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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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)

When I wrote my comment at the RM review saying I endorsed pending a reasonable explanation from BDD, I fully expected BDD to provide a reasonable explanation. I was so sure about that, I neglected to come back and check until I was notified about this ANI discussion on my user talk page. My bad. Surprisingly, the explanation provided by BDD on 28 August 2013 was, frankly, borderline pathetic. Certainly not reasonable:

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. --BDD (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

"No real policy-based arguments to weigh". And, yet, BDD found consensus? That's reasonable?

"So I went with a headcount...I went with a majority decision". That's reasonable?

Finding consensus in such a vacuum is exactly the kind of RM decision that needs to be reversed, and your RM review failing to see that is exactly the kind of RM Review decision that needs to be reversed. For the record, I have no position on the original RM question. I have no personal preference (never heard of the topic before), and don't know which meets COMMONNAME better. --B2C 19:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I am seriously considering taking this to arbcom unless the closure is reversed even if it is only so the community's will can be enacted. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thirty Seconds to Mars (also commonly stylized as 30 Seconds to Mars) is an American rock band from Los Angeles, formed in 1998

• RM1: The result of the move request was: not moved. @Jenks24: (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• RM2: The result of the proposal was moved. --@BDD: (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• MR: Thirty Seconds to Mars – Endorse Close. - There is no consensus in the move review, which has the same effect as Endorse Close. No action is required on the article title. -- @Jreferee: (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

On a re-reading of the above discussions I see: RM1 was clear. RM2 was a stretch to close this way, and definitely so if RM1 is considered. MR is a cautious "no consensus" that another admin may have read a rough consensus for Overturn or Relist.

• Is Jreferee at fault?

1. Could another another admin agree with the close? Yes Jreferee's close is defensible, and well defensible in isolation.
2. Did the closer have a COI or was he otherwise INVOLVED? No
3. Is there now so great a problem that it can't be worked on? No

No, Jreferee is not at fault. This discussion does not really belong at ANI. But where? So, ways forward?

(1) Jreferee could unclose the MR so that it might receive further attention.

(2) A fresh RM could be intiated to reverse the close on the basis that there was never a consensus to move (undermining the standing of the MR process and returning to the old endless "If you don't like the RM result, start a new one").

(3) Do nothing (offensive to an ordinary editor who believes that both BDD and Jreferee erred).

(4) Initiate #2 as an RfC.

(5) Go to Arb Com (my view: in the absence of even an allegation of poor conduct by any user, they should see no role for arb com in this question).

I recommend #1, failing that then #4. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, I suggested (1) on Jreferee's talk page[8]. I suggest others encourage him as well. If he refuses to comply with our requests, I agree #4 is the best course of action. --B2C 23:36, 17 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 ([9][10]) 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)

Frankly, it amazes me that this is still an open thread. As WCM has noted below, no admin has jumped in to deal with this because they're probably all just looking on in the same dazed amazement that I am experiencing and repeatedly facepalming themselves. Rather than let this drag on, I suggest that the parties here drum up an RFC but are then topic banned from all Falklands articles for the duration of the RFC so that some truly outside opinions can be sought and this absurd issue can be dealt with once and for all. Otherwise, it'll just be the same farce all over again a few months down the track. Blackmane (talk) 09:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

If anything, with your proposal, the likelihood is that the outside editors would leave something overly-open to gaming - turning "a few months down the track" into "a few weeks down the track" at best because people like Martin will immediately start to game your resulting rule.

Most regulars - myself included - never bring this topic up because we know how poisonous it is. But some insist upon it. The last four and a half years have convinced me that the only way to avoid being right back where we are now in a few months' time is a topic ban for those who keep on bringing it up - and right now, that's mostly Martin. If admins were willing enact such topic bans, we might be able to see an end to it. But they aren't, so we won't. Kahastok talk 22:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Please deal with the issue of metric obsession

I'm here because of this message [11] 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)

• From the discussion above, Kahastok has caused as many problems as the two you're desperate to have topic banned. If you're retired, why does it matter to you who is topic banned and who isn't? Also, this thread hadn't been edited for a day; so you've just given the chance for more dramah to ensue. Well done you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
• Also, isn't participating in this thread violating your topic ban on anything to do with the Falklands? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I wish to protest about this foul-mouthed attack by Wee Curry Monster. Foul-mouthed ranting without providing a skerrick of evidence is not normal behaviour. I have not had any dealings with WCM for months, so I cannot understand why he is behaving in this way.Michael Glass (talk) 06:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

To reiterate, my comment made in frustration was about an attempt to drag me back to a discussion I dearly did not want to revisit again, for my language I apologise to the community. Really it isWP:LAME and its been a WP:LAME edit war on oh so many topics. I will amplify my comment that User:Michael Glass and User:Martinvl should be banned from anything to do with WP:MOSNUM or articles relating to units as their advocacy of the metric system leads to damage to wikipedia as a project. The current Falkland Islands discussion is simply another manifestation of it (that I am not allowed to comment on so will not), another example is Munro (a Munro is a mountain in Scotland with a height over 3,000 ft), where User:Michael Glass edited the article to give preference to the metric system (so the lede now gives the definition in one order and the rest of it in the other). This is justified by Michael by what he refers to as his personal policy of "Source Based Units", ie the edit should be based on the source not WP:MOSNUM. It has also touched on premier league football, with editing to change height to give preference to metric first in contravention of WP:MOSNUM. Petty as their campaign may be, its also infuriating and irritating for anyone concerned with article quality. They have caused numerous problems at WT:MOSNUM with various proposals to metricate wikipedia and cannot accept it it doesn't have consensus. Both need to realise they are damaging the project with their obsessive behaviour and stop it or alternatively the community should stop it. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Now that i have challenged WCM to produce evidence, all he can come up with are edits that have been in place for months or years and proposals to MOSNUM, which I have a right to make, whether or not he agrees with them. The rest of his rant is not worth replying to. Michael Glass (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Surely WCM bringing up the issues at the Falkland Islands discussion, even if the very first bit wasn't, is violating their topic ban from everything to do with the islands? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Given that you were insisting on guilt by association above, and have since accused me of having "caused as many problems" as others, based on what appears solely to be your own totally inaccurate claims, I think this comment needs to be taken with a fair dose of salt. The fact that someone has a problem with a sockpuppeteer does not mean that they are incapable of causing problems themselves. Here they are. The fact that a good and productive editor like Curry Monster is topic-banned, but an editor who does little with these articles but repeatedly bring up the same point over and over again (gaming the system every time) is not, is an indictment of Wikipedia's administrative system. Kahastok talk 21:42, 17 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 [12] 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)

Thank you Stalwart111 for finally agreeing with my pointsShakespeare21 (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Shakespeare21

If you really think that is what I was doing with the above comment then there's likely nothing anyone can do to help you. Stalwart111 23:43, 16 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)
      • Indeed. I once performed north of 50 edits in a minute without using any other automation than my fingers, keyboard, mouse and browser tabs. It isn't hard to do. I actually find it more efficient to operate in this way when I am doing repetitive tasks. Just because something looks like a bot doesn't make it a bot. I have no comment on the issue of the redirects/pagemoves. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• I suppose the major distinction is whether these edits were done in batches, or continuously at a rate of 20+ a minute. The former doesn't rule out a bot, of course; but the latter is definitely a bot. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:10, 16 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)

This needs more eyes, I've unfortunately now gotten involved and can't be impartial any more from a blocking etc perspective. I've warned Neo ^ about edit warring and people are trying to explain things to him on the talk page but he isn't listening. The main crux of the issue is the user seems to think that Wikipedia should contain everything there is about Armenians in Cyprus from family emblems, to every organization and building related in any way, and a big issue is about photos of every building and seemingly every single member of the community. Canterbury Tail talk 16:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

There is more than one way to get more eyes on this. Neo ^ was just blocked again. 72 hours this time. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 23:59, 17 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...[13] 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."[14] 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). [15]. The reference for The film earned $364 million outside the U.S. and $133 million domestically. is completely wrong and inappropriate [16] 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[17], 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: [18] [19] [20]. 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: 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. [21]. --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)

That's a nonsensical interpretation of BLPSOURCES. I will continue to enforce it as it is written, rather than as some people seem to wish it was written, unless it is actually changed. Tabloids can only be used as sources for their own opinions, in general. They should not be used on BLPs, as they have a well-deserved reputation for printing lies. --John (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Then you're enforcing it against consensus, it could appear. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

To the original point: examiner.com isn't blacklisted because it's unreliable, it was blacklisted because people were spamming links to it to get their pennies-for-views; that's why it's the spam blacklist. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• The only time I would ever use The Sun - or The Mirror - as a source is if it is talking about the birth of someone's child, or their marriage. Otherwise, I avoid them like the plague, for reasons that John expressed.Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Luke, "talking about the birth of someone's child, or their marriage" is exactly where we shouldn't use tabloids! -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • As a general note, I think a number of American editors (and presumably editors from some other countries) are unfamiliar with which British papers are good sources vs trash sources. It might be helpful for someone to write up a list for reference. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Mark, these UK publications (not a comprehensive list) are non-RS and should be avoided/purged from BLPs:

