether to follow MOSNUM or FALKLANDSUNITS. As editors here have expressed concern about FALKLANDSUNITS they might be interested to contribute to that decision-making process.

Michael Glass (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The first point simply isn't true, unless you interpret "significant inconsistency" in the way Michael does, which is to say that any article that is not rigorously metric or rigorously imperial is significantly inconsistent. Even if you use miles once in the first paragraph and Celsius once in the twenty-fourth, with no other measurements. WP:UNITS does not advocate such an interpretation, and makes it clear that in non-scientific UK-related articles a mixture (reflecting British usage and based on the style guide of Britain's newspaper of record) is OK.

It is worth bearing in mind that Michael used to go around adding metric measurements to Falklands articles that were otherwise entirely imperial-first, and then use MOSNUM's then-rule on consistency as an excuse to convert the entire article to metric. For a while Michael and Martin were engaged in adding any metric measurement they could find to any Falklands-related article they could find - frequently not even bothering to put the measurements into full sentences. I note that the clause concerned has never been used to push imperial units in any circumstance in which they were controversial, or to in any way subvert the spirit of WP:UNITS.

The second point I have already made clear. Yes, it is prescriptive. When things are as controversial as this, prescriptive is good because it reduces scope for people making argument like one of Michael's past favourites, "can is not must", as an excuse for pushing something that goes against the spirit of the guideline. You might understand where Michael is coming from here given that his own record of gaming the system is so bad that his proposals at WT:MOSNUM are now routinely dismissed as being in bad faith. When it comes down to it, it is not a violation of WP:UNITS to follow WP:UNITS prescriptively.

The discussion on Talk:Falkland Islands is not about "whether to follow MOSNUM or FALKLANDSUNITS". That is a misrepresentation. What would in fact happen is that FALKLANDSUNITS would be replaced with a version that references WP:UNITS more directly. It would, notably, be just as prescriptive as WP:FALKLANDSUNITS in its current incarnation. I have opposed it because it lacks enforcement and because I can see the entire discussion flaring up again in a few months time when Martin decides he wants to push his POV again. Kahastok talk 16:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The first point not true? Well, look at Falkland Islands. Every metric measurement appears to be firmly in second place. An obvious effect of the "significant inconsistency" rule is in operation here, for British geographical articles are usually all metric or all metric except for the use of miles for distances.

His second point sounds like a dastardly plot, except that almost all the information I and others found happened to be metric. Kahastok is constantly battling with editors to keep the metrics in second place,

The third point about MOSNUM is that the wording is ambiguous. The words "are still used" can be read as a description or a recommendation. This doesn't matter so much for miles but when football codes and the BBC use kilos and metres and the guidelines are about still using stones and pounds, feet and inches, there's an issue if you want consistency in player profiles. And, yes, Kahastok and his mates are well represented in MOSNUM so he's got the numbers there to keep the present wording. These editors seem to fear that leaving it to the good sense of editors to decide in cases of divided usage will lead to chaos, or worse, metrication!

The fourth point is a power grab. If MOSNUM is as prescriptive as FALKLANDSUNITS then why isn't Kahastok satisfied? Because Kahastok wants ENFORCEMENT. He wants to enforce his interpretation of Wiki policy on others, and topic ban anyone who is too uppity or determined. Now this might suit the British Weights and Measures Society, but it's not suitable for Wikipedia. It need to be resisted. Michael Glass (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

In that case you clearly haven't looked at Falkland Islands very hard. I note that there is a current process of rewriting the article (which is being inevitably delayed by the decision of some to restart this debate), and that the current wording does not represent a standing consensus at this time. As I pointed out earlier in the discussion, if the article does not live up to WP:FALKLANDSUNITS, nobody is stopping anyone from bringing it into line - or they weren't until the page was protected.

The second point you make is part of your push for source-based units, a system that has been rejected on dozens of occasions (all at your proposal) at WT:MOSNUM, to the extent that such proposals are not considered to be in good faith at WT:MOSNUM. I am not "constantly battling" - I'd rather not have this discussion at all. This is why I am doing what I'm doing here - to ensure that the current discussion is (so far as is possible) the end to this discussion. The fact is that the continual attempts to restart this debate are horrifically disruptive.

On the third, the fact is most divided contexts are already metric-first according to WP:UNITS. That's things like land area and hill height. You claim BBC usage, but the fact is that the BBC has no published in-house style on units (if they did we would probably use it) so their usage is hard to pin down. It's only the contexts that are overwhelmingly imperial-first in UK usage that are mentioned in the MOS, which is based on an external style guide.

And the fourth simply isn't true. But the fact is that if the rules were not being so continuously gamed we would not still be having this problem. I note that the proposal is to apply WP:UNITS for UK-related articles prescriptively - and that would be documented at WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. The reason I want prescriptive units is because we need an end to this discussion. The reason I want the consensus to be enforceable is because we need an end to this discussion.

If we do not have prescriptive units, then in all likelihood we'll be back in the position we were in before WP:FALKLANDSUNITS was agreed, with Michael and Martin restarting the topic every three weeks claiming that they want to see if consensus has changed this time, and WP:POINTily adding metric units against the agreed consensus purely on the basis that "can is not must". Ridiculous but true. Far from ending the debate, it would make it a far more continual feature on these talk pages.

And finally, I note that this is not the place to deal with the content dispute, so it's probably better to leave that to the three or four places it's already taking place. (Oh, and this is the only one of those discussions that I started as well.) Kahastok talk 17:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok, if the Falkland Islands article is more imperial than MOSNUM or even FALKLANDSUNITS allows, then that isn't the fault of anyone you have clashed with in the matter of units.

The test of usage is usage. Look at the player profiles on the BBC and they're metric only. Like this. It's a neat piece of wikilawyering to demand a style guide, but the usage is as I described it. That's why the British Weights and Measures Association is critical of the BBC. But it's not only the BBC. It's also the Premier League. I could give other examples, but suffice it to say that usage is mixed. And mixed usage is a good reason for not being dogmatic. The style guides themselves are mixed. Prescriptively following the letter of one of them, no matter how august, while ignoring its admonition to "...keep abreast of the trend in the UK to move gradually towards all-metric use," is silly.

You say that really the problem is people gaming the rules. But it's not gaming the rules to interpret them slightly differently. Or if it is gaming the rules to interpret them too loosely, then it's certainly gaming to interpret them too prescriptively and then trying to get someone topic banned. The rules of Wikipedia should not be used to fight the good fight on behalf of the British Weights and Measures Association.

Kahastok, look around you. You are in a minority of one here. Ask yourself why everybody in this thread is out of step - except you. Michael Glass (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not Wikilawyering to point out trying to infer a policy for the BBC from the units they happen to use on a given page or group of pages, in the absence of any source telling us what units they use, is original research. Sometimes they use metric units, sometimes they use imperial. Even in that context - you would not expect Gary Lineker or John Motson to give a player's dimensions in metric units on air. Unless we have a style guide telling us, there's nothing concrete we can say.

Quite why you have gone on to Premier League footballers is not clear - I am unaware of any Falklands-based footballers, or Falkland Islander footballers, playing anywhere in the Premier League. However, I suspect it has something to do with your mass-WP:RETAIN violation of two years ago.

It appears to me that everyone has lost interest in this conversation here, and I suggest we do the same. Kahastok talk 08:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I understand how strongly you object to my edits two years ago, but whatever you think of them, almost all have remained unchallenged these two years. So let's let it rest and conclude on good terms. Best wishes, Michael Glass (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

FFS WHY DO ADMINS NEVER EVER DEAL WITH LAME SHIT LIKE THIS ?????????????????????????????????

I'm here because of this message [10] on my talk page. One of the main reasons I'm retired is quite simply I tired of WP:LAME shit like this. Please do something, User:Michael Glass and User:Martinvl should be indefinitely topic banned from anything to do with units on any topic, both have paralysed articles on many subjects for months. Having failed to convince wikipedia to go metric, they're trying to do it by the back door. It drives genuine editors nuts in frustration. It may seem lame, it may seem dull, it may seem stupid, TBH it is, but it stops people who have a genuine interest in improving wikipedia from doing so. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

BLP violations at Patricia Cloherty (again).

Shakespeare21 (talk · contribs)

Patricia Cloherty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The history of this article is extensive so please work with me as I try to summarise it quickly. The subject requested deletion of the article last year because it had been the constant focus of BLP violations, attacks and vandalism. I and a couple of others volunteered to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and we set about removing the violations and properly sourcing as many of the claims as we could. Throughout that effort and thereafter, a single purpose account tried everything he could to retain the BLP violations and was eventually threatened with a block on 5 January this year. Four days later, a new WP:SPA showed up (Shakespeare21) and slowly started editing a related BLP. Eventually he started editing Cloherty's article. He insists that this source is "the federal testimony from the Attorney General's Office of the United States Government" when the source itself clearly says it's the "Full text of Inslaw's Rebuttal to the Bua Report". It's hosted on this professional looking site - www.copi.com. I've spent the better part of a year trying to defend this BLP from constant vandalism and slow-moving edit wars by SPA's who have an issue with the subject (and it has been protected 4 times since 2009). The quacking from the editor is obvious (it has been referred to SPI but the older account is stale) given the claims of "controversy" he is trying to insert are exactly the same as previous accounts/IPs. I'm at 2RR and he's just passed 3RR in an effort to edit-war his "controversy" claim into the article. Request more admin eyes, blocks, protection, whatever. This is getting really old. INB4 "this is a content dispute" - no, this is the continuation of a campaign to attack a BLP with just about the worst sources available because of some off-wiki drama. I'm Australian and have zero connection to the subject (though I have been accused by previous SPAs of "working" for her) other than my interest in the original AFD. Stalwart111 09:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I protected this article a while ago because of BLP violations and it's disappointing to see this happening again. Unfortunately I didn't keep it on my watchlist. The source being used is [11] which is clearly not a RS for a BLP (or probably for almost anything), and the link may be copyvio (or forged, or whatever, again not an RS for a BLP). I've reverted and may have to protect again. Dougweller (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

And this is his latest effort in the related BLP - using a claimed inaccuracy in one section to remove content from a different section of well-sourced (to the Wall Street Journal) but positive commentary. Stalwart111 10:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Bad edit summary and bad removal, even if the prose wasn't the best. Reducing the role played may make sense for some if its a peacock problem, but the text was a bit wordy so I am going to AGF for that particular one. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the issue isn't whether the BLP needs work generally (it does), it's the sneaky removal of unrelated content. Anyway, has been undone by Dougweller with the addition of a source for the first claim and the reinstatement of the second claim and its source. The account has not edited since Doug's last warning. Stalwart111 08:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

They have now, replying to Doug on their talk. This is an extreme newbie — while they've been here since January, they've only made 17 edits — who claims to be a historian. On the good faith assumption that they're not a sock, please educate them gently about Wikipedia rules. I've written a more specific invitation to this discussion on their talk. (I've never cared for the usual template that merely says there's a discussion at ANI — not very helpful to newbies! ANI is long and confusing.) Bishonen | talk 10:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC).

