Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:ANB)
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard
This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators.

Sections older than six days are
archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

  • Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices.
  • If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email directly with your concern.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.
The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Centralized discussion


Requests for closure[edit]

These requests for closure are transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.

Requests for Comment[edit]

Talk:Eidetic memory#WP:RfC: Should the article be strict in stating that photographic memory and eidetic memory are not the same thing?[edit]

Things look okay at the article these days, but this discussion should have a close to help put the previous dispute to bed. Keep in mind that the question is not simply about distinguishing the terms (which is something the article already does); it's about whether we should strictly distinguish them (as in say they are not the same thing and leave it at that). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this, I have objected to Rhoark closing this RfC. Due to our disputes in the past, I do not consider him a neutral party. And I would rather not rehash here what those disputes were. Will a neutral editor close this RfC? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: I also commented on Rhoark's talk page about this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
My closure was not contingent on the identities of any people participating. It was part of a slate of backlogged closures, so the fact you posed it did not influence my decision to close it. The topic is not related to any disagreement we've had in the past. The RfC was posed reasonably neutrally, and you expressed no definite preferences apart from that the article should not be forked. You've said the closure itself is not bad, and if it differs in any way from your preferred outcome, I don't know what that difference is. It does not seem possible that I could have acted even with a subconscious desire to thwart you. In consideration of all this, I don't think it's necessary to withdraw the closure, but I'm open to more community input. Rhoark (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Rhoark (last time pinging you in this section because I assume you will check back here if you want to read replies), I appreciate you taking the time to explain and being open to community input. It is difficult for me to trust people acting in a neutral manner toward me if I've had a tempestuous or semi-tempestuous Wikipedia relationship with those people. Editing here for years, in the various contentious topics I edit in, has proven my distrust to be valid. It usually takes a significant time for me to even consider that an editor I've had a tempestuous or semi-tempestuous Wikipedia relationship with might become a good Wikipedia acquaintance of mine and/or might be willing to be neutral when it comes to me. There are a few such editors, but that took time. As for my preference for the RfC outcome, I didn't object because your close went against any preference I might have. My preferences were: That the article not be strict in stating that photographic memory and eidetic memory are not the same thing, and that we don't unnecessarily content fork. But I am curious about something. The RfC, as previously noted, is about whether we should strictly distinguish the terms/concepts (as in say they are not the same thing and leave it at that). I don't see any consensus that we should be strict in stating that they are not the same thing. And your close begins by noting that definitions for the topic are not consistent. But then you stated, "There seems to be agreement that the article should more clearly partition its material to being about one concept or the other, but should not over-emphasize terminology as a way to distinguish the two." Why did you state that? How can the article more clearly be about one subject or the other, given the interchangeability of the terms? See the "Eidetic memory or photographic memory" section of the Eidetic memory article. That is a needed section. Do you mean that the article should pretty much stay as it is, with the lead noting the interchangeability and distinguishing aspects, and that one section going into further detail, but the rest of the article focusing specifically on eidetic memory (as in the one with more scientific backing)? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
The consensus that I read is that there are two concepts sharing a term. Normally they would be disambiguated with separate pages, but in this case there is sufficient reason not to do so, considering how often the two are conflated. Imagine there were a consensus to cover Bill (law) and beak in the same Wikipedia article for some reason. You would have to pay attention to what each source means by "bill". If you juxtapose claims about both of them you might have readers thinking waterfowl are part of the legislative process. That's what I refer to by "partitioning". On the other hand, you wouldn't say "A bill is always proposed legislation and never part of a bird," since you know there are sources that mean different things by "bill". There wasn't enough discussion about things like which section should be first or longest to call a consensus on anything like that. I notice you've unilaterally reverted the close.[1] That's not the recommended process and I don't agree with the action or reasons. I'm not disposed to argue about it though. Anyone else reviewing this noticeboard will know what they'll be getting into. Rhoark (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures (which is an information page, not a policy or a guideline) indicates that it is about disagreeing with a closer's rationale. I, on the other hand, disagree with you closing the RfC regardless of your rationale, and I've been clear about why. If you were an administrator, I could cite WP:INVOLVED. But since you are not, I can only state that a closer should be a neutral party. This is clear at Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Requesting a close. Given our history, I would have never attempted to close a discussion you were involved in. And you stating "Anyone else reviewing this noticeboard will know what they'll be getting into." is the type of thing I mean when it comes to your opinion of me being able to factor into matters. You make it seem like I am being difficult. Politely asking that another editor close the RfC because the previous editor who closed it is not exactly a neutral party when it comes to me is not being difficult. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Can other site accounts ever be linked to[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Can other site accounts ever be linked to (Initiated 88 days ago on 30 June 2016)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking a three-person closure (Including at least one user who handles non-public information on a regular basis) would be advisable for this discussion. I'll volunteer with the admission that I am probably one of the worst people to close this, so I'll defer to basically any other team of three. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@Cunard and Tazerdadog: Am up for it. Deryck C. 13:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so we need at least one more, and someone who has handled private info on a regular basis. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The WP:Signpost has just run two issues that discuss the issue at hand extensively. This is likely to generate a lot extra participation in the debate in the coming week or so, which will hopefully generate new arguments and possibly affect the outcome. I think we should hold on for at least two more weeks before closure. Deryck C. 23:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Two weeks might be excessive, but a week is certainly a good idea. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@Cunard and Tazeradog: Okay, probably time to get people to close this. Any nominations on "someone who has handled private info on a regular basis"? I have handled personal information for Wikimedia before, but that's in the context of organising meatspace Wikimedia events. Deryck C. 12:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Euryalus (talk · contribs) and HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs), oversighters who have posted in WP:ANRFC recently. Would one of you be able to join Tazerdadog and Deryck Chan in closing the discussion? Or do you know how to reach out to others who have "handled private info on a regular basis"? Cunard (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, but I should decline the offer given I've directly contributed to the debate on a couple of occasions, as well as the Signpost editorial comment section. The best ways to reach others who handled routinely handled private information. would be a neutrally-worded email to, which will reach current CU's and Oversighters plus a small collection of former arbs. Someone who hasn't taken part in the debate would hopefully then step forward to help with the close. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability#Systemic Bias: Proposing a separate standard of notability and Wikipedia talk:Notability#Adding ways to assess Systemic Bias to WP:N[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfCs at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Systemic Bias: Proposing a separate standard of notability and Wikipedia talk:Notability#Adding ways to assess Systemic Bias to WP:N (Initiated 84 days ago on 4 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

yellow tickY Partly done. I handled the first one, but won't take the second one to avoid monopolizing. Rhoark (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of best-selling albums in the United States#Request for comment on use of sources[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of best-selling albums in the United States#Request for comment on use of sources (Initiated 69 days ago on 19 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Frank Gaffney#RfC: Should Gaffney be described as a "conspiracy theorist" instead of "proponent of conspiracy theories"?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Frank Gaffney#RfC: Should Gaffney be described as a "conspiracy theorist" instead of "proponent of conspiracy theories"? (Initiated 67 days ago on 21 July 2016)? Please consider the closed RfC Talk:Frank Gaffney#"Conspiracy Theorist" in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 20#RFC:Should Judge Curiel’s membership in the Hispanic National Bar Association be in the Donald Trump article?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 20#RFC:Should Judge Curiel’s membership in the Hispanic National Bar Association be in the Donald Trump article? (Initiated 46 days ago on 11 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 66#RfC for NFCC#8 exemptions for currency and USPS stamps[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 66#RfC for NFCC#8 exemptions for currency and USPS stamps (Initiated 60 days ago on 28 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Noël Coward#RfC: Should an Infobox be added to the page?[edit]

An uninvolved admin will be needed to close this RfC on 14 September (or sooner if discussion ends, but that's unlikely). I'm requesting admin closure because it has been a contentious debate. It would be ideal if someone could volunteer soon, so that there's lots of time to become familiar with the comments and background. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC Period Expired: The RfC is ready for closure now at Talk:Noël Coward#RfC: Should an Infobox be added to the page? -- Dane2007 talk 19:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: What (if anything) to do about quotations, and the quotation templates?[edit]

(Initiated 37 days ago on 20 August 2016). Note that the later thread Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Sandwiching is an extended part of the RfC discussion as well, as is the subthread mentioned in the request immediately below this one.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  21:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC) updated 04:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I opened this RfC, so let me talk about this a little bit. I originally opened the RfC as a "let's talk about this" thread with no "action items" expected to come out it (rather, perhaps some suggestions for future RfC that would have action items). It turned into rather quite a sprawling discussion, which is exactly what we want. But not one that would normally need to be "closed".
However, in the organic process, an editor opened an "action item" RfC within the large RfC. This is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Permit Template:Quote box for regular quotes. This is unusual and some editors objected that 1) this was improper, and/or 2) anyway it was not properly and neutrally written, and/or 3) there was canvassing.
Anyway, this sub-RfC did have a survey section, and so it does need to be closed. One valid close would be "Well the objections are cogent, this is not a valid RfC from which any action item can ensue". Another valid close could be would be to close it as a normal action-item RfC, e.g. as "the proposition is accepted" or "the proposition is rejected" or "no consensus so no change". FWIW and it may not be worth much, my counting noses and summarization of the matter as it currently stands is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Summary to date, and thinking about next steps #3. Herostratus (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Permit Template:Quote box for regular quotes[edit]

An uninvolved editor will be needed to close this RfC on 30 September. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

This request is redundant with the one above it, and is just a request to close one subthread of the actual RfC. The RfC en toto should be closed (on 21 September), not just one part of it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  17:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#How should languages be categorized[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#How should languages be categorized (Initiated 54 days ago on 3 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Into You (Ariana Grande song)#Request for comment[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Into You (Ariana Grande song)#Request for comment (Initiated 53 days ago on 4 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 50#RFC on adding parameters for relatives to Comic Book Character Infobox[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 50#RFC on adding parameters for relatives to Comic Book Character Infobox (Initiated 56 days ago on 1 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 54#RfC: Proposed new lede for Gamergate controversy[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 54#RfC: Proposed new lede for Gamergate controversy (Initiated 49 days ago on 8 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016#RfC: "racism" in lede[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016#RfC: "racism" in lede (Initiated 55 days ago on 2 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016/Archive 10#Proposed merge with R/The Donald[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016#Proposed merge with R/The Donald (Initiated 33 days ago on 24 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants#RFC on creation of consensus standard[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants#RFC on creation of consensus standard (Initiated 53 days ago on 4 August 2016)? There is a request for closure at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants#Request to close?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is PolitiFact a reliable source for fact checking?[edit]

Would an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is PolitiFact a reliable source for fact checking? (Initiated 29 days ago on 28 August 2016)? Thanks, Neutralitytalk 20:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Slut-shaming#RfC: Is it WP:Synthesis to use sources that do not identify the topic as slut-shaming to make claims about slut-shaming?[edit]

The RfC for this discussion expired on the 18th. Would an uninvolved administrator assess the arguments and whether or not a consensus was reached on the matter or on part of the matter? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


Would an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus at Talk:Eritrea#Location (Initiated 42 days ago on 15 August 2016)? Thanks, Soupforone (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The dispute as a whole should be reviewed. It does also exist a case in the admin incident board [2]. The admin should not be involved user as mentioned and not a admin involved in similar disputes (between the same partiets) such as admin CambridgeBayWeather. Richard0048 (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)#Request for comment on .E2.80.9Cvulture.E2.80.9D descriptor[edit]

Really need an administrator to close this one, as it's a contentious issue that has been discussed several times. Softlavender (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Ride the Lightning#Should the year of publication of Hemingway's novel be mentioned[edit]

Presence or absence of consensus in >30-day-old discussion needs assessment.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 55#RfC: Should Gjoni's side of the story be reported?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 55#RfC: Should Gjoni's side of the story be reported? (Initiated 40 days ago on 17 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Jane Austen#RfC: Establish consensus on a consistent format for citations in Jane Austen[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jane Austen#RfC: Establish consensus on a consistent format for citations in Jane Austen (Initiated 35 days ago on 22 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1#RFC: Should articles "1" to "100" be about numbers instead of years?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:1#RFC: Should articles "1" to "100" be about numbers instead of years? (Initiated 38 days ago on 19 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Alexander the Great#RfC - Jewish tradition[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alexander the Great#RfC - Jewish tradition (Initiated 32 days ago on 25 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd#Renewed merge discussion[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd#Renewed merge discussion (Initiated 41 days ago on 16 August 2016)? There is a clear consensus for a merge. However, editors are split on merging Miniature Australian Shepherd to Miniature American Shepherd or merging Miniature American Shepherd to Miniature Australian Shepherd. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Neonicotinoid#RFC: Inclusion of a sentence on a primary study[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Neonicotinoid#RFC: Inclusion of a sentence on a primary study (Initiated 34 days ago on 23 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Philippines v. China#Request for comment[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Philippines v. China#Request for comment (Initiated 44 days ago on 13 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Frankfurt School#RfC: Does the lede of the "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" section follow WP:NPOV and is its claim supported by cited sources?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Frankfurt School#RfC: Does the lede of the "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" section follow WP:NPOV and is its claim supported by cited sources? (Initiated 41 days ago on 16 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: What (if anything) to do about quotations, and the quotation templates?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: What (if anything) to do about quotations, and the quotation templates? (Initiated 37 days ago on 20 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of senior officers of the Argentine Navy#Rename[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of senior officers of the Argentine Navy#Rename (Initiated 35 days ago on 22 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template#RfC: Conversion of route diagram templates to Template:Routemap format[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template#RfC: Conversion of route diagram templates to Template:Routemap format (Initiated 32 days ago on 25 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' Noticeboard[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for discussion[edit]

This discussion forum has an average backlog with approximately 20 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from July 2016. (04:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Files for discussion#Old discussions[edit]

There's 100+ open discussions, some well over two months old. The vast majority of these are easy closures. Would appreciate it if an admin could spend an hour or so clearing these out. Thanks! -FASTILY 08:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Discussions awaiting closure[edit]

There are approximately 50 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from April 25, 2016. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Update, there are approximately 150 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest is from early June. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 August#Syrian civil war[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 August#Syrian civil war (Initiated 30 days ago on 27 August 2016) Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion[edit]

Here are a few RfDs which have already been relisted twice:

Any help is, of course, appreciated. --BDD (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Merge discussions[edit]

Pages recently put under Extended-confirmed protection[edit]

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (14 out of 117 total) (Purge)
Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
David Aldridge 2016-09-16 22:15 2017-03-25 00:13 edit Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: BLP vandalism by LTA sock Ponyo
Lee Corso 2016-09-16 22:12 2017-02-21 22:48 edit Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: LTA abuse Ponyo
Global Prime PTY Limited 2016-08-28 10:21 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated A7 article − non-notable person, organisation, etc. Nick-D
NRB Commercial Bank 2016-08-28 10:18 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated A7 article − non-notable person, organisation, etc. Nick-D
Avactis 2016-08-16 15:42 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: two PRODs, one speedy David Gerard
Bitrix24 2016-08-16 14:46 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: two speedies, one PROD David Gerard
Desi Kanoon 2016-08-16 14:29 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: speedied twice, prodded once David Gerard
Kaajal Naskar 2016-08-14 16:47 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: third time the same article's been BLPPRODed David Gerard
Act I: Eternal Sunshine (The Pledge) 2016-08-12 02:08 2017-08-12 02:08 create Repeatedly recreated MBisanz
Jesse Koller 2016-07-30 22:44 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated A7 article − non-notable person, organisation, etc. Rmhermen
Nem Kosal 2016-07-22 16:38 2017-01-22 16:38 create set an expiration on ECP protected page not under ARBCOM sanction Xaosflux
NEM KOSAL 2016-07-22 16:38 2017-01-22 16:38 create set an expiration on ECP protected page not under ARBCOM sanction Xaosflux
Sophia Strauss 2016-07-22 16:38 2017-01-22 16:38 create set an expiration on ECP protected page not under ARBCOM sanction Xaosflux
Teleios 2016-07-11 11:37 2017-07-11 11:37 create Repeatedly recreated A7 article − non-notable person, organisation, etc. MBisanz

Content translator tool creating nonsense pages[edit]

Machine translation gadget[edit]