• Daily Mail & Mail on Sunday dailymail.co.uk [22]
• The Mirror & Sunday Mirror mirror.co.uk
• The People people.co.uk
• The Sun thesun.co.uk [23]
• Daily Express express.co.uk
• Daily Sport dailysport.co.uk
• Daily Record dailyrecord.co.uk
• News of the World newsoftheworld.co.uk
• Daily Star dailystar.co.uk
• Metro metro.co.uk -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! I'll make a note of that. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
• Can you link to the WP:RSN and/or WP:BLPN disucssions that determined they were unsuitable? Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• No need. They are all 'tabloids' and therefore cannot be used in BLPs. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 01:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Can you point me to where that decision was made, please? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. Or are you claiming these publications are not tabloids? I checked WP:RSN but can't find a discussion nor decision concerning the Daily Sport, does that mean it is a reputable source? -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 07:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This RSN discussion mentions the Sunday Sport. It is, as expected, tossed out. However, the same thread mentions the Sun without any obvious consensus. This thread discusses The Sun in depth, where, due to corresponding coverage in The Guardian, it was deemed acceptable to cite it for facts relating to Jimmy Savile. This image is a direct facsimile of the front page of The Sun, and placed prominently on Neil Kinnock, which is (unless I missed the news!) is a biography of a living person. I would struggle to write a really broad and comprehensive article on Max Clifford without being able to pick out some of his more infamous Sun headlines. Bottom line is - usually you shouldn't use The Sun, but sometimes you have to. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Any way, AN/I should not be a forum for determining RS if there have been previous discussions on these sources at RSN. As I understand AN/I, it is a forum for addressing conduct, not content issues. If RSN has approved the newspapers/magazines under question as RS for a certain kind of sourcing (for example, for validating comments by subjects in an interview or for details about television programming), then the issues shouldn't be rehashed here. I've found those working at RSN to be quite adept at ferreting out what is a valid source and what isn't. "Tabloid" is a vague label applied to journalism one thinks is shoddy and is an imprecise and subjective judgment (opinion can also change over time if the quality of journalism improves). I haven't dug into the RSN discussions to verify the decisions about these sources but I'd accept the consensus there for the scope of their use where they have been deemed "reliable". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPSOURCES prohibits BLP material whose only source is tabloid journalism, and links that mainspace article. The article makes it clear that tabloid journalism is not confined to certain newspapers, and also that many papers commonly associated with it are also quite capable of serious factual reporting at other times too. It is a "journalistic approach", not a size of paper. Therefore it is nonsensical (A) to try to compile a definitive list of newspapers that should be "purged from BLPs", (B) to carry out such purges, 20 - 30 refs at a time, and (C) to state " I am perfectly happy with how I have handled this and would do exactly the same the next time" when called out for doing so. --Nigelj (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Without a definitive list (or even just the newspapers mentioned in the Tabloid journalism article), Nigelj, then it becomes an subjective judgment of when and where the "journalistic approach" of a paper crosses over the line into "tabloid journalism". While I understand the limitations of having a fixed list of names, I think I'm more comfortable with having a short list than to have each Editor drawing their own conclusions every time they edit an article that uses these sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, however if there is going to be a "tabloid blacklist" it needs to be discussed and determined by consensus, not simply decreed on the basis of 'these are tabloids, and BLP!!!', which was the reason I requested RSN/BLPN discussion links re: the list above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

To sum up

John unilaterally decides People and the NYDN are tabloids, and indiscriminately takes them out of the Brad Pitt article. He completely ignores feedback on WP:BLPN and slaps Flyer22 with an only warning. He continues to ignore all feedback here saying, "I am perfectly happy with how I have handled this and would do exactly the same the next time." (emphasis mine) and then calls me a dumbass] (among other insults) and now reiterates he will not change his behaviour while taking another shot at Flyer22 for something he (John) should have done. Have I got this right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

No, only partly ES&L 08:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Specific issue about Pitt aside, John is openly acting in a disruptive way. Especially the insults, the misleading/fallacious edit summaries (the "Sun" example described above) and the only warning given to Flyer22 are very serious concerns. Cavarrone 21:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

"Only warnings" for what he believed to be repeat BLP issues from an editor he believed had done the same before is not neccessarily problematic. ES&L 08:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Back from the brink

Ok, I've watched this go on long enough. Key points:

1. John did not use their tools in this dispute
2. John used a standard, template (albeit level 4) warning
3. BLP is a touchy subject
4. There is definitely an argument about RS's as a whole
5. Calling anyone "dumbass" or "power hungry" is inappropriate

In short, nobody is going to lose tools, get blocked, or whatever. The only thing that there is absolute consensus on are the 5 points I raised above. This is not the place where these actual issues will be resolved ES&L 08:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have put together a lengthy summary of what I think should happen to Brad Pitt on the talk page here. I would like comments on it, because, unless I hear objections, I intend to edit the article as described when full protection expires. I don't see any need for administrator action. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think you may want to rephrase that sentence slightly... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I found that phrasing a little humourous myself ... there are many things I think should happen to Brad Pitt too, none of which appear at that link LOL ES&L 17:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• The "key point" that John did not use their tools in this dispute is misguided. When an admin chooses to enforce BLPSOURCES as they believe they are written, and that admin slaps an editor-in-good-standing with {{uw-biog4im}}, it is obvious that the admin is preparing the path towards blocking their opponent in a content dispute. Yes, it's literally true (I think) that no admin tools have been used in this dispute (apart from the wise protection of the article), but ANI is free to discuss inappropriate behavior regardless of whether a particular rule like WP:INVOLVED was violated. The discussions are a little long for me to want to fully digest, but I can't see any claim that the text relying on People was a BLP violation (no contentious assertions)—apparently the claim is that nothing in a BLP can be sourced to People. That's a noble opinion, but it needs clear backing from a noticeboard before hitting opponents with an "I'm an admin who is going to block you" message. Johnuniq (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not at all misguided. There's no proof that John was planning on performing the block himself, and to suggest that he might break WP:INVOLVED is throwing WP:AGF out the window. ANY editor can drop a 4im warning, and then go looking for an enforcer ... it just so happens that John was the one who could have blocked. This may come across as a bit of "bullying" - but unless John had actually performed the block, there's nothing ANI-able here - slap his wrists for bullying if you need to. Indeed, this wouldn't even make an RFC/U yet. Based on the pretty uncivil discussions between Flyer and John, and a general level of snarkiness when they discuss each other, it's clear this has rubbed them both the wrong way. I have faith that they are BOTH trying to improve the project - but people need to settle their disagreements like ADULTS, and not keep trying to have the last word ES&L 11:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

How are disagreements supposed to be settled when one party ignores all discussion and insists he would do exactly the same next time? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. There's no need to pretend that if John were a non-administrator, he would not have gotten a stern warning from someone other than NeilN by now. It's not like I brought this matter here to debate sources (I took that matter to the WP:BLP noticeboard for that). I brought it here because of, as others have pointed out, John's behavior. The "only warning" template aside, he continued to violate WP:Consensus (a policy) and insists that he will continue to do so. And, yes, as others have noted above, there is WP:Consensus that People is generally fine to use for biographical content concerning living people. That he will continue to remove People or the New York Daily News from Wikipedia biographies of living persons (whether the text along with them or not, and even from WP:Featured articles), despite these sources not being restricted and despite People generally being accepted on Wikipedia for biographical content concerning living people, because of his personal preference that they not be used is most problematic. It would be a different story if he were replacing these sources with reliable sources, but he is not (same story with the Ben Affleck article and others). He is leaving messes in place (and even if removing the text, he is removing material that was validly sourced). And like I noted at the WP:BLP noticeboard, he will be facing a lot of opposition than from just me, given how widely accepted these sources are on Wikipedia for biographical content concerning living people and often in general. Flyer22 (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that "a bit of "bullying"" is an acceptable part of Wikipedia editing etiquette. Or is it "a bit of "bullying"" from an administrator that is par for the course? The original post here questioned the attitude of "we should go by his word or no word at all", and I think that that should be seriously addressed in any conclusion. --Nigelj (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I never said that any bullying was acceptable or "par for the course". But, there's no proof that his intent was to bully, and nobody has provided any diffs to suggest that it's the case, or that it's a pattern. (BTW: As a professional journalist, I'm surprised that ANYONE is considering using People Magazine as a source for anything but toilet paper) ES&L 16:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well I once cited something in Cleo Rocos' article to Hello! Magazine, but I thrashed myself 20 times with a belt after doing so.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that ES&L has summarized the situation fairly accurately above. Yes, John did template warn another editor. But, there is no reason why an admin cannot issue templated "you may be blocked" warnings. Short of an "I will block you" statement, there is no reason to believe that John had any intent to block the other editor. What's an admin to do if, in a content dispute, he/she thinks someone is heading for a block other than warn them that they're heading for a block? Yes, John was being obdurate but that's not an actionable offense. There was no edit warring, no 'bad behavior'. My suggestion is that someone close this discussion and that anyone who is not happy with the exclusion of people magazine or the daily news from the pitt article do the work of formulating an RfC to figure out the their acceptability as sources for that article or, if they have excessive time on their hands, an RfC that clarifies where these sources are acceptable and where they're not. --regentspark (comment) 16:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

There was no edit warring and no bad behavior on John's part? Well, I suppose I'm glad that various editors above disagree with that statement. Flyer22 (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

And "being obdurate" against WP:Consensus is an actionable offense. Action is taken against that offense all the time at this noticeboard, even now, and elsewhere on Wikipedia. And to repeat what I stated on the Brad Pitt talk page, "I don't see why the WP:Consensus formed during [the aforementioned WP:BLP noticeboard discussion] should be discarded just because John didn't get his way there. If he's hoping to go through dispute resolution process after dispute resolution process until he eventually gets his way, he can count me out. And given the turnout (number of people participating) for WP:RfC and the other dispute resolution processes, being more iffy, and considering the relevancy of the WP:BLP noticeboard in this case, going to the WP:BLP noticeboard about it was probably the best route." Unless, of course, it's a wide-scale WP:RfC. Flyer22 (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Flyer22, obduracy is not a bad thing but is merely push back against something that an editor feels is incorrect. It is worth bearing in mind that just because a largish group of people feel that the obstinacy is unwarranted, it doesn't mean that it is. Perhaps that editor is right and it is incumbent on you, as the person attempting to add information, to go out and seek wider input, particularly in a BLP. If we did everything merely by counting those in favor and those against, I shudder to think where some of our articles will end up. Obduracy becomes a problem only when it leads to edit warring or some other type of disruptive behavior. Your complaint here is that John has threatened to block you and I don't see that. He has said you may be blocked, not that he will block you. There is a ocean of difference between the two which you may want to ponder. You might also want to think about what you would like to achieve with an ANI complaint. John desysopped? John admonished? None of these is going to happen over what is largely a content issue. Better to take this to an RfC on the content part and subtract from the drama. If I may also add, if there was a history of John using warnings and then blocking people in content disputes, there would be something actionable here. Lacking that pattern, I suggest a quick assumption of good faith that his warning was not with an intent to block. --regentspark (comment) 19:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Being obdurate against WP:Consensus is a bad thing. I am speaking of the word obdurate with regard to actions. John was not simply stating "I disagree with consensus." He was acting against it. WP:Consensus should be enforced just as much as any other policy, unless there is a WP:Ignore all rules reason not to do so. There was not such a reason in this case; this is because the WP:BLP noticeboard made it perfectly clear to John that the sources were fine for use, and because that noticeboard and the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard have consistently made that case with regard to such matters. As for the WP:BURDEN being on me, it was not. The sources, with the exception of The Sun or any other source clearly and/or consistently deemed unacceptable, were not invalid to use and I knew it. But did I immediately revert John? No. As well-noted here, I went through the appropriate means to seek wider input. Going to the WP:BLP noticeboard for such input is standard practice. I do not have the means to start a wide-scale WP:RfC where the entire Wikipedia community is alerted to this matter. See WP:Dispute resolution for the options. So unless you are talking about some wide-scale WP:RfC, I have not a clue what you mean by "wider input."