I do not understand why you consider federal testimony in a federal investigation to be unreliable sources. Are you kidding? I am a historian writing a book on these topics and it appears that you have not read the sourced material thoroughly. Otherwise, you would not have deleted my updates to Wikipedia. Can you please take a moment and actually read the references that support what I am updating. For some reason, you keep reverting back to the incorrect information which ultimately makes Wikipedia useless. Regarding Inslaw, it is already referred to as the Inslaw Affair and noted as "controversial" in Wikimedia (which I am assuming is associated with Wikipedia). I have read you comment to Doug Weller and I appreciate it if you would include me in the discussion of the correct information. I am using information which is widely available on the internet and from other sources. Yes, Cloherty was involved in the controversial INSLAW affair, but there is not judgement being made. It is simply stating a fact which the business community is well aware of. She was not "a" shareholder....she was the majority shareholder which is why she is closely associated with this affair. This is a historical fact, not opinion.

Regarding Dmitriev, the source which is linked to the statement is not accurate and does not support the statement. Please read the actual source...if it does not have anything to do with the statement made, then it is not properly referenced. Please open and read the references that support the published material....they clearly have nothing to do with the statements being made in the text unless you have imagining something which I am not seeing on my computer. May you please comment on this or post the supposed Wall Street Journal reference you are referring to (because it is not on the Wikipedia page). I discovered the mistakes on Wikipedia because I am a historian writing a book on this topic and noted these errors while I was doing my researchShakespeare21 (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Shakespeare21

On Patricia Cloherty, you claim to be writing a book about the subject but seem not to have read the article itself where there is no mention of "federal testimony". Instead, you offered this completely unreliable source to verify your claim (which just happens to be the same claim as other single purpose accounts have tried to spam into the article since 2009). This particular edit, I think, speaks volumes about the credibility of your claims that, 1. You are writing a book about Cloherty, and; 2. You are not a sock or meat puppet of the previous users who have tried to vandalise the article in exactly the same way. Again, I don't know if it is a language barrier but you claim to be a writer with an interest in international business and yet you don't seem to understand the grammatical dead-end in suggesting that someone is a "shareholder in an affair" (as opposed to being a shareholder in a company involved in an affair).

On Kirill Dmitriev, you made this edit which changed some text with regard to a source you have queried (fine, though a source has since been added) and removed the second paragraph of the lede and two sources along with it (the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times). I'm happy for you to query those too, but removing that section and feigning ignorance about removing a whole other paragraph isn't very convincing.

I'm happy to assume good faith but not to the point of stupidity and there are red flags all over this. You claim to be a writer but struggle with writing, you claim to understand sourcing while adding clearly dubious sources, you claim to be new but appeared 5 days after the last anti-Cloherty spammer disappeared, you claim not to have noticed your own removal of content but pro-actively reverted edits that repaired that damage, you claim to be using "information which is widely available on the internet" but have tried to include obscure (and that's being generous) sources from private websites that haven't been updated in more than a decade. Or... you could just be yet another incarnation of Happy225 (which is what your "everything marked as a minor edit" style screams - which, coincidently, you continued until I mentioned it at SPI). But hey, whatever. Stalwart111 05:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, I ask that you actually study the subject before drawing opinions. Inslaw is a Washington-based technology company of which Cloherty was the main shareholder. The incident was called "the Inslaw Affair" and a federal investigation was conducted. The conclusions of this investigation were named "the Bua Report". If you put the word "Inslaw" into Wikipedia, there is an entire section which clearly explains about Inslaw. Your comments towards me are clearly unjustified because you have not researched the topic and are you seem to be more intent on proving that you are right rather than ensuring that Wikipedia is up to date and contains accurate information. For the sake of accuracy, just state that you did not read thoroughly the material and move on. I have no idea what you are talking about on the other points but it appears to be paranoia or maybe you have issues which have nothing to do with me. And yes, I am an academic and historian who conducts thorough research and actually reads material before I start posting comments.Shakespeare21 (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Shakespeare21

Facepalm. Exactly. She is a shareholder in the company, not the affair. Which makes your edit drawing attention to the "INSLAW affair of which she was a major shareholder" either grammatically strained (at best) or bad-faith. Either way, edit-warring to keep your mistake in the article was silly. Have you actually gone back and had a look at the result of your edits you are trying to defend? Multiple people have already told you that your source (given where it was "published") is not a reliable source. And that's before we get anywhere near the fact that primary source testimony would be exactly that - a primary source, requiring original research to interpret. We'll chalk the other stuff up to a series of very, very strange coincidences, shall we? I'm done - if others want to help you edit disruptively in a BLP, I'll not stand in their way. Stalwart111 09:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive anon contributor stalking my edits

See Special:Contributions/49.249.26.44. They have just appeared, are stalking my edits across a range of articles and are doing so by reverting perfectly valid work without attempting to fix the issues raised, some of which have been tagged for two years. I have a fair idea who this actually is but SPI will not link IPs to user accounts. In any event, it is point-y, disruptive & I would appreciate admin intervention. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if it's who I think it is, and whether our guesses are the same. It's a moot point, though; Floq beat me to the punch. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no clue who it is, but it's clearly a returning disruptive editor of some kind. IP blocked for a week, let someone know if other IP's crawl out of the woodwork. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Out of interest, if an IP is blocked then does that affect a logged-in registered user operating from that IP? I suspect not but it might aid my sock hunting if it did. - Sitush (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

That's one of the block options; it hasn't been turned on for this block, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I see. In any event, they're certainly evading their block as Special:Contributions/49.249.13.176 already. I've not got time to evaluate whether these are truly constructive (there is a source involved but that doesn't mean much in itself). - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I've have just looked and it is almost all bad: one of the two sources added to the lead comes from a swami, self-published via a p.o.d. outfit called Trafford Publishing, the other does not support anything except a subphrase; much of the rest has been reinstated without sourcing and includes removal of a valid cn tag - hopeless, but I cannot revert. If someone does and they pop up again then the article will likely need semi-protection. - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Edits from first IP rolled back, second IP blocked (1week), page semi-protected for 3 weeks. If a rangeblock is needed, ask another admin, I don't do these. MLauba ^(Talk) 20:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The range is biggish, by my lights, and while I don't exactly see any good edits from it, a sample suggests they're mostly good faith and not to do with Sitush. But I'm extremely proud of having finally learned how to do range blocks, so you might let me know if you see any other brothers and sisters of your two, Sitush. Doing a range block sets me up for days. :-) Bishonen | talk 20:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC).

• Yeah, right now it's in the /19 range (x.x.0~31.*). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Erachima

Erachima is an editor I have had no interaction with outside of his sudden appearance in the MOSAM discussion on September 12. Erachima moved the contested and unofficial MOSAM page to back to a community guideline despite it never going through the process. Originally, AdamCuerden noticed the MOSAM never passing the guideline and WhatamIdoing affirmed it and noticed the notability section of MOSAM as being an conflict with the policy page. The editor jumped into the conflict and began making accusations and attacks against me.[12][13] Including a tacit acknowledgement of bad faith when I asked for assuming good faith.[14] The reinsertion of something policy is against with three editors seemingly in agreement was part of the problem.[15] Despite asking Erachima to stop making personal attacks and stop posting on my page, it continues. I removed his posts three times with said summary and also messaged his talk page.[16][17][18] After these requests, Erachima posted again and I promptly removed it. [19][20] I ask this user refrain from posting on my talk page and stop with the polemic characterization of my stance on MOSAM as a "vendetta". It is unconstructive and certainly unwanted. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Users are allowed to do as they wish with messages once they are on their talk pages, but they are not allowed to prohibit posting messages there.
  Per WP:NPA, "Discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion." I maintain that my characterization of Chris's antagonistic personal relationship to the MOS:ANIME policy is accurate and salient to the discussions at MOS:ANIME and of MOS:ANIME at the Policy pump, but will refrain from the use of the loaded term "vendetta" in the future.
  On a sidenote, I find Chris's repeated emphasis that he "doesn't even know me", "has had no interaction with me", etc. baffling, as all edits and statements made on Wikipedia are a matter of public record and it takes minimal effort to become acquainted with someone's history on a subject. --erachima talk 22:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • @Erachima: Just a minor correction - users are allowed to "ban" you from their talkpage, by requesting you do not post there (except for required notices). It is often found that failing to acknowledge and follow that request constitutes harassment. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 23:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Interesting. I believe that is a change in policy since I was last involved in any of the local drama. My recollection is that talk page bans were a community measure given following evidence of harassment, and were not permitted simply because some user didn't like hearing from another user. --erachima talk 23:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
      • It is not a policy based ban - any blocks that have come from these bans have been because it has been seen by the rest of the community as harassment to continue posting on a user's talkpage when they've asked you to stop. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 23:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
        • I see. In that case, if it remains a matter of judgment and politeness rather than a hard rule, I will continue my current stance of not posting on Chris's talkpage unless he, say, puts another giant automated template demanding a response on my talk page. Which is what he did in the latter case he complains about.
          In the former, he had merely insulted me in an edit summary, which I will admit it would have been more mature to simply ignore. --erachima talk 23:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to ask a user to stay off your talk page, it should not be done with a parting "check a dictionary" parting shot. NE Ent 02:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't the one changing something that three editors and policies said was a problem and responding with a POINTy comment when reverted.[21] Was it the best response, probably not, but I didn't want to get into someone's POINTy response on the industry usage of "licenser" instead of "licensor".[22][23] Licenser is preferred, and is used on sites like Anime News Network[24], Otaku News[25] and has 15.6 million Google hits to 86k. Call it regional or not, but I see a preference in Japanese news to use "licenser" which is also prevalent in media in English countries. It was a snide and baiting remark that I was in no mood to deal with, but converting from one English dialect to another when its remained the standard and stable for years is rather pesky and bothering an editor about "oh you disagree with this" is pushing it. If not for any of the arguments already made, why not WP:RETAIN as well? This is like changing "color" to "colour" when its not covered by TIES and its been "color" for years. But, yes, I disagree with that alteration. Though I wish I could strike that part in hindsight. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