There is currently a gadget called GoogleTrans which allows the straight dropping of google translate into the content translation tool. (See here). I just did a test, and I was able to produce a machine translated article into english without leaving wikipedia using this gadget. Pinging the creator of the gadget: @Endo999:. I do not think this gadget should be present on the English wikipedia, and certainly not when it seems to explicitly endorse machine translations. Fortunately, it doesn't get around the edit filter, but it still sends a terrible message. Tazerdadog (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't remember about that gadget; I surely can make good use of it. That's the kind of tools that may be invaluable time savers in the hands of us who know how to use them, making the difference between translating a stub right now when you first stumble upon it (thanks to the kick-start of having part of the work already done), or leaving it for another day (and never coming back to it).
Given that the CTX tool has been restricted to experienced editors, and that the GoogleTrans gadget needs to be explicitly activated, the combination of the two won't be at the hands unexperienced newbies in the way that created the current backlog. The GoogleTrans doesn't insert translated content into text fields, it merely shows the translation in a pop-up; so I don't agree that it "explicitly endorses machine translations". Any editor with your experience should know better than copy-paste machine translated text unedited into an article. Diego (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I am the creator of the GoogleTrans gadget and it does do Machine Translation Under The HTML Markup when used in the Content Translation system. I have used this to translate 226 articles from the frwiki to the enwiki and got all of them reviewed okay. The Machine Translation is a starting point. You still have to manually change each and every sentence to get the grammar and meaning right. It's not very sensible to ban it because, without human followup, it produces a bad article. The point is that it is a tool to quicken the translation of easy to medium difficulty articles, especially for good language pairs like English-French. Wikipedia, itself, uses both Apertium and Yandex translation engines to do machine translation and these have been used to good effect in the Catalan and Spanish wikipedias. GoogleTrans does the same thing as Apertium in the Content Translation system, except it uses Google Translate, which most people feel is a better translation engine. As Diego says this needs to be explicitly turned on, so it tends to restrict usage to competent editors. To stress the point, Machine Translation, as done by GoogleTrans gadget, is a starting point, it is not the end product. Human intervention is required to massage the MT into decent destination language text and grammar, but Machine Translation can help start the translation quite a bit. Wikipedia feels that Machine Translation is worth doing, because it has it as a feature (using both Yandex and Apertium machine translation engines) Endo999 (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Except that we have a policy against machine translation on en.wikipedia, because the requirements for correcting its output are far higher than users tend to realise; in fact it is easier and faster to translate from scratch than to spend the necessary time and effort comparing the original with the translation to find the errors. Hence the whole long discussion above and the agreement that machine translations can be deleted as such. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
There is no policy against Machine Translation on the enwiki. That would have to be posted on the Content Translation blog, and it isn't. I've done 226 of these articles successfully and I can tell you there is more editing for non text issues, like links around dates coming from the frwiki, editing getting references right, manual changing of TAGS because their parameter headings are in the origin language. The actual translation work postprocessing, when polished up by a person competent in the destination language is far less than you say. But style differences between the wikis take more of the editors time. Endo999 (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The policy is at WP:MACHINETRANSLATION, and has been in force for a decade. ‑ Iridescent 19:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The policy is against unedited machine translation. It doesn't apply to using machine translation as a starting point to be cleaned up by hand. Diego (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
MACHINETRANSLATION isn't a policy. It isn't even a guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I have never claimed that Machine Translation first drafts are good enough for articles on the enwiki. They aren't, but responsible use of Machine Translation, as a first draft, that is then worked on to become readable and accurate in the destination language is quite okay and even helpful. Endo999 (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The consensus is pretty clear that unless you are translating at a professional level, machine translation is a trap. It looks good at first glance, but often introduces bad and difficult to detect errors, such as missed negations or cultural differences. Even if a human caught 9 out of 10 of these errors, the translation would be grossly unacceptable and inaccurate. I'd request that this gadget be disabled, or at minimum, de-integrated from the content translation tool. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Well. I'm pretty far from being a fan of machine translations, but it's always been possible to copy/paste from Google Translate. Anyone autoconfirmed can do that without going to all the trouble of finding and enabling this gadget. The problem is fundamentally behavioural rather than technological. The specific problem behaviour is putting incomprehensible or misleading information in the mainspace. Over-reliance on machine translation is a cause of this, but we can't prevent or disable machine translation entirely, and there's not much point trying. I think the position we should adopt is that it is okay to use machine-aided translations provided you don't put them in the mainspace until they've been thoroughly checked by someone who reads the source language and writes the target language fluently. I suggest the approach we take to Endo999's tool is to add some warnings and instructions rather than try to disable it.—S Marshall T/C 23:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Don't forget that the use of Machine Translation in the Content Translation system is expanding all the time, and I'm am pretty much the only regular user of my GoogleTrans gadget for translation purposes. Why is the gadget being singled out? Yandex machine translation is being turned on by the Content Translation people all the time for various languages, like Ukranian and Russian. The Catalan and Spanish wikipedias are at the forefront of machine translation for article creation and they are not being flamed like this. I reiterate that the majority of edits per my frwiki-to-enwiki articles are over differences in the frwiki for an article than for articles in the enwiki. The treatment of dates and athletic times is one such difference. You need to do postediting after the document has been published in order to please the editors of the destination wiki. This usually has nothing to do with the translated text but is actually the treatment of links, the treatment of dates, the removal of underlines in links, the adding of categories, the transfer of infoboxes, the addition of references (the fiwiki is particularly good for references of track and field athletes), and other wiki standards (that are different from the origin wiki). There's always going to be some postediting of translated articles because of these nontranslation specific items. It's just inherent in wiki to wiki article movement. Endo999 (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
We don't care about what happens on other wikipedia language versions, basically. Some are happy to have 99% bot-created articles, some hate bot-created articles. Some are happy with machine-translated articles, some don't. It may be true that "the use of Machine Translation in the Content Translation system is expanding all the time", but at enwiki, such a recent "expansion" started all this as the results were mostly dreadful. "Why is the gadget being singled out? Yandex machine translation is being turned on by the Content Translation people all the time for various languages, like Ukranian and Russian." Your gadget is in use on enwiki, what gadgets they use on ruwiki or the like is of no concern to us. We "single out" tools in use on enwiki, since this is an enwiki-only discussion. And this discussion is not about the long list of more cosmetic things you give at the end (or else I would start a rant about your many faux-bluelinks to frwiki articles in enwiki articles, a practice I truly dislike), it is (mostly) about quality of translation, comprehensability and accuracy. Yours are a lot better than most articles created with ContentTranslation, luckily. Fram (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Endo999: I just happened to check Odette Ducas, one of your translations from French. You had Lille piped to read "Little". This is a good illustration of how easy it is to miss errors, and it's not fair, in fact counterproductive, to encourage machine-based translation and depend on other editors to do the necessary painstaking checking. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that error (Lille translated at Little). I had seen and corrected that problem in a later article on a french female track athlete from Lille, but didn't correct the earlier translated article. Don't forget that Wikipedia is about ordinary people creating Wikipedia articles and through the ARGUS (many eyes) phenonmenon having many people correct articles so they become good articles. This is one example of that. Wikipedia is not about translation being restricted to language experts or simply experts for article creation. Your argument does tend towards that line of thought. Endo999 (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it does (for one thing, all you can know of my level of expertise is what I demonstrate). The wiki method is about trusting the wisdom of the crowd: this tool hoodwinks people. It's led you to make a silly error you wouldn't have otherwise made, and it's led to at least one eager new editor being indeffed on en.wikipedia. It rests on condescending assumptions that the editing community can't be left to decide what to work on, in what order. (Not to mention the assumptions about how other Wikipedias must be delighted to get imported content just because.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I'ld like to retract my compliment about Endo999's use of his translation tool. I have just speedy deleted his machine translation of Fatima Yvelain, which was poorly written (machine translation) and a serious BLP violation. Fram (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Almost everyone of the articles I have translated, using the GoogleTrans gadget, has already been reviewed by other editors and passed. I can only translate the existing French, which is sometimes not well written. In Fatima Yvelain's case I transferred over all the sources from the frwiki article. Can you tell me which reference didn't work out. You've deleted the article, without the ordinary seven day deletion period, so you deleted the article without any challenges. Are you and a few other reviewers systematically going through every article I have translated looking for things to criticize? Endo999 (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
That's how Wikipedia rolls; it's the easiest way to demonstrate supposed incompetence, and since incompetence on the part of the creator reflects on the tool, it is therefore the easiest way in which to get the tool removed (along with phrases such as "I'd like to retract my compliment", which I hate as much as Fram hates faux-bluelinks). Simples. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Having just checked the article for myself, if it was really "reviewed by other editors and passed" it reflects just as badly on those other editors as it does on you, given that it contained an entire paragraph of grossly libellous comments sourced entirely to an alleged reference which is on a completely unrelated topic and doesn't mention the subject once. (The fr-wikipedia article still contains the same paragraph, complete with fake reference.) Checking the review log for the page in question, I see no evidence that the claim that anyone else reviewed it is actually true. ‑ Iridescent 15:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I realise this isn't a vote, but I agree with Tazerdadog that having such a tool easily available is sending the wrong message. It needs to be restricted to experienced users, with plenty of warnings around it. Deb (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

You are all panicking. There's nothing wrong with using the GoogleTrans gadget with the Content Translation system if the appropriate editing happens alongside it. The ordinary review process can uncover articles that are not translated well enought. I'm being punished for showing ingenuity here. Punishing innovation is a modern trait I find. Endo999 (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
No, our reveiw processes are not adequate for this. Both the problems with translated articles, and the unrelated but similar problems with tool created articles (now discussed at WP:ANI show the problems we have in detecting articles which superficially look allright (certainly when made by editors with already some edits) but which are severely deficient nevertheless, and in both cases the problems were worse because tools made the mass creation of low quality articles much easier. While this is the responsability of the editors, not the tools, it makes sense to dismiss tools which encourage such creations. Fram (talk) 09:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Fram per "We don't care about what happens on other wikipedia language versions" please speak only for yourself. Some of us care deeply what happens in other language version of Wikipedia. User:Endo999 tool is not a real big issue. It does appear that the Fatima Yvelain needs to have its references checked / improved before translation. And of course the big thing with translation is to end up with good content you need to start with good content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

We, on enwiki, don't care about what happens at other language versions: such discussions belong either at that specific language or at a general site (Wikimedia). These may involve the same people of course. 19:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Do people feel that a RFC on this topic would be appropriate/helpful? The discussion seems to have fixated on minute analyses of Endo999's editing, which is not the point. The discussion should be on whether the presence of the gadget is an implicit endorsement of machine translated materials, and whether its continued presence sends the wrong message. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I believe an RfC would be helpful assuming it is well prepared.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
The GoogleTrans gadget has been running on the enwiki for the last 7 years and has 29,000 people who load the gadget when they sign into Wikipedia. It's quite a successful gadget and certainly, wiki to wiki translators have concentrated on the gadget because while they may know English (when they are translating articles between the enwiki and their home wikis) they like to get the translation of a word every once in a while. Endo999 (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Discussion on this matter seems to have mostly died down, but I was unaware of this discussion until now and I feel the need to speak up on behalf of translation tools. I don't believe the tool being discussed here is the one I am using, since *it* does not provide a machine translation into english. However. I do put english into French based on the machine translation. I repeat, *based on*. Many of my edits to date have been translation and cleanup after translation, so I am probably close to an ideal use case. The tool, Yandex.Translate, appeared on my French wikipedia account and I do find it useful, although it produces text that needs to be gone over 4-5 times, as, yes, it sometimes creates inappropriate wikilinks, often in the case where a word can mean a couple of different things and the tool picks the wrong one. And it consistently translates word by word. I have submitted a feature request for implementation of some basic rules -- for example in German the verb is always the last word in the sentence and in French the word order is almost always "dress blue" not "blue dress". But there are many many MANY articles with word order problems on Wikipedia; it's just usually more subtle that that when the originating editor was human but not a native English speaker. So it's a little like fixing up the stilted unreferenced prose of someone who can't write but yea verily does know MUCH more about the topic than I do. And has produced a set of ideas, possibly inelegantly expressed, I would not have conceived of. The inelegant writing is why we have all this text in a *wiki*
For the record, I agree that machine-translated text is an anathema and have spent way too many hours rescuing articles from its weirdnesses, such as "altar" coming through as "furnace branch" in Notre-Dame de la Garde. BUT. Used properly, machine translation is useful. For one thing it is often correct about the translation for specific obscure words. I deeply appreciated this when, for example, I was doing English into French on a bio of a marauding Ottoman corsair who, at one point or another, invaded most of the Mediterranean. I am an English speaker who was educated in French and has spent years operating in French, but the equivalent terms for galleon, caravel, Papal States, apse and nave, for example, not to mention Crusader castles and Aegean islands, weren't at the tip of my tongue. Its suggestions needed to be verified, but so do Google Search results. I could look these words up, sure, and do anyway, but Yandex gives my carpal tendons a break, in that I can do one thing at a time, ie translate a bit of text like "he said" then check to make sure that wikilink is correct, move down to the next paragraph and do some other simple task like correcting word order while I mull why it is that the suggested translation sounds awkward, walk away and come back... All of this is possible without the tool, but more difficult, and takes much longer. I have translated more articles in the past month, at least to a 0.95 version, that I had in the entire previous several years I've been editing wikipedia. Since the tool suggests articles that exist on one wikipedia but not the other, I am also embarking on translations I otherwise would not, because of length or sheer number of lookups needed to refresh my memory on French names for 16th-century Turkish or Albanian settlements or for product differentiation or demand curve or whatever. Or simply because while the topic may be important it's fundamentally tedious and needs to be taken in small doses, like some of the stuff I've been doing with French jurisprudence and which is carefully labeled, btw, as a translation in progress on those published articles that are still approaching completion.
I agree that such tools should not be available to people who don't have the vocabulary to use them. I don't really have suggestions as to what the criteria should be, but there is a good use for them. They -- or at least this tool -- do however make it possible to publish a fully-formed article, which reduces the odds of cranky people doing a speedy delete while you are pondering French template syntax for {{cn}} or whatever. This has happened to me. The tool is all still kinda beta and the algorithm does ignore special characters, which I hope they remedy soon. (In other words ê becomes e and ç becomes c etc.) Also, template syntax differs from one wiki to another so infoboxes and references often error out when the article is first published. Rule of thumb, possibly: don't publish until you can spend the hour or so chasing this sort of thing down down. And the second draft is usually still a bit stilted and in need of an edit for idiom. But the flip side of that is that until you do publish, the tool keeps your work safe from cranky people and in one place, as opposed to having to reinvent the version management wheel or wonder whether the draft is in Documents or on the desktop. Some people complain within 3 minutes of publication that the article has no references without taking the time to realize that the article is a translation of text that has no references. As the other editor said above, translation tools aren't magic and won't provide a reference that isn't there or fix a slightly editorial or GUIDEBOOK tang to language -- this needs to come next as a separate step. When references are present the results are uneven, but I understand that this issue *is* on the other hand on the to-do list. Anyway, these are my thoughts on the subject; as you can see I have thunk quite a few of them and incidentally have reported more than one bug. But we are all better off if people like me do have these tools, assuming that there is value in French wikipedia finding out about trade theory and ottoman naval campaigns, and English wikipedia learning about the French court system. Elinruby (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Articles created by block-evading sock using the WMF translation tool[edit]

My attention was drawn at a site I should not link to and therefore will not name (however, the thread title is "The WMF gives volunteers another 100K articles to check") to the fact that Duckduckstop created several articles using the WMF translation tool. They were blocked on 5 April as a sock of a blocked user, and their edits are thus revertable. I checked one translated article as a test, John of Neumarkt, and I've seen worse, but it is clearly based on a machine translation and contains at least one inaccurate and potentially misleading passage: "Auch in Olmütz hielt sich Johannes nur selten auf" does not mean "Also in Olomouc, John held only rarely"; it means he rarely spent any time there, but a reader might either not understand that or think it meant he rarely claimed the title. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review contains thousands of pages, the vast majority still to be checked. Only a few of us are working there. I feel guilty having taken a few days off to write 2 new articles. I haven't looked through Duckduckstop's page creations to see what proportion were created with the translation tool, but that one has not been substantially edited by anyone else. I suggest that in this emergency situation, it and others that fall into both categories—translation tool, and no substantial improvements by other editors—be deleted under the provision for creations by a blocked/banned user. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I have had a look today at that list, but haven't really been posting comments since as far as I could see nobody else has been there in several days. I do not know what happened with duckduckstop but as to the articles on the list
- I do not understand why an article about a French general who invaded several countries under Napoleon is nominated for deletion as far as I can tell solely on based on authorship? Do we not trust the content because of the person who wrote it? Can someone explain this to me? I glanced at the article quickly and the English seems fine. This is a serious question; I don't get it. Also, why did we delete Genocide in Guatemala? It was already redlinked when I noticed it, but unless the article was truly astonishing bad, I would have made an effort to clean that one up. Personally. Considering that some of the stuff that's been on the "cleanup after translation" list the past few years --- we have had articles on individual addresses in Paris. We have lists of say, songs on a 1990s album in Indonesian, sheriffs of individual municipalities in Wales (one list per century), and government hierarchies in well, pretty much everywhere.
- I have a suggestion: The person who decides that we need a set of articles for each madrasa in Tunis, water tower in Holland or mountain in Corsica is responsible for finishing the work on the articles in the set to a certain standard. Which can be quite low, incidentally. I have no objection to some of the association football and track and field articles that are being nominated for deletion. They may not be sparking entralling prose but they are there and tell you, should you want to know, who that person is. Similarly the articles about figures in the literature of Quebec, while only placeholders, do contain information and are preferable to nothing. Although I don't see machine translation as the huge problem some people apparently do, the translation tool also does need work. It might be nice if it sent articles to user space by default, and the articles could then be published from there there after polishing. Elinruby (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Guatemalan genocide was redirected, not deleted, for being a very poor translation, resulting in sentences like this (one sentence!): "The perpetración of systematic massacres in Guatemala arose of the prolonged civil war of this country centroamericano, where the violence against the citizenship, native mayas of the rural communities of the country in his majority, has defined in level extensivo like genocide -of agreement to the Commission for the Esclarecimiento Historical- according to the crimes continued against the minoritary group maya ixil settled between 1981 and 1983 in the northern demarcation of the department of The Quiché, in the oil region of the north Transversal Band, with the implication of extermination in front of the low demographic density of the etnia -since it #finish to begin to populate the region hardly from the decade of 1960- and the migration forced of complete communities to the border region in search of asylum in Chiapas, Mexico , desarraigadas by the persecution; in addition to becoming like procedure of tactical State of earth arrasada, tortures, disappearances, «poles of development» -euphemism for fields of concentration- and recurrent outrages against the women and girls ixiles, many of them dying by this cause, crimes of lesa humanity against of all the international orders of Human rights." Fram (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Heh. That's not unusual. But see there *is* an article, which was my primary concern. I should have checked before using it as an example. Here is the point I was trying to make. Since apparently I didn't, let me spell it out. -- I have put in a considerable amount of time on the "cleanup after translation" list so yes, I absolutely agree that horrible machine translations exist. I have cleaned many of them up. But. Many of the articles we keep are extremely trivial. Many get deleted that seem somewhat important, actually, just not to the particular person who AfD's them. I have seen articles on US topics get kept because of a link to Zazzle. (!) Perhaps my POV is warped by the current mess I am trying to straighten out in the articles on the French court system, but it seems to me that the english wiki is rather dismissive of other cultures. (Cour d'assises != Assizes, just saying; this is what we call a cognate.) That is all; just something that has been bothering me. Elinruby (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for re-close of an old RfC (and closure of a disruptive RfC)[edit]

I would like to request a review of the closure of this RfC regarding the page Paul Singer (businessman). It was discussed with the closer here.

The previous RfC for this same issue (12/10/15) can be found here where consensus was established six months prior to the RfC in question. Between the two RfCs, the closer had created a number of discussions (possibly in violation of WP:FORUMSHOP) here: [3] [4] [5] [6]. These discussions failed to garner much attention and mostly reinforced the 12/10/15 consensus.

It must be noted that the RfC in question is rather old (29/04/16) and editors protested the closure since it was closed by the same editor who opened both the RfC itself and all other discussions, and was not necessarily reflective of consensus which does appear to reinforce that set out in the 12/10/15 RfC.

The improper close of the RfC would normally not be an issue, however, yet another RfC has opened, claiming that the last discussion was "inconclusive" and we must therefore have another discussion.

I would argue that this has all been incredibly disruptive considering the huge number of editors involved (36) in the prior 8 discussions from a 16/07/14 RfC to the 29/04/16 RfC is plenty of discussion for something which editors have considered relatively uncontroversial - 23 have been in favour of the current consensus and 6 against, with 7 somewhere in between. Furthermore, consensus has often not been respected in the rare points of calm between discussion, with some of the "6 against" editors making against-consensus edits and reversions.