The consensus that was formed at the WP:BLP noticeboard is based on the weight of the views there, as I mentioned to John, not on headcount. It was me who pointed out there what WP:Consensus means, so I do not need you to give me a lesson on it. You should save that lesson for John. You stated, "Obduracy becomes a problem only when it leads to edit warring or some other type of disruptive behavior." Well, that is exactly what various editors above agree that John did. It's not even an opinion that he was WP:Edit warring (or that I was as well, though I was at least acting with regard to WP:Consensus); it's a fact. And it's a fact that he would have continued to WP:Edit war, considering that he has stated that he would have. And that is exactly why that article needed full-protection. Unlike John, I don't have an administrative status that has given me some false (or not-so-false, considering a few arguments here) sense of exemption from following Wikipedia rules when I disagree with them. And read again what I stated in my initial post on this matter above; I did not state that John threatened to block me. I stated that "he issued [a] warning on my talk page (a warning that indicates that he will block me)." Others above obviously agree with that implication. I'm also extremely certain that he would have blocked me, given his actions/statements on this matter after I filed this report. I did not come to this noticeboard because I wanted John "desysopped." I very clearly stated above, "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." As for admonished, he's already been admonished by various editors in this report, who all agree that this is seriously more than a content dispute matter; some of them seem to think that it's more than mostly a content dispute matter. Since you feel the need to advise me, I advise you to read all of what has been stated above on this matter; it does not seem that you have. And if you have, then oh well. It's already been noted that John has a sort of exemption regarding a matter that any other editor (meaning of "lower rank") would have been seriously warned for (by more than just NeilN). Flyer22 (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You're missing the point so let me be brief. Anyone can issue a "you may be blocked" warning. Admins editing content can issue "you may be blocked" warnings. Reading an "I will block you" implication into a warning is not the same thing as a clearly stated "I will block you". What you are certain John may or may not do in the future is not actionable. Consensus building is not confined to visiting noticeboards and, generally speaking, the person adding information has the responsibility to ensure that there is adequate consensus before making the addition. Especially in a BLP. I'm sorry to see you feel there is some sort of "rank" hierarchy on Wikipedia, there isn't, but I've now read your talk page as well and all this is a bit clearer. --regentspark (comment) 21:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

No, you are missing the point...a point that has been very clearly expressed by various people in this report now. John's opinion that there was not adequate consensus, something he pretty much stated, despite the fact that various editors agree that there was and despite the fact that this has been a consistent consensus, does not give him the right to violate that consensus and edit war his version back into any article. If everyone violated WP:Consensus because they felt that it was not "adequate consensus," which in John's case meant "not in agreement with my view," then that policy would be useless and countless articles would be in peril or an even bigger mess than they already are. You make it sound like I should have went through every WP:Dispute resolution process there is to get a consensus that you or John would have deemed adequate, but I did make sure that there was adequate consensus before reverting John. He had none to restore his version; WP:Consensus works both ways, including on BLPs. And I don't know why you feel that any outcome that deems People acceptable would have caused John to back off and state, "Oh, okay, I accept that." But he has made it extremely clear that he will never accept consensus on such a matter. As for rank, administrators technically are of a higher rank, and they often are treated differently because of it (as others agree below, many have stated across Wikipedia, and as has been shown on this noticeboard more times than I can remember). But if you notice, I put "lower rank" in parentheses. As for your personal opinion about me, RegentsPark (whether what I've noted in these three sections or anywhere else on my talk page), I care not. Not one bit. Flyer22 (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

No one has to accept consensus on anything - assuming that there is a consensus for what John went against (I haven't seen a definitive link to that consensus but I could have missed it in the reams above). If that becomes the norm, then consensus will never change. What matters is what someone does. And, my point is that John has not done anything outside the normal norms. If he blocked you or said "I will block you", that would be a different matter. Perhaps you should have asked him if he had any intention of blocking you himself. A simple yes or no would have made this straightforward. If he violated 3RR, he should, and I certainly hope would, be blocked. Failing these, I'm still uncertain as to what it is you're seeking. (And I have no opinion of you so what's that about? ) --regentspark (comment) 23:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

regentspark this is the second time you've made reference to "adding information". Flyer22 was not adding any new information. They were restoring references to the article that had been there for quite some time, indiscriminately removed by John because of his self-declaration of "tabloid!" and leaving some sentences unreferenced. WP:BRD does not apply only to additions, it applies to changes, be they additions, modifications, or removal of long-standing material. I have no idea why you are glossing over John's primary responsibility in this except for, well... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You know, I've always discounted the "admins protect themselves" complaints that appear here with some regularity. I don't think I'll be passing them over so lightly in the future. Admin + "BLP! BLP! BLP!" = basically a free pass. Got it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

While that appears to be evident here, NeilN, I've also seen long-time Editors who are not Admins be given a free pass if they have Admin allies. The logic seems to be "blocks are preventive, not punitive...but Editor A has said a block won't affect their conduct so why impose one"? It's a neat trick but only seems to apply to a few people. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure we all have our opinions and can make generalizations about what routinely does happen versus what should happen on ANI. That's all very interesting and may well deserve further discussion elsewhere, but it isn't helping to resolve this case. We can disagree over some of the details, but there do seem to be some salient points that consensus should be possible on:

• Flyer22 acted not only within policy but followed best practice in discussing the disputed content and sourcing at article talk and in seeking guidance at BLP/N.
• John disregarded consensus in removing the disputed content, failed to provide a legitimate policy-based justification for doing so, acted provocatively by templating a regular and threatening her with a block, indicated he will pursue an identical course of action if similar instances arise in the future, and has made profoundly uncivil remarks since this thread has been open.

Nitpicks aside, if we can agree with the general thrust of the above, one thing seems perfectly clear: if this thread is closed with no resolution of any kind, there will be another thread very much like it sometime in the future. What then? RfC/U? Arbcom? It would be a shame to think that the community cannot deal with this sort of thing when it happens. I don't have any concrete proposals (clearly, my earlier suggestion of a trout and a promise has gone out the window) but I do think we need some clarity and some closure, and those aren't being provided by the adminstrators who have commented thus far. Rivertorch (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. The "no 'bad behavior'" comment made above implies that regentspark thinks everything was fine with John's behavior. If the roles were reversed, and Flyer22 or I started indiscriminately pulling out cites to an established reference we didn't like, refused to discuss with an objecting admin, templated them, called them names, and then reiterated we'd do the same all over again, I think the thrust of the conversation here would be slightly different. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course, Rivertorch, you're right. Thanks for getting us back on track. I agree with your assessment but also note the discussion (above) with the last comment by The Bushranger where we mention having a discussion (on RSN?) about what constitutes "tabloid journalism" and what is not on that list. There are a range of opinions on whether this should be an actual list of tabloids to avoid (if there isn't a more reliable source available) or a set of criteria that makes journalism cross over from legitimate to "tabloidish". I definitely think it shouldn't be up for debate every time an Editor edits an article on a public figure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I started off in this discussion close to where I think @RegentsPark: is most recently. Since that time, though, partly based on John's response (there wasn't a lot of it) here, I've shifted. Without expressing a firm opinion, though, I'd like to ask Flyer what they are asking for.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 17 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:

• [24]. 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.
• [25]. This shows BB moving de Bey up in the list. An IP had earlier added de Bey. The IP's contributions are telling.
• [26]. 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.

Use of Wikipedia Logo by SmartWay

When I came across this section I had a look at " this Smartway page", as linked above and was concerned that they are using the Wikipedia logo on a page promoting paid editing "standard page $499"(!) Surely this is a breach of the applicable terms of use of that logo? I had a look at wmf:Trademark Policy and it seems that without permission they are breaching the Foundations trademark.©®™ 220 of ^Borg 01:32, 17 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)

I have semi-protected the article for three days and blocked users Bito4u (talk · contribs), TeamAndrew (talk · contribs), and VictorWong44 (talk · contribs), as their only activity here has been to remove sourced material from this one article. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Bad faith editing and BLP vios by Kaylatiger23 at Julia Mora

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

---

• 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)

I blocked the account indefinitely for repeated BLP violations, which appears to be the sole purpose of the account. In order to prevent Kaylatiger23 from repeating the contentious material and attacks on their talk page, I have blocked without talk page access and pointed them to UTRS. I'll start combing through their edits now and see which of them require revision deletion. The OTRS ticket noted a few, but there are certainly more based on a quick review of the contribs. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Possible sockpuppet

Treasure89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Treasure89 added the same info, with the same edit summary. [27]

Sockpuppet indicator: birthyear of Treasure(19)89 + age of (Kaylatiger)23 = 2012. Apparently Kayla/Treasure is born late 1989.

HandsomeFella (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

IP editor repeatedly vandalizing Wikipedia

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

---

IP editor at 204.100.210.172 has a history of vandalizing and blanking articles since 27-August. Recommend a temporary block to prevent further vandalism.Wzrd1 (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I reported him/her at WP:AIV. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 16:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

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

previously sanctioned user returning to edit under a new name

I have previously posted some of the details of his case as part of an SPI request linking this user to another account, but was instructed by an administrator (User: EdJohnston) that this is actually an issue for ANI, rather than SPI, so I am listing it here, as well. Back in October 2010, while an ANI involving User:Factomancer (and which resulted in an interaction ban on her and another user) was on-going, that user decided to leave wikipedia for good, and announced it in a "departure tirade", involving personal attacks. (see User_talk:Factomancer#Goodbye) Those personal attacks resulted in a 1 month block, with the blocking admin stating "Factomancer, I'm taking you as your word, and that you have left for good.", and that if she returns, an indef topic ban from I/P article may be needed (Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Factomancer&diff=prev&oldid=393217316)