In no possible way does telling you that your claim that you disagreed with "all of" my edit immediately falls apart under inspection because your reversion included de-corrections of spelling inconsistency (not to mention various other unobjectionable rephrasings) violate "Do Not Disrupt Wikipedia to Prove a Point". That rule is about attempting to turn pages into object lessons (an excellent article candidate for expansion, incidentally) in why a user or policy is wrong, e.g. adding {{cn}} to every single statement another user edits because you're mad about your own unreferenced statements being flagged by them, or making your signature super-obnoxious in protest of people with illegibly shaded signatures. Whether you like licensor or licenser more is irrelevant, they cannot both be used at the same time on the same page, which they were on the page in question.
So, let's lay out the course of events here: You blanket-reverted an edit because you didn't like one part of it.[26] When I told you not to do that you claimed you hadn't.[27] When that claim was proven incorrect you banned me from your talk page and insulted me.[28] Now you're stuck defending yourself in the ANI you initiated, where it appears your only relevant defense is that you were "in no mood to deal with" being criticized.[29]
So, I've agreed to stop referring to your position towards MOS:ANIME as a vendetta. Have you learned your lesson about confusing disagreement with harassment and frivolously threatening people with admin action? If so, I believe we can mark this subject resolved. If not, I intend to document your pattern of belligerent and hypocritical responses to mild editorial disagreements, WP:OWNership issues, and general problems engaging in civil collaboration, and we'll see where things go from there. Here's a great example to start with: You banned a respected editor from your talk page because he told you that you were using a template wrong. --erachima talk 18:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

And here I was going to apologize for the comment, but you not only take something out of context to continue this drama on something you know nothing about, but you are provoking me at ANI. No offense, but every time I try in offer compromise and work together it only takes some new third party from A&M's history to create more drama just as things start to settle down. I dislike the choice of words used throughout this, but I asked for Erachima to stay off my page and it has been acknowledged. I'm not going to get into discussing Ryulong - he's no party to this and its not fair to drag him into this discussion. I wish I didn't make that snippy remark, I had one hell of a terrible day involving all three of my vehicles breaking and being stranded for hours, with the rescue car also having issues. I regret it, but Erachima doesn't want to drop the hostilities and apparently doesn't want to let bygones be bygones or an apology. MOSAM and A&M, the localconsensus are something bigger than I and will not be handled here, so this has likely run its course. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't want an apology, I want you to learn. You're the one who chose to drag this to ANI and make a scene of it, which is why I'm talking here. If you don't want your dirty laundry aired out in a public venue, then don't ban people from conversing with you personally. If you want excused because you were having a terrible day, extend some of the compassion and understanding you expect everybody to give you to the other editors you're interacting with. Those "third parties from A&M's history" are better known as "long-standing community consensus". And you may regret this now, but "regret" is hardly the emotion conveyed by giant automated warning templates and username-titled ANI smear posts. --erachima talk 04:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not excuse A&M's actions of mass removing content "per MOSAM" and the community agreed. MOSAM is not an official community guideline; it is rightfully a Wikiproject MOS and other editors agree and cite the policy pages. The "dirty laundry" is really a misleading link to attack me further. I thanked Ryulong for correcting my template use (it is my first response to!), but I disagreed at his wholesale removal of content and repeated redirecting of notable content per "MOSAM". Though that matter is not worth discussing here. I only came to ANI because you would not stay off my talk page and made a string of personal attacks and bad faith accusations. I said I was upset to see all this bad faith and personal attacks directed at me and asked that my opposition stopped being referred to as a crusade.[30] 11 minutes later you make a personal attack by saying, "User:ChrisGualtieri has a vendetta against the MOS:MANGA because it is opposed to his article fork at Dragon Ball (anime).
Hopefully we can all work together to create a better guideline, but I don't see that happening while Chris continues to assault the validity of the page rather than disputing specifics of its content."[31] Of course I am stunned by this for a number of reasons.[32] Though your post at MOSAM points to me and uses "crusade" again.[33] I was already upset with the attacks as indicated by my first post and 11 minutes later I get one from you. And 10 minutes later another including the "crusade" reference which you already knew I was upset about. I don't think that it was unreasonable to warn you for. Saying I have a "vendetta" or even a "crusade", as in religious crusades, is extremely inflammatory. A Twinkle warning seemed appropriate when you continued to make them despite repeated calls for you to not do so. Now, its over, let the drama die and let's do something productive. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

So that's a no then. See you in the inevitable RFC. --erachima talk 06:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

User at it again with unapproved BOT activity

I previous listed user درفش کاویانی for unapproved BOT activity. He's at it again, this time creating redirects for no reason other then because one letter might be confused for another. The sole point of the redirect is so that if someone types a g instead of a k that they're redirected. Nothing else, and done for every article. It's the most ridiculous reason to create tons of redirects I've seen, combined with the fact it's obvious that some sort of BOT/Unapproved tool is being used (There where over twenty edits within the span of one minute alone that I counted) it's just aggravating. Plus he's at it again adding one line articles based on a BOT run of a census list. Also some of the edit summaries seem to plainly indicate he's using programing from DarafshBot a BOT that was indef. blocked because of errors and lack of understanding of the user. He just does not seem to get what he's doing is not correct. Caffeyw (talk) 07:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a Wikihounding! i cant understood reason of this discussion, i move some page into another page because they had WRONG NAME. you dont see any difference between New York and Nevo uork ?!? Haftgel is wrong name, Haftkel is true.

about creating article, i said befor'; I creat this article with a template manually.

You despondent me to editing en.wiki :( Darafsh Kaviyani (Talk) 07:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Darafsh is correct that these are not redirects, but page moves. That said, Darafsh, how are you carrying out these moves? They seem quite fast. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes i moves that, i dont creat new redirect straight. actully i dont know! i open the pages, select "Move" on top of them and click it, then replace "g" and "k", That's it. Darafsh Kaviyani (Talk) 07:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but what I was seeing where redirect pages, yes there where also page moves, but there where numerous redirect pages created. Also the issue with creates/moves is still valid. There is some sort of automatic tool/BOT being used. There's no way possible for anything else to be concluded, and even if it can't be shown it still violates the BOT policy because anything of a mass change/create should be approved before it's done. I'm sorry you think I'm hounding you, I had forgotten about you actually till I was looking at new pages and saw the same activity again. Caffeyw (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC) I should note that the original page name was kept with a redirect to the new moved page. This is why I'm calling them redirects. Caffeyw (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

So you are in wrong. i dont use any tool or BOT, i just try to make useful contributions. for redirects, i just use move in top up the pages and never use BOT or tool. i dont know how i can prove it. Darafsh Kaviyani (Talk) 08:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Even if not using a BOT the BOT policy still applies to the mass changes/adds that are being done. Add in the fact that in some of your descriptions DarafshBot's templates are being listed as used and it makes a case when combined with more then 20 edits in one minute alone. Caffeyw (talk) 08:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Caffeyw, why do you insist on emphasizing the word BOT every time you post? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Probably cos of WP:BOT. GiantSnowman 08:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

@درفش کاویانی:, I seriously suggest you slow down right now, whether you are using a bot or not. Your mass, unexplained page moves, as well as your mass creation of borderline-notable stubs (pretty much one a minute!) could become disruptive. GiantSnowman 08:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I respect your decision and contribute slowly. but you know, im not disruptive :-) Darafsh Kaviyani (Talk) 09:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I know, that's why I'm saying it could become disruptive i.e. in the future. When moving pages, you should explain why - and you should not create so many articles in such a short space of time, it implies you are not taking time over them. GiantSnowman 09:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure, i follow your recommendation. Thanks Darafsh Kaviyani (Talk) 09:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• • All I ask is an acknowledgment that regardless of if it's a BOT, a tool, or super human powers that the BOT policy still applies. Mass creates require prior approval to determine if they're wanted. Also since not an approved BOT each edit should show human interaction. (This is where I have a truly hard time since at 05:24 the user had 23 edits, which is one every 2.6 seconds) I'm happy as long as there's an acknowledgment so that if it continues, we can say he's been told twice now to stop it. Lest anyone think otherwise, I do truly believe he's working to try and better Wiki, I just think he needs to slow it down and get approvals for mass creates to ensure smooth operations of the Wiki. Caffeyw (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
    • you do realize that anyone can open multiple tabs, make the edits, and save them sequentially. the actual editing would take a normal amount of time, he's just doing multiple edits at once. not that hard. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 05:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Graham Bean

@Grahambean: created his own article in 2009 and has been disrupting it for a while but moreso recently (as evident from his talk page and contribs). He recetly went to the help desk to complain about "libel" on his article (while also making a legal threat) and a person re-adding it whenever it was removed (by him). Not only did i find the claim in the article vague, but also cited. I rewrote it to a more accurate and less vague degree and warned Graham about WP:COI. He has since persisted in vandalising/blanking the article and removing the maintenance tags. He has received multiple warnings for this behaviour and AIV have sent me here to get it sorted. I assume he thought Wikipedia is censored at his will, but he has been warned numerous times that this is not true. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion on the article's talk page, or where you were referred here by AIV, but it's entirely possible that I am missing it because it seems like instead of any type of communication, there have just been back and forth page/section blanking. So, from what I can tell, he asked for the page to be deleted at the help desk, and since he teeters on the edge of notability, why not just AFD it for a first step and see what happens? Ditch ∝ 16:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Jenova has discussed with the user on his talkpage, at the help desk, and other places. The user continues to make problematic disruptive COI edits without discussing them first. An indefinite WP:NOTHERE block at least until he is willing to communicate would be beneficial. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 17:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I've spoken to Graham both at the help desk and on his user page and he refuses to reply or listen. Why would the article talk page be any different? He appears to be having a hissy fit that something controvertial and potentially illegal he did ended up on his article (cited reliably too) and no one will agree to remove it. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 19:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Potentially illegal? This is a BLP we're talking about. Are you sure that the assertions in dispute are sourced well enough? I have concerns about overall notability, not to mention whether his legal troubles have merit in the article. This is why I'd like to see discussion on the article talk page before coming to ANI. Not just for communication between you and him, but to openly hash out these concerns...or at least record that they exist... in a way that outside parties, like myself, can make heads or tails of what the problem is, and perhaps weigh in in a consensus discussion. As it stands, we're at ANI talking about it. I think the obvious COI is a problem that should be addressed, but we shouldn't lose sight of the forest from the trees. Ditch ∝ 02:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

[34] - "citation needed", my arse. Please refer to policy 88.104.27.75 (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• That IP's edit seems fine to me. I agree that maybe an AfD would be a proper venue to see if the article can stand in the first place; if the sourcing is indeed so problematic that we can't write a decent biography, then BLP1E might well apply. (I don't see what talk page discussion would solve, though it might be helpful to create a record, even if that record is subsequently deleted after an AfD discussion.) Drmies (talk) 04:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Haul this to AfD, it'll fail to pass muster. Carrite (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• Okay, I have nominated at AFD. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Contributor lacking clue

Resolved

 – Blocked, needs to explain

Sorry folks but I've had enough of trying to deal with Rockin It Loud (talk · contribs), whose recently-blanked talk page was chock-full of warnings and explanations of where they have been going wrong. I am not the only person who has been struggling and the list of issues is long, including repeated reinstatements of unsourced content, repeated recreations of deleted articles, addition of redlinked categories, creation of dubious "conjunction" articles such as ones about Buddhist Brahmins, poor citations, a seemingly complete unwillingness to discuss except via edit summary ... the list goes on.