This is a messy situation, but to conclude, I would like to request the evaluation of the close here and the closure of the current RfC, considering the arguements made by other editors at Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)#RfC is Nonsense. Thanks. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The issue is bifurcated in the prior RfCs. There was a limited consensus that a company could be called a "vulture fund" but no consensus that a person should be described as a "vulture capitalist" in the lead of a BLP. My own position has always been that specific pejorative terms should only be used as opinions ascribed to the persons holding the opinions, and that use of pejoratives about individuals should very rarely be allowed at all. To that end, I suggest that reversing prior closes is inapt, and the claims made that the prior RfCs support calling a living person a "vulture" are incorrect. The company can have cites of opinions that it is a "vulture fund" cited and used as opinions, but the use of that pejorative as a statement of fact about a living person falls under WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. The current RfC has 6 editors specifically noting that the use of the pejorative in the lead about a person is wrong, 1 says the person is absolutely a "vulture capitalist", 1 asserts that every RfC supports calling the person a "vulture" and one says we should not have any more RfCs - that the issue is settled and we should call the living person a "vulture capitalist" in the lead on that basis. I rather that the current 6 to 3 opposition to use of the term in the lead indicates a substantial disagreement with the assertions made here, and the request that a close be overturned out of process. Collect (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
There has been no RfC to discuss whether someone should be called a vulture. I myself have said in past discussions that doing so, especially in WP's voice, would be contrary to what this encyclopaedia is about. Please do not mis-represent my views - it's things like that which have made these constant ongoing RfCs so toxic. My view is that Singer is most notable (WP:DUE) for running a vulture fund - and there are indeed countless sources (WP:RS) which confirm this and thus this fact should be made clear in the lede. Claiming that mentioning his company in an article equates to WP calling someone a vulture is nonsense and not a new arguement - this is the same line those same editors took over and over again in these discussions to no avail. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Note that I specify the issue at hand is with regard to using the pejorative with regard to the single living person in the lead. A number of sources have branded him a "vulture capitalist" as distinct from his role at EMC, which has been called a vulture fund.. The two catenated uses of the pejorative are different here - ne is with regard to how some have categorized the fund, the other as a personal pejorative in the lead about the person. Do you see that distinction? Especially when the single sentence uses the term "vulture" twice? Collect (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
You also failed to mention 2 more editors who had been in favour of using the term vulture fund in the lede but refused to partake in this particular discussion since they have made it clear that there have already been to many. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Again - the word "vulture" is used twice now in a single sentence in the lead - once with regard to opinions held about the fund (for which the prior RfC found the use of the opinion as opinion about the fund was allowable), and the second, the problematic one, with regard to the use of a pejorative about a living person in the lead of the BLP. Collect (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I am the creator of the most recent RfC. Frankly SegataSanshiro1 forced this RfC to happen in the first place by refusing to engage in talk page discussion on the vulture point. I would like to request that anyone participating in this discussion carefully read Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, and then refer directly to each of SegataSanshiro1's actions leading up to this RfC, and his actions in this one as well. Whatever SegataSanshiro may personally believe, a slur in a lead is Always A Very Big Deal, and not something to be brushed under the rug. As WP:Biographies of living people says, "we must get it right." It seems clear to me that several parties want to freeze an ongoing discussion at a point they find satisfying. Yvarta (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I have been involved in these ongoing discussions for quite some time now. As I've stated before, using a pejorative to describe an individual on a BLP is unacceptable, especially in the lead. That being said, the previous RfC was closed once discussion went stale. There were ample opportunities and there was more than enough time to provide arguments. Once users agreed upon a version, which limited use of the term "vulture", the user who closed the RfC made the edits in question but was reverted and the term was included an additional three times.
SegataSanshiro1's antics on Singer's page has gotten out of control and his motive on the page is clear. Now that consensus on the newest RfC is shifting highly in favor of removing the slur from the lead, SegataSanshiro1 is grasping at straws to get the previous RfC reviewed. If SegataSanshiro1 had an issue with how the previous RfC was closed, why didn't he follow through with an secondary discussion after this one went stagnant? After realizing consensus is shifting, not in his favor, he wants to call this new productive RfC "disruptive". Also, after the last RfC was closed, an admin came in and suggested a new RfC so do not throw out WP:FORUMSHOPPING accusations. Meatsgains (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Meatsgains, consensus is not shifting as you cannot establish consensus in a discussion which half of the editors can't even take seriously. You have been at the heart of this whole drama. Every time there was an RfC or discussion and consensus was established to use the term, you actively went about making against-consensus edits and other highly disruptive behaviour (which myself and other editors have called you out on time and time again) such as misrepresenting the results of other discussions, claiming sources weren't reliable when they were and even making up terminology like "distressed securities funds" to avoid using actual terminology. You are the only editor who has been involved in every single one of these discussions - very possessive behaviour all in all and along with the other things, you should have been sanctioned and barred from editing on that page.
Still, you continue to misrepresent what happened. There were five editors (myself included) who have said that this RfC is daft. If that were not the case, I wouldn't have opened this discussion on the noticeboard. I'm not going to let you make me lose it again, so please stop referring to me - I want absolutely nothing to do with you, and I know I shouldn't be addressing editors directly, but I really want to make that absolutely clear. Something hypothetical you might want to think about though:
After you've rolled the dice so many times trying to prevent WP:RS from an article and failed miserably, let's say that now after 8 or so attempts at getting your way you finally do. How seriously do you think other editors would take that consensus? Would they simply carry on doing as they wished to the page regardless as you have? Would they simply call another RfC in three months time and pretend the others never happened as you have? I very much doubt I'll stick around after this because I'm sick of this page, but I have a feeling you will, and if you do and you carry on acting as you have, you will be doing this for years. Please don't answer me. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I have weighed in on this on multiple occasions and will do my best to promptly summarize my opinion on the topic. The original dispute over the use of the term vulture has been over the derogatory nature of the term on vulture fund’s page. Subsequent discussions have taken place regarding the general use of the term, however the scope of the debate later concentrated on the term’s use in a BLP, specifically Paul Singer’s page. Some editors, whom I will not name, act as if they wp:own the article and have done everything in their power to keep vulture fund and vulture capitalist in the article. Some users have actually made the argument that "vulture" is not derogatory whatsoever (one even argued that it should be taken as a compliment. No reasonable and neutral arbitrator could disagree with the fact that “vulture fund” is a slur, invented by people who are deeply opposed to their entirely legal investments. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Reverted 1 edit by Collect (talk): You're hardly the person to close this RfC... is a splendid example of grotesque snark. I did not "close the RfC" and that snark is ill-suited for rational discussion. In addition, I left in the "vulture" opinion about EMC, and note that the lead is supposed to be in summary style. I am concerned that this sort of snark is poisonous to any discussion, and ask that any editor who feels such personal attacks should be used should get the aitch away from here. Collect (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Collect, it's quite understandable that a number of editors are very much on edge considering this has been discussed to death and the conduct of a couple of editors in particular. I think what Nomoskedasticity meant by that remark is that you were making edits about something which was being discussed... Were you not one of those supporting an RfC after all?
From my own personal perspective, I think mentioning his main business area is running a culture fund, then including other references to him specifically in some sort of criticism section would be ideal. That and removing references to philanthropy from the lede as per WP:UNDUE. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: first of all I wish to state my astonishment at not being pinged when I was directly involved with one of the RfCs called into question. SegataSanshiro1's guerilla antics are indeed widespread and grave. I do not care about user behaviour at this stage, however, merely the state of Singer's biography. Said RfC was indeed improperly closed by myself, after which I requested admin intervention to reopen it (or closed by an uninvolved user - note I did so per WP:BOLD and because a determination was indeed agreed upon). This request was speedily rejected by KrakatoaKatie together with its corresponding ANI post, so I think it's safe to assume there is no interest in rekindling old fires. Attempts at mediation about this issue also failed. Regarding consensus, I counted at least 7 new voices in the current discussion, all offering interesting new insights (DGG, Collect, Elinruby, FuriouslySerene, Snow_Rise, Chris Hallquist, and Yvarta); there is strong indication at least some parties are willing to compromise. Some are under the impression consensus is a simple vote tally. I call into question this vehement ownership of the Paul Singer article. Every time any editor makes a serious attempt at a copy edit (no matter how minor), a concerted effort by the same bunch of editors reverses all possible changes. Just look at the edit history. Serious and pragmatic comments aimed at stemming this dreadlock are conveniently brushed aside, such as DGG's - "It's appropriate to use it in the article, since there is good sourcing, but it is not appropriate to use it in the lede. Ledes should be relatively neutral". If civil discussion cannot come about and admin action is required, so be it, but it does set a sad precedent. We had originally copy edited the lede back in October, trimming the use of "vulture" down to a single mention. This was of course then reverted maniacally even though discussion had concluded in that precise path. I don't see why a reasonable review of each instance of the word's use cannot take place. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Focus, this wasn't intended to be "guerilla antics" - we had actually discussed a re-close prior to this and you were involved, together with a number of other editors who I did not ping since I figured they would not want to be dragged into this again - I take it you're a page watcher anyway and I mentioned this discussion on the talk page. I also never had a problem with you being WP:BOLD and closing the discussion (in fact if I recall correctly, me and other editors were all for it), what myself and other editors had a problem with was the closing remarks, in particular "the RfC question was not unequivocally answered" when in reality it had, for the nth time that it is appropriate to use this particular word in this particular article - that's beyond discussion at this point. To this day, I agree with the path of compromise we embarked on, what I did not agree with was the sheer amount of forums this was taken to and the manner in which the discussion was closed. To be honest, that close made me question your good faith and took away any desire on my part to be collaborative.
The issue with these discussions is that they're never clear, we're never discussing on a point by point basis since one or two editors (should be fairly obvious who) take these discussions as an attempt to remove all mention of the terminology, digging in their heels until we're back in 2014 again discussing whether we should censor it entirely (again, always the same editors). All the while, creating serious NPOV issues by removing statements backed up by RS and adding in things which are UNDUE in an attempt to whitewash. If that stops, then I'm sure normal discussion could ensue and general anger levels could be drastically reduced along with the tedium. I have already said that I'm of the opinion that "vulture capitalist" should be discussed, but that's hardly going to happen if we still have editors claiming a vulture fund is not a thing, and the very presence of the term (what Singer is most notable for, if I may add) equates to Wikipedia calling a living person a vulture. That's not new, that's not productive and you're as aware of that as I am. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It was a middle of the road close. . There is a distinction between someone being personally a vulture, which implies that he acts in that manner in all his activities or is of that personality type, and running a fund that shares some similar characteristics and goes by the common name of vulture fund. We cannot avoid using the full term, because even those sources that endorse the profession use it as a matter of course. But we can try to avodi personalizing things that don't need personalizing, especially things that some people are likely to consider highly negative. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
And to the point - any BLP which stresses the use of "vulture" seventeen times is likely to be perceivable as making a point in itself. I just do not understand the concept that name-calling is something Wikipedia should actively pursue, and that editors who even remove a single use from the lead are somehow evil here. Argh. Collect (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't appear 17 times. I only see 6 mentions in the article itself and one of them was actually about an antisemitic cartoon - the rest are mentions in references. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
That's INCREDIBLY misleading. Most of those are references, hence more reason to include it. Of the 6 ACTUAL uses, none of them are in WP's voice. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@SegataSanshiro1: You keep claiming that "Singer is most notable for" his "vulture fund". This is your own opinion. Do a google news search and tell us how many pages you have to dig through before coming across a page that uses the slur? This is a false assumption, which you have consistently done throughout this dispute. Meatsgains (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Stop pinging me. This isn't my own opinion and vulture fund is not a slur, it's the name of a type of fund that buys debt at discount prices and attempts to sue for 100% payment. As much as you pretend it isn't, you should remember this since you were involved in multiple discussions where you pretended that there was consensus that it was a slur when there wasn't - you were called out on it multiple times: [7] [8]. You also made a no-consensus page move from vulture fund to "distressed securities fund" despite there being no sources to validate such naming and in clear violation of WP:COMMONNAME - you should also remember this since there were two discussions, both on the talk page and at WP:W2W which undid that rather stealthy move and established rather firmly that vulture funds are indeed a thing and that is indeed what they are called, while Singer's EMC is one of the most prolific. Why have you consistently misrepresented information and lied to other editors? There's plenty more examples where you have been called out on doing this, want me to give more? Meatsgains, you are the only editor (along with Comatmebro, actually) who has been involved in every discussion to do with Singer, vulture funds and Elliott Management Corporation and consistently used some very dodgy tactics to get your way, ranging from ignoring consensus and making edits regardless to protecting all these pages like a hawk (or vulture, more appropriately?) and claiming sources aren't reliable based on your own opinions. I'm still shocked you're still around and you haven't been sanctioned. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
"This isn't my own opinion and vulture fund is not a slur" - Yes it is and yes it is. Also, do not dilute this discussion with attacking me. Meatsgains (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thank you, DGG; that's a fair representation of my basic thoughts as well. As I just posted on the Singer talk page, we're trying to discuss the use of "vulture" as a descriptor of a human being. "Vulture" is as such a charged word in the sense that we're liable to annex this valued meaning to a word that is used in the context of a business endeavour. Handling a vulture fund is not the same as BEING a vulture. I am utterly amazed people fail to see that. The previous close was precisely that, a "middle of the road close". The "vulture fund" practices are thoroughly discussed throughout the article in the context of what quality sources have to say about the matter. Using the term through a personal angle by making a de facto generalisation in an article's lede is another story, and I believe we were making some progress back in October in this regard. I would very much like to see us return to that stage and come up with a neutral and balanced solution. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree that handling a vulture fund does not equate to being a vulture - that's the main flawed premise that has been holding this back. I still disagree that the close was "middle of the road", since using vulture terminology does not violate NPOV (the question raised in the RfC) since it is WP:DUE - only a tiny, tiny number of people have said that all reference to vultures should be gone from the article. The Samsung affair and other criticism (such as "vulture capitalist") needs to go in a criticism section rather than the lede - Singer has received enough criticism from multiple sources to warrant one. Vulture fund, on the other hand, should remain firmly in the lede - that's what he's known for and what a large chunk of the article is about. I know you have argued that he has other investments, but that's akin to leaving out the Iraq war in Tony Blair's page. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Yet again you are wildly, amazingly off topic. There is already an RfC discussing this issue, in case you forgot, and a talk page to discuss general improvements. This discussion, SegataSanshiro, you started to determine if the RfC creations are inappropriate. As you seem to have forgotten, I would like to remind you that you reverted my lead change on the grounds that I needed to first discuss, and now you are trying to shut that very discussion down - that, or apparently force it to stagnate by repeating the same arguments while ignoring the arguments of others. As far as I am concerned, you specifically continue to stonewall and disrupt a natural consensus building process. You are either nearing either an epiphany (i.e. that this is not a battle you are trying to win), or nearing a topic ban. Yvarta (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Not me specifically. There have been five editors (including me) who have questioned the validity of this RfC. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hopefully I haven’t given the impression I think those other four are guilty of actively stonewalling. If so, I apologize for being thoughtless and rude. Yvarta (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not opposed to having an administrator re-close a previous RFC if the stated consensus was incorrect (I was the one who suggested coming to AN on the Singer talk page as SegatSanshiro continues to question it), just for the sake of clarity and any subsequent discussions. I do not support closing the current RFC though. I don't see it as disruptive as opinion is clearly divided and the issue is contentious, the previous RfC was over 4 months ago and the closing and consensus is disputed, so getting new editors involved to seek consensus should be a good thing (I only joined this discussion thanks to this most recent RfC). As for my opinion about the underlying issue, I've already posted to the RfC and it may not be relevant here, but I believe that mainstream reliable sources do not refer to Singer as a "vulture." He is called a hedge fund manager by these sources. Therefore the term vulture should only be used when it is ascribed to a specific person or entity (i.e., his critics). My reading of the current RfC and previous ones is that most editors agree with that position. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I have never edited this article and am in this because the RfC bot asked me to give my opinion. The person who started the RfC however has repeatedly told me I am off-topic when I try to explain the BLP policy. As best I can tell however the person's argument is that the appellation is inappropriate because Singer is a living person, and they appear to be ready to repeat this argument indefinitely. I would also like to mention that while I personally believe that "vulture capitalist" is a specialized bit of vocabulary that is not particularly pejorative, the current wording does not use it in wikipedia's voice either, which many of the comments on this seem to assume. It says he has been called a vulture capitalist and provides no less than nine sources for the statement. I believe we should remove the weasel wording and explicitly quote one or more people. I would agree with the idea expressed at one point of balancing out concerns about due weight, assuming that is what they are, by adding other details of his business dealings. However as far as I can tell there are no such details; Singer seems to be a specialist in this type of transaction, and to have been for decades. Elinruby (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Explaining BLP policy is not off topic - however, long accusations of COI (without basis) and facts focused on Singer's details are very off topic to this particular RfC, as I've pointed out that many businessmen have similar, nigh identical press coverage concerning the "vulture" phrase. If you would like to start another RfC on a different nuance or topic, you are welcomed to. Yvarta (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Heh. The heart of my point is that Singer is a public figure and therefore under WP:PUBLICFIGURE it matters very much whether the statement is true. As for my COI concerns, well, normally we don't comment on editors but your actions do suggest one in my opinion, yes. You are very concerned, astonishingly concerned, with the PR of this billionaire, shrug. I didn't actually start with that assumption, mind; I just told you it was ok to be a paid editor if you declared yourself as such. But you say you are not, so. AGF. You *still* never ever answer any other editors questions, and dismiss them as irrelevant unless they support your desired outcome. Elinruby (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Anyone look at the nominator's (i.e. Yvarta's) edit history? Yvarta, this looks like it was not your first account. Who were you editing as prior to this account? NickCT (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to ask any questions about my experience on my talk page/email. My editing history relates to personal details of my life, and so I haven't shared that here/in the RfC. Yvarta (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - This RfC makes for a dramatic read. My perception of things, after also skimming the older RfCs linked about halfway through, is that the prior RfCs were imperfectly framed, and as a result conversations were bogged down by arguments over whether Singer himself was a vulture, not whether vulture should be a descriptor in any lead at all. The RfC certainly has broader implications than one biography, as the overall precedent on Wikipedia most definitely favors avoiding such descriptors in bio leads. Has anyone else been able to find a biography or corporation with an animal slur used in the intro? I tried with several creative search phrases, and have so far utterly failed. This RfC is far from perfect as well, but I do applaud its attempt to focus the issue away from Singer. Most constructive so far, in my opinion, is that the argument that excluding vulture from the lead equals censorship has been debunked several times. Leads are certainly not required to include every detail of a criticism section, and per prior arguments, any concept that could be carried across by "vulture" could also be carried across with an alternate explanation.
Note to whoever closes this RfC: However long this discussion needs to continue, I would like to note that there is obviously not a clear consensus in favor of keeping vulture in the lead, even though the reverts apparently leading to this discussion were founded entirely on the argument that prior RfCs had reached consensus. As such, I would like to note that all three of those reverts have been proven to have been without basis, even if they were done in good faith. A number of contributors, several of obvious neutrality and experience, have agreed that a slur of denigration is inappropriate in a lead when applied to a person or company, especially since both the criticism and the neologism can be fully explained with neutral and more conservative words. As such, the argument that there is a violation of the neutral tone mandated by WP:BLPSTYLE is at the very least plausible, however this consensus concludes itself. Until that time, however, the assessment that biography leads must be treated with extra delicacy is absolutely correct, and I agree with Yvarta's bold action to remove "vulture" when he/she did, just like I would have agreed with a decision to remove "rat" or "loan shark" or "pig." Basically, until something is settled, there is currently no consensus', and I believe "vulture" should be again removed until consensus is reached and the barn is built.Bbmusicman (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 06:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Self-promotion by User:Calibrador[edit]

This complaint is about User:Calibrador, formerly User:GageSkidmore, for blatant conflict of interest and using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Specifically, he inserts photos he has taken into multiple articles (I would guess hundreds), and the file titles always include his name, as in [[File:John Doe by Gage Skidmore]]. This is a clearly promotional practice since he is a professional photographer. To be clear, he does not make any money from these photos since they are from Commons, but he "gets his name out there," a form of advertising, every time Wikipedia uses one. He has been doing this for years - the Commons category "Photographs by Gage Skidmore" has 11,000 entries [9] - but he has recently become particularly insistent on inserting them into Wikipedia articles.