This user eventually returned as User:Eptified, and continues to edit in the I/P topic area (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Eptified&dir=prev&offset=20120805032454&target=Eptified). Is this appropriate? Sisoo vesimhu (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Sisoo vesimhu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Before this inquiry goes much farther, I'd like to ask Sisoo vesimhu to comment on the checkuser finding here that he is the same editor as GoGoTob2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The propriety of an editor using two separate accounts to edit the ARBPIA space can be questioned. I'm notifying User:Elockid that his finding was mentioned here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I edit from within a fairly large company, and it would not surprise me if there are others at our company editing Wikipedia with the same IP. I agree that the propriety of an editor using two separate accounts to edit the ARBPIA space can be questioned - this is exactly what I was doing in the SPI report I mentioned above - pointing out that User:Eptified is editing the same topic area under User:Sepsis II. Surprisingly, I was told by User:Elockid that this would not be sock puppetry. Let's try to have some consistent standards, please. Sisoo vesimhu (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Does your company have a code of conduct that requires honesty and integrity from its employees ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not true that Eptifed "continues to edit in the I/P topic area"; the last relevant edit I can find was last October. And the sockpuppet report that Sisoo vesimhu refers to did not even mention Eptifed until a couple of hours ago, when Sisoo added a comment asserting, with no diffs or evidence, that this was the same editor is the two under investigation in the SPI report. RolandR (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The above is false. The SPI I referred too included this link - http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/stalker/?db=enwiki_p&user1=Factomancer&user2=Eptified&user3=Sepsis+II - which not only mentions Eptified in the URL, but shows an overlap between that account an the other 2 socks, an overlap of 7 articles. It's no great mystery that the Factomancer account is the same as Eptified, as that information is given clearly, both here and here. Perhaps naively, I assumed users actually look at the evidence, and did not need to be spoon-fed, but after being corrected on this point by EdJohnston (who , BTW, wrote to me an e-mail saying 'Eptified has openly stated they are the same user as Factomancer.' - so obviously that point was not lost on those who were actually looking at the report and evidence), I added some clarifications to the SPI to make it explicit even for the likes of RolandR Sisoo vesimhu (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hang on, you're complaining about an account who's last obvious edit to the I/P area is in 2012?! Seriously? Wow... Ravensfire (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

May I note that, Sisoo vesimhu (talk · contribs) was editing under a CU blocked sticky dynamic IP (this means that it's basically static for long period of time). I have contacted the blocking CheckUser to take a look at this thread. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Upon closer examination. There appears to be some relation between Sisoo vesimhu and NoCal100 (talk · contribs). Elockid ^(Talk) 13:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Help needed against a disruptive editor

Saladin1987 (talk · contribs), a disruptive POV-pushing edit-warrior, appears to be a single purpose account used by a Pakistani from the Sydney area of Australia who is constantly changing famous people's ethnicity. In particular, he is changing Pashtun people to Punjabi people even when the sources say Pashtun people. He doesn't use talk pages of articles but instead tells me on my talk page his personal views, theories and speculations. [28] He is very much determined to change the correctly sourced "Pathan" to Punjabi in Prithviraj Kapoor. Mr. Kapoor proudly identified himself as "Pathan" to everyone and spoke Pashto [29] (the native language of Pathans), and all of this is well sourced. In addition, Mr. Kapoor had pure Pathan physical features and even named one of his first plays "Pathan" so that obviously shows how much his ethnicity meant to him, but Saladin1987 prefers to make him a Punjabi. I think Saladin1987's edits are motivated by ethnocentrism. Btw, he was warned recently and it appears that he decided to use IPs.[30] [31] There may be some kind of sock puppeting going on, he's always active but doesn't edit much, which suggests that he may be using another account.--Fareed30 (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If you look at his work history he is the one who has removed my sources and placed his but even then i didnt change the article but to him his sources are correct but he keeps on winging about pathan thing but where did my sources go, all have been deleted or are still there but he just pushed his opinions oveer there. There is no need to mention about the ethnicity when its completey disputed, He states facts like he did play pathan but he acted in many punjabi movies not in pashto movies, he spoke hindko and even his frends from the place confirm that but he romved those sources also his children identify themselves as punjabi so maybe an English can give birth to a german , then i will accept it. Also about the features to have fair skin doesnt mean he is pathan, i can show you many dark skinned pashtuns so they are not pashtuns, I just want to request that if you can remove the ethnicity in this article and then everything will be resolved,What he does is comes and posts ethnicity in the articles, he doesnt contribute positively just contributes in the ethnicity categorySaladin1987 07:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

You add unreliable and irrelevant sources so they must to be removed. Not only me but others also revert your edits. Those sources that you try to add are talking about this subject's "grandchildren" and they do not mention anything about ethnicity. On the other hand, at Talk:Prithviraj Kapoor, this subject's son makes it very clear to us that Prithviraj Kapoor was Pathan by ethnicity. Where Prithviraj was born or in which country's movies he appeared in has nothing to do with his ethnicity. In Bollywood, Muslim actors pretend to be Hindus but that doesn't mean anything because movies are fake.--Fareed30 (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Saladin1987 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) previously blocked and warned last month that next block would be indef. N.B. I've not evaluated the Pashtun/Punjabi sources. -- Trevj (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Trevj, I had started a discussion at Talk:Prithviraj Kapoor where his son Shammi Kapoor orally states "my parents belonged to Peshawar, they were born there then they entered Bombay... we all belong to a community called the Hindu Pathan... Muslim Pathan". You can listen to his voice for yourself here. Another RS states: "Kapoor, a Hindu Pashtun, made it" and this RS clearly describes him as Pathan. Bwt, Pathan and Pashtun are synonymous terms and they both redirect to each other. On the other hand, pov-pushing Saladin1987 is rejecting all of these sources and relying on his personal analysis, this is not allowed in Wikipedia, and Saladin1987 is purposly disrupting and wasting our time here. He has now indicated on my talk that after his this account gets blocked, his friends in Pakistan will start reverting to keep his version. I think blocking him is justified and anyone who reverts to his version should get it too because these guys are here for causing disruption.--Fareed30 (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Persistent disruptions from an editor with multiple IPs

• 198.189.184.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.202.210.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24.130.19.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

From a glance at their contributions it should be clear these IPs are from the same person, but examples of explicit connections are [32] [33] tying the first and the second, and [34] [35] [36] tying the first and the third. Geographical location also confirms it.

The first IP is currently blocked for the second time for warring at Orthomolecular medicine. This is independent of the previous incident of warring at Rupert Sheldrake which did not result in a block. Instead, a sanctions note was issued and the Sheldrake article was protected. I'm not sure why a block didn't happen in this case since it occured not long after the first block for warring at Orthomolecular medicine.

In any case since the first IP is currently on a 72 hour block, admins may view that as sufficient. I wanted to bring attention to the other IPs and the possibly unnoticed warring at Sheldrake (due to the non-block), if such circumstances warrant further action. Vzaak (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates and User:Medeis

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

---

During the discussion about whether the current shooting incident in the USA should be posted, I posted an "Oppose" - at the time, the death toll was four. It has since been revised upwards to twelve (and I have struck my comment, as this is clearly not a commonplace workplace shooting, which it appeared to be at the time).

Despite this, User:Medeis has made more than one comment accusing myself and other editors of racism. After I struck their original comment as a clear RPA, they have again posted, saying "I said the comments were racist, not that editors were racist", but then followed by "If we have a better term than racist for this I would be happy to hear it". This is utterly unacceptable. I posted in good faith on this discussion, and I am absolutely furious at being accused of this - editors that know my worldview and the articles I patrol will know why. Could someone apply a measure of clue to this editor, making it clear that their comments are not acceptable? (and I would be appreciative if their latest claim that I am a racist was struck as well). Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

RPA'd comment. NE Ent 23:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I made no claim any editor was racist. I said that claims such as "Yet another mass shooting in America", and "Another week, another US shooting" are despicable racism. Arguments that somehow Americans are killers and attacks on them should be expected (or whatever these editors are implying) are against the guidlelines of ITN which tell us not to comment about connections of events with only one country, and personally offensive. I am quite happy with the references to Americans being struck if my comments are to be struck. μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

'American' is not a race, by any definition I have seen... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Anti-American Bigotry, whatever. I define racism as making collective moral judgments about people due to where they are born. I've removed the references to nationality and hatted the side discussion. diff. I have no problem with people redacting my comments within the hat if they have a further problem. μηδείς (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

So, what would Medeis write in her oppose comment if someone were to nominate a suicide bomb attack in Baghdad in which 5 people are killed? Count Iblis (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You removed "in America" and "US" as "RPA", seriously? I don't think that was the appropriate response either, Medeis. (If it matters, I'm an American.) LadyofShalott 00:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? Are you baiting me, Iblis? I suggest an admin close this, there's no ongoing dispute. And yes, LoS, I think that's a simple solution when ITN guidelines explicitly tell us not to refer to an event being associated with just one country. μηδείς (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Medeis should not remove these comments. People must be able to make assessments like that, just like in my hypothetical example above, for Iraqi standards 5 people killed in an attack isn't a notable event because of the huge levels of violence there. People must be free to make that judgement and post that without being accused of racism, bigotry or whatever. Count Iblis (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Yet another mass shooting in America" is not racist or bigoted: saying so is, forgive me please, pretty dumb. Mass shootings are common in America, it's a sad truth. I have no idea what you're referring to with a guideline etc, but "personal attack" is silly. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
• I have reverted the redaction. I have no opinion on the hatting, but it was a package deal. Medeis may find the comments sad, or callous, or dismissive, but they're not personal attacks on anything or anyone. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oh well. Medeis thinks that we should all stay out of it; it's a private matter of some sort? and their redaction is an attempt at a solution? Or they've gone off the deep end in their Stamping Out Of Racism At ITN. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The reversal has been reversed. I would hope Medeis will not edit war over this. LadyofShalott 02:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Now, Medeis was proposing a quid pro quo of sorts--the comments remain redacted and in turn they would redact their comments. Well, I don't accept such a QPQ and I am in agreement with Black Kite. Indeed, I offered three thesaurus items above from which Medeis is free to pick one: the racism claim needs to be taken back, without wishy-washing (we've seen too much of that recently). Drmies (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
      • For clarity, I was not the one did the revesal - I was going to, but was beaten to it. I just don't remember that editor's name. LadyofShalott 02:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
        • I did it. Just in case the thing snowballs while I am offline, I'll defend myself now. There was consensus here that the comments relating to the US did not constitute racism, bigotry or personal attacks. The context of an event is relevant to ITN, and no editor has the right to individually censor or remove comments which directly relate to the context of an event, which the two comments Medeis {{RPA}}'d did. I would also point out that a source in the ITN nomination, from a mainstream US media outlet, comments on the frequency of mass shootings and directly quotes the president talking about the issue (For Americans, yet ‘another mass shooting’ NBC). —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 02:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
          • I was reverted literally as I posted here (it initially seemed that the issue was resolved; clearly not...) I undid due to the consensus here, pointed Medeis in this direction, and will make no further edits to ITNC. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 03:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
            • I have been reverted yet again (I presume that Medeis has broken 3RR at this point). I find Medeis's liberal attitude to playing the race card and to censoring other people's comments to be sickening. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 03:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
              • Correction: there's nothing "liberal" about that, WFC. It's a lot of other things, but not that. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

@Drmies: I don't think he means "liberal" in the political sense, -- tariqabjotu 03:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A poor choice of words. A lot of people I know are "liberals", and they are wonderful people. I meant liberal as in "doing those things a lot". —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 03:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked Medeis 24 hours for edit warring. I also put it back to the version that says America and US. LadyofShalott 03:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

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

User study?