For the repeated reinstatements and poor sourcing, please see as an example the recent goings-on at List of Shudra Hindu saints. Recreated articles include the trio of Ethics of Hinduism / Sanatana Dharma ideal / Sanātan Dharm. Some of their conjunction articles were raised at WT:INB, eg: in this thread. They seem almost never to engage in discussion and it is becoming very tiresome. Can anyone offer some advice? I do think that they probably mean well but they are simply not getting it. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have blocked indefinitely: the incompetence issue, esp. when it comes to sourcing content, is an important factor, and the other is the complete lack of communication in response to concerns expressed by many editors besides Sitush. Telling is the number of edits they made to their own talk page, which was nicely filled with issues: they made two edits there. They may be easily unblocked and return to the fold if they explain, on their own talk page, that they understand the concerns and are willing to work on them. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

URL spamming under the guise of fake references

Two users, Grubru (talk · contribs) and Wordpressstar (talk · contribs), appear to be viral marketing the website "sgcafe.com" by adding false references (URLs to the website in the guise of citations) to a giant plethora of articles, many cases where the "citation" addition doesn't even make sense.

• Such edits by Grubru: [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]
• Such edits by Wordpressstar: [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76]

As an example of what I mean by these users inserting and shoehorning in references in a manner which seems forced and doesn't make sense, refer to the following:

• This edit by Grubru appears to be adding a citation to the claim "New characters... unlockable, bonus boss for most characters, boss for Kazuya" at Tekken 2, however the linked URL has nothing to do with Tekken 2 at all (it has to do with a Tekken Tag Tournament 2 tournament at Timezone in mid-September 2013, where participants get $30 game credits)
• This edit by Grubru adds a URL about a restaurant, which has nothing to do with the sentence being "cited" ("Atlus USA has also published the tactical role-playing game Tactics Ogre and Game Boy Advance remakes of the Kunio-kun and Double Dragon games"). A similar edit can be seen here, which shoehorns in the same URL on another article.
• The article Perfect Cherry Blossom is about a computer game released in 2002; this edit by Grubru adds a citation about visiting Tokyo to attend the 2013 Comic Market to the article.
• This edit by Grubru adds a citation about 5pb. in the middle of a completely unrelated article, Touhou Project.
• This edit by Wordpressstar adds a fake citation about a PVC figure for "The beautiful princess of Alabasta, Vivi Nefertari" in a completely unrelated article. This is also done on another completely unrelated article, Swedish Chef, in this edit. Identical URL is also placed in this edit, and many others.
• This article is about the Mobile Suit Gundam AGE anime series; this edit by Wordpressstar attempts to shoehorn in a URL regarding the completely unrelated Gundam Breaker (a PlayStation 3 game with a completely different storyline) into the article. The same URL is also shoehorned in here at List of Sgt. Frog characters.
• This edit by Wordpressstar shoehorns in a URL advertising clothing as a "reference" for a videogame's opening theme song.

Both editors do this frequently; I don't see any purpose behind shoe-horning in completely unrelated references, other than some kind of underground promotion scheme. As far as I am aware, authors who write for sgcafe.com get paid money based on how many hits their articles get. These false references may be used to boost viewership. --benlisquare_T•C•E 18:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the edits I concur. They both appear to be for an SGCafe account called SpartanChef trying to increase their hits. None of these are valid references. Even if they're not to drive business to SGCafe for this SpartanChef editor, they're still not here to build an encyclopaedia and it's still vandalism. I'm tempted just to indef them both myself but would like to see what others say. Unfortunately I've been seeing more of this kind of vandalism lately with people adding references and other reading to spam certain sources. Canterbury Tail talk 18:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Had the links been relevant, I'd be inclined to AGF and just warn them against commercial promotion, but as the links are also misrepresented, their intentions are clearly insidious. Your instinct is correct, block away. --erachima talk 19:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

In other news, we have a similar case with 86.20.42.223 (talk · contribs), who has exclusively made spam edits promoting the website "sentuamsg.com". There are zero (0) constructive edits by this editor since the dawn of time. Diffs: [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91]. On their talk page, I've warned them before on 12 September 2013; they have continued their behaviour on 13 September 2013. --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• sgcafe.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.sgcafe.com

We have a third user, MDavid.me (talk · contribs) (about these reports):

MER-C whoadded sgcafe.com

COIBot 407 records; Top 10 editors who have added sgcafe.com: Wordpressstar (64), Voidz (38), MDavid.me (31), Grubru (28), [redacted] (26), Nickaang (18), Madmoron (11), [redacted] (10), NyGuha (10), ClueBot NG (9).
MER-C whatadded Grubru
COIBot 36 records; Domains added by grubru: sgcafe.com (28), translate.google.com (4), allmusic.com (1), imdb.com (1), uoregon.edu (1), homei-city.gov.tw (1).
MER-C whatadded Wordpressstar
COIBot 141 records; Top 10 domains added by wordpressstar: sgcafe.com (64), business.avn.com (9), djbooth.net (7), rubyhornet.com (6), google.com (4), fakeshoredrive.com (3), chicagoreader.com (3), smokingsection.uproxx.com (3), complex.com (3), themusicninja.com (3).
MER-C whatadded MDavid.me

COIBot 35 records; Domains added by mdavid.me: sgcafe.com (31), codeplex.com (1), rage4.com (1), rankstar.de (1), books.google.co.in (1).

It's interesting to see the intersection with the User:Nickaang sockfarm --- User:Voidz, User:Madmoron and User:NyGuha are all sockpuppets. I've pruned two unrelated usernames, let me know if you want them.

• sentuamsg.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.sentuamsg.com

MER-C whoadded sentuamsg.com
COIBot 10 records; Editors who have added sentuamsg.com: 86.20.42.223 (10).

Just warn and block this one in the usual way. MER-C 02:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment — Has sgcafe been made aware of this persistent issue? Further, should it be blacklisted? It seems like blog-only content to me... DKqwerty (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, [[92]] 88.104.27.75 (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so sgcafe was added for possible blacklisting. However, have sgcafe's owners/contributors been made aware of the issue we're having with spamming? Just seems like a courtesy to make them aware before blacklisting their site. DKqwerty 04:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that it's necessary to informm them before blacklisting, ultimately it doesn't matter who's responsible the point of blacklisting is to protect wikipedia and isn't intended as a slight against a site or its owners, and in the unlikely event some links to sgcafe are needed somewhere they can be whitelisted. And it's not like there's necessarily much they can do if they aren't responsible (and if they are there's no reason to inform them). Of course this doesn't mean we shouldn't inform them if we have reason to believe the site owners may not be aware, simply that blacklisting is independent of that. Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked both the posters noted in the initial post. While there is some good edits in there for one of them, the blatant misrepresentation is not acceptible. Canterbury Tail talk 11:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The Key School

I removed unreferenced claims.

They have been reinstated several times. I do not wish to 'edit war'.

The Key School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

88.104.27.75 (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Uh... hmm. This is interesting. On the one hand, 88's page blanking is inappropriate. On the other hand, parts of the page read like promotional content or even possible copyvio, and on the third the article actually has a rather sizeable number of contributors over a long time. So, however you slice it, something's odd here. --erachima talk 05:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

In what way is it "inappropriate" to remove unreferenced shite? 88.104.27.75 (talk) 05:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment — User appears to be on a vendetta regarding unsourced info per this edit. Also seems to be easily agitated, as when referring to unreferenced info as "shite." User is in need of guidance regarding what is appropriate removal of content (which I've attempted myself, but may need other editors' feedback as well). DKqwerty 05:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not a 'vendetta'.

I removed unreferenced claims - which I truly believe is in the interests of this project. I ask that anyone reinstating the information please adhere to the policies of this project, specifically WP:V to provide appropriate references for the facts. 88.104.27.75 (talk) 05:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - This is a fairly obvious case WP:POINTy editing. A quick look at the IP's edit history will reveal an ongoing dispute over WP:V on various talk pages, including this noticeboard. The IP also blanked a whole section on Mean curvature for being "unreferenced" [93] when it was properly referenced with in-line citations. -SFK2 (talk) 05:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If a non admin may insert a comment here, 88, as a very new editor, might not be aware of a few things. One, US high schools are virtually automatically notable and except for a very basic indication of their actual existence (the school's website is generally considered enough), don't need references for the article to exist. That being said, I agree it is pretty much a pile of WP:SCHOOLCRUFT and WP:PROMO. Blanking it is not the answer, however. 88 should take a look at the school article guidelines and try to judiciously apply citation needed tags, while rewording the promo out. If he is not up to it, I will be happy to take a look at it after church tomorrow. I have quite a bit of experience trimming down school articles in the condition it is in.