I first encountered him a few weeks ago, over the question of putting new images into the infobox at the articles Donald Trump and United States presidential election, 2016. On September 1 he offered some new pictures (taken by him, and with his name in the filename) of Trump. Discussion at Talk:Donald Trump was very extensive. It went on for days, and Calibrador became more and more insistent and argumentative. Twice [10] [11] he introduced his own picture into the article, claiming "most people" preferred it, even though the discussion was still ongoing; he was promptly reverted. Meanwhile, he added his pictures of Trump and Mike Pence ("by Gage Skidmore") to other articles. He has also been adding photos of other, lower-profile people to their articles at a great rate; in the first 10 days of September I counted a dozen such.

Some people will say: they are good photos, they are free, what's the problem? That's a valid comment. To me the problem is that he is using Wikipedia to promote himself, and his insistent promotion of his own photos is becoming disruptive. At the Donald Trump talk page, as of September 11 he had made 47 edits since September 2, virtually all of them about the pictures. He repeatedly praises his own photo without mentioning that he is the photographer (most editors would not realize that), and he badgers opposing !voters. Some of his comments at that page:

  • Arguing in favor of his own picture (photo C): [12] [13] [14]
  • Declaring that his photo C has consensus: [15] [16]
  • Arguing with people who prefer a different picture: [17] [18] [19]
  • Arguing that some people's !votes (for another picture) should not count: [20] [21] [22]

The same pattern can be seen at the Mike Pence talk page: he proposed a change of photo on the talk page, urging one of his own (photo A, with his name attached). During the ensuing discussion he repeatedly argued with people who favored a different one: [23] [24] [25] [26]

For another example see Anne Holton, where he inserted one of his own pictures to replace an old blurry one, then kept re-inserting it when other people preferred another photo that was also taken by him -- possibly because the one he wanted to use has "by Gage Skidmore" in the filename and the one other people preferred (which is clearly a better picture) does not.

On September 10 I warned him about his apparent conflict of interest.[27] He promptly erased my comment from his talk page (along with a year's worth of previous warnings about non-free content, edit warring, etc., although he kept all of the positive or complimentary messages).

When I looked to see if this was discussed before, I found the same issue came up at ANI in June 2015: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive891#User: Stemoc. He himself filed a complaint against another user, first changing his username from GageSkidmore to Calibrador - a change that several people thought was bad faith. The discussion quickly turned into a possible boomerang against him for promoting his own photos, with his name in the filename, as a form of self-promotion or advertising. Several proposals were made. The most popular proposal, suggested by User:Nick, was that he should be "either restricted from removing an existing image from a page and replacing it with an image he has taken/uploaded himself, unless discussion has taken place prior to the switching of images and consensus is in favour of the change; or else there's a 1RR restriction, so he can make the switch without discussion, but if it's reverted, it needs to be discussed before the edit can be reinstated. If a page lacks an image, then Calibrador can add any image he so wishes." Several people agreed with that proposal; a few proposed an indef block; a few said he should be left alone because his pictures are so good. The thread was never closed and no action was taken.

It appears that the same issues are still at work, except that now he is more insistent, IMO approaching disruption when discussion or controversy ensues. I am not proposing any particular course of action, but I think something should be done to limit or stop this promotional use of Wikipedia by an admittedly COI editor. I apologize for the length of this, but I wanted to be thorough. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

P. S. See also this May 2015 discussion at the 3RR noticeboard: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive280#User:GageSkidmore reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Warned). --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • His behavior on Anne Holton is not good. He replaces a photo on Sept 7 with a better one (okay) but edit wars all throughout yesterday, claiming consensus is needed to change from his preferred photo without responding on the talk page. WP:GAME. --NeilN talk to me 15:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Any reason we cant just rename all the files? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The other user involved is stalking my contributions and changed the photo simply to undermine (prior to my edit, they had never contributed to the article). I preferred the other photo for technical reasons, especially sharpness, not because of the title. And the titles of images is a Commons issue not a Wikipedia issue, an issue that is not against any rule at Commons and was used by other photographers such as David Shankbone for years. Calibrador (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
That was also proposed at the previous ANI. It would have the advantage of retaining his photos (which really are good) while eliminating the advertising aspect. We would still also need to deal with his excessive promotion of them, but a warning might suffice. --MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Have not warnings already failed to suffice? I haven't time to review all the evidence now but if I believe what you write I'm thinking a topic ban from adding or discussing the use of his images is the way to go. BethNaught (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
There was in fact a warning issued at the 3RR discussion, by User:EdJohnston: " User:GageSkidmore is warned that they may be blocked for disruptive editing if they continue the pattern of edits documented in this complaint. In particular, any warring to promote your own photos over those taken by others can be sanctioned. Continuing to revert regarding a picture where it's evident that you don't have consensus may lead to a block." He probably did violate it at the Anne Holton article, and possibly others. --MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) 1. Rename all photos. 2. Allow him unlimited contributions to Commons, like anybody else. 3. TBAN from advocating any of his own photos. This would remove his existing vote at Talk:Donald Trump, which has so far been allowed after discussion, unless we grandfathered that case. 4. Handle any disruptive editing like any other disruptive editing.
If any of his photos is in fact superior to the alternatives, other editors will find it and routine consensus-building will choose it. They won't need selling. In the end, his past behavior in this area appears self-defeating; some editors who are aware of it may tend to find reasons to oppose his photos simply because they don't like his history of fuzzy-ethics tactics. ―Mandruss  16:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Well he is right, if the photos are sourced from commons, naming of photos at commons is a commons issue. So realistically the only recourse here would be to remove them all from the articles they are used in. But doing that merely because they are named after the author is hardly benefiting the encyclopedia. Likewise unless there is actually a quality issue (are his pictures being replaced with higher quality ones?) using a lower quality picture just to avoid using one with his name in it is also not benefiting the encyclopedia. Limiting him to 0 reverts where he adds a photo should probably solve the issue? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
If my edit is reverted legitimately by a user not stalking my contributions, violating WP:Hounding (users like Winkelvi who follows me around from article to article), I don't have any issue with someone reverting my photo. The only time I can think of where I may have reverted was when I thought there was enough consensus, and even then it was not more than once or twice that I reverted within a span of a few days. And I was unaware of any rule of advocating for your own photo. Winkelvi has twice, or probably more, chosen to upload their own photos (not taken by them, but uploaded by them) in an attempt to replace an uncontroversial edit by me. Calibrador (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
My warning to User:GageSkidmore/User:Calibrador from May 2015 has been mentioned above by User:MelanieN. Technically, he has now engaged in the behavior I warned him against, ("warring to promote your own photos over those taken by others") since he reverted three times at Anne Holton on September 11 to restore his own photo to the article. Unless he makes a suitable assurance about this future behavior, I think a block is called for under my previous warning. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC) Withdrawing my first comment. This is indeed a pattern of edit warring by User:Calibrador, but it's not a simple question of preferring his own picture over ones taken by others. At Anne Holton he was reverting to provide a different picture from his collection, which also had the effect of providing a caption that contains his own name. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Both of the photos involved were my own. And the user reverting has been WP:Hounding my edits across many articles. Calibrador (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, "warring to promote your own photos over those taken by others" is irrelevant when he's putting in his own picture in place of his own picture. This doesn't rule out sanctions for "Warring..." or for general disruption, if they're appropriate, but check the page history before assuming that he's promoting his own picture over someone else's work. Nyttend (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Nyttend, Melanie's point was that the photo he preferred had his name in the file name and the other didn't. --NeilN talk to me 17:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
That was the only reason I could think of why he would prefer this picture File:Anne Holton by Gage Skidmore.jpg over this one File:Anne Holton DNC Hdqtrs Phoenix AZ Sept 2016.jpg, which to an amateur eye is a much better picture of her. BTW the final reversion to the second picture was done by an uninvolved third party, purely on quality grounds. --MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC) P.S. The editor who posted the second picture has explained their reasons for doing so on the talk page. Calibrador has not commented there, just reverted. --MelanieN (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
If it were any other user, I would've gladly participated in a talk discussion, but I chose to use their own words from when they reverted an uncontroversial change I'd made to an article that they objected to nearly a week after I'd made the edit, as I saw it as a double standard, and no use in discussing with someone who simply intends to disrupt because I made the edit. Calibrador (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've added photos I've taken uploaded by someone else without my name in the title in the past, and I had absolutely no issue in the case of the Holton photo. You'll notice that they reduced the image size to 200px on the Holton article, this was because it was out of focus, and something I do not necessarily worry about on Flickr where it is best to upload as many photos as possible, unless they are completely out of focus and thus unusable. My intention of reverting was because the photo I uploaded was sharp, and the user was intentionally following me around from article to article to undermine contributions, and adding their own uploaded versions. You can see a similar instance at the article Landon Liboiron, which Winkelvi had also never edited until I made an edit. They are tracking my edits to revert me, participate in discussion where I participate, and intentionally making edits in order to create conflict. Calibrador (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I was just going by the comment from Ed just above mine, " the behavior I warned him against...", which didn't say anything about filenames. Nyttend (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I think any action taken should be solely based on behavior, not on the fact that the file name has his name in it. I don't see that as a problem, assuming everything else is above board. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 17:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Suggestion Calibrador- please don't repeatedly (twice now) make accusations of WP:HOUNDING from other editors without providing relevant diffs as evidence- otherwise they will be seen, in all likelihood, as simply slurs. Cool photos, btw. Muffled Pocketed 17:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment about filenames - I'd encourage limiting the discussion here to the behavioral issues specific to Wikipedia (edit warring, COI, etc.). The renaming of images hosted on Commons would certainly need to take place on Commons rather than here. Personally, I think filenames shouldn't be used for promotion/credit, but it does not fit into one of the reasons for renaming listed at Commons:File renaming and the practice has been [somewhat reluctantly] upheld several times. The name I've seen involved in those disputes most frequently is Shankbone, but there are also prominent examples like Regardless, it doesn't seem useful to bother with filenames unless they're uploaded to Wikipedia and not Commons. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Who cares? He's giving a ton of nice photos to Wikipedia for free. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
    And that entitles him to engage in edit warring and disruption? BethNaught (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
    I don't think anybody objects to his uploading his photos to Commons for free. I'll assume "who cares" is sort of idiomatic or rhetorical, since it's clear enough who cares. ―Mandruss  19:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Just FYI, since Winkelvi has been mentioned multiple times but not pinged, I've left a notification on his/her userpage. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I'd just like to point to the edit history of the article Landon Liboiron again as an example of their tracking of my edits and undoing my contribution, whether it was right or not to replace the photo. It's evidence they are looking at my edit history to go to articles where I've contributed to either contribute their own uploaded photo, revert and demand I get consensus, or participating in talk discussions where I've also been an active participant and voicing an opposing opinion. Calibrador (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Just noticed this entry in their block log as well, which seems to be from a similar issue with another user about 4 months ago. Calibrador (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

        1 May 2016 Floquenbeam (talk | contribs) blocked Winkelvi (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) (long-term feuding with MaverickLittle (and others))

  • I've never agreed with the naming and have made it known I disapprove of them, I recall there being a discussion somewhere (may of been AN3) where we were basically told all of these names are a Commons issue ..... I really don't know how to say this without being offensive .... Ummm most people at at Commons aren't the brightest of people .... so having a discussion about it over there would simply end up with me repeatedly smashing my face against a brick wall hence why I've not done anything about it, As I said I disagree whole heartedly with the promotional names however I know Commons won't do jack about it and I know we can't do anything here either .... So unless WMF gets involved (which would be extremely unlikely) there's nothing no one can do except allow it to continue. –Davey2010Talk 20:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I really don't know how to say this without being offensive .... Ummm most people at at Commons aren't the brightest of people. ← redact this nonsense and remove this comment of mine when you do. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • While it's only a proposed policy (and has been a proposed policy now for several years), Commons:Commons:File naming summarises well the Commons approach: in most cases, we don't object to filenames if they're descriptive and contain nothing that would be inappropriate in the description page, and these images definitely fit into the "most cases". Blatant advertising isn't permitted, but putting the uploader's username into the filename is nowhere close to blatant advertising. And finally, as Rhododendrites notes, see Commons:Commons:File renaming; removing Calibrador's name from these images wouldn't be in line with any of the permitted reasons for renaming, unless Calbirador asks for removal. Nyttend (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Worth noting that only editors see the name, unlike most spamming - unless the reader clicks thru to the file page. ―Mandruss  21:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
    • False. Search engines index the name too, and that's why he does it. —Cryptic 02:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Your comment is a bit cryptic, Cryptic. Ok, so it's easy to find all of his photos on Commons using Google, if one sets out to do so. No one sees that unless they ask to see it by doing that search, and in doing so they will discover that Gage Skidmore has donated a lot of his work to Wikimedia Commons. Why is this a problem? And how does it make my comment false? ―Mandruss  03:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
        • If you had to search for "Gage Skidmore", no, that wouldn't be a problem. But if you do an image search for a person whose article has one of these photos in the lede, say, Bruce Willis, the image Wikipedia uses will in most cases be one of the first three hits, and it'll have his name plastered all over it. Also, it'll show up with screenreaders and as alt text. Image file names are absolutely part of our outward-facing interface. —Cryptic 03:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
            • So he's found a way to attach his name to each of his photos. How is this different from the note at the end of the caption for the current lead photo at "Aaron Wynia for The New York Times"? Or the author's name on the cover of a book, for that matter? ―Mandruss  03:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
              • We're not and we're not a book. We have redlinks at Richard Nixon by Wehwalt and Jersey Act by Eric Corbett and Ealdgyth and American white ibis by Casliber, and we have clear instructions at WP:CREDITS as to where authorship of an image should be placed. Every other user agrees "that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution", right there under the editbox. —Cryptic 04:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
                • And we're not showing his name at Wikipedia, as I said. It appears via Google Images, as you said. Google Images is not Wikipedia. You cite WP:CREDITS, but it does not address this situation one way or the other. ―Mandruss  04:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • We are absolutely not beholden to Commons' naming policies. If we decide here that the names are inappropriate - and I sure as hell think so, and would have been reverting Calibrador right and left for months on articles popping up on my watchlist if he hadn't deceptively changed his username so I didn't think it was someone else replacing perfectly good images with his promotionally-titled photos - we can effectively delete the files locally by uploading a blank image over them and protecting it. —Cryptic 02:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Commons does not have a 'file naming' policy.... we have a proposed one, that will probably never be adopted as official. Instead, we commons:COM:RENAME, which is on the 'more relevant' subject of renaming files to better names. A major concern with filenames, and the reason why any proposal to bulk-rename the 2,339 files with "by Gage Skidmore" in the name is a dead letter, is filename stability... renaming should be as uncommon as possible, to avoid breaking external links. Like it or not, Commons does not 'exist' to serve merely as an image archive for Wikipedia... we have many external 'customers', and renaming files breaks hotlinking, and possibly even proper attribution. Breaking this is exactly why I removed Gage's right to rename files... as well as a prolonged refusal to discuss the matter.

The files can be renamed, per Commons guidelines, to 'better' filenames that more accurately describe the subject of the image, but we're not going to arbitrarily rename them just because people dislike the existing one. If you are going to start prohibiting the use of files merely because the filename includes that of the author, there are a lot of images of 'old masters' paintings I can point you at. We also have many (many, like hundreds of thousands) of images such as HABS photos that include attribution in the filename, and it's unquestionably appropriate. Reventtalk 04:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Calibrador is also editing under the username User:Gage, both on this wiki and at the Commons and seven other wikis. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 05:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I've never contributed to Wikipedia with that username. The only time that there were contributions was when I renamed three files at Commons which made an edit on Wikipedia as part of the automatic file naming system, something that's not manual and thus unavoidable on my part. Calibrador (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Good catch @Diannaa:, he basically used that account to "abuse" his "move" rights on commons (its automated, when you change the name of an image on commons, your accounts on other wikis will make the change on every wiki where the image is used on)..he abused his rights there to change the image name of Bryan Fuller and Kiefer Sutherland to carry his byline (name) in the image name and yet he will claim here that he did not abuse his rights 10:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
That's not true; User:Gage has not moved any files since July, and had his file mover right removed on August 4. User:Calibrador does not have the file mover right, as far as I can tell. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Calibrador: arbitrary break[edit]