I was very surprised when this popped up on my watchlist on the WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting page; on checking, the same thing had been posted to WP:WikiProject Spam. I reverted them on the basis that this doesn't belong on a WP:-space page (WT:-space would be another matter), but thought I'd ping here to see if this is something that's been through the process and somebody just put it on the wrong page, or if there's something else going on here, seeing as the user named in the postings has made no edits other than a one-line bio on his userpage... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

More of these posts, on proper WT:-space pages now... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Just seen a post at WP:FOOTY. GiantSnowman 10:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I've left Maggie Dennis a talk page note requesting she verify this isn't WMF approved, but it doesn't feel like it is. WKmaster posted his proposal a long time ago on meta (and got no response) so this seems much more like a lack of communication than intentionally malicious. NE Ent 10:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If this becomes a problem, then perhaps it should be taken up at meta (linked to within the posted text). -- Trevj (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, User:NE Ent. :) I'm checking with the individual and with the research committee to see if approval has been granted for subject recruitment. In the meantime, I have removed all of the invitations that I see. I'll help restore them if it turns out that this was a communication snafu and the project is approved. I suspect you're quite right that this may be confusion. He set up the page on Meta, but I don't see any sign that the research committee responded - I'm not sure if he emailed the link. I have linked him to m:Research:Subject_recruitment in case. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that s/he has been the sole editor of that meta page. -- Trevj (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I am on the Research Committee, and I can not recollect this being approved. We normally do not approve mass edits by IP. It would be good to double-chack with the editor though.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Alexis Reich move discussion

I'd like to get some eyes on the situation at Talk:Alexis Reich. The article is about a person who transitioned from male to female, and the article is currently at the female name. There is currently a move request underway in which a move to the previous name is proposed by Obiwankenobi (talk · contribs) per WP:COMMONNAME. Sceptre (talk · contribs) performed a non admin close of the discussion here, instructing that it not be re-opened per BLP without gaining consensus on a noticeboard thread. The close was reverted by NE Ent (talk · contribs). I don't want to see a repeat of the Manning debacle, so I thought I'd take the situation here for community input. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, this seems like an entire exercise to prove the point that WP:CommonName should override WP:BLP. I just a few days ago removed from the article the unsourced convictions in the info box - possession of Child pornography, False confession, Battery , Obstruction of justice because there seems to be no sourcing to support them. I also removed the category "American people convicted of child pornography offenses." People may rightly find Reich is strange and likely delusional but she is still a human being and should not be convicted only on Wikipedia when no other sources do. Likewise we shouldn't push her article back into the closet. Renaming the article will not help anything. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Case-related discussion NE Ent 10:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes he, appears to have voted in it and closed it, just as he on the Bradley Manning talkpage.

I've always understood that if you vote on something, you shouldn't be the one to close it  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  11:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

She. I recommend using singular they or {{gender}} e.g. {{gender|Sceptre}} if you're unsure about an editor's gender. NE Ent 11:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I was quite peeved to see that sceptre closed that discussion and ordered it stay closed. Does he, or anyone for that matter have the authority to do that? Also, the discussion at that talk page is also starting to take a nasty turn for the worse. This is going to Manning part 2.Two kinds of pork (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Sceptre is currently under a topic ban of anything related to Chelsea Manning and while I wouldn't say all trans* or LGBT topics are connected to Manning, I will say that Sceptre's close itself refers to Manning and as such Sceptre was continuing to make edits that she herself considered Manning-related and thus violated her topic ban.--v/r - TP 16:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Sceptre's change was reverted and they didn't press the issue. I don't want their good faith efforts to be punished here. Let's drop the sticks and get back to the discussion in a civil fashion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This user has clearly crossed the line calling someone a "raving transphobe". It's at the bottom of this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daira_Hopwood#break — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talk • contribs) 20:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Would this count as a personal attack? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

To aid in the search I will post the diff here: [37]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't have time to defend this right now; I'm due to make a presentation on programming language design tomorrow. I'll come back to it in a few days. In the meantime I don't intend to withdraw my remark (I actually haven't decided whether to withdraw or modify it at all). If you block me for that, so be it; I just want to point out that I'm the author of a current proposal to change WP:AT, and you might want to think about the number of eyebrows that might be raised in the trans community if I'm blocked for calling out transphobia at this point. Just saying. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we give Daria a break here?

Daira. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I've conducted myself with a pretty level head throughout this business, but I certainly found Obi-wan's latest move insensitive enough to shoot from the hip somewhat. Given Daria is herself trans, it's hardly surprising she'd be similarly furious. Can we give her the opportunity to make things right rather than proceeding directly to administrative action? Chris Smowton (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A personal attack is still a personal attack, and it has not just been Obi wan,

Actually I really must object to this. The only other specific criticism of a particular user I've made recently is Knowledgekid87, and that was because they accused me of having a COI due to being trans. I said I'd report them (it would probably to ARBCOM) if they persisted with that argument, which I think is entirely reasonable. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

someone needs to step in and say that these things are just not okay. Im not saying Daria should be blocked forever im saying that she should take a wikibreak for a bit and come back when there is less drama here at the very least. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

If Daria is punished then the same fate should befall those who baited her into frustration. The Chelse Manning discussion and now the Alexis Reich one are filled with insensitive comments. The entire discussion on Reich's name is offensive from the start. X is a living person, should we change her name thus misgendering her? No. End of story. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Sport this isn't about the move discussion this is about an editor making a personal attack against another editor, it has to stop. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well will the baiting and transphobic comments stop? If she had nothing to respond to why should we believe she would say anything? Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Blatant personal attacks should not be allowed. Daira_Hopwood should be blocked. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Where was all this concern when Reich's article showed her as convicted for child porn? Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard of this person until today. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Kk87, if you'd like to give her an opportunity to cool down a little, perhaps that isn't best achieved by dragging her through the muck at ANI. Chris Smowton (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Chris the topic is heated and is not likely to go away any time soon I cant make the final say here but my opinion stands, how many more personal attacks are we just going to let go? What if it was against you? I have had my share of personal attacks against me and I know if I made them against other editors I would expect a response like this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I respect Daira and her views and I understand she is angry and lashed out. It was a clear violation of NPA but I don't want to press charges here. I'd be happy to strike anything I said in past days that offended anyone, and I'd kindly ask Daira to do the same, and then will consider this matter closed. We don't need punishment for one statement.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Obi im just tired of seeing all this hate on Wikipedia I have seen the word transphobia pop up so many times over the last few days and have been accused of making bad statements here as well, this has latterly turned into an emotional war from the renaming of two articles now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see why Daira_Hopwood's hate speech should be allowed on Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Tendentious and disruptive editing by user:Czixhc at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Acceptable self-published source?. For over two weeks now, user:Czixhc has been arguing for a map of 'human skin colour' to be accepted as a reliable source, in spite of being repeatedly (and unanimously) told that it isn't by User:Tobus2, User: Dougweller, User:Orangemike, User:Capitalismojo and myself (User:AndyTheGrump). We have been repeatedly told by Czixhc that only he/she understands policy, that we are all wrong, and that Czixhc is right. Czixhc has accused others of lying [38], and has point-blank refused to accept anyone's judgement but his/her own. It is clearly ridiculous that a dispute like this should be allowed to go on so long where there is an overwhelming consensus, and since it is evident that Czixhc is unwilling to accept the decision of others, I have to suggest that this contributor has acted in a manner which can only be seen as disruptive - and accordingly I suggest that Czixhc be blocked from editing until s/he makes it entirely clear that such behaviour will not be repeated. The reliable sources noticeboard is intended as a means to obtain outside input regarding the reliability of sources - it is not a platform for endless tedious and repetitive promotion of a source against the clear consensus of experienced editors. If Czixhc is unwilling to accept this, I'm sure we will manage fine without his/her contributions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I concur with and endorse Andy's report. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

As a completely uninvolved editor, I also concur with and endorse Andy's report. GregJackP Boomer! 03:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I don't get it, I haven't violated any rule and have discussed in a rather civilized manner all this time, what's really wrong with that? Czixhc (talk) 03:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I see that andy have (nedlessly) brought the discussion to this board, well, i will explain my point here too: thus far, there have been a discussion regarding certain image (a map that i want to include on wikipedia). The problem here basically lies on me holding that the map is reliable because it fully meets the criteria for self published sources (as i explain here [39] the exact diff is here [40]) while the users on opposition, mainly the user who started this discussion, assert that my map is not reliable because there is 3 users that activelly oppose to it (despite that my map in fact fulfillis the criteria) to which I cited to him that consensus is not a matter of votes, but is defined by the user who have sources and adhere to wikipedia's policies i'll cite it textually here: "Many of these discussions will involve polls of one sort or another; but as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight." this is why i reject that my map is not situable. The user to which i accused of lying is an user that has a particular habit of extending discussion without adhering to any policy, and to be precise i called him so because he has the tendency of ignore all my responses and just repeat the same argument again and again, he also intentionally misinterprets all my responses. I also have to note that the user andythegrump insulted me in the reliable sources noticeboard [41]. That's all, i really haven't violated any rule or policy, neither incurred on disruptive editing, thus far i've only adhered to wikipedia's policies. finally while this is not the appropiate board, any sugestions about how to reach a consensus that leaves every party satisfied are welcome. Czixhc (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

user:Czixhc continues to bluster meaninglessly to disguise the underlying issue: he wishes to use a self-published source from an artist, a production designer, as an "expert" on human skin color distribution, based on the fact that the guy is one of a myriad instructors at an obscure school of architecture. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

OrangeMike, the Oxford Brookes University is not an obscure school at all, by the way, here is one of my sources [42]. Czixhc (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I have not brought 'the discussion' to this noticeboard. I have brought your behaviour here. If you think that you are going to be permitted to use WP:ANI as another platform for the same tendentious behaviour, I suggest you think again. And yes, I referred to your tedious repetitive bollocks as bollocks - which I'm sure will be the consensus of all those willing to read through the whole dreary thread. Please do yourself a favour and accept, just this once, that you are wrong, and save us all the tedious necessity of coming to the same obvious conclusion that everyone else has already... AndyTheGrump (talk)