Also, let us please remember we are dealing with a new editor here. Let's not get the boomerang out quite yet. 88, I will leave you an invite to a new users Q&A board on your talk, and I will be happy to try to answer any questions you have if you would like to come to my talk page and discuss it. It is much safer than coming here and complaining, and also much more the proper thing to do. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, after his last edit summary, I can understand why you are blocking him. However, his edit that was attached to it really isn't far from what I would have done to clean the article up. I may have left some of the history, but all the rest of his deletion was good as gold. That is one crappy article. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked the user; their first post to this board made clear that they were aware that it's not appropriate to edit war, so I saw no need to warn first. If another admin disagrees, they are welcome to remove or reduce the block without discussing with me first. This block has nothing to do with the content of the article, to which I will make no comment at this time. It is solely due to the disruption caused by edit warring rather than getting consensus for the changes first. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

That works. Altho someone restored it, another editor put it back to 88's last edit due to copyvio. I'll see what can be done with it tomorrow. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Taking back anything I may have said in his defense, 88 is definitely either WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE. At the risk of being across WP:DFTT, do any of you mop holders think talk page restriction or a block extension are in order for his continued battleground attitude? He just nominated a perfectly good sandbox for deletion, through a proxy, for pete's sake. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and I have warned them. Continued disruption will result in their talk page being revoked, and potentially the block extended. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The IPs block has been extended to 72 hours, and talk page access has now been revoked due to abuse of their talk page privileges. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

@Barek: The IP still has talk page access, make sure to tick the relevant box! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 08:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It's ticked now. I suppose somebody tried pointing out that with the exception of BLPs WP:V only requires that references exist, not that they be in the article... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the block - I thought I had ticked the box, I must've accidentally selected the wrong box. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• I noted it on the blocking admin's talk page, but I'll leave a note here as well. I'm concerned by the fact that the anon was blocked for edit warring while removing unreferenced, unencyclopedic, promotional information that was later determined to be copyvio, while the actions of SFK2 and the others using rollback inappropriately have been ignored. Ryan Vesey 18:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• The block was strictly for edit warring, the content wasn't a factor in the block - the content being reverted did not fall into any of the exceptions that allow for edit warring (okay, technically, the content was eventually found to be copyvios, which is a listed exception - but the the block was done prior to a copyvio issue being spotted by someone else). As to rollback reasons, I have never patrolled for behavioral guideline issues related to rollback reasons, with the exception of secondary violations within those reasons such as NPA. If someone else wants to review them, they are welcome to do so. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• "the block was done prior to a copyvio issue being spotted by someone else" <-- I noted the potential copyvio before the guy was blocked. It only wasn't confirmed until later. --erachima talk 20:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Further, 88 never cited WP:COPYVIO as the criteria for their blanking.    DKqwerty    20:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

User:DonCalo insisting on pushing a controversial POV in the lead of Southern Italian crime syndicates

After my removal of the description "Mafia-type" in the lead of a mainland Italian crime group Camorra, User:DonCalo [[94]] restored the edit and went on a crusade to include it on every other Southern Italian article: [95] [96] [97]

He is using the argument that since some Italian authorities conflate all Southern Italian groups under one label (IMHO he is misinterpreting Italian law as its a very convoluted issue but I won't get into that since it's a content issue), that Wikipedia articles should consistently label each and every crime group in Italy as "Mafia-type" (capital M Mafia, not lowercase m mafia). This is pure POV pushing because in Italy, "Mafia" refers solely to the Sicilian Mafia - the Camorra, 'Ndrangheta, and Sacra Corona Unita, among others, are managed and operated completely differently from the Mafia. Mainland groups are a totally different world from that of Sicily. Comparisons of the American Mafia to Sicilian Mafia are one thing as American families are overwhelmingly of Sicilian descent, but to push this POV on mainland groups is ridiculous, inaccurate, and POV. Article leads should stick to the basic facts, not the POV of a government or prejudicial prosecutors (the Italian state and authorities are notorious for their racist attitude towards Southerners and they lump all Southerners in one group as a way of tainting the region as being part of a vast criminal conspiracy.)

At any rate, this is a content dispute so none of that matters here, but the POV pushing has to stop. It's not appropriate for the lead and this edit war is absurd. Laval (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Um, Italians are all the same race; if that's your idea of something neutral, you're the one advocating an error and a specific point of view. Nyttend (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Coincidentially, the same issue came up at the Mafia disambigution page where several editors agreed upon using "Mafia-type" organisation. I also provided several sources and there is a consensus among scholars (check [98]). This is not a state pushing a POV. Mafia-type does not mean that they are the same as the Mafia, but that the structure and modus operandi of these organisations are quite similar. It is also explained overhere. - DonCalo (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the main source I used Mafia and Mafia-type organizations in Italy by Sicilian born and Siclian based Mafia-expert Umberto Santino, was removed by Laval from the Camorra article as prejudiced while it is a chapter from a scientific work. He did so after asking for sources. When I did so, the source is labeled as prejudiced. Apparently, every source that does not agree with Laval is now considered prejudiced. - DonCalo (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Other evidence that the 'Ndrangheta, Camorra etc. are considerded Mafia-type organisation is provided by the Anti-Mafia Investigations Directorate (Dia), a specialised interagency investigative organization specializing in Mafia investigations all over Italy, which was set up in 1991 with the full support of Sicilian-born anti-Mafa judge Giovanni Falcone, who was killed by the Mafia, see Fight against Mafia-type organisations. - DonCalo (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Scholar Letizia Paoli even extends mafia-type organizations to non-Italian organizations such the so-called Chinese Triads and Tongs, and the 3,000 groups belonging to the Japanese Yakuza, precisely because of their comparable structure and modus operandi, see The paradoxes of organized crime. - DonCalo (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that DonCalo is pushing his POV, but rather that his edits reflect the current consensus of experts on the topic, here. In Italy, all those crime syndicates are known as "associazioni di tipo mafioso" (mafia-like associations) under art. 416-bis of the penal code (the article also contains a definition of "associazione di tipo mafioso"). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Neo ^ and Armenians in Cyprus

User:Neo ^ has some severe WP:OWN issues with Armenians in Cyprus, and I was at least the third editor to point out ownership issues, to then be dismissed rudely out of hand, as more recently User:Cplakidas was also treated. Apparently we the unwashed masses do not know near as much about WPMOS and POV as does User:Neo ^.

I came to the article as an interesting topic with which I have some connection. It was and is awash in unnecessary bolding, filled with claims to "famous" and "well-known" personages who do not have a Wikipedia article, and chock full of POV. The term "Osmanian occupation", aside from being the wrong demonym in English, is a loaded term.

I cleaned up some of the more obvious problems, but they were reverted by User:Neo ^. User:Cplakidas cleaned it up and was likewise treated.

On the article's talkpage, I first calmly explained that "unfortunately", "famous" and other such buzzwords are POV and have no place in an encyclopedia. It escalated, I dropped it but watch the article for more evidence of such behavior.

The article really needs a good hard looking over by an MOS expert at least.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yikes, holy image overload Batman. And that bibliography? Listing every book ever published about Armenians in Cyprus or remotely connected is not a bibliography. And looking at the talk page, yes there is a serious ownership and tone issue with Neo ^ on there. A lot of that article needs culled, not moved elsewhere but culled. The majority isn't even remotely referenced. Canterbury Tail talk 13:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Just having a fresh look tonight, try cognates of heroic, historic and unsurpassed in the thing.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I have been offended by the epressions the first user used against me. I am not that familiar with Wikipedia's policies, however I did not revert the changes, I merely changed back - some of them. The attempt is to include all relevant information. Maybe my tone was not liked by some people, but then again you should have seen the expressions used when mentioning me. Neo ^ (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

"not that familiar with Wikipedia's policies"? Then you should watch your tone with other editors who are familiar with them, and again shame on you for being here 7 years and remaining "not that familiar with Wikipedia's policies".--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

And, yes, they should take a look at the discussion page, and see who went in guns blazing-you-as seems to be your habit. A quick read of your edit summaries with other users makes that abundantly clear.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

So I though I would add to this discussion a bit, let's try to keep calm no need to get angry Kintetsubuffalo. I've been aware of the of the shenanigans that have been going on in Armenians in Cyprus for some time. I thought since Neo put so much time and effort into expanding the page, that the information could be... hmmmmm how can I put this salvaged, then at a later date streamlined. As evident in the talk page I tried to come to some sort of compromises with Neo. Lets just say it would have been easier to get water from a rock. It's one thing for a user to be unaware of Wikipedia's guidelines and rules, making unintentional mistakes, I've done it plenty of times in the past. If you go to the talk page it very evident that Neo has been well informed, especially about WP:SIZERULE and WP:OWN. Every time I try to work these things out, Neo slowly goes back and reverts everything, like a child putting his hand into the cookie jar when he thinks no one is looking. I think I have been very patient with Neo, with all fairness, I truly believe Neo has good intentions. The fact of the matter is, that the page need some serious damage control, it definitely has problems with size and language used, at times seems a bit POV. Seric2 15:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

"Shame on you", "watch your tone" and other expressions do show who has got a real problem with tone, and this is not me... I firmly believe that the basic information should remain when there are other main pages (e.g. education, church and monuments), that is why I am compromising there. However, the timeline or other sections - the information of which cannot be found anywhere else - should remain. And I do believe that I am not reverting things, I am merely editing.Neo ^ (talk) 06:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

And another thing: you cannot imagine how much time I have devoted to accumulating and preserving this information. It is such a pity to lose this, just because the article has attracted unwanted attention... Neo ^ (talk) 06:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

How are you "compromising"? Seric2 is exactly right about you, "Neo slowly goes back and reverts everything, like a child putting his hand into the cookie jar when he thinks no one is looking." You're loading the article with POV crap again, when the above editors say the article needs culled.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Neo, it doesn't matter how much time you have devoted, if WP:CONSENSUS is that the stuff you have added is inappropriate, out it goes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The hits with Neo just keep on coming, "I am not reverting things, I am merely editing" editing things back to the way they were? To be frank I've been here before. It wouldn't surprise me if a year, two or even three years down the line were back to square one with Neo making "additions" or "touch-ups" to the page. Now that we are on the topic, I was wondering if we could perhaps come to some sort of permanent solution. Now I'm not exactly filled with ideas, I was hoping for some kind of permanent solution, so we don't have to come back to the same problem year, after year, after year. Knowing Neo and his track record it's not hard to imagine this being the case. Seric2 13:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I am not adding crap. What I did was selectively add back some of the information that was there in the first place. Only some of the information, the most important one.Neo ^ (talk) 09:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Armenians in Cyprus problem

Hello. I am Neo_^, for whom many have been heard, unfortunately.

I was told the bibliography section was very large, so we deleted the unpublished articles, the photographic albums and the (auto)biographies.

Then, I was told that - because there are the articles on Armenian education in Cyprus, Armenian religion in Cyprus#Places of worship and Armenian monuments in Cyprus, I should add some of the information there, so as not to repeat what is on that articles, which is what I did, very selectively (only a small paragraph for each item).