  • If someone is looking for more insight into Winkelvi and Calibrador's interactions, I suggest you check out [28]. You can draw your own conclusions. Calidum ¤ 20:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
This wasn't in the interaction report, but Winkelvi also took it upon himself to make a series of edits to the Gage Skidmore article in the midst of his dispute with Gage Skidmore [29]. Calidum ¤ 22:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Looks like he took it upon himself to improve an article. I see nothing remotely improper there, but I tweaked it. ―Mandruss  22:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Winkelvi does have a habit of following people around. I think this does change the full focus of this discussion. One question that should be addresses is if there's a difference between regular photo reverts and edits and those with Winkelvi. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 20:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I just added the arbitrary break That interaction link is conclusive, and edits like this are particularly damning; I suppose I can imagine someone watching a bunch of Trump-related articles without previously editing them, but who watches wikiproject templates for talk pages? If you're long-term feuding with various people, and you're willing to be following people around to confronting them on pages you've never edited and not likely to have watched, you're being quite disruptive. Blocking for two months, since the previous one-month block didn't dissuade Winkelvi from treating Wikipedia like a battleground. Nyttend (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
This is really quite sad, Nyttend, you should really try to follow the drama that comes with Calibrador/Gage Skidmore, he uses wikipedia to not only promote himself but he is also in the habit of crying foul when people point out to him that he is using wikipedia to self promote himself and then he would claim those users are "hounding" him and yet he has never really been blocked for a longer term. I'll put that down to the failure of the administration system on enwiki more than anything else..playing victim has always worked for many of our incorrigible trolls on this wiki and its quite sad that they are protected. This isn't the first time this has happened, Calibrador/Gage brought me to this same board last year for the same reason and then he brought another user a few months later, both of us were telling him not to use the wiki to promote himself and not only that, he would intentionally remove another previous image and replace it with one of his own and one with his own byline (xxx by Gage Skidmore). It has been mentioned above by User:MelanieN. I haven't reported him to WP:ANI because I know that the failure of the system means that nothing would be done and it will be just a waste of time but since you have gone ahead and blocked Winkelvi who was just trying to stop Gage/Calibrador from using wikipedia to self-promote himself for 60 days, I hope you give a similar punishment to Calibrador.....It's bad enough a person is punished for trying to stop a 'crime', but to let the perpetrator walk free is even worse. Either you be balanced with your judgement or remove the block on Winkelvi. Yes Harassment is apparently a big issue on enwiki but it usually does go both ways..You cannot just block one person for it..There is something else you should know. Calibrador has another account on commons, Gage. Last month, 2 of his rights were removed due to abuse. Those rights were move rights because he would blatantly change the name of images on commons with the one carrying his byline (name) and his Licence Reviewer right, a right given to trusted Commons users who review images from flickr to ensure that those images fulfill our inclusion criteria and he used that right to 'pass' his images or images that were added by him which are not allowed. Again, i urge you to really go through everything that has been said on this ANI before coming with a decision. I do not agree with the judgement you passed on Winkelvi but its even worse that you only did it to one of the perpetrators..Last year we agreed with @Nick:'s proposal in regards to this but like the many other threads about him that have come on this board, non have ever ended with a final solution, so maybe this time we should..We cannot play this cat and mouse game, we cannot keep allowing wrong people from being blocked because the admins refuse to do whats right and we should definitely not continue to waste time with this. We block users who use the project to self promote themselves (articles/namespace), so why do we have a different rule for images?...Can we end this madness this week? there are much more pressing issues that needs to be discussed instead...--Stemoc 03:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Few people need to look at Winkelvi's block log to know of his long, exasperating, exhausting history of behavior issues. He has to inflate everything into a virtual religious crusade, doing at least as much harm as good. He is very quick to anger, seemingly unable to shake his perpetual battleground mentality despite the years of complaints about it. If I had my way he'd be banned from policing other editor behavior because he simply lacks the temperament for it. To be clear, I'm not siding with GS over WV, they are both culpable. And I doubt Nyttend is either. For some reason that baffles me, these conflicts are always treated as binary, as if only one of the parties is at fault and our job is to decide who it is. But that is almost never the case. ―Mandruss  04:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not really defending Winkelvi, I'm aware of his Battleground attitude, I just feel that atleast the blocks should be fair..How many times has WV been brought to this board? or ANI? the difference may be that there was never any solutions/sanctions passed in regards to Calibrador even if there were strong support for it..He has been brought here on or ANI more than 5 times already and the worst (and infact ONLY) block he ever got was a 3RR (which i also got then)..Infact, quite a few people mentioned in that last ANI that if we don't come up with a solution, it will happen again, and we are here now..Its obvious now that even if we tell Calibrador to stop adding images with his name as the byline, he will completely ignore that request, just look at his commons talk page, the last time he actually "replied" to anyone regarding his images was back in July 2013 ..we are way past that as a solution, its either a sufficient block (1 month or more) and a final warning or an indefinite ban, anything else would be just a slap in the face of our own policies...--Stemoc 05:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Well you laid down a large post including (1) "This is really quite sad, Nyttend", apparently referring to the block of WV, (2) "punished for trying to stop a 'crime'", and so on. How is that "not really defending Winkelvi"? Looks like defending to me. I think the block is fair, per Nyttend's rationale and WV's history, and I don't link that to Calibrador in any way. If you're under the impression that WV's block precludes a sanction against Calibrador, or that it ends this issue, you're mistaken. ―Mandruss  05:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Did it sound like i was defending Winkelvi or did it it sound like i was asking Nyttend to block Calibrador too? I agree that Winkelvi deserves a block because he took it a bit too far this time, but 60 days and yet at the same time, the problematic user walks away scott-free? I do not see a justice in that, do you? Its about being fair, always two sides of a coin, we know what WV did to get his block, now lets flip the coin around and see why Calibrador should get a similar one too..Please, blocking one editor to warn another is not really a sanction is it?..This thread is about Calibrador and yet somehow for possibly the 4th time (if not more), someone else gets blocked....I see a trend here and its not something that gives you hope of a proper outcome..Personally, for now, WV should be unblocked so he can come make his case here, it was a bit silly to block him before allowing him a chance to explain himself, I think we all would like to know what led to this discussion and blocking one of (if not "THE" main) parties involved beforehand is not really a solution--Stemoc 05:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Who's walking away scot-free? The Calibrador issue remains very open and that's crystal clear. His issue is more complex so it takes longer than half a day to resolve. You seem to be reading Nyttend's action and comment like a close of this discussion. It simply is not. ―Mandruss  05:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Stemoc: I completely agree. Winklevi didnt even get a chance to make one reply on this thread. Also, you were not defending Winkelvi, but this thread was started for the behavior of Calibrador not Winklevi. That is a whole other issue, We should be focusing on his edits and behavior, not that of others. Doing a wrong because someone else does a wrong, doesnt make your wrong right. Chase (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I believe that admins can issue blocks without discussion, the discretion is theirs. Winkelvi is free to appeal the block, if he is unable to see that it's more gift than punishment and make effective use of his two months away from this madness. I say we leave that issue to him and the admin corps and drop this line of discussion. At least I've said all I'm going to about it. ―Mandruss  06:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
That aside, I believe the block is just and right, unless something is not done about Calibrador as well then it would be severly unfair. Chase (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Just would like to quickly note that Davey2010 and Stemoc have also tracked my contributions in the past, in one instance Davey2010 reverted me across a dozen or more articles where I'd contributed a photo including articles that did not have a photo (he then removed them) and was warned and reverted by another user, possibly an admin, but I don't recall specifically. I'm guessing that's how both of them found this discussion was from looking at my contributions to see what they could follow me around and oppose today. Calibrador (talk) 07:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
If you're persistently following someone around without very good reason (long-term, not merely reverting a big group of edits all together), you need to be shown the door, at least for a period of time, if not indefinitely: this is a project for building an encyclopedia, not for tearing down other people, and editors focused on harassing others fundamentally aren't here to build an encyclopedia. Had I somehow discovered Winkelvi's actions independently, without any input from other people, I would have been strongly inclined to block without warning; the biggest thing that would hold me back was a question of "am I seeing this rightly, or have I misunderstood somehow", and the fact that others also came to the same conclusion first, plus the fact that he'd previously been blocked for battleground behavior, removed that doubt. Also, regarding the next subsection: I'm not going to issue any sanctions against Calibrador because (1) I've checked his recent editing at Commons and haven't seen any policy violations (the only instances of people rejecting Commons policies in this discussion are people who are urging violations of the file naming policies in opposition to him), so with my Commons admin hat on, I say that nothing's wrong; and (2) I've not checked his recent editing here, or carefully read through what his opponents have said here at this discussion about his editing here. It's not a blatant case such as childish vandalism or clear POV-pushing, so would be reckless for me to issue a block or support other sanctions without careful checking. I won't support any proposals and won't oppose any proposals. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Ofcourse you won't take any actions on Calibrador, that is what i was telling Mandruss earlier because if you intended to take actions against him, you would not have blocked his only critic in Winkelvi without giving him a chance to explain himself. You decided to jump the gun instead because of your own personal assumptions of him, "Oh yeah, WV has a habit of Battleground behavior so yeah its his fault, I'll block him now"..May I ask, which account of Calibrador did you look under cause I'm pretty sure he does not use that account on commons and furthermore, @Nyttend:, as a commons admin, I'm sure have you been following the Commons: ANU board and may have noticed this last month and 2, its apparent you have not been following the recent drama on this wiki so I'm sorry to say but you are probably not the right admin to make such a decision since you are misinformed, maybe you should let another admin who is aware of the situation decide then? ..--Stemoc 12:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I tend to stay away from COM:ANU because (unlike the other COM:AN pages) it tends to be populated with drama warriors. If you are familiar with Commons policy, you will see that the big issue there was renaming files that didn't meet the renaming criteria (thus disrupting other projects, and potentially off-wiki uses) and misusing the reviewer right. As far as the issue of blocking Winkelvi: other people alleged, with some links, that he had been engaging in long-term policy violations, and after doing my own investigation, I could see that they were right. Given WP:EQUAL, I don't care who you are: if I see that you're engaging in long-term stalking, doing your best to harass someone else over a long period of time, I'll block you for an extended period of time, regardless of who you are. Nyttend (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Stemoc: you are probably not the right admin to make such a decision - As I said, WV can appeal. Appeals have to be processed by a different admin, precisely because of the potential for error. As I said, I would enjoy my involuntary wikibreak if I were in WV's place, but he is free to ask a different and uninvolved admin how he feels about it. I suggest you let that process work as it was designed, and cease your attack on an experienced and respected admin for doing a very tough, thankless, and pay-free job to the best of his ability. ―Mandruss  14:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Ofcourse WV can appeal, that isn't really the issue here is it? and what do you mean to 'cease my attack'? All i see is an admin who did not do his homework trying to make a decision which affects many people and not just this project but possibly commonswiki as well, its not an attack, its an observation and again, i'd be happy to stand back and see some form of solution be found but as i said in my other posts, this user has been brought to WP:AN (and WPAN/I) either by himself or by other editors many times and has NEVER faced any consequences of his actions so pardon me if I refuse to wait another 14 months to come back here to discuss the same problems again and again and basically see the same outcome, which is basically 'no action'..remember the old saying "fool me once..."? ...yeah not falling for that again... --Stemoc 15:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I see things differently. No admin is required to answer to a single over-excited, emotionally-invested editor who shows little grasp of what it is to be an admin, and I think Nyttend has already given you more explanation than you deserved. Continue your ranting all you like, but not with me. ―Mandruss  15:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Calibrador: Can we get back to the main point here, please?[edit]

My goal in filing this report was not about blocking Winkelvi. That was a side issue, and I'm sorry it happened. (In the space of 20 minutes from beginning to end, with no time for discussion or evaluation - but what's done is done.) Now can we get back to considering what we are going to do about Calibrador/Skidmore's conflict of interest, promotionalism, and disruptive edits? --MelanieN (talk) 03:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: That's still ongoing in the parent section, if slowly. ―Mandruss  03:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Calibrador's attitude towards other users has definitely caused a problem. Every warning that has been given to him has been ignored and something must be done because he continues to cause animosity with others. He continues to promote his pictures as being better, simply because they are his and WP:CANVAS people to agree with him and balance the consensus in his favor, and those who do not agree with him, he engages in WP:BLUD. My personal feeling is the Winkelvi should not have been banned so soon in this discussion, especially since we have not come to some sort of resolution to Calibrador's disruptants of Wikipedia, creating this discussion and several others from his behavior when all of our time could be spent improving Wikipedia. If WInkelvi is going to have a ban, then Calibrador, the one that started the whole issue in the first place should have the same punishment, if not more rash. Chase (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Blocked, not banned. ―Mandruss  05:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Mandruss: Thank you for correcting me. Someone said "topic-ban" earlier and my dyslexia mixed up my jargen. Chase (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Responding to CCamp2013's accusations, disregarding the fact that they have opposing opinions in many of the discussions they're referring to, the only time I can think of that I've advocated my photos over someone else's in an extensive debate is the Talk:Donald Trump discussion, which is very recent. In this instance, it's not as if I'm the only one advocating for my photos to be added, there's currently a simply majority among at least a dozen or more other users who have agreed, and a little less than that who have taken the opposing view point (just to give context for uninitiated users). In instances where I thought it was appropriate to respond, given that it is a discussion that is meant to come to a consensus among two or more opposing parties, I took the time to respond to points made by a couple of other users. From this, I don't recall any unwarranted conflict being created, but I was not aware at the time that responding to multiple people was against any sort of rule. Same with advocating for a photo you took, I'm still not aware of any rule against that. If that's a COI then I have no problem with disclosing fully my role, or not participating in said discussion in a way that causes disruption. Calibrador (talk) 07:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Calibrador: I want to point out that arguments like, "it's not as if I'm the only one advocating for my photos to be added" have little relevance to this conversation. This discussion is about your behavior and what should be done about it. If you wish to put the actions of others on here for review then please supply the edits where this is the case, otherwise, you are not helping your case. Plus, the only one that I know of that has done what you are referring to, has already been blocked for 2 months. I also want to point out that people did discuss with you about continually making comments to those who opposed your photo, but you still did it anyway. You clearly had COI and was influencing and guiding the discussion to your favor so you would get your desired outcome. You first introduced your photos here and then discussed here at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016, and then only notified certain users here, which interestingly enough all were in favor of your picture that weighed in, those same users proceeded to the Donald Trump page. You have also displayed this type of behavior for the Mike Pence photo. Here and here the editor states he is changing the photo per discussion, but i fail to see where the discussion took place, just a suggection here that it looked good according to you and User:TL565. he also made this edit in which he states "introduce based on talk and most agreeing, this is also more than a year newer, as it is from this week", but in another page states "You must obtain consensus on the talk page to change the photo, recentism does not award you consensus" here. There are countless examples I could recite, but in all of them you can see each photo had his name on the filename. This is how he is promoting his pictures, in favor of others. Chase (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
In response to the statement you quoted, I was referring only to one instance, which taken out of context looks like I'm speaking about all my contributions. I was only referring to the Trump discussion. Calibrador (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Photos named and stored at commons are a non-starter for reasons explained above. You can argue its self-promotion and google index it yadda yadda, but its not prohibited and how google displays its search results is not a concern of wikipedia.
  • Unless there is actually a *quality* issue with the photos, removing good quality photos from articles because of how they are named at commons is not improving the encyclopedia. In fact I would argue its actively harming it.
  • The only substantial issue I can see is that there have been instances of edit-warring over their own photos (which taking into acocunt the WV issue above have not all been entirely of Calibrador's own making) a simple 1rr restriction limited to images in articles should solve that? Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't recall, except maybe in a very, very rare instance edit warring (especially within 24 hours), for an article to include my photo. Most of the edits I make in regards to photos would probably be considered uncontroversial. The Anne Holton instance is an anomaly as Winkelvi was plainly obviously following me around article to article and doing the things that I listed above that I don't want to rehash. I'd also suggest that you would probably have to look out for contributions by certain users who know that there would be a 1RR and would revert me knowing that I can't revert back (for instance, users like Davey2010 or Stemoc who take issue with the file names despite it being a Commons issue, and there being no rules against it on Commons). Calibrador (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
You're quite correct that on Commons, we allow files to be uploaded under a wider range of filenames, and with over 33 million media files, appending usernames to filenames is something that eases the search and location of media files. I generally upload images with my username as part of the file name.
English Wikipedia, is free to restrict the use of any media files from Commons, something we do with the 'Bad image list' and if community consensus here is that we will not use media files with usernames or full names as part of the filename, then you would need to respect any consensus which emerges on that basis (not that I see any consensus for that, or that serious discussion has been undertaken to establish if that consensus exists).
I would again re-iterate my original comments which MelanieN linked to in the opening comment of this page - your contributions are valuable but we (both here on English Wikipedia and on Commons) want to give other contributors reason to take photographs specifically for Wikimedia projects, and to upload their existing material to Commons. That means that other contributors must have a fair chance of seeing their images being used.
I would re-iterate my option for resolving this is to allow Calibrador to add images to pages which have no images freely without restriction, but where he is replacing other photographers work, he be subject to a 1RR restriction. I would also suggest that Stemoc and Davey2010 be similarly restricted in the frequency they can remove Calibrador's images so nobody has an upper-hand in this dispute. Nick (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
This seems reasonable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Nick: A clarification: When you say 1RR restriction, you mean 1 revert period, right? Not one revert per 24 hours, as the term is used at Discretionary Sanctions? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Nick: we have already had this option last year (As linked above my MelanieN), nothing has changed since then..Infact I have not reverted any of his changes since last year on enwiki bar one as I have realise that he is "protected" by the admins on this site. He is just using Davey2010 and me as an excuse to continue "vandalising" (Sadly that is the correct term for what he is doing) by shutting out those who criticize his actions...please read the previous discussion we had on that ANI which he filed on me and compare it with his edits since then, nothing has changed, if anything, he has become worse. He is obsessed currently with Donald Trump because he has been able to "forcefully" add his images to other politician pages (from both the democratic and republican sides), all except Donald Trump where users have preferred the image taken by Michael Vadon (another photographer who releases his images freely but doesn't force its use on every article or adds his name to the byline of every image). As i said last year, for Gage its either you use his IMAGES or he will take you to WP:AN/I for "hounding" him...I have never been against him using /adding images to those articles without images but he has the habit of replacing images added by others with those belonging to him and carrying his name in the byline ( not to mention trying to rename images on Commons and add his name to the image title) and that is abuse.. Implementing the 1RR rule will not work, what he deserves is a block and a final warning, enwiki admins have been ignoring his abuse for far too long....Wikipedia is grateful for his contribution but if he is going to use that to blackmail or force users to do his will then by all means, we are better without him, remember, we do not need him, he needs us, he needs One of the top 10 most visited sites to "promote" himself..Yes Commons policies are stupid because they have not been updated in ions, whose fault is that really? not those trying to stop users from abusing the outdated policies we have surely...So if you want things to change, it should start here, we need to toughen our policies on what we deem as self promotion because that is exactly how he has managed to escape getting blocked for the last 7 years...I'm against the 1RR idea put forward by Nick, this would have worked a year ago when it was brought up on WP:AN/I but its far too late for that now, he would just make the changes using his IPs like he has done before..--Stemoc 11:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
There's the wall of text of accusations and bias based on non-existent policy! I was waiting for it. Calibrador (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Yep, I realised its the only way to get you out of your cave as WV has unknowingly done just waiting for your accusations of HOUNDing and stalking :) ..--Stemoc 11:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll assume good faith and trust you didn't come upon this discussion from my contribution history. Maybe review Wikipedia:Get over it? Calibrador (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Stemoc: Implementing the 1RR rule will not work Why not?
You seem to be emotionally invested in this issue, and I question whether your involvement is helping much. In contrast, I had never heard of Calibrador or Gage Skidmore until a few days ago, but I think I'm adequately up to speed on the history from reading the comments made here. ―Mandruss  12:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
That's their way of saying they just want me blocked. Calibrador (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
If Calibrador is a human being, I don't see how he can possibly put Wikipedia's interest first, comparing his photo to another with complete detached objectivity. He necessarily has a completely natural bias favoring his own work, and I'm not certain he understands that. Going forward, the vast majority of Wikipedia editors will be unaware that Calibrador = Gage Skidmore = photographer of the photo. I could live with the suggestion in Nick's closing paragraph with the added requirement of full-disclosure edit summaries. Calibrador stated above, I have no problem with disclosing fully my role, so he shouldn't object.
Adding image of my own work
Replacing image with one of my own work, which I feel is superior because...
Calibrador, we already have policies in place to address stalking and harassment issues. One two-month block was applied for that yesterday, as you know, and two months is hardly a wrist-slap block. So how about we agree to cross that bridge if we come to it? As for I'd also suggest that you would probably have to look out for ..., I suspect it would be up to you to bring any such behavior to community attention if it happens, as no one will have the time to monitor the situation on your behalf. I would hope that you would distinguish fairly between that kind of behavior and normal content dispute, although that's often not easy when there are repeated normal content disputes with the same editor(s). As I said previously, you will probably receive some opposition resulting from the bad rep that you created for yourself by persistent and long-term disruption, refusing to play by the rules of editing process, and in my opinion that's inevitable until you have changed the rep through years of much-improved behavior. ―Mandruss  12:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't implying that someone should monitor the 1RR and those other users on my behalf, I was just forewarning as I thought that could easily be a potential result. Calibrador (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Mandruss, I urge you to read up on the previous discussion linked by MelanieN in the Original Post....long story short, He changed his name from GageSkidmore to Calibrador because he did not want people to figure out he was intentionally forcing his images into articles so he got his name changed to "fool wikipedians" into thinking he has no links to the photographer, yes, i used the term "fool wikipedians", its hurtful but its the truth..anyone that knew that and pointed it out was seen by him as people who were either stalking his edits or wikihounding him (his words)..If you went through his edits and linked the times where he has forced his own images onto articles by replacing previous images that were not taken by him, he called them basically collecting facts about his abuse made you a hounder...If that is his definition of a hounder , then yes, I'm totally a hounder and I will "hound" him until an admin decides that its about time he faced the consequences of his long running abuse of our policies and his consistent and persistent attacks on users who disagreed with his images being "forced" onto articles..Last i checked, We were here to build an encyclopedia, not the Yellow pages--Stemoc 15:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Once again assuming bad faith in regards to username, which they were previously warned about. Also, you regularly "force" your own uploads into articles, granted they are not your photos but you uploaded them. One example from just today. Calibrador (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
this seems like Déjà vu... You are deflecting again, its not 'bad faith', its 'facts'..sometimes you notice these things as days before the name change, you were called up on trying to force your own images onto articles, even on the day of your usurpation and after it (you want me to add more links?) and all because @William S. Saturn: caught you and reported you to 3RR and because you did not want your customer to find out hat you were doing, you blanked your talk page not once but twice after another editor whose images we used pointed out to you that u were self promoting your images and you very next edit was to change your name because you knew it would affect your "business" ...Are you gonna claim something else now? oh and btw, this is not hounding, its finding proof and calling you out..oh and regarding Suu Kyi, it was a 3 year old image, I found a good new one, replaced it..there is no issue with that..--Stemoc 16:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
What did you say about forcing your own uploads into articles? I couldn't hear you over the BS. Calibrador (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Calibrador: Wait, was the point of all those links to try to convince people you are forcing your photos into articles? Because that is what it did for me. In all of the instances you supplied, and ill admit I went through the first like five because i started to see it was wasting my time, Stemoc was either inserting a photo for the first time and never went to the talk page to promote his preferred picture or in one instance, was changing the photo back to the one that had been their after Winkelvi changed it. Stemoc never engaged in the kind of behavior you did, guiding the discussion, after you started the discussion, and challenged all that opposed you. He respected the decision of some one who reverted him as far as I could tell. Chase (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
* Comment: Okay, I went through the last few links and I can indeed say, it was a waste of my time and only got worse. In the last, all but the first five, he changed the photo and all were unopposed! These are completely different situations than what is going on here. Chase (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
So I should discuss any change I make, but don't discuss it too much especially with people that disagree with you. You're grossly blowing things out of proportion, it's one or two discussions, and largely based on perception. I was not aware of this "bludgeon" policy prior to its mentioning, and I haven't done anything to violate it since. I was simply responding as an active talk page participant, and I have an opposing viewpoint to yours so not surprising that you continue to harp on this. If I reverted on the article itself, it was after I thought there was at least a semblance of consensus, and I did not revert more than once or twice. Stemoc is not a nice person. While looking through their edit history, I found this edit summary:

"restore external links , dumbass removed it"

Stemoc was complaining about me inserting photos into articles using "force," most if not all of which were non-controversial and were not reverted, and I responded with instances where they had done the same thing. I was responding to Stemoc's accusation and pointing out their hypocrisy. Calibrador (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Calibrador: My opposing opinion has nothing to do with it, and every time you bring that up against some one, you are creating WP:Battlelike mentatily. You missed the point of my statement. In the instances you brought up about Stemoc He simply introduced his photo and if it was reverted, he left it alone. You however, introduced your photo, a couple times it was reverted, you introduced it again, then went on to ping users who i think you knew would agree with you. Then challenged all who opposed you, again creating WP:Battlelike mentality. This is complete opposite of what Stemoc did. I proposed here that you, and other users for that matter who have self owned pictures especially with their name in the filename, should only be allowed to insert the photo into an article and if its reverted, only ask the person who reverted it why its rejected and not making the discussion youself that your "superior" photo should be used and pinging other users to comment. If that question starts a discussion about which photo is better, without your involvement and harassing opposers, then wikipedia as a community can decide for themselves without biased opinion, that your photo should be used. So you put words in my mouth when you said "I should discuss any change I make, but don't discuss it too much especially with people that disagree with you." Also, how does an editor that has been on Wikipedia for Seven years, not know about most of their policies including WP:BLUDGEON, especially with almost 30,000 edits? Chase (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
You're constantly pointing out one instance. I could find many instances where I did not revert if I was reverted. Calibrador (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to see some of those. Recent, please. --MelanieN (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
here, here, here, here, here, here, here. So one instance? Chase (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@MelanieN: Did you see my examples? Chase (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
[30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] Calibrador (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. It is clear that you don't always restore your photos if they are reverted. --MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
@MelanieN: You do realise most of the images he does not change back are actually his own images which were either uploaded via his flick feed or cropped from his own uploads but not carrying his byline? or those added by other sources or established editors and admins and none of those were "reverts" or "undos" of his edits, they were photo replacements, as in the image were updated, not rollbacked to a previous version before his..He is still lying here..checks those links again..I urge you :)--Stemoc 01:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I just wanted to mention that I've commenced a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Self-promotion_via_images on whether the issues raised in this discussion should be addressed in our COI guideline. Coretheapple (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
    • You might have just dropped a link to this discussion there. Now we'll have two parallel discussions of the same issues. We should resolve this issue before we think about changes to WP:COI, in my opinion. ―Mandruss  16:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I think you mean the COI Noticeboard. Talk:COI is for discussion of the guideline, and I would think that a discussion of the guideline is independent of however this specific situation is resolved. COI is a behavioral guideline, not policy, and really doesn't impact very much on what is happening here. But if you think discussion there should be put on hold there until this resolves, I have no problem with that. Coretheapple (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Yeah, it's still a parallel discussion of the same closely-related issues, with the possibility of different discussions reaching different conclusions, which then have to be resolved in a third discussion. Messy messy. ―Mandruss  16:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
          • No, I think the underlying issue in the above multiple walls of text is pretty straightforward. But feel free to ask on the WT:COI page for a moritorium on the discussion there, as I see someone has already weighed in. Coretheapple (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Calibrador: arbitrary break 2[edit]

Per Wikipedia tradition, we have an enormous and growing wall of text of bitter, often petty bickering between the primary involved parties, with no end in sight. This is never productive in my experience. I propose that Stemoc and CCamp2013/Chase leave the discussion and trust that more detached, dispassionate participants have enough information to resolve this in the project's interest. Calibrador needs to stay to defend his position, but not to directly involved editors with dogs in the fight. ―Mandruss  17:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I was about to see if I can summarize what has been said up to now. I don't find much or any support for the following options: some kind of block; topic ban against adding photos; renaming of his photos; removal of his photos. What I do find as a possible proposal, a merger of ideas from User:Nick, User:Mandruss, and myself:

Proposed action: (from Nick) Allow Calibrador to add images to pages which have no images freely without restriction, but where he is replacing other photographers work, he be subject to a 1RR restriction. I would also suggest that Stemoc and Davey2010 be similarly restricted in the frequency they can remove Calibrador's images so nobody has an upper-hand in this dispute. (from Mandruss) Require full-disclosure edit summaries, such as "Adding image of my own work" or "Replacing image with one of my own work, which I feel is superior because…" (from me) Limit his discussion at the talk page to a single !vote, including commentary and disclosure, per discussion section or subsection; a ban on replying to or arguing with other discussants unless they directly addressed him; a ban on attempting to assess or claim consensus, unless it is unanimous. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@MelanieN: I agree with everything. Chase (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Mandruss: I will not leave the discussion and I'm hardly a primary party involved. Discussion is an important part of Wikipedia. I am not overly passionate about or attached to the issue, but seeing what Calibrador is doing is wrong. So yes, I will put input into the conversation. Especially when false accusations are made. I have no biased. I just prefer one pic over another, and if the other pic gets consensus, I will respect that decision (neither picture is the best in my opinion). Chase (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
As I said, we have enough information. Although less severe than Stemoc, your comments are generating far more heat than light. I can't force you to leave, but I have made the proposal and you will leave if there is a consensus for you to do so, else be guilty of WP:DE. ―Mandruss  18:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
CCamp2013/Chase has agreed on his talk page not to address Calibrador directly, and I have stricken his username from my proposal. ―Mandruss  19:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I cannot be arsed to reply above so I'll shove it here instead - I used to revert Gage on quite a few articles however since being told about commons etc etc I haven't bothered reverting and probably won't bother (if he's adding an image to an imageless-article then I wouldn't revert however if he'd replaced for instance a donald trump image with his own without any discussion then of course I'd smack revert, In regards to the above I agree with that idea - If he's reverted by anyone then it should be brought straight to the talkpage and IMHO the 1RR should apply to everyone the project not just me or Stemoc (Me and Stemoc aren't the only people to have reverted Gages images), And last but not least a bit unrelated but I'm simply using Gage as it's the easiest thing I can spell so not trolling them or winding them up, Anyway thanks. –Davey2010Talk 18:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Someone brought up this issue at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Self-promotion_via_images. I commented that AN/I seemed to be handling the problem. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. John, do you mean AN? This discussion? I see nothing at ANI. Coretheapple (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Calibrador: Proposal[edit]

I've been watching this image dispute drama for months, and it has recently devolved into edit warring on multiple articles and outright harassment by three editors, the worst of whom was rightfully blocked. Calibrador has been legitimately and repeatedly warned not to edit war over image content, especially where he arguable has a conflict of interest. Whatever solution is settled on should attempt to accomplish the following

  1. Reduce disruption, including edit warring and pointless bickering
  2. It should not discourage Calibrador from continuing to make valuable contributions of his photographic work to Wikipedia and Commons
  3. It should minimize the likelihood of harassment

In my opinion, the best solution that comes close to accomplishing all of these goals, and what I am proposing is, Calibrador, Winkelvi, is indefinitely limited to 1RR for any edits adding, removing, or changing any image in any article.

I also propose: Winkelvi, Davey2010 and Stemoc are indefinitely limited to 1RR for any edit removing any image created by Calibrador.- MrX 18:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Support. I have been watching this image-dispute saga play out over the past three months. (I personally don't get the passions over images; my own views is that the choice of image rarely makes an article much better or worse). I would like the image drama to not metastasize, and this 1RR restriction seems like the best way to do it. Neutralitytalk 18:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
the choice of image rarely makes an article much better or worse - You've been around the wikiblock once or twice, so I'm sure you know that literally no issue is too minor to argue endlessly about. ―Mandruss  18:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh, indeed. This one wouldn't even make it to the honorable mentions section of WP:LAME. Neutralitytalk 18:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - I kinda disagree with the 1RR being against me as especially recently I've not reverted any of Gages stuff however my past dealings with this haven't been the best and seeing as I strongly disagree with the names perhaps having 1RR is for the best .... I dunno but either way support. –Davey2010Talk 18:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Oppose. Something has to be done or the behavior will most likely continue. I am tired of contributing to this topic when we could be deloping the pages itself instead of agreeing to disagree who's photo is the best. I like a lot of Calibrador's photos and as a photographer myself, understand the feeling that an article featuring your photo can bring you, but don't agree with the method of integrating them into the Wikipedia. I also think the name of the file is an issue, not on commons, but here. It is promoting, his business, which is against Wikipedia policy. Which should result in all of them being renamed or removed from being used for violating Wikipedia's policy, not a commons. Seeing as he has TONS of images on Wikipedia, that is unlikely to happen. Nothing will be done about it though, so this is a great solution. (I know I have said this already). Just re-iterating that in my support, I am not also supporting the filenames. I also want to state, Many people, not just four, have been uncivil regarding this topic and had it not been for User:Mandruss and I coming to some sort of system, consensus would have never been able to be reached in regards to the Donald Trump photo. Chase (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Most of what I said I still agree with, but some clarifications were made that I no longer agree with dealing with this proposal. That is why I have amended my support to oppose and now support a proposal by the OP, MelanieN, who seems to understand the problem more than most. Chase (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I have no problem with most of what you listed, but can you better detail what 1RR means in regards to the users you listed involved with reverting me? If I am limited to 1RR and one of those users that you listed reverts me, what does that mean to me? Calibrador (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I think it means that if you replace an image in an article with one of your own, and that image has recently been added or replaced (within the past month) then that's your one revert. If the image has been in the article for a long time, then your first edit is a bold edit. If you follow WP:BRD, and if someone reverts your bold edit, you should discuss it on the talk page, although you could technically revert them without violating 1RR.- MrX 21:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
      • That doesn't sound right. So 1RR means he gets to add his picture to the article twice? Is that really how people are understanding this? --MelanieN (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
        • That is the traditional definition of 1RR (and I would be happy to cite an Arbcom member saying as much). Is there some reason why "his picture" should be treated any differently than "his text" when applying an editing restriction? I see no reason to treat one form of user-contributed content any differently than any other form.- MrX 22:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Support as it originates in an old proposal of mine. I would just clarify that my intention was for the restriction to be 1RR until consensus is determined on how to proceed. The overall idea for the restrictions I discussed is for Calibrador to continue adding their own images to articles and if any addition of an image is reverted, discussion must commence and consensus on how to proceed established. 1RR gives Calibrador a little flexibility to revert images being removed without good reason and it gives Stemoc et al a little extra flexibility to revert the addition of what may be an inappropriate image addition.
I would also add that any tag-teaming should be treated as a collective 1RR for all the named participants. Nick (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose as inadequate. This only deals with edit-warring over the insertion of pictures. It does nothing to stop the disruptive behavior at the talk page. MelanieN (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC) P.S. I'd also like to see disclosure in his edit summaries of his COI, but he kinda-sorta said above that he kinda-sorta might start doing that. IMO it be a good idea to confirm it though, or to get an actual commitment from him to do it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
    • MelanieN, my proposal was made without prejudice to additional restriction or sanctions. I believe that limiting the main actors to 1RR will calm the disputes and hopefully steer the talk page discussions toward pursuit of consensus, rather than arguments about edit warring and file naming.- MrX 21:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I doubt it. In fact, the 1RR restriction may make him MORE disruptive in discussions. If he can't simply re-add his photo to the article, he is likely to become even more pushy at the talk page - trying to urge/argue/prod everyone toward consensus in his favor, since consensus will be the only way he can restore his picture, or claiming "consensus" when there isn't one. That kind of activity is a major reason I made this report. We are dealing with a long-term COI pusher here and that needs to be dealt with. --MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
        • The diffs that you presented are evidence of arguing, but they are not evidence of disruption or any other significant conduct issues. If we're going to start punishing people for making faulty or repetitive arguments, then I have a long list of editors for your consideration. Hell, you and I are involved on some of the same pages where there's blatant WP:GAMING and WP:TE that is far more detrimental to the editing environment and NPOV than someone pushing for their own photos in articles. I'm not condoning Calibrador's aggressive editing or obstinance, but I don't see that additional sanctions are going to help.- MrX 22:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
          • The difference is that Calibrador's "aggressive editing or obstinance" (your words) is not just POV, to promote a viewpoint; it is COI, to promote himself and his career. COI editing is "strongly discourage" by Wikipedia. I really don't think we should be endorsing that kind of behavior here, or treating it as just another person who feels strongly about something. --MelanieN (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd also really prefer to see a formal requirement to disclose in every edit summary. I was fooled by the username change, and still can't think of a good-faith reason for it that's compatible with both leaving his real name in the image filenames and continuing to edit them into articles on enwiki. —Cryptic 20:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I can't support requiring such disclosures for a single editor, nor do I think it's a good precedent to set. I believe it's contrary to the principle that anyone can edit Wikipedia and the absence of a policy requiring edit summaries.- MrX 21:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Seems like a decent WP:IAR application to me. Policy can't anticipate everything, and it would be completely unmanageable if it did. ―Mandruss  21:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
        • I don't believe IAR applies. No improvement to the encyclopedia accrues by requiring one user to declare a COI in their edit summaries. It's merely window dressing.- MrX 21:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
          • Does it benefit the encyclopedia for other editors to be aware that the editor installing any image in an article is the author of the photo? I would think so. The few images I have installed provide that information via their file pages. My Wikipedia username is Mandruss, my Commons username is Mandruss, and the File History for those images shows Mandruss as the uploader and "own work". But the couple of Skidmore's Commons images I've looked at were uploaded by User:Gage, and I'm assuming all 2000+ of them are like that, correct me if I'm wrong. How are editors to know that Wikipedia Calibrador and Commons Gage are one and the same person? Or is this information unimportant for a large-scale contributor of images who is unwilling to just upload and let other editors decide? ―Mandruss  22:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
            • I don't think so and that was kind of my point. I will use the same argument that made in the COI outing mega-debate at WT:Harassment: We should evaluate content based on the quality of the content, not the person who contributed it. - MrX 22:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Sorry but how exactly did i get added to this proposal? I'm not the problem, I was trying to be the solution but instead I'm apparently the part of the problem now? and people wonder i have no respect for people on this wiki, for the umpteenth time the 1RR idea is nonsense, it will not work, all it does is protect him, not those trying to remove his "vandalism"..This was a good idea 2 years ago, but we have moved from that..again i have NO ISSUES with him adding images to articles which previously had no images, my only issue is when he intentionally changes an article which already has an image with one carrying his byline....there was a time he would also add his name to the caption of the image, we stopped him a few years back from doing that..and people who still think he isn't using wikipedia to self promote himself are really living under a rock...--Stemoc 00:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Stemoc, your response perfectly illustrates why you should be restricted to 1RR in cases involving Calibrador. Also, please read WP:NOTVANDALISM.- MrX 01:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
      • You should read my comments at WT:COI as to what i'm saying and why there is a need to change our policy in regards to what exactly is 'vandalism' when it comes to situations like this..I spent a better part of a decade fighting cross-wiki vandalism which included mainly self promotional stuff including articles and links to websites only to be told that its OK to do so on enwiki...yeah..its quite funny.. --Stemoc 01:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Support, and yes, this should include Stemoc. Jonathunder (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose: per MelanieN this is inadequate. A TBAN on discussions is needed. Skidmore can continue to upload to Commons. If editors want to replace an image with one by him, fine, but please cut out the disruption such as at Trump's article. Also uneasy including other editors in the restrictions. Harassment is already disallowed and can be sanctioned without any further rules being imposed here (such as Winkelvi's block, though I don't like that either). BethNaught (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
    • BethNaught, if are you opposing this because it's inadequate, then wouldn't it make sense to support it and propose an additional remedy? It might help if you could explain "TBAN on discussions". It's not clear how that would work.- MrX 12:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
      • BethNaught and @MelanieN: His 'vandalism' in not only limited to this wiki, he randomly uses his commons account (Gage) to overwrite other images because he wants his version to be used, this and as you can see, he used both his accounts...this was last month and then after he was questioned by a commons user, he gave vague reply that he was not socking and then later he blanked that section along with the part where an admin told him his move rights were remove for abuse..He is trying to keep his page clean so that his "customers" don't question him why his rights were removed....I don't understand why people refuse to see that he is using wikipedia to fund his own business, when did we become a repository like Gettyimages? cause if he is allowed to use commons to promote himself financially, we won;t be able to stop anyone else doing the same in the future....oh and you may find this interesting, he even reverted an image today added by the now blocked Winkelvi (on enwiki) whilst this discussion was happening and added his own version because as usual, he wants his own "version" to be used in articles even if it does not carry his byline, its either his images and his versions or none...For those who follow his contributions on commons, he does that regularly and usually without a valid reason..see his edits using the Gage account on commons and you will get a bigger picture as to why he 1RR is a bad idea..--Stemoc 02:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - and I find it rather disconcerting that COI is even a consideration for a number of reasons, including the terms of licensing. Atsme📞📧 15:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - his clear talk page COI in promoting photos that have his name in the title is clear, and since a mass rename is unlikely, I think this is the best way forward. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Calibrador: Alternative to 1RR proposal[edit]