You shouldn't have done it, i haven't violated any rule, i just defend my posture based on sources, adhering to policies and because i believe that wikipedia must be impartial and not follow the interests or opinions of particular editors. Right now you've violated more guidelines than me. Czixhc (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

More tendentious bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You are right now breaking WP:CIVIL are you aware of that? You also can't request to block other users just because they disagree with you, that's not how it works. Czixhc (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I have proposed you be blocked because of your disruptive behaviour. The same behaviour that you seem keen to continue here. I'll ask one last time: are you going to accept the clear consensus at WP:RSN, or are you prepared to accept the consequences if you don't? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

To discuss something adhering to policies is not a disruptive behavoir, you clearly need to read more about wikipedia's policies, in fact, what actually makes an adiministrator to block an user is a conduct such as the one you've been showing with you insulting me. Czixhc (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Will those reading this thread please note that Czixhc has been contributing to Wikipedia for less than three months. And then compare that to the editing histories of those who have disagreed with Czixhc concerning the reliability of the source. And then consider who is more likely to be familiar with policy... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: As an almost completely uninvolved editor, I read through the entire RSN and the linked material. And I was trying to figure out how to close the discussion as a non-admin, or at least push it towards closure. (I do admit that I have two RSNs pending that I wish would get more attention.) But then this ANI has popped up. AndyTheGrump is completely correct. Consensus on the RSN is against Czixhc, and Czixhc patently refuses to accept what the community has said. The responses here echo that WP:TE approach and spirit. Please block Czixhc in order to provide time for reflection and to allow the RSN to close. – S. Rich (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC) ADDENDUM re strikeout. Czixhc seems to have accepted community consensus (with reluctance and reservations) and the RSN is closed. If Czixhc will refrain from further comment here and on the RSN, I recommend closing this ANI as well with no further action. – S. Rich (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• On sight of the direction this discussion has taken, i believe that it's the best for me to desist for now, I'll wait until an administrator revises my case to keep discussing this. Right now there is a huge amount of editors against me and this has boiled up, I have no problem with doing so, though i really didn't though that wikipedia worked this way on reality. I also have to point out that Andy the grump have been blocked many times before, with the reason for various of these being personal attacks: [43]. Czixhc (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Note. It appears that, contrary to the impression that the post above may have given, Czixhc has not accepted the overwhelming consensus both here and at WP:RSN regarding the non-RS nature of the disputed source, and apparently intends to continue the same tendentious behaviour. [44] Accordingly, I repeat my call that Czixhc be blocked for disruption until such time as s/he agrees to conform with normal standards of behaviour, and to accept that s/he alone is not the final arbiter regarding such matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• You can calm down already, as i told above, i desist for now. I'll wait to see what an uninvolved administrators think, whatever that administrators says i'm ok with it because i'm not a disruptive editor. Czixhc (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You have a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in spades. You've continued to insist that someone's university profile where the person himself has written that "My work and research focuses on the ‘re-illustration of post-colonial themes such as freedom of speech and expression, identity and migration which are executed through diverse media such as cartography, film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions." is an indication of expertise in migration. You even suggested at the article talk page that the discussion might be going your way. You are now suggesting so far as I can see that it requires an Administrator to review the issue of reliability to convince you to drop it - this isn't true, we have no special authority when it comes to content. If you don't agree to drop the issue entirely and agree that consensus is that the author of the map and the map itself is not reliable then it's my opinion you should be blocked. And frankly I wouldn't blame anyone for saying 'tendentious bollocks' after the time that's been wasting trying to show you the obvious. Dougweller (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I though that administrators had special authority on this kind of issues. Anyway, as i told above i desisted already, though i really don't think that uncivil behavoir is justified on any mean, specially with that user being involved on this discussion for like two days only. Czixhc (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I don't have time to dig into the rest of this, but Czixhc, please properly indent your comments in the future, as it makes the discussion much easier to follow - I have fixed the indenting above as an example. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit of shame it had to come this far, but good to see this might be finally coming to an end. I agree that there's no need for a ban or other sanction if Czixhc is genuine about accepting the community consensus. While he is aggressive, stubborn and has a "unique" interpretation of what both policy and sources say, to his credit the few times he came close to breaking WP:CIVIL in my discussions with him he backed off when asked to. He's a new editor here and I WP:Assume good faith that this was a genuine lack of understanding of what makes a WP:RS rather than him deliberately trying to be disruptive - hopefully he's been pointed to a bunch of policy he wasn't previously aware of and has become a better wikipedian by going through this process (I note that he appears to be contributing positively to other articles and has added another image, this time with a reliable source). Hopefully the conduct that resulted in his behaviour being raised here is just part of the learning curve of a new editor and there won't be a need to bring this up again. Tobus2 (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

"fucking muppet" probably isn't kosher, right?

I'm sure there are a million templates I'm supposed to scatter across a million places, but I decline. Too old and too tired. So this is probably malformed etc., which is OK by me, IF I can get an admin to swing by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages and say something about "fucking muppets". I don't want anyone blocked per se, but some adult supervision might be nice. Tks. [Oh, please don't tell me to go to some other board somewhere. Please see ref: "too old and too tired". Just send an admin to say something.] • Serviceable†Villain 12:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Hello Kermit, Miss Piggy, and Gonzo. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you

Uh-oh. User:Lfdder, again. He's normally a very good content contributor, but with a penchant for really crassly unfriendly behaviour sometimes. Yesterday he was on some kind of spree preparing to leave in a huff (dunno why). No idea what he has against you there. Those insults are of course unacceptable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) f m diff NE Ent 12:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) mea culpa, I committed a minor faux pas by wiping away a template with a mildly snarky edit summary. So if you wanna say I provoked it, go ahead. I don't think so, but OK. I just want someone to ask him to drink a nice cold cola and listen to some elevator music for a while. And perhaps stay away from me, but that might be too much to ask... • Serviceable†Villain 12:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) See also "he's a cunt" NE Ent 12:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

On a serious note that is rather unbelievable! Basket _Feudalist 12:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Personally, I'd rather be called a fucking muppet than an unproductive editor (although admittedly I'm both). I suppose someone will deal with Lfdder because he used bad words, but I'm more curious about why every tiny minor thing here has to spiral into a feces hurling contest. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yea, but cunt? :o Basket _Feudalist 12:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked for 48 hours for the personal attacks. GiantSnowman 12:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that was the best course of action. Even the target of the insults wasn't asking for a block—it appears he just wanted someone to tell Lfdder to cool down and stop hurling insults. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Maybe waiting to see what can be said in defence would be better as an immediate way to proceed. -- Trevj (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Response to the block tells me they are not willing to "cool down" any time soon. GiantSnowman 13:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that was the best way to handle it, either. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) I didn't see the bit about "cunt" before I posted here & said don't block him,... BUT...But anyhow, if you folks think he's a productive editor, then be as lenient or as strict as you wish. I never intended for this to spiral this far, if that's what you meant. Done talking about everything. Not angry, just tired. :-) If anyone wants to scold me or block me, or whatever, then do so. [Not being challenging... being serious, and seriously tired and busy...] • Serviceable†Villain 12:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
• Good block for active and very recent disruption. 48 hours away from WP is not a life sentence. I use language like this all the time with friends, family and certain colleagues, but only when I know my audience and am very certain that it's going to be understood as an expression of strong emotion, irony or hyperbole and not as an act of aggression. I think it's right to discourage free use of strong language when it's used as aggressively as this. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Further disruption from this editor, that I saw after I placed the block - removal of another editor's talk page posts not once but twice, as well as the unexplained blanking of a referenced article section at a number of articles. GiantSnowman 13:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The talk page removal was arguably proper, as what he was removing was a blatantly inappropriate "vandalism" warning (although, again, his tone in doing so could have been different). As for the article blankings, that was a series of edits trying to remove his own prior contributions, at a time when he apparently intended to leave. He stopped doing that when I asked him to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
    • yes, they have now explained those edits. GiantSnowman 13:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't think this was handled well at all. The reality is that people do use the f and c word in discussions and if we're going to block people for using them - without first asking them to stop - we're going to lose a lot of productive editors. Better to ask nicely first I always think. A quick unblock along with a polite request is probably called for right now. --regentspark (comment) 14:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• That's a perfectly good point about the missing warning - they should have had one before the block as a last resort (which would have possibly had the effect of preventing a block, or at least the effect of making a block after a recurrence more defensible.) I look at the language problem from the other direction and I think of the potential number of productive editors who are put off by the locker room assumption that this is how we routinely relate to one another. This aspect of our culture may be a part of explaining the narrow demographic from which WP editors are drawn. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Personally I feel that editors of such long-standing should not have to be 'warned' that such language/behaviour/attitude is inappropriate; it should be a given. Nonetheless, I am happy to concede that point, and invite any admin who disagrees with my block to remove it if they see fit. GiantSnowman 14:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• He's been warned and should probably be familiar with the policy by now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Good spot, MRG. That final warning was for this which was less egregious than this week's contributions (and actually I wouldn't have issued a templated warning for it myself!) But there's the warning right enough and only just over two weeks old. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, when I say 'warned' I mean for that specific situation. Many editors are not bothered one bit by expletives (though I never use them myself, they don't bother me at all). Ideally, Serviceablevillian should have asked Lidder to temper his/her language (or requested that an admin do so) in the context of the discussion taking place. We don't want to lose that large subset of people who can't resist the use of scatological terms profanity. Instead, we should focus on keeping their interactions trouble free (i.e., trying to restrict usage to where it isn't a problem). --regentspark (comment) 16:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• The reason I disagree with the block is not because he wasn't warned and so all the forms weren't filled out in triplicate correctly; I disagree with the block because blocking doesn't need to be the first tool we pull out of the toolbox when confronted with an angry person. For all I know, it may well have been necessary eventually, or it may not have. But now we'll never know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Another one of these situations. I think we all know that a civility block doesn't do any good in the sense of modifying future behavior, and at the same time there is at least some consensus that one shouldn't talk to others in certain ways. Lfdder should have been warned for this particular incident (they weren't about to break the wiki or call for someone to be beheaded), but then they were warned a few weeks ago for something similar. An unblock know will, according to some, send the message that anything goes and civility is not to be enforced; according to others, it is the proper way to address a hasty block.