Then, some others started undoing my additions, without viewing them. How can someone help me?Neo ^ (talk) 10:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I have blocked Neo ^ for 24 hours (as a standard 3RR block), after his recent edits that were four identical massive blanket reverts within one hour (not counting the several partial restorations he did earlier, which would probably also have counted as contentious reverts). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

User:John and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLPs)

I got into a dispute with administrator John at the Brad Pitt article over the appropriateness of using People (magazine)/People.com as a source for that article and other biographies of living persons. Before even reverting him, I took this matter to the article's talk page and then to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. As seen at that noticeboard, WP:Consensus is that using People and newspaper sources such as the Daily News (New York) for biographies of living persons is acceptable. In fact, as pointed out in that discussion: At the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, People has been consistently deemed a reliable/appropriate source to use for biographies of living persons. Despite this, John has continued to insist that he is right, and, in my view, hinted at or inappropriately used his administrative influence during this dispute by stating things like "Not on my watch" and by continuing to remove the valid sources from the article (as seen here and here) as though we should go by his word or no word at all. Despite being WP:INVOLVED, he issued this warning on my talk page (a warning that indicates that he will block me); I'd already mentioned in the BLP:Noticeboard discussion that he is WP:INVOLVED and would likely block me anyway. There is also the latest comment he made on the Brad Pitt talk page advising me that it would "be very unwise to restore poorly sourced material to this article, especially while central discussion is still ongoing" and that "We are arguing aboutr People but there are also sources like the Sun and the New York Daily News which we cannot use." He stated this despite the fact that, again, WP:Consensus at the noticeboard is not in support of his view, except of course regarding sources such as The Sun; it is a discussion that has obviously run its course. I told him, "That discussion is clearly not simply about People. The New York Daily News is an acceptable source as well, as explained there and no one is arguing to keep sources such as The Sun. As for the matter of ongoing discussion, if it is very unwise for me to restore the sourcing (which it isn't, per above), then it is very unwise of you to WP:Edit war that material out, and to remove further such material, while the discussion is still open."

So, yes, assistance is needed from the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read through that enough yet, but I don't see this consensus on using the "Daily News" for this. Dougweller (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to agree they might be acceptable. Privilege not being license, however, they are not sources I would call "high quality". I would personally prefer not to use them. John is a very experienced editor and I would personally defer to his judgment on this matter. That being said, this is a content matter and has no place here.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll disagree in some aspects Wehwalt: Flyer22 has begun to resort to personal attacks once again - something I have gently tried to talk him out of, only to be attacked myself. His AGF-meter seems to be very broken ES&L 13:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, an admin threatening a block contrary to consensus at BLP/N does have a place here. Claiming WP:BLP trumps WP:V shows a lack of understanding of Wikipedia standards. NE Ent 13:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Knowing nothing about any of these publications, I cannot offer an opinion about whether they are reliable sources. That being said, WP:V really is our primary content policy, aside from the limited situations in which we need to ignore all other rules. BLP absolutely may not be used as a trump card to censor stuff we don't like. If you get blocked, an unblock and immediate RFCU on John will follow. Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller, the discussion is also about non-tabloid journalism sources in general. And I specifically mentioned the New York Daily News; like People, use of it for biographies of living persons does not violate WP:BLPSOURCES.

Wehwalt, I am also a very experienced Wikipedia editor, and so are most or all of the other editors in that discussion. I, and some of them, deal with WP:BLP topics often. That noticeboard is the WP:BLP noticeboard, after all. And like I mentioned there, People has generally been considered a reliable source for biographical content on Wikipedia (especially for sourcing text pertaining to an interview that person did with the publication). It is used for many or most of the biographies of living persons regarding celebrities, has consistently passed as a WP:Reliable source in discussions about its reliability/validity, and during the WP:Good article and WP:Featured article processes. The WP:Featured article process in particular is an extremely rigorous process that makes sure that sources are reliable/valid. I brought this matter to this noticeboard because John is continuing to remove the sources despite WP:Consensus, and because he issued that warning on my talk page. Should I have waited until he blocked me? I think not.

As for EatsShootsAndLeaves (also known as User:Bwilkins), he considers my calling out John's antics (being on a power trip and power-hungry) to be a WP:Personal attack. I do not. Nor do I consider calling out the fact that Bwilkins is not a neutral commentator on anything regarding me to be a personal attack. Referring to me by male pronouns when he is well aware that I am female, unless he has reasons to doubt it, is more of the disrespect he has shown me in the past. And his "once again" comment should not be taken to mean that I normally violate the WP:Personal attacks policy; I do not.

NE Ent and Nyttend, thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• I would consider these sources to be less than optimal as far as reliability. People in particular often pays well (and sometimes is paid by promoters) to help others be famous or infamous. As sources they are hardly worth the paper they are printed on. However, for the particular non controversial aspects of the article in question that these sources are used to reference, they may be adequate enough...though surely not scholarly. Any article that came to FAC with People as a reference would get a fail from me, just to be clear.--MONGO 14:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The way some of those references from People magazine have been thrown into the article, presumably with a catapult needs fixed, the same biography on the People website is used by at least two separate references which makes it difficult to ascertain where some of the issues may lie, but that's not really much more than an aside here. I've looked at some of the references and compared what the publication (in this case People magazine) said with what it's being used to reference and I'm afraid the sources do appear to be misused. His portrayal of the character has been described as a career-making performance...[99] actually comes from The Los Angeles Times only ambiguously referenced by People magazine - it could be better referenced by quoting the LA Times directly (as we should be doing as we don't know the entire context of the quote when used like this). People is again used to reference another claim While struggling to establish himself in Los Angeles, Pitt took lessons from acting coach Roy London but the source says "This girl – I'd never met her before – was in an acting class taught by a man named Roy London," a famous acting coach, he said, according to excerpts in this week's Newsweek. "I went and checked it out, and it really set me on the path to where I am now."[100] it's not clear there that Pitt was actually tutored by Roy London, just that he checked out an acting class taught by him. I can't see what value adding things like Speaking of his scenes with McCall, Pitt later said, "It was kind of wild, because I'd never even met her before." adds to the article. The reference for On November 22, 2001, Pitt made a guest appearance in the eighth season of the television series Friends, playing a man with a grudge against Rachel Green, played by Jennifer Aniston, to whom Pitt was married at the time includes no detail of the date, or episode title (that I could find). [101]. The reference for The film earned $364 million outside the U.S. and $133 million domestically. is completely wrong and inappropriate [102] and includes no mention of the international gross takes anywhere and only mentions the US take after the first week, not total box office figures. I also see a lot of People references being jammed in alongside unambiguously reliable references and adding nothing of value to the standard of referencing. The feeling I get from these references (and I'm perhaps maligning People) is that it's a celebrity gossip magazine with a few useful bits of information surfacing occasionally, but I don't really see anything reading through the number of references I've done today that makes me entirely comfortable using them for referencing an encyclopedic article. I can only conclude John is correct in his actions and I'd support the removal of those references - they largely fail WP:V too. Nick (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• It depends on what the material is. These two sources are less than perfectly reliable for contentious material. The content of People sometimes does verge on Tabloid; the Daily News is in recent years better than it used to be, but it still needs to be used cautiously. They can, however, be used for routine uncontested material without any problem, and I would also use the News for most articles related to NYC. Some of the uses here seem perfectly unexceptional. Others, as mentioned just above, may not be. For some of the ones mentioned above the problem is not that they cite People but that they do it for material which is not in the source, which would be wrong no matter what source it is. For actors and other creative people, questions of influence tend to be uncertain, and the subject may say different things at different times. Further, what the person says about something like that must be cited as what the person says, not as to what the influences are, which needs a third party source. In short, I think John had good intentions in doing this, but he did it unselectively, and should have gone citation by citation. Large scale unselective actions at WP are usually not a good idea. DGG ( talk ) 15:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Nick, this thread is about John's behavior and the perception that he is misusing his admin status to threaten others with retribution, not about whether the biography about Brad Pitt is written perfectly well (it is not) or about whether the Pitt biography text perfectly reflects the cited sources (it does not.) Anybody who is interested is welcome to get into the biography and fix the problems Nick identified, but let's not get drawn off track. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, if we really must focus on individual users rather than the issue of content. There's nothing seriously wrong with John's behaviour, he's as entitled to warn users for improper behaviour as the next editor although if he had gone and removed individual citations one by one, we would have had a better article at the end of it. I will also state Flyer22's behaviour is problematic as they reintroduced a large number of references that simply should not be used, but that's what happens when you get into this constant cycle of someone's right and someone's wrong. John was wrong to remove all the People references in one go (despite the fact they probably should all be gone anyway) and Flyer22 was wrong to add them back. Nick (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I obviously had no idea that there were WP:Verifiability problems with the way that some of the sources are used. But per my and others' comments at the WP:BLP noticeboard, and my comments in this discussion, I do not believe that I was acting disruptively or was wrong to add the sources back. Flyer22 (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there was no issue with disruption. I can't say you were wrong to add the sources back, given the nature of the argument. Nick (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• The issue of an administrator warning another editor is often sticky. In my view, an admin has a right to use a templated warning just as any editor would do. It's true that some editors are more intimidated by receiving a warning from an admin than from a non-admin, but that shouldn't prevent an admin from issuing the warning. If an admin clearly gives a warning in their capacity as an admin, e.g., if you do this, I will block you, that's a different story. I would be concerned if John blocked Flyer, but I don't see why John can't be as strong as any editor in expressing his views about policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Nick, thanks for pointing out the matters that need fixing. I agree with DGG that those matters are not excuses/valid for removing the generally acceptable sources that John removed (again, I'm not talking about sources such as The Sun). Bbb23, I have no problem with administrators issuing a warning; that is part of an administrator's job. The significant majority of editors here are not administrators, and so the significant majority of editors here who get warnings from administrators are not administrators. I do have a problem with an administrator removing and continuing to remove sources against valid WP:Consensus. This is the WP:BLP noticeboard we are talking about; it involves editors like Binksternet, who are extremely familiar with what sources are acceptable for biographical content concerning living people. It's not a flimsy or WP:ILIKEIT consensus that was formed on the article talk page. I have a problem with an administrator issuing a warning that someone is violating a policy, when that warning is based only on his or her opinion, and when the indication is clearly "I will block you, if you further violate [this or that]." He gave me a "This is your only warning" template, despite the consensus at the WP:BLP noticeboard, and as though I was being some disruptive newbie who doesn't understand WP:BLP policy. I don't see how it can be argued that he did not know very well what implication issuing me that warning would send. I did not feel intimidated, in the sense of being scared to oppose him. I felt threatened, in the sense that he would unjustly block me. Therefore, I felt that I had to beat him to the punch by starting this thread on him. Flyer22 (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm doing my best not to look at the Pitt article or the underlying discussions. There's so much crap in actor articles, whether it's sourced to People, some other fan magazine, or even a major news outlet. If I have to read one more dating history of some good-looking actor ... Two issues you raise. First, whether John is defying consensus. To know that, I'd have to read the discussions, but, generally, what happens when any editor defies consensus is an edit war ensues. That generally gets the defier blocked. Has that happened? I saw a whole bunch of recent consecutive (interrupted only by a bot) reverts at Pitt by John and one by you. I didn't see a war. Second, not whether an administrator is entitled to warn another editor but whether the warning is justifiable. No editor, admin or otherwise, should issue unjustified warnings, and if there is a pattern of doing so, they should be sanctioned. On a more isolated basis, they should probably just be advised/warned not to do it. I'd kind of like to hear from John in this discussion. It looks like he hasn't been on-wiki for several hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

There was a small discussion at WP:BLP/N about People magazine, it's quite clear that those who commented supported the use of People Magazine/People.com as a reliable source, but we've also got comments here which suggest that's not universally accepted across the project. I suspect there's going to have to be a full scale RFC about reliable sources to get to the bottom of what the project as a whole will accept as a reliable source and whether it's possible to consider some less reliable sources for the referencing of less contentious content (name, filmography, DOB etc etc) but there's absolutely no consistency and quite clearly with one group of editors, John would be enforcing consensus and with another group of editors he's ignoring consensus. Nick (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, there have not been a lot of reverts at the Pitt article with regard to me and John (I've reverted him twice; he's reverted me once). And he obviously has not been blocked. But, LOL, regarding reading the article; you're like me in that regard -- watches it, but mostly hasn't read it. Nick's points about the verifiability of that article, however, give me the urge to read the article in its entirety and correct the verifiability aspects that need correcting.