  • I !voted "oppose" above. I still oppose that proposal, but my rationale is now different. My concerns about his talk page behavior are satisfied (AGF) by his agreeing to my proposed limitations. My reason for opposing now is that I don't think we should use a "1RR" standard, as defined for Discretionary Sanctions, because that is too complicated and too subject to gaming. (We have all seen the arguments "you reverted me!" "no, you reverted me!") I would rather have a straightforward restriction something like this: "Calibrador may add his image to any article once. If it gets reverted, he may not re-add it without consensus." No gamesmanship, no difference based on the previous status of the article - i.e., previously no picture vs. long-standing picture vs. recently added picture - just that he is free to add it, but if it gets challenged, he can't be the one to re-add it, except per consensus. Of course it could be re-added by his fans, several of whom are present at this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Clarification, in case it was unclear: The proposal covers all three types of articles: articles which did not previously have a photo, articles which previously had a longstanding photo, and articles where a new photo has recently been added. These are handled differently under the 1RR standard, because of what kind of action is defined as a "revert". My proposal is much more straightforward because it treats all three types of articles the same. --MelanieN (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment @MelanieN: Your proposal mentions articles without photos, which seems counterproductive to me. Calibrador (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Clarifying, biographical articles where there are no free photos of a person. Calibrador (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment The proposal states Calibrador can add photos to any article, even ones with a photo already, but just once. Chase (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
        • I thought you agreed to not address me unless I addressed you. Calibrador (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Note the bullet demotion. Calibrador (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Comment To be clear, I wasn't addressing Calibrador directly, but to clarify everyone who might read the proposal and is confused like I was when first reading it, what the proposal is actually stating. I also didn't mean to add three "***" when making my first comment, so I demoted it. Chase (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
        • 'Twas clear enough to me, Chase, but maybe Calibrador doesn't know that "addressing" is not the same as "referring to". Calibrador, I was not addressing you in the preceding sentence, but I am in this one. See the diff? I hope we can dispense with any further misunderstanding in that area. ―Mandruss  21:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
          • Based on their bulleting at the time of my comment, I thought that was their answer to my statement, despite it not actually answering to what I had stated. Calibrador (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
            • I suggest you let others police that agreement from now on. ―Mandruss  21:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
              • Can I get an answer to my actual concern? Calibrador (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
                • Calibrador, what is your concern? I thought you were just asking what is an "article with no photo". Are you asking why I am including this type of article in my restriction? Because it makes sense to me to have the same rule - namely, you can add a photo once but can't add it back if someone removes it - every time you add a picture to an article, whether or not it previously had one. Do you see a problem with that? --MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
                  • Yes. If an article's subject has no free photo, and someone removes it for some reason unbeknownst to me, but should it present itself, a photo-less article is preferred? Makes no sense. Calibrador (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
                    • As an example. Last year, Davey2010 reverted my addition of photos to a whole host of articles, including ones that previously had no photo. He was warned by an admin for doing that, if I recall correctly. Calibrador (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
                      • I'm certainly open to input on this. Let's see what others say - or if this proposal is even going anywhere. --MelanieN (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
                        • I think your proposal as written looks a lot like BRD, with Calibrador's add or replace being the B. Would it be adequate to simply require strict BRD? If there is a spurious agenda revert, doesn't WP:DR cover that adequately? Anything I'm missing here? Wouldn't it be weird if the product of all this is: Follow Existing Process? ―Mandruss  03:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
                      • Calibrador - Not arguing but do you have any diffs of me being warned by any admin?, I honestly don't remember that and I'm intrigued now, I probably did have some sort of vendetta back then however since the AN3 report I don't think I've reverted you since. –Davey2010Talk 13:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: This would drastically improve the tension and conflicts that have been created by Calibrador and by default his opposition. I personally think he just needs to be banned all together especially with the evidence that was presented in the below subsection by MelanieN and the indirect answers he has given, but there seems to be little support for that so far. Chase (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: I also agree with MelanieN’s proposal. Should a rare exception happen then of course Calibrador should flag it up, however it should be the exception and done before any reverts. NJA (t/c) 09:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Calibrador: Propose TBANs[edit]

Proposal withdrawn by author following unanimous opposition

I propose TBAN for Stemoc vis-a-vis Calibrador and images. His comment above clearly demonstrates the Winkelvi-like righteous crusading battleground mentality - and the same inability to accept constructive criticism from the community - and that is anything but part of the solution here. While I'm at it, I'll propose the same for Winkelvi. ―Mandruss  00:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

95% of the work i do on enwiki is to find and add free images from flickr and other sites to articles on enwiki, I do not get involved in petty fights related to Gage unless it directly involves an image he has changed on my watchlist..again I'm not an issue here, I do not call my self a wikipedia anymore, I'm more of a wikimedian and a TBAN on me is pretty much forcing me to stop my work on commons. I gain nothing from this, neither monetary nor in fame and yet somehow you assume that Winkelvi and I are the same? I'm sorry but you are wrong, stop trying to be self righteous and try to see the issue before making your own prejudicial assumption...You haven't been the one looking for the solution to this problem for 4 years now, I have so before you try to judge somebody who has been frustrated with the fact that admins on enwiki for the last 4 years have turned their blind eye to the situation even when reported to this board and WP:ANI...You really need to read up on what a battleground approach is, I follow the rules to find justice..My account on enwiki doesn't just have one purpose (unlike Calibrador who uses it only to force his images into articles) so if you refuse to see the issue here, Its not really my fault now is it?..I'm not going to come back here in another 14 months seeking justice, If the project actually stood for what it claims it does, people like him would no longer be allowed to contribute to the project --Stemoc 01:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
forcing me to stop my work on commons - To clarify, I'm speaking of situations involving Calibrador and images, not one or the other. Unless all your work on Commons involves Skidmore images, this does not stop your work there. people like him would no longer be allowed to contribute to the project - I rest my case. If you feel that strongly - at an emotional level - that Calibrador should be indeffed, when the community disagrees, you are the last person who should be interacting with him, and your doing so will only add fuel to a fire that the community is trying hard to put out. You need to step away. -―Mandruss  01:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
You do realise my work on commons entails adding images of politicians and celebrities too right? Infact I generally deal with those sections cause I feel i'm experienced in that section and Calibrador uploads mainly US politicians and celebrity images so yes, lines will definitely be crossed, intentionally or not even though the last time i spoke to Gage on commons was probably years ago and the last time i was involved in anything related to Gage was when i caught him abusing 2 of his rights on commons and duly reported on one of those abuses last month, you should probably read that section first where 5 commons admins agreed on his rights to be removed for abuse..again, I have no issue with him, he may have one with me because apparently I'm a hindrance in his 'work' and regarding the 2nd issue, I'm sorry if you do not under stand the self promotion policy on wikipedia, it actually applies to all wikis and not just this one and if we are going to block users who use the project to promote themselves then I do not see how in the future this will not include 'all forms of promotion' ..I don't want him to be indeffed, I never said that, I just want him to face the consequences of his actions as he seems to be in the habit of deflecting and passing the blame onto others which is actually a good trait to have if one wishes to be a politician...If I was from Arizona, I'd vote for him for Governor ;)--Stemoc 02:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Clarification: I believe that nothing we do here at enwiki would apply to Commons. --MelanieN (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This seems mighty retaliatory. I've dealt with Gage as well and it is so painfully obvious that they are only here to promote themselves and their photography work. This proposal is just deflecting the actual issue onto someone else. The problem here is Gage and his self-promotional behavior regarding his images. --Majora (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Some feel that opposition to battleground mentality represents support for, or defense of, the target of that battleground mentality. That is a false binary, folks. Calibrador needs to be dealt with, but it does not serve the project to deal with him that way. If you disagree, if you feel that the problem can't be managed without the flamethrower services of Stemoc and Winkelvi, please Oppose. But don't twist my intent. ―Mandruss  04:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I haven't said anything thus far but you keep comparing Winkelvi to me, I assume you have an issue with Winkelvi, so you are personalizing this attack on me now? The only person with a battleground mentality in his thread apart from the person in question is you..You are deflecting from the main issue, You also seem to be coming with assumptions pointing out things I did not say and trying to make it seem like I'm the fuel to Calibrador's fire..I'm not mate, I'm the guy with the fireman's uniform trying to put it out..I just noticed your comments on MajoraWP's page, that is a really low move mate..I'm sorry to say this but you are making it personal, I'd give you the same advice I would give others before you to drop the stick. Its bad enough we have one person trying to deflect from the issue, now we have another doing the same. This is why this issue has not been solved for over 4 years now because people who have no idea about the problem try to insert themselves into the situation just so that they can derail it, which mate, is what you are doing right now.....I have provided facts and proof of abuse all throughout this discussion, the only thing you have provided is unrelenting attacks on me and your somewhat battleground mentality..Winkelvi does have a battleground mentality, no doubt, but son, you do too..--Stemoc 06:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
No point in further arguing, but my proposal stands until defeated. ―Mandruss  07:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: we need to be dealing with the actual problem first. BethNaught (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Let's quit trying to change the subject here. The subject is WP:COI, i.e., Gage Skidmore using Wikipedia to advance his own career. Last time I looked, this kind of promotionalism was "strongly discouraged" at Wikipedia. Are we going to simply give Skidmore a green light, go ahead, promote yourself all you want? And anyone who tries to protect Wikipedia will get ordered to stop? --MelanieN (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry MelanieN, but I'm really struggling to understand your point of view. Several people in the discussions above, including myself, have rejected the idea that there is a COI problem of a magnitude that would be sanctionable. To claim that someone is using Wikipedia to advance their career requires better evidence than file names and making multiple comments on talk pages. Edit warring can be dealt with by limiting reverts. Calibrador has already agreed to limit talk page comments where his images are the subject of a dispute. I think it would help us if you could explain how applying more sanctions would help Wikipedia, or not applying them would hurt Wikipedia. In practical terms.- MrX 12:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
      • He has voluntarily agreed to my proposed sanctions in the section below. His excessive promotion at talk pages was the area of concern to me since that was clearly COI editing, but with his voluntary agreement I am satisfied on that point. He certainly IS using his Commons pictures to advance his career - if you need evidence, consider this from an off-wiki source: "Creative Commons in my mind is a vehicle for my photos to be easily disseminated, and at first was a way to simply get my name out there."[42] But as long as he does not excessively push for his own photos, it appears that Wikipedia is OK with using them. I still oppose this proposal because I think it is aimed at the wrong people. --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Thank you for that very clear evidence MelanieN. I now agree that Calibrador has used the project for self-promotion. Based on that, I'm warming up to the idea of a full ban on him being able to add his photos to any article, unless he has a good explanation for why that should not be the case.- MrX 17:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
          • I was referring to "Creative Commons" not Wikimedia Commons to be clear, and was referring to my Flickr, where most people obtain my photos and have over 48,000 photos under the Creative Commons license listed. Calibrador (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
            • I approach my involvement with Wikipedia as simply wanting to be helpful in providing high quality images to freely be used to illustrate article subjects. I point you to this interview with David Shankbone conducted by Wikimedia Foundation, (Shankbone also puts his name in the title of images, which are credited at the end of the video.) My involvement with Wikipedia is not promotional, I don't link to my website or anything like that in the file descriptions, my intention is to provide charitable photos of quality to be used freely. Here is the link to the interview with Shankbone by Wikimedia:
              • @Calibrador: I approach my involvement with Wikipedia as simply wanting to be helpful in providing high quality images to freely be used to illustrate article subjects. - That stretches even my WP:AGF to the breaking point, considering that you could "provide high quality images to freely be used to illustrate article subjects" by uploading and walking away. I'm sure you're aware that Wikipedia editors are capable of finding relevant images without your help. Would you care to reconsider that statement? ―Mandruss  19:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
                • In order to respond to MelanieN's request yesterday (which you can find somewhere among these walls of text), I was very hard pressed to find an instance where a photo that I had added had been reverted. And if it had been replaced, I've respected that nearly universally. The instances I'm sure you're thinking of, such as Trump, where I stepped out of line are probably <1% of the contributions I've made, and shouldn't be used to paint my entire contribution history, and was something I did not view as a COI at the time of making those edits. Calibrador (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
                  • I wasn't thinking of anything in particular. I just applied a logic test to your statement, and it failed. In my opinion, (1) you're being a bit deceptive about your motives, (2) you're deceiving yourself about your motives, or (3) you misspoke. ―Mandruss  19:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
                    • I could really just as easily make all my photos All Rights Reserved, but the fact is that from the instance that I began taking photos, my intention was to provide free to use images. And abiding by the attribution requirements of Creative Commons and the CC-BY-SA license, my contributions to Wikimedia, specifically the attribution in the title, was modeled after David Shankbone, who I provided a link to an interview with above as conducted by the Wikimedia Foundation, which seems like something of an endorsement of his practices. I don't really think anyone has ever challenged Shankbone on his motives. Calibrador (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
                        • AGF slips a bit more. I ask again: If all you want is to provide high quality images to Wikipedia, why don't you upload and walk away? Is that not providing high-quality images to Wikipedia? I'd like to hear a straight answer to that, or I'd like to hear something like "I approach my involvement with Wikipedia as simply wanting to be helpful in getting many of my high quality images into Wikipedia articles." ―Mandruss  20:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
                          • I've never seen it as a conflict of interest or against any policy to introduce a photo you took, especially if a very large majority of your contributions are thanked and/or unchallenged. Just as someone might find a photo on Flickr, upload it and add a photo they uploaded to an article. Calibrador (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Per MelanieN. I was inclined to think that Stemoc was trying to antogonize Calibrador, but I beleive he is just trying to protect wikipedia. Although his tactics may have been somewhat off-putting, he was doing what he seemed was right. SO i don't think he should be punished, just yet, for that. Chase (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • WITHDRAW - Sorry for the distraction from the "real issue", I sincerely believed we had the capacity to handle two issues simultaneously. Archive if you like, unless someone wants to continue the off-topic above. ―Mandruss  21:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Calibrador: Talk page restrictions[edit]

This proposal has been voluntarily accepted by the subject. MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

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

When one of Calibrador/Skidmore's pictures is challenged or removed, he sometimes (not always) becomes very aggressive at the talk page trying to restore it. Because of his Conflict of Interest, this behavior is far more problematic than if he was simply arguing about a wording or an inclusion of text; it is an example of the kind of COI editing which is "strongly discouraged" at Wikipedia. Based on his documented activities at multiple articles, I propose the following where one of his own photos is involved: limit his discussion at the talk page to a single !vote, including commentary and disclosure, per discussion section or subsection; a ban on replying to or arguing with other discussants unless they directly addressed him; and a ban on attempting to assess or claim consensus, unless it is unanimous. --MelanieN (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. If he would voluntarily agree to accept these restrictions, I would AGF, take his word, and withdraw this as a formal proposal. --MelanieN (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree to those restrictions. Calibrador (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I withdraw this proposal. I do believe that you were unaware of essays like WP:BLUDGEON and did not realize that this kind of behavior could be seen as offensive. --MelanieN (talk) 10:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
@MelanieN: My question is how does this affect the situation over at Talk:Donald Trump? Since Calibrador was directly involved? Chase (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
This agreement is not retroactive. Whatever he said there still stands. I assume he will abide by these restrictions from now on. --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay thanks. Chase (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

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

CheckUser and Oversight appointments 2016: Reminder[edit]

The Arbitration Committee is currently seeking candidates for CheckUser and Oversight appointments. As a reminder to interested editors, completed application questionnaires are due by email at 23:59 UTC, 20 September 2016. Please contact the committee at to request a questionnaire or if you have any questions about the process. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Last call, deadline is today! (And if you think you've requested or returned a questionnaire but haven't heard from us, please send us an email ASAP!) Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Eschweiler error message[edit]

Fixed De728631 (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

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

At Eschweiler the following error message appears at the top of the page: [[Category:Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character ",". in North Rhine-Westphalia]]. After checking the entire article twice I can't find the source for this error. Could someone please have a look, thanks noclador (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Fixed by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus [43] Nil Einne (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

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

PROD backlog building up[edit]

I haven't had time to go through it in the past few days, but the WP:PROD backlog is about a week past when this stuff should have been killed, so more hands with the admin bit and spare time would be most welcomed. You can work directly from Category:Expired_proposed_deletions, though I usually work from the fabulously useful and helpful WP:PRODSUM - David Gerard (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I've taken care of it. De728631 (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

A quick admin ruling needed at Donald Trump[edit]

Fractional-reserve banking[edit]

This is a run of the mill content dispute. Take it to the article talk page. In the event of a real complaint of editor misconduct, ANI is this way. (non-admin closure)- Ad Orientem (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Hi, I have a question for you: Can anyone please explain why I am being harassed by TWO self-called "PhD" editors on this above page? My edit is sourced to WP:RS and the editors have nothing to say about it (just edit warring without any valid explanations). Thanks. (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear user at IP I am one of the editors who reverted an edit you made. However, I am not a "self-called PhD editor," so it's unclear how you're coming up with that verbiage. You made an edit, and I reverted you -- only once. When other editors revert an edit you have made in this way, that is not "harassment." Indeed, you are engaging in a edit war, as you have repeatedly reverted other editors instead of discussing your edit on the talk page for the article. You are the person proposing the addition of the material to the article. Under the rules of Wikipedia, you need to persuade other editors -- not the other way around. Famspear (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The IP is edit-warring unsourced OR into the article. Semi-protection is needed. SPECIFICO talk 14:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I reverted and warned. The next reinstatement should be followed by a block. For the record, invoking CENSORSHIP really is an automatic no-no, but, as I indicated in my edit summary, even an admin, with or without Ph.D., can see that the sourcing is below par and so is the writing: it begins with a referential pronoun without a clear antecedent, and it ends with weasel words. In between is Investopedia, whose status as an RS is at best unclear. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Not true at all. I did provide 2 sources linked to RS. If you don't understand then YOU should be the one asking, sir/madam.

I was reverted without ANY explanation or edit summary and yes it looks like harassment by that 2nd editor. The rest is details that do not belong to this discussion. To others watching: do not stand still and show crooks that your are alert, watching and acting. Thanks. (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I am the second editor, and no, my one reversion of your material does not "look like harassment." You have now been reverted by at least three editors.
You would bring more WP:meatpuppets that it would not matter. It is the argument and its validity that matters the most. (talk)
I am not sure what you mean by the use of the word "crooks," but Wikipedia has rules: Assume good faith, WP:AGF and no personal attacks WP:NPA. Famspear (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I mean the international bankers (not you or anyone else as far as I know).