  If there is a point to blocking, and to this discussion, it should be (for Lfdder) that we don't agree with their choice of words. That they could get blocked again if they do it again. We don't do cool-down blocks, and I don't see a consensus that Lfdder is incapable of doing anything besides insulting, so I'm inclined to unblock. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

  • He hasn't requested an unblock, has he? He's probably too proud to do that. I say let him sit it out. It was, after all, a pretty severe case of an insult, and with a background of previous attacks too. The point, for me, is not the choice of words; the point is that it was a deliberate, repeated and unprovoked insult, out of the blue, not made in the heat of anger or under provocation, just a piece of wanton, coolly executed nastiness. So if ever a personal attack did deserve a block, it was this. (And I'm saying this as somebody who, otherwise, has a lot of respect for Lfdder's content contributions.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Hmm, that's a good point. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
• Good block. Wikipedia is not the locker room or the after-work bar, the occasional f-bomb is going to happen but, as always, context matters - but the c-word is always unacceptable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the latter point, Bushranger--and tell that to Hank Williams III. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I prefer Hank Jr. myself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm the exception here but I don't find a 24 or 48 hour block onerous. I mean, not everyone edits Wikipedia on a daily basis. And using words like "cunt" really drives some people away.
I don't see how there can be standard here aiming at professional and civil behavior and then not take note when someone goes on a verbal tear, creating a hostile atmosphere. I think there should be a general warning: If you are angry, stop editing. And, despite the words of those (above) who say a thoughtful word of caution would have calmed down an angry Editor, well, I've seen that backfire more often than work. It's a rare person who in the midst of anger and frustration can consider a rational comment to cease and desist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Ottawa Catholic School Board IP 24.114.29.254

24.114.29.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - I happen to be at this IP address, in the school board it is registered to. This vandalism WILL NOT STOP. High school students are idiots. I recommend permanently blocking this IP now. For further information read my comment on their talk page. Frogging101 (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Materialscientist blocked for two weeks. You might also ping your IT office and have them dig into the timing of edits - might be able to figure out who did them and give that poor kid a scare. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Heh, unfortunately I don't think that will be possible; the IP is registered to the entire school board, not just one school. This is well over 30 000 students, and that is why I think this IP should be blocked ASAP. Frogging101 (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Western painting and 20th-century Western painting

Non-free image are not allowed in Galleries per WP:Galleries paragraph 4 - "Fair use images may almost never be included as part of a general image gallery" and Wikipedia:Non-free content #8 and #9. I have as of yet seen am exception give and justified for use of Wikipedia:Non-free content in galleries, and this page is no exception. There are several examples of Western paintings and 20th-century Western painting that can be used that are Pubic Domain, which are already on this page. There is no need to use these two Fair use images.

I have tried twice to remove two "Fair use images" from the Galleries ([45] and [46]) on this page only to have that edit reverted, by user:Freshacconci and user:Modernist so I have been forced to report the violation of Wikipedia:Non-free content guidelines, so that an Administrator can remove the images..--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm in the process of fixing the problem. Next time use the talk page...Modernist (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Per your talk page, I'm supposed to "Stay off my page!". You tell me not to talk to you then you pretend that your willing to talk?--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Use the article talk page...Modernist (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The key word in that policy is "may". The visual arts project has had this problem before and they have rightfully argued that in all of these schools of art articles that cover multiple centuries to use a limited number of examples (sourced in text as key examples of the school). As long as we're talking one or two images, that's fine to have them in galleries. We don't want galleries that are full of non-free, though but that's not what is happening here. --MASEM (t) 13:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree...Modernist (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not see the word "may", the rule is clear.

1. WP:Galleries paragraph 4 "Fair use images may almost never be included as part of a general image gallery". I have had this issue before on a page that I wanted to use "Fair use images".
2. Wikipedia:Non-free content: Unacceptable use - The use of non-free media (whether images, audio or video clips) in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8).

This very Notice board ruled that the images are not needed as there are multiple examples on the very page that can express the example that are Public domain, meaning that there use is in violation of Wikipedia:Non-free content guidelines, since they are replaceable. I'm not making these rules up, they have been enforce on me in the past.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You may want to read what you quoted, the words "may" and "generally" are used. Just like every other policy + guideline, NFC is subject to IAR, and in limited cases it is reasonable to include contemporary works alongside examples of works in the PD on these school pages simply to avoid bias, as long as the number selected are few and well-documented as representations within the contemporary period. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Exactly as Masem stated. "May" is the key word (and it's right there, in the first sentence you quote). Paragraph 4 is part of Wiki policy, however there is clearly flexibility given the wording and there are exceptions to that rule. The spirit of that paragraph is to limit whole pages of images with little or no text. Articles on art history, particularly core topics like Western painting require galleries of images and flexibility when it comes to fair use. No one is advocating umpteen fair use images but showing a progression of images is part of art history and is necessary to the topic for an encyclopedia. Low-res images used sparingly fall under fair use and can be used. But instead of discussing the issue, ARTEST4ECHO chose to revert my revert (whatever happened to WP:BRD?) and then file a report. Kinda missed the discuss portion, unless I'm mistaken. freshacconci talk to me 13:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • And could you link where the notice board discussion took place? I've never seen it and would be interested. Thank you. freshacconci talk to me 13:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:IG says "Fair use images may almost never be included as part of a general image gallery, as their status as being "fair use" depends on their proper use in the context of an article (as part of analysis or criticism)." But we do have "analysis or criticism" in these two articles. It is a matter of interpretation as to how specific or extensive the "analysis or criticism" should be. But it is hard to describe visual art by verbal means alone. These are in most cases primarily visual entities (paintings, sculptures). In my opinion it is arguable that the image (of the painting for instance) is of importance that is equal to or greater than its verbal counterpart found in the text of the article. Let us just say that the two go hand-in-hand. The verbal text and the visual image referred-to, complement one another. Bus stop (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

FWIW for years I've worked very hard keeping them to a minimum...Modernist (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Western painting has 38 non-free usages and 20th-century Western painting has 39 (or did as of the last database report). Whilst obviously a tricky article in which to keep the number down, that sounds excessive to me. Indeed, on the whole of Wikipedia, only History of painting has more (46). Black Kite (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

I made some constructive minor copyedits to 't Nonnetje which were twice reverted with bad faith (and clearly false) edit summaries such as [47]. We're getting into 3RR territory now. I explained my edits to him on his talk page but he deleted my post with the edit summary "pityfull timewasters". I most certainly have not introduced errors or degraded the article and I feel that it is unacceptable for him to say this. We have a recent history with The Dorchester article in which I criticized him for his inappropriate tagging, but he thinks I'm picking on him in return now which isn't true. The edits I made were not damaging in anyway but simply improved the quality of prose. He has since left a nasty message on my talk page [48] accusing me of POV pushing and being "the most pityfull editor on wikipedia".♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think I'm on friendly terms with both editors, and am trying not to step on anyone's toes--but Banner, there is no need for that. I can't see what the mistake is that Dr. Blofeld supposedly introduced, but this "pitiful" stuff, come on. Drmies (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It wasn't the best of copyedits :S I fixed it up a little bit. But, yeh, rather an overreaction! --Errant ^(chat!) 14:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, well I was just focusing on the rewording of the parts.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It appears to be some form of reverse psychology. If it makes him feel better, sure, I'm a pitiful editor.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Could may be just a breakdown in translations? Jat. Basket _Feudalist 14:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, it would be a translation of "zielig", a wonderful word, but just as inappropriate. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I wish it was, but sadly this isn't the case. He seems to think I'm the most dreadful, unreasonable most "pityfull" editor on here who is at war with him. Actually I appreciate the work he does on restaurants (even if I'd prefer it if he tried to make them start class) and simply made some minor copyedits to his new articles in good faith. If I'd wanted to be nasty I'd have slopped tons of tags over them and degraded his work in edit summaries. And it's not as if I can amicably confront him...♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, [49] The Banner talk 15:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

On the talk page he says to Errant "Please keep in mind that the stray capitals and strange sentences are not my work, but work from another editor. He prefers to edit war over it, so let him be happy with his mess. The Banner talk 13:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Another blatant lie. The proof is there that Head chef was capitalized when he started the article, yet he claims that it was "my mess". Frankly I find such false claims and belligerent behaviour disturbing, and if he really has a history of overreacting to everything like this I'm surprised that he hasn't been officially cautioned by now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I think now you've overreacted there :) because "Head chef" was correctly capitalised in his version, and your c/e introduced the problem. Not that I'm defending his stance, it's easy to do when your tidying up sentence structure (and your reads better), done it loads of times myself. Just sayin' Maybe just both of you disengage for a bit --Errant ^(chat!) 15:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I see, indirectly because I added "The" Head chef before it and it was originally the start of the new sentence. But I didn't introduce the capital letter.. It's very minor stuff though isn't it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The truth is that it is more common to have a capital in the first word of a sentence. The truth is also that you started checking and tagging my articles after my tagging of The Dorchester on which you replied with: I've removed your invalid and rather bad faith tags from the Dorchester Hotel article which is still in the process of being expanded. Did you even bother to read the article? Shall I tag Four Seasons Hotel Dublin for the same reason, it has about the same level of "coi, peacock, advertising" as you put it. To my opinion, 100% revenge.