Nick, I pointed out that, in that discussion, it was noted that the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard has consistently deemed People a reliable/appropriate source to use for biographies of living persons. I also noted before that point that it's passed as a reliable source at the WP:BLP noticeboard various times. It's used for a lot of or the majority of articles about living celebrities, and routinely passes as a WP:Reliable source in good and featured article nominations. But I feel that your suggestion about such a WP:RfC is a good idea. Flyer22 (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

A couple things stand out to me here: I'd encourage Flyer not to use rhetoric like "power-hungry, abusive administrator" to describe John. That's probably not going to be very helpful here. And as far as I can see, John hasn't used his admin tools in this dispute. I'd strongly encourage him not to do so, since the last thing we want here is a repeat of the Manning debacle. Also, John's templating of Flyer was definitely inappropriate and unhelpful. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Two comments, first maybe we should step back and take a deep breath until John chips in? Secondly, the regulars should be templated when, in good faith, the templator believes it's appropriate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to give an "only warning" to an editor, especially one that's established, you better darn well be sure it'll be viewed as uncontroversial by uninvolved parties. That goes double for admins as most of us probably feel the next step will be a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you really shouldn't throw a level 4 template on someone's talk page while you're in a good-faith dispute with them. Particularly if you're an admin and they're not. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

100% agreed on that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

No, users should be templated in accordance with the explanation at User Warning Project. Normally a uw-biog warning would be given to ensure an editor is aware of BLP policies -- given that Flyer22 had already initiated a BLP/N[103], clearly they was already aware of BLP and was already discussing the editors; therefore the logical inference is the warning was intended to intimidate / threaten the user.NE Ent 10:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

No comment on the specifics of the content and whether the sources support it. Regarding the ANI-relevant issue, John's conduct, it is entirely inappropriate to threaten someone who has gone through the proper channels and followed consensus, as Flyer22 did, with a block. John is entitled to his views on People and the NY Daily News, but his views do not trump the general views of the community, which have long held that those sources, while inevitably less than ideal, are nonetheless generally reliable. Flyer22 did the right thing in taking the matter to a noticeboard and seeking consensus there, her restoration of content based on the response she received at the noticeboard was fully within policy (no 3RR problems and consensus respected) and she deserved better than to receive a templated warning (a level-4im, no less) in response. That was provocative, insulting, and uncalled for. John appears to have disrespected WP:CONSENSUS, misapplied WP:BLP, and displayed WP:OWN issues. One hopes this could be resolved with a gentle trout whack and an assurance that similar disputes will be handled differently in future. Rivertorch (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Aren't "gentle" and "whack" mutually exclusive? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Only in the real world, Bbb. Wikipedia occupies a parallel universe with its own laws of physics. Rivertorch (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

And there he's at it again violating WP:Consensus, removing everything again and citing use of The Sun as his excuse. Not only does he not respect WP:Consensus, but he has a severe case of WP:I didn't hear that. One more time: In this case, no one is supporting the use of The Sun at the WP:BLP noticeboard or in this discussion. He could have easily removed that without removing the other sources. Flyer22 (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• It seems a handful of editors think People is a good source for BLPs; I think the onus is on them to demonstrate how it meets our standards. The New York Daily News and The Sun are unambiguously tabloids and as such can never be used on a BLP. By blindly edit-warring to restore these non-compliant sources as well as the People ones that they think they have consensus to use, I think Flyer is being either intentionally disruptive or exhibiting incompetence. Whether this rises to the level of being block worthy I will let others judge. The best course would obviously be for them to find better sources. I don't appreciate the insults this user has thrown at me but again I am not sure this requires a block at the moment. I am perfectly happy with how I have handled this and would do exactly the same the next time. It would be great if others would join me in removing gossip sites and tabloids from articles on living people, as our policy stipulates. --John (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• John, I think Flyer is understandably frustrated with your behavior. Your latest removal of sources says that the Sun is a tabloid, but many of the sources you removed relate to People. I thought that on the talk page you had already agreed that the issue of People was still being debated. Why then are you removing the sources? At the same time, your demand that this cannot be resolved by what you label a local consensus, if carried to its logical extreme, would mean that we would have to remove all these sources from tons of articles. I'm not going to express an opinion on the consensus because I haven't read all the discussions, but this is not a case where damaging material about the subject is being added to the article and you are protecting it. You are removing the sources themselves as if they're poison, not assertions about the subject.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• I need to correct something I said above. John is removing material as well as sources. It depends on whether the material is sourced only to People or if it is sourced to some other source and to People. My mistake.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

To John: It is not "a handful of editors," as has been consistently explained to you. Get it through your head that People has consistently passed as a WP:Reliable/appropriate source to use for biographies of living persons, both at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and at the WP:BLP noticeboard, and that it routinely passes as a WP:Reliable source in good and featured article nominations. That does not equate to "a handful of editors." That equates to precedent/standard practice on Wikipedia. You refuse to listen to anyone else's opinion but your own. Not just here, but elsewhere as well (I've noticed, and as also recently pointed out by a different editor on my talk page). You act as though it is your way or the highway. And I don't see how anyone has to wonder why I have cited you as being on a power trip, or referred to you by the aforementioned descriptions (pointed out by Mark) above. The one showing disruption and WP:Competence issues is you, which is well documented in the aforementioned WP:BLP noticeboard discussion and in this discussion. You don't know how to admit when you are wrong, apparently, not even about disclaimers, and you don't know how to follow WP:Consensus...or rather refuse to follow it when it gets in the way of something you disagree with. The only reason I can think that you feel that it is okay to act in the disruptive way you have acted in this case is because you are an administrator. But your actions are wrong. Just because a source mostly or only focuses on celebrities does not make that source unreliable, any more than using ESPN as a source for sports material makes that source unreliable. You have convinced me that you are one of the worst editors/administrators I have ever had the non-pleasure of interacting with. Flyer22 (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Flyer22, as an experienced editor (my regrets, re my earlier comment) perhaps you could refer me to a couple of featured article nominations where the question of People magazine was discussed and upheld? To my knowledge, I have never used or seen either People or the NY Daily News in a featured article or run across it at a nomination, and would certainly flag it and request an explanation if I did see one. I'm reasonably familiar, in an ad hoc sort of way, with FAC, but perhaps your experience is superior.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Not at the top of my head, I can't (think of a case where People was specifically pointed out, meaning because it's People, during a good or featured article process and then upheld; what I do know is that I've seen that more than several times in the several years I've been at this site, since 2007). It is easy enough, however, to look at some of our WP:Featured article biographies of living people and see if they passed using People or sources such as New York Daily News. I'm still not sure how New York Daily News can be called a tabloid, simply because, as its lead currently states, "The first U.S. daily printed in tabloid form." As the Tabloid (newspaper format) article points out, tabloid format does not equal "tabloid." Many valid newspapers use that format. I'm not sure how you've not come across a Wikipedia featured biography of a living person that uses People as a source, but that Brad Pitt article, which passed as a featured article using that source, is nowhere close to a limited case. Like others besides me have stated on this topic, People is routinely used in many of our articles on living people, especially celebrities. But it hardly matters anyway if John gets a special license to violate WP:Consensus (a policy) during a dispute that is not a WP:Ignore all rules matter (as far as I can see). Flyer22 (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

These versions of articles were passed into FA status with using People as a source: [104] [105] [106]. The onus is on John to get consensus that People does not meet our sourcing standards. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

And the New York Daily News? Are you also standing up for that being BLP-compliant? Because it isn't. And nobody has argued that it is. Yet you restored it as a reference. Why was that? --John (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

No one has argued that it is? Yeah, you clearly have a serious case of WP:I didn't hear that. And nice personal attack you made on NeilN below (...not). Flyer22 (talk) 06:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The New York Daily News has been brought up once at WP:RSN: [Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_42#New_York_Daily_News and OK'd]. At WP:BLPN it has a rather more mixed set of reviews, but the main arguments against it appear to come from a now site-banned editor... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Trying to get the discussion back on track here, the question is whether People inherently qualifies as a source which can be used, apparently, in all cases. The nature of the discussion above regarding that point seems to be "no" - it is by nature pretty much a populist source, and they can, at times, be less than optimal. This is not to say that it can't be used,particularly if the content being sourced from it is more or less noncontroversial, but that potentially contentious material which can be sourced exclusively from it might well be problematic. Not all "acceptable" sources are reliable enough to meet RS standards in all cases. Having said all that, we then return to the apparent subject of this discussion, whether John was acting acceptably to remove the material and source from the article. Not knowing all the details about the specific material sourced from People, or whether better sources for the same content exists, that one is hard to answer, but I think in most cases we would err on the side of caution in general there, particularly if BLP concerns are involved. So, removing potentially contentious material sourced from People would be, I think according to most of us, reasonable. The material should then be discussed on the talk page, and if John didn't do that, he probably should have, depending on whether the content had serious BLP problems of not. If the material was contentious, and I don't know enough here to say anything about that in this particular instance. But, on the whole, while I can see that maybe John's actions might not have necessarily been the best of all possible actions he could have taken, and the apparent threat was really less than optimal, I'm not sure that anything more than a few lashings with a wet noodle, or trout, is called for here, so long as the actions don't repeat themselves. John Carter (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you must be reading a different discussion than I am. Perhaps if John were to show any kind of understanding of why this incident report was opened, he could avoid the trouting? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