And finally, I had already moved on, Dr. Blofeld clearly not. So he popped up on two of my newest articles. Let me make it clear: I don't like the style of response of Dr. Blofeld so I try to avoid him. The Banner talk 15:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Er, no, it was to prove my point that I certainly wouldn't tag the Dublin hotel article even though it had the same level of COI or "peacock" in it. I think the language barrier is such that you don't really understand sarcasm and misinterpret a lot of things, I've noticed the same thing from a lot of other non native English speaking editors on here, although Drmies who I believe is also a native Dutch speaker certainly appears to have a 100% fluent grasp of English and its perks. You'd get a much sweeter response if you stopped running about the site Banner making OTT edits and comments about people. Your very first edit on the Dorchester amounted to excessive tag spamming which was not done in the spirit of wikipedia. You dismissed my initial message to you as telling me I was making a "joke of myself" or something to that effect..You persisted with comments like this. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Aggressive tagging of seven of my articles within an hour is also against the spirits of Wikipedia. And an edit like this only proved to me that you was looking for revenge. I don't want to spend time on that game. The Banner talk 15:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I created Template:Expand ref for the very reason that all articles with no publisher or source details should be filled out in details and I never visit an article which has expand ref requirements without leaving it. Yes, it is true that I came across your articles on your user page, but if the articles I visited had sourcing like your current ones I would not have tagged them at all (even though I could pick holes in them if I wanted to and question the quality; we're not a restaurant directory). So don't think that you've been victimized over it, but your sourcing does have issues on a lot of the articles you've listed on your user page and unlike yourself I don't add tags to articles without a very good reason. If I was to truly be "seeking revenge" I'd put half of your restaurants up for AFD and plaster unwarranted tags over them and leave scathing edit summaries. It just isn't my style, I hold no grudges, and my recent edits have not been in any way an attack as your perceive them to be. And I've rewarded you in the past for your efforts to improve restaurant coverage and still continue to support your efforts in doing so, although in light of what you've done I really don't think you deserve to be rewarded from myself and am surprised that you still continue to value an award from a "pitiful editor".♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• My articles, Banner? I thought the articles were everyone's? I was mildly involved at the Dorchester article, with Banner being aggressive in his reverting and approach. - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

"My articles" as in written by me and for which I feel a special responsibility to watch over them. The Banner talk 16:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps you two could agree to stay away from each other, and each others' articles, for a few days. Tag bombing the Dorchester was uncool. Retaliating on 7 of The Banner's articles was uncool. Complaining about aggressive tagging when you just did it yourself is uncool. "Taking back" a barnstar was kind of uncool. Name calling is uncool. You two don't seem to be able to edit constructively together right now, so maybe editing on different articles would be good.--Floquenbeam (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem. The Banner talk 16:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure exactly how I I retaliated Floq. I even improved the sourcing on a few of them by filling them out and added some content like this. And tag bombing with Advert, COI, Peacock etc is hardly exactly the same as adding a single expand ref template in the referencing section like Arbutus Lodge. Have you looked at the sourcing of a lot of the articles on his user page? Could I have completely avoided his articles? Yes. But I wouldn't be acting appropriately if I visited an article and didn't make an effort to try to get the sourcing to be improved. Visit Arbutus Lodge for instance, isn't it obvious that the references need filling out with basic publisher and title details? How is it aggressive tagging so apply a ref fill in the references section? I do this regularly on any article, whoever the author is, and I once made a request to get a bot to try to apply them to all articles and fill them out. That's constructive not destructive. Believe me, if I was retaliating I'd have put them up for AFD and applied COI tags to them, especially Martijn Kajuiter. As I say I have no issues with him, but if he's going to revert good faith edits to his articles and accuses me of things which aren't true, then I don't take too kindly to it. I could quite happily improve some of his articles on restaurants and enjoy doing so as hotels and restaurants interest me, so to avoid editing his articles just because he can't accept myself I think is a bit extreme. I'm quite capable of working with most people, but it requires mutual respect..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Banner has called me a "lazy cow", and has been uncivil to myself on multiple occasions. I can list examples when I get to a computer. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Looking back over your talk page editing history he did seem to make an extreme number of TFD spam messages back in June. All I know is that he comes across as a rather extreme editor and I don't think it is healthy to operate like this on wikipedia, but it's pretty common. I'm surprised that he's never been officially warned or blocked for making such remarks or for spamming people warnings.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget to tell about the topic ban you got due to the "quality" of your work on templates last May. User_talk:Jax_0677/Archive_7#Topic_ban_enacted The Banner talk 17:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to get too sidetracked here or indicate that this is a "let's grill Banner" thread. But I am concerned Banner with some of your edits in articles and behaviour following them which seem like overreactions, especially your perception of my edits on this article which really were intended to be constructive. I feel certain you've done this sort of thing before and will continue to do so again. I think it basically comes down to AGF, and you'd find that if you treat an editor such as myself with respect instead of "pitiful" you'd find that I'd reflect it back at you and things would run a lot a smoother. I'm not sure what it would take to indicate to you that I do not have malicious intent towards you, but some of your edit summaries and comments today do nothing to improve things for you on here. As I say I'm interested in restaurant articles and would be willing to work on a restaurant you consider important and show to you that I'm not the sort of character and editor that you think I am and can be quite reasonable and constructive if the atmosphere isn't hostile.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

What's with the inverts on "quality" Banner? Looking at the diffs provided above, you come across as quite an odious person. Your reverts on Blofeld were conducted in bad faith and he was correct in bringing this to ANI. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The quality issues were about the work of Jax, not about Blofeld. The Banner talk 18:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply -

1. I'm not going to beat the dead Topic Ban horse to death again (water under the bridge now), as the Topic Ban limits what I say here. My quality has improved dramatically, and The Banner has on numerous occasions used XfD as cleanup for topics with ample information.
2. Here is the example of The Banner calling me a "lazy cow" and making an inflammatory comment:
   User_talk:The_Banner/Archives/2013/June#Waiting_for_improvement_as_incomplete.
3. Here is the example of The Banner about to call me "[Stupid]":
   Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_16#Template:University_of_Northern_Iowa --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems to come down to a distinct lack of respect and AGF to others I think. He appears to have some sort of natural resentment of people in general or fails to see that others are often acting in good faith.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think the above statement by Dr. Blofeld is an accurate summary. Over at least the past two years, The Banner (formerly The Night of the Big Wind) has demonstrated very aggressive commenting in discussions, especially all those related to the notability of schools, and has not heeded even the many, most polite requests to moderate his tone. He does not appear to realise that his manner of collaboration will not gain traction for his arguments, and at best will be largely ignored. His failure to gain consensus has also led him to mount campaigns of mass nominations at AfD in attempts to prove his point. I fail to understand why a user who is so concerned for the quality of our articles can take pleasure in being so unpleasant. Due to the apparent inability to understand the comments of others and reacting with indignation, I am inclined to believe that there may be a linguistic issue because many users' comments are taken out of context, and replied to impolitely and with gross inaccuracy. I have occasionally considered filing an RFC/U, but refrained each time from doing so in the hope that his interactions with others would improve. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocking of Keeler4586

Hi, I am requesting that user Keeler4586 be blocked as he/she is devoted to promoting products, and is recreating deleted articles minutes after speedy deletion as can be seen in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keeler4586 . Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I have contacted the user with a gentler message than an immediate block. Perhaps it might be best to wait and see if the gentler message is heeded prior to taking the blunt object action. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Mass rollbacks required

We've been hit pretty heavily by a spambot. I know some admins have scripts for mass rollback (believe it or not, as many of them as I do, I don't have a script). This is bigger than manual techniques can handle.

• 188.217.203.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 61.15.46.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 27.3.85.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 84.43.147.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 176.202.105.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.239.64.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.223.161.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 87.110.16.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.132.64.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.98.25.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.34.75.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 189.34.9.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 186.19.57.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 188.251.236.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 87.223.115.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 83.157.124.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 90.163.51.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 85.66.241.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.36.214.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 95.168.56.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.215.1.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 187.208.150.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.142.126.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 105.236.16.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

—Kww(talk) 16:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

add

• 5.57.115.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2.237.28.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 84.232.235.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

—Kww(talk) 16:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

add

• 41.228.51.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.228.46.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 60.50.51.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 190.57.181.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 62.63.132.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.178.159.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 178.79.34.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.175.88.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 190.244.69.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

—Kww(talk) 17:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

No. Archive.is actually is a web service for archiving URLs. See Talk:Archive.is. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

So under what circumstances do you think it's acceptable to anonymously run a bot over open proxies?—Kww(talk) 17:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Given that RotlinkBot (talk · contribs) was not approved, and the history of the site, I think blacklisting and mass removal is appropriate. Werieth (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, since I personally undid about twenty of the edits before going out (they appear all done now?). Cheers! Basket _Feudalist 18:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link: that's clearly what this is. Rotlink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is bypassing the block on his unapproved bot by using anonymous proxies for the edits.—Kww(talk) 18:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Now using open proxies to direct traffic to your site is problematic. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

They aren't "all done", You Can Act Like A Man. I've blocked all the above IPs for three months. The edit filter keeps reporting new ones trying. It occurs to me that this may be a gadget of some kind (as opposed to proxies), as Rotlink has apparently released one on Romanian Wikipedia. That doesn't seem likely, though.—Kww(talk) 18:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, Kww(talk)- I'll get back on the case? No probs. I just checked the next few from where I left it (an hour before) and didn't see any current edits from the bot. Makes sense? Basket _Feudalist 18:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

@Kww et al.: To check my understanding: the problem here is that these links are being added by some sort of unauthorized bot and/or blocked user, not that the archive.is links are inherently bad? If so, I assume there's no objection to manually restoring some of these links after manually verifying that they're correct and suitable? —me_and 18:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that, but I'd wait a bit before I got started in case somebody finds something out about archive.is that isn't obvious to me.—Kww(talk) 18:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This is what I think as well. Drmies (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I noticed this link addition happening during RC patrol and wasn't sure what to think. I tested a random link and found that the old version was broken, but the new archive.is version worked. After that, I didn't interfere. I did another test just now from the list above, and again the archive.is change made a broken link functional. As the scale has certainly been disconcerting, though, I'm glad you folks are looking into it. From what's said above, I assume that massive linking to a single site should be reported, whether or not the results are apparently benign. Is that right? DoorsAjar (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, if I see fresh archive.is links being added, what action would you like me to take? Should I revert the changes or not? Should I report the IP making the changes, and if so, should I do it here or at AIV? DoorsAjar (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This has been noticed on a lot of aircraft articles - on the ones I've seen, it's always been replacing a USAF Factsheet that was on af.mil with the archive.is version. The catch is that the factsheets actually still exist, just moved to a different address - more constructive would be repairing the link instead of bypassing it with an archive. Regardless of whether or not archive.is is a valid archive, though, the scope and means of this merit a nuking and re-doing from scratch, I think. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I saw this the other day and was going to bring it here, but I checked out the links and they seemed to work as an archive site, so didn't bother. These edits are all over Wikipedia, on a very large scale. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
• Quebec99 (talk · contribs) uses the same edit summary. —rybec 21:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
• 117.199.101.226 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))[50]

• 42.113.28.153 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))[51]

• 42.114.9.233 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))[52]

—rybec 22:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked and reverted the three IPs. Not convinced on Quebec99 at all: that looks to be an editor that his actually correcting web references and describes that with an edit summary of "corrected web reference".—Kww(talk) 22:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not a bot! I am using this [53] page to see what is broke, finding the correct reference if it exists, and fixing it. Is that somehow wrong? Quebec99 (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. You just happened to be using the same edit summary as a bot, and someone pointed that out for investigation. As you can see above, I figured out that it was a coincidence.—Kww(talk) 22:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)