If the material was contentious, I would expect a different tone on WP:BLPN and here. Instead, we have John removing cites to "The same year, Pitt co-starred in six episodes of the short-lived Fox drama Glory Days" and "...and traveled to Pakistan in November 2005 with Angelina Jolie to see the impact of the 2005 Kashmir earthquake." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just full protected the article. I think it was justified to keep the parties in the dispute from edit warring further and force discussion. I commented on some comments from couple users above, but I don't think I'm WP:INVOLVED in the content dispute regarding the sources. If anyone thinks I am, let me know and I'll consider reverting myself. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't going to revert again. But NeilN reverted John, and John would have likely reverted NeilN. Then someone else would have likely reverted John. So good call on full-protection, Mark. Flyer22 (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that I took the action John implied he was taking in his edit summary. [107]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Er, no you didn't. You restored tabloid journalism (NYDN) as well as the celebrity gossip diarrhea you and others are claiming meets our standards. I cannot see why anyone with a brain would edit-war to restore this trash to the article, but the NYDN is an out-and-out tabloid, which clearly and unambiguously fails BLPSOURCES. Why would you edit-war that back into the article? --John (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

You know all this could have probably been averted if you provided rational arguments and only taken out sources which have been deemed not reliable by previous consensus instead of fooling around with laughable red herrings, completely inappropriate warnings, and very misleading edit summaries - "the Sun is unambiguously a tabloid and cannot ever be used on a BLP" when taking out one Sun reference and a boatload of others. As for the NYDN, checking on WP:RSN and BLPN gives this and this and this (you were even started the last discussion and said you "...don't know the US market so well"). So not a tabloid but should be used with caution. As far as I can see, you didn't even bring up any material you thought was contentious. You just waded in, crying, "Gossip rag! Tabloid! Trashy! Trashy!" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

John, it's time to step away from the computer and have a nice cup of tea before re-engaging. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Can someone explain how it helps with WP:BLP to identify what you consider a sub-optimal source, and take out the reference to it, but leave behind the text that the ref used to support? It is hard to comment in detail when a single edit makes upwards of 30 changes to an article, but several places there, I'm sure that the edit leaves unreferenced text behind with no 'citation needed' tag. Coupled with the frankly misleading edit summary, and the facts that it was made 10 hours into a AN/I discussion, by the administrator under discussion, on the article that the discussion is about... that does not look like a good or constructive edit to me. --Nigelj (talk) 07:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• I see a lot of assertions that The Sun must never be used as a source under any circumstances. In which case, one has to ask - why isn't it blacklisted like examiner.com? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Because those assertions aren't correct. WP:BLPSOURCES says "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." The Sun is a tabloid, but can publish articles that aren't "tabloid journalism", just like many more usually reliable newspapers will have a gossip column that is "tabloid journalism". The catchphrase of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is "Context matters": "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content." There are some articles published in The Sun that are reliable sources for some statements, and there are some articles published in The New York Times that aren't reliable sources for other statements. Anyone claiming there is any blanket rule otherwise is simply wrong. --GRuban (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Like John, of course... Basket _Feudalist 14:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive promotion

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

---

• Billboarder22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sylfronia King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ariel de Lion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Billboarder22 is here to promote Sean Guerrier de Bey and entities related to de Bey. All of BB's edits revolve around that. Even more telling than BB's contributions are his deleted contributions. One of them is SmartWay Music Management, which supposedly was founded by De Bey and by Sylfronia King. Their "distributor" is World Live Music & Distribution, which was created by BB in 2010, deleted, recreated, and recently deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Live Music & Distribution (2nd nomination). Take a look at this Smartway page, which offers to create pages at Wikipedia and notes King Phaze (related to de Bey), the World Live Music page, the de Lion page, and Tots TV (as far as I know unrelated to BB and de Bey). The other company supposedly founded by de Bey that you see a lot is Reug Vision, another of BB's deleted pages.

As for edits to articles that are not de Bey-related, there are only a few:

• [108]. This one added King Phaze, also known as Jonathan Rivera, who in 2010 did a few edits to the King Phaze article as User:Jonathanrivera.
• [109]. This shows BB moving de Bey up in the list. An IP had earlier added de Bey. The IP's contributions are telling.
• [110]. This shows BB adding Camryn Howard, another of his deleted articles, to the list of associated acts.

There are at least a few other named accounts that have been involved: User:Seandebey whose only contributions have been deleted and hasn't edited since September 2010; User:Poetry cow, whose only edits have been to de Lion (except one) and last edited on July 24, 2013. Poetry created the de Lion article and in its first iteration included de Bey, World Live Music, and King Phaze.

One thing that's important is many of the mentions of de Bey in the articles are either unsourced, or the provided sources do not support the material. For example, BB created Jenn Bocian in January 2013. Putting aside the incredibly promotional tone at the outset, it had the following sentence: "Her record company is also working close with record executive Sean Guerrier De Bey and Reug Vision for the purpose of marketing & promotions for future projects." The source was Boucian's own website. I don't know what it said back then, but currently it doesn't appear to say that, although the link is to the home page, and it might be buried somewhere. In the de Lion article, I removed today the mention of World Live Music as the blog source never mentioned it. Another editor removed the unsupported reference to de Bey.

I could provide more evidence, but this is already too long.

I propose an indefinite block of Billboarder22 for being here only to promote, and for doing so in a disruptive (often misleading and unsupported) manner.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support Another example is this edit, in which BB adds Sean Guerrier De Bey to the list of notable music executives, alongside Irving Azoff, Jimmy Iovine, Clive Davis, David Geffen et al. There's more, but I'll follow Bbb23's lead and leave it at that; there's already ample reason to support an indefinite block of Billboarder22.JSFarman (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC) .
•  Done Anything else? Drmies (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Consistent Vandalism from an IP Address (two previous blocks)

The IP Address 68.37.0.160 has been making several incorrect changes, mostly sports pages. Some recent changes that needed to be reverted:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Washington_Mystics&diff=prev&oldid=572912382
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Washington_Wizards&diff=prev&oldid=572912039
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Hockey_League&diff=prev&oldid=572911384
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philip_Rivers&diff=prev&oldid=571816365

This user has been [blocked twice before]. Grande (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Those edits were already reversed; IP is not active today and therefore I don't see a need to block at this time. Note: I have fixed your block log link because it wasn't working earlier. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

User talk:61.195.237.17

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

---

Every edit this IP has made has been undone as being disruptive, the most recent being at List of The Powerpuff Girls episodes can something be done about it? I have given warnings already. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

IP now warned by me and another user. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Taken to WP:AN3 now that they have exceeeded 3RR. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

and now blocked for socking. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing at RfC

USchick continues to misrepresent other editors at Talk:Jewish Bolshevism#RfC: Is Jewish Bolshevism a conspiracy theory?. She continues to argue that editors who consider it a conspiracy theory are in fact saying that it is a legitimate theory supported by historians. She also says that no sources have been provided, when they in fact have. This line of discussion is disruptive to the RfC.

I request that USchick be banned from the talk page until the RfC concludes.

Here are some of the comments she has made:

• ...To assign Jewish anything to the Bolsheviks long after they're all dead is history revisionism[20:20, 12 September 2013
• I'm not aware of any historians that would confirm...that Jewish people were the driving force behind Communism.[15:52, 14 September 2013]
• ...it would be helpful to list some reliable sources.... [22:53, 14 September 2013]
• Winston Churchill's editorial "Zionism versus Bolshevism" claims that the Bolshevik movement is not a Jewish movement. It's a conspiracy when people claim this to be true.[22:17, 14 September 2013]
• ...Anyway, would anyone like to post a reliable source that claims Jews are responsible for creating Communism? Since editors claim that there are lots of historians who agree on this point, let's examine them please.[15:27, 15 September 2013]
• What sources establish that Bolshevism was the brainchild of Jewish people?...[02:38, 16 September 2013]
• None of the editors are willing to provide sources or discuss them even though the article is locked....[03:06, 16 September 2013]

Here are some of the replies that have been provided to her:

• While the writers who advocated the theory of Jewish Bolshevism are not reliable sources for Jews and Communism, academics who write about them are reliable sources for Jewish Bolshevism, and the advocates may occassionally be quoted. [TFD 14:56, 14 September 2013]
• You seem to misunderstand the issue here. The point is not about whether the theory/belief that communism or bolshevism (a common synonym of the time) is/was part of the Jewish conspiracy to control the world, as propagated by Nazis and other anti-Semitic political movements, is correct or has validity as a mainstream theory...The point is whether third-party sources have identified Nazis and other anti-Semites as having held and propagated that belief. They have and they did. I don't know of a historian that would dispute that. [N-HH 16:02, 14 September 2013]
• ...You are also entirely missing the point of this discussion and are cluttering the talkpage with pointless posts.[Director 16:21, 15 September 2013]
• UShick, as you say, "It's a conspiracy when people claim [the Bolshevik movement is a Jewish movement] is true." That's what the article is about, the conspiracy theory that the Bolshevik movement is a Jewish movement. You appear to have difficulty distinguishing between describing a conspiracy theory and promoting it. Sources have been provided, including The Myth of Jewish Communism: A Historical Interpretation, which incidentally is by an historian, is not fringe and does not promote the conspiracy theory.[TFD 16:52, 15 September 2013]

TFD (talk) 04:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply

• The article Jewish Bolshevism was locked for edit warring when TFD asked for comments at the NPOV noticeboard. That's when I became involved on the talk page. I commented that the sources used in the article do not support statements made in the article, I gave examples, and asked for additional sources. I also questioned the reason for having the article. I suggested that editors should provide sources and discuss what the sources actually say, since that's what the admin who locked the article asked them to do. Apparently TFD didn't like my comments, even though he started the RfC. No sources have been provided and I was accused of disrupting their talk page. He and others claim that I "misunderstand the issue" when in reality, their misunderstanding of the issue is what got the article locked in the first place. USchick (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism at Satpal Maharaj

Please have a look at Satpal Maharaj and decide for yourself 87.123.80.100 (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• There seems to be some POV-pushing related to Prem Rawat topics. Small number of edits, not serious disruption. Warned user. jni (talk) 12:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

thanks for taking action. Bito4u is again deleting content 87.123.64.43 (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Bad faith editing and BLP vios by Kaylatiger23 at Julia Mora

• Julia Mora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kaylatiger23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has repeatedly edited this biography, attempting to insert a badly sourced DOB. It looks like one of those off-Wiki imported "I don't like it" disputes. The subsequent edit warring resulted in them calling other editors "homeless bum" and the subject a "homeless prostitute". Reported to OTRS by whom I assume is the subject's agent ticket:2013091510011044. Not sure if there is a block forthcoming but at the very least there's a lot of revdel needed to eliminate the user's insulting edit summaries. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 15:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)