On my talk page, the user at IP47.17.18.64 has now admitted that the source for the material in his edit is actually something he claims to have been taught in school in Switzerland. Famspear (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC) ÷ ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Dear Sir/Madam: you should have asked me to add proper citation by simply adding [citation needed] - but you did not need to remove that information altogether (censorship) - unless you believe it is not true on its face...Do you believe it is not as said in that paragraph? If so, in what way? and yes it is quite simple to understand (for me at least - I have an advanced degree in finance from the US and Switzerland and am multi-lingual). (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you have an advanced degree in finance and the fact that you are multi-lingual are not good enough. You have to follow the Wikipedia rules and guidelines. And, no, where other editors remove your Original Research, which you based on a source that did not say what you claimed, is not censorship. Again: You have to follow Wikipedia rules and guidelines.
No, it is not "the argument" and "its validity" that matters the most. What matters the most is following the rules, especially: WP:NOR and WP:V and WP:NPOV and WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Famspear (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I do not agree that "following the rules" matters the most. In article space, what matters is a. content be verifiable and b. it be verifiable by way of reliable sources. See WP:RS. Sir/madam, I repeat that the reliability status of Investopedia is as yet undetermined, but you are welcome to test it out at WP:RSN--click on the link and you'll see what I mean. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Useful contributor[edit]

I seem to have, very opposite my intentions, alienated a potentially highly useful contributor. At this point I don't think he is going to listen to me, so would someone please talk User talk:Diveroli off the ledge? Thanks! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@78.26: if it makes you feel any better I thought your comments were very professional and respectful and that the only issue present is a mistake of policy. I hope everything works out becuase I agree that Diveroli would be a great asset to the project. Alicb (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words! Drmies was also kind enough to drop a note, so I think the community has done what it can. Again, thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Article splitting protocol[edit]

Creepy pasta split content from European Open (snooker) and created a new article at European Masters (snooker). I did not agree with the split and nominated the new article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Masters (snooker). As you see at the discussion opinion was split in regards to the new article, and the AfD was closed as "no consensus", although the closing admin noted that this defaults to a "keep". Following the close Creepy pasta interpreted this as a mandate to remove the content from European Open (snooker). On the other hand, I disagree that the "no consensus" amounts to a sanction of the split per WP:PROSPLIT which states a "contested bold split may be reverted, however it is not always appropriate to redirect the new article to the old as the new article may stand on its own even if the main article that it came from is not split". There was never any discussion about splitting and Creepy pasta did not obtain a consensus for the split. I have read the help guidelines several times now and I am still confused as to how the close of the deletion discussion should be interpreted in regards to the original article. Would someone please be kind enough to answer the following questions:

  1. Does the "no consensus" result and the automatic "keep" implicitly mandate the removal of the content split from the original article?
  2. If it does not, should the content that is being split out remain in the original article until there is an explicit consensus to remove the content from the article?

Any guidance would be much appreciated. Betty Logan (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I don't get it. First of all, in your deletion nomination, why didn't you mention what you say here, that the new article was a split? No wonder Kudpung said "default to keep" and to start a merge discussion, since he probably didn't know it was a split. Which brings me to another point: I don't see how it is a split, really. The article is created here, but if anything is taken from the article and placed in here, I can't really see it. The next edit puts meat on those bones, I think--hard to tell since the visual flag porn is so overwhelming I don't even want to look at it. But that content, as far as I can tell, did not come from the "original" article, did it? In which case there is no attribution missing, there was no split, Kudpung was right, and all this should have started not with edit warring and a deletion discussion, but with an invitation to discuss merging. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I admittedly should have made it clearer at the AfD that the new article (European Masters (snooker)) was created by splitting out content from European Open (snooker). As for the 2016 European Masters article, this isn't contested: each annual event has a dedicated article such as 2004 European Open (snooker) and 2005 Malta Cup, and this article should definitely exist. The debate is about the event series article which documents all instances of the event. This is the sequence of events:
I dispute that a default "keep" of the new article means we should delete relevant content from the European Open (snooker), because it then means that the main series article would be lacking essential information for readers who want an overview of the history of the tournament. What I don't understand is how AfD close impacts on European Open (snooker). Obviously European Masters (snooker) has won its existence by recycling content from European Open (snooker), but does that mean the content should now be removed from European Open (snooker), or does the editor still require an explicit consensus to delete the content from the older article? Betty Logan (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment Sorry I did that, I really thought it would be ok. My point is, why can't you remove the data from the European Open until it's officially confirmed maybe? It's easier after to do it than to remove all the misinfo (potentially). Creepy pasta (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment Btw, I still don't believe it's the former European Open, now potentially rebranded as you say. I can't find enough proves. That's way in the first place I simply created a new event page. Why do you want to link a European Masters event to a European Open? It would be nice to continue the lineage, but I am not sure. Creepy pasta (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
We are not debating what you believe or what I believe; that discussion has been run and resulted in "no consensus". The purpose of this discussion is to ascertian the procedural consequences of that discussion i.e. does the existence of the new article implicitly mandate the removal of the content from the original article or does there have to be an explicit consensus to remove the content from the article. Betty Logan (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The AfD was closed as 'no consensus' a) because there was no rough consensus, b) because it was the wrong venue for such a proposal for discussion anyway. The actual closure is not being challenged - if it were, the the discussion should be at WP:DELREV. So we are left with the fact that as there has been no egregious user or admin behaviour requiring admin action, ANI also is the wrong venue and is taking up valuable admin time having to review this thread. WP:DRN might be a possible solution, but again, I don't see the need for 3rd party arbitration. Thus AFAICS, the proper course is a RfC for or against merge and/or split, whatever, on the talk page of one of the affected articles, and notifying all the major contributors to those articles of the discussion. I think that would be the fairest way to approach the issue rather than gum up various noticeboards. But you would need to make a very clear, appropriate, and unambiguous RfC proposal statement, and that's something you can work together nicely to produce. However, I'm not mandating this in any way, and perhaps Drmies or someone else might have a better idea. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I have started a "split/merge" discussion at Talk:European_Open_(snooker)#RFC:_Should_the_European_Masters_entry_be_split_from_this_article_to_a_new_article.3F. Is this unambiguous enough or is there something else I can do to make it clearer? Betty Logan (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Closure at ANI too soon.[edit]

Closing with no action. There is clearly consensus against reopening the ANI discussion. I see a lot of good advice here that I hope Jed Stuart will take into consideration. ~Awilley (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

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

This is a request to review the close at ANI [46] I don’t question Bishonen’s interpretation of the consensus. The editors at Electronic harassment definitely want me banned from the article and more. However, I made it clear that I had limited time on the internet and wanted to give a reply in two days. [47] That was not to attempt to change the consensus but to counter the false narrative about my behaviour there. This false narrative and all that has led to it is entirely consistent with what is described in the essay ‘POV railroad’: [48] The closure happened 15 hours after my saying I wanted a right of reply. The result is that the record contains grossly inaccurate attacks on my credibility, involving false characterizations of my behavior. There are 8 accusations there that I think I can counter given the opportunity. If I am unable to counter that it will stay on the record there and could, and probably would, be used against me at a later date. All I want is the discussion re-opened and to counter all of that, one point at a time. I will debate it with them if they want. If not it is a part of a character assassination. I have requested Bishonen’s re-consideration of the closure, but he has refused: [49] I am regarding the TBAN as a separate matter at this point.Jed Stuart (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Point of order: The two are inseparable. Jed Stuart this will sound harsh- sorry- but the very reason for the early closure was the '"editor exhaustion" and time-wasting' you were seen to be responsible for. So unless you are appealing against the TBAN- which you say you're not- you are in effect requesting permission to exhaust editors' patience and waste their time, etc., for another two days. That, I suggest, would be a mistake. Quite a few editors in that discussion mentioned blocks (often, indef. ones): You realise that if the discussion is reopened- consensus could change- and start running along those lines...? FYI. In fact, let me take that a little further; I could see a situation where a block is proposed purely on the principle of you having re-opened the timesink. Muffled Pocketed 08:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support both Bishonen's close on AN/I and the TBAN, and I would also support an indefinite block for Jed Stuart for WP:NOTHERE. There was unanimous support for a TBAN plus several calls for an indefinite block in the AN/I-discussion when it was closed by Bishonen (after having been open for almost two days), so there's absolutely no valid reason for re-opening it. Jed Stuart was indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to electronic harassment and/or conspiracy theories after exhausting the patience of other editors by endless fringe-pushing, edit-warring and forum-shopping, and has refused to drop the stick even after the TBAN, posting several requests to lift the TBAN and/or re-opening the AN/I-discussion on Bishonen's talk page, refusing to take "no" for an answer. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 09:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The right of reply had been exercised in previous ANI threads. And there is no reason for us to wait unreasonably long for you to reply when there is no possible reply that could have changed the outcome of the discussion in your favor. Replying now doesn't make much difference either, since you aren't going to be here much longer. 2607:FB90:2E02:BF29:9839:2299:DFF8:1EF9 (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support close, Support TBAN AN/ANI does not exist to allow people to "set the record straight". The boards exist to address behavioral problems which come up editing Wikipedia in the best way for the encyclopedia. From what I have seen it is well past time for the OP to drop the matter and move on to other subjects. If they are concerned about the community holding things agaist them/ bringing up stuff later, my impression is that people are much more likely to form a bad impression of continuing to try to "set set the record straight" than from whatever was left "unanswered" in the first place. JbhTalk 12:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Advice for Jed Stuart: Wikipedia does not do justice or fairness. Allowing an opportunity for a reply might be an example of natural justice or procedural fairness, but Wikipedia doesn't do those either. At the present time, the Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia's final dispute resolution body) is proposing to close a case with adverse findings against editors who were not parties to the case, were not warned that their conduct was being reviewed, and were given no opportunity to address evidence against them. Some Arbitrators want to criticise the editor who brought the case to them, which they took, for bringing the case. My point is that ArbCom is generally (at least historically) much more inclined towards fairness than is ANI. You are seeking fairness in an environment that at times descends to levels which would never be acceptable in any face-to-face circumstances. If you want to have any chance of moving the view and ultimately having the ban changed, I suggest: (1) accept the ban and move on; (2) edit away from the area for a considerable period of time; (3) when you do appeal, focus on what you have done since the ban and simply note you felt it was unfair but decided the best for the encyclopaedia was to show that you can and do contribute productively. If you feel for your own sake that you must right a refutation of accusations and to describe how you have been mistreated, by all means, do so – OFF WIKI. Write it up, save it, and keep it to show when you appeal if anyone asks and you are willing to trust an editor who asks. Never post it on wiki. Don't base an appeal on fairness / natural justice unless you want to (a) lose; (b) be attacked for wasting time; (c) risk a block / community ban. Fair? No. Fact? Unfortunately, yes. EdChem (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Wikiwork factors for WikiProjects[edit]

Hello all, apologies if this is not the correct place to initiate this discussion. Theo's Little Bot, which updated the wikiwork parameters for the assessment of all WikiProjects, has not been doing to since July 2015, resulting in the incorrect Wikiwork numbers for all projects. The bot is running I can see still, so is there any way to make the bot run on the Wikiwork page also? I had emailed the bot owner but did not get any response. —IB [ Poke ] 11:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@IndianBio: Well, just an FYI, there is WP:BOWN- but it doesn't seem particularly busy! Muffled Pocketed 11:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah so was wondering if anyone has any idea how to proceed with this? I saw that the BOWN no one actively checks or responds like this page. —IB [ Poke ] 11:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The botop, Theo, is the only person that can restart the task. If he is unable or unwilling to do so, you will need to find someone else to take over the task. — JJMC89(T·C) 22:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please take care of this...[edit]

Silly waste of time (in true AN/ANI style), talking to death something this simple and obvious, and the conversation spirals until someone says something they're going to get sanctioned for. I'm removing the section per clearly worded policy. StuRat has been given enough time to do so himself and has demurred. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Per WP:POLEMIC, editors may not have on their user page... "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." In light of that, can someone please take care of this here. Thanks... --Jayron32 14:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I wouldnt describe your insufficiently lubricated jackscrew assembly a flaw... Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Although if any admin is willing to start enforcing WP:POLEMIC I have a long list of blatant violations that I can dig up... Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
It is a trifle risqué isn't it. Would we view that as being an example of- as we advise- commenting on the edits rather than the editor? I mean, calling you crap would violate WP:NPA; but calling your edits crap, not? Muffled Pocketed 14:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
(EC) Even if it was, those sort of edit-tracking lists are almost always only tolerated when someone is preparing evidence for a noticeboard filing/arbcom case etc. Just listing people's (alleged) inappropriate editing to no fixed purpose is frowned upon. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll give StuRat an opportunity to explain why it should stay. I don't see one but I'll listen to an explanation. Tiderolls 14:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The irony of this makes me think it's retaliatory -- either based on various criticisms or perhaps a reciprocal list? Anything to that? Otherwise, if this isn't deleted, you could always start a reciprocal list, but then, nobody wants it to take that long to load a userpage. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The reason for this list is that Jayron continually accuses me of the exact same behavior he commits, namely giving bad Ref Desk answers, where unreferenced, false, attacking the OP, swearing at a fellow editor, etc. I use this to refute his accusations, as I just did so today: [50].
  • Jayron does not like that I can so easily find many examples of his bad behavior, and wants this stricken from the record.
  • Jayron's own edits should not be seen as an attack on him.
  • Note that Jayron violated that POLEMIC rule in the very section I referenced above, and that I used that section of mine to prove that he was lying.
  • If Jayron's behavior continues to spiral out-of-control, I'd also like to use this list as evidence in a request to desysop him. StuRat (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • So, StuRat, you'll be hatting your talk page post with an apology as well? Tiderolls 15:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I will hat it, if you like, but I've done nothing that needs an apology. StuRat (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Done. StuRat (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Hatting a list is not removal. It's still there. --Jayron32 15:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I never said I had removed it, did I ? StuRat (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Without wanting to get involved in the particulars here, I do get wanting to call out someone you see do something they criticize you for doing, but maintaining a public list about that person on your userpage is typically a bad idea (that's what this thread is about -- not the particular disputes which led to it). If you must save examples, it's probably better to do off-wiki. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • (EC)I think you should delete it, StuRat, but I'll settle for collapsing the thread. Others may have a different opinion. I'll choose to disagree with you on the apology; you're the one that has to live with it, though. Make it light on yourself. Tiderolls 15:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • See my comment above. This sort of negative edit-tracking (as it clearly shows in polemic) is only permitted on a temporary basis. As StuRat has indicated he is keeping it for future 'Gotcha' purposes, it needs to be deleted. Nothing preventing him from keeping a .txt file on his desktop if he really needs to keep a record. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • If there is a consensus to delete it, I will do so, but I already have a safe copy, suspecting that Jayron might delete it on his own and hide it too. Note that my !vote is to keep it, and should be counted every bit as much as Jayron's !vote to delete it. I know the tendency on the Admin board is to ignore the !votes of non-Admins, but I don't believe policy allows that. StuRat (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Yes, I agree with OiD here. Note also that we've literally in the last couple of days had an extremely vocal MFD establishing that we don't tolerate people using Wikipedia to host their personal shit-lists of instances where other people have done something they consider incorrect, and that case was less problematic than this as it wasn't targeting a specific individual. StuRat, please remove this completely; if Jayron decides (s)he wants to play hardball here, people have been indefblocked for a lot less than this. ‑ Iridescent 15:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Hey now, I've never said anything about that. Please don't go putting words in my mouth. It isn't helpful. --Jayron32 15:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • They are not putting words into your mouth. Iridescent is advising StuRat of the potential consequences based on precedent if you should choose to make a more 'formal' and less polite request for its removal. Given that policy and convention is on your side in this (not to mention the assumption of bad faith below) I think thats a reasonable warning. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It's not an "assumption" of bad faith, Jayron has proven his bad faith, when he lied with the statement that I "never ever providing a useful reference to anyone ever". A statement easily disproven, which I did at the link provided above, and can in many more examples. StuRat (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • One other comment, Jayron's dual "apology" on the Ref Desk was virtually concurrent with this request, and quite uncharacteristic for him. I believe the only reason he apologized there is that his demonstratably false claims about me there would have been viewed unfavorably here. StuRat (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
    [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]. I always own my errors of judgement and poor behavior, and I always apologize for it. I will not rescind my apology to you, I meant it. I acted poorly, and you did not deserve the rudeness I heaped upon you. My behavior there was inexcusable. I do not offer an apology for any reason than it is the right thing to do because I acted badly. --Jayron32 16:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Almost a one year backlog[edit]

Our backlog at: Template:Request_edit/Instructions#Current_requested_edits

Is now a few days short of a year.

I count myself as an editor who has worked on many requests, but find them tedious, and find it difficult to get motivated to work on them.

As a community, we have instruction people with a COI to use this process, them we ignore those who follow the rules.

Any thoughts on how we respond?

(Technically, not an admin only issue, but as admins, we ought to discuss how to solve the problem.)

Coincidentally, I'm trying to work on a months long backlog at OTRS, and ran across a request made in June about a requested edit. I'm not sure which is more embarrassing, that we taken from June until September to respond to their query about why nothing is being done, or my explanation that the backlog is almost a year so they should just wait their turn.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Well I've got rid of 3 so I suppose every little helps, I have to agree tho it's bad for everyone (myself wholly included) to tell those to use the edit request option and then no one actually answers them at all... –Davey2010Talk 01:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Agree these are not protected, this is not an admin problem; notice we are very good at keeping the protected edit request queues down! — xaosflux Talk 01:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the advice shouldn't say "if no one objects to your edit after x days, make it yourself". I'm notifying the Teahouse about the requested edit backlog, since some of them will probably want to help. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I have worked on this backlog extensively and have probably answered over 200+ requests during the last year. It's good to see that this has finally raised the attention of other editors, because it's very discouraging being one of very few people trawling through these edit requests, and watching the backlog grow higher despite attempts to bring it down. From my experience, I believe the "make it yourself after X days" advice would be a bad idea. A significant portion of the COI editors (usually the professionals hired by firms that are experienced with Wikipedia, such as Beutler Ink) refuse to touch article pages entirely for fear they will be accused of breaching COI guidelines. They won't edit in mainspace even if somebody gives them the go-ahead. Of all the requests, about 60% of them have issues, whether it be blatant promotionalism, close paraphrasing/wholesale copyright infringements, or balance issues. Please spread the word and any additional help in clearing this backlog is greatly appreciated. Altamel (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I've done these in the past and stopped doing them because what Altamel summarizes is true. It's difficult to stay motivated when so often the necessary response is a decline, followed by some mix of explaining we don't add promotional content, don't add copyright violations, don't add original research, need you to identify what reliable sources verify the content, etc.

But I certainly agree it's very unfortunate that we set them on this path and when they comply it takes forever for a response, yay or nay—and these are the good eggs, at least in comparison to the absolutely huge problem we have with that same mix of problematic edits being made directly, ignoring the fangless suggestions of the COI guidelines to only edit the talk page. (Not the right forum but the fact they are fangless suggestions is the ultimate problem--just a nudge on that topic: the only real teeth we have was created when the Terms of Use were changed to require mandatory disclosure for financially compensated editing, but very few are making use of {{uw-paid1}} through {{uw-paid4}}, which I created in the hope of providing a path to enforce the TOU change.) Anyway, I'll go tackle some now. Thanks for bringing this up Sphilbrick.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

While I've not done these before, never hurts to give it a go. I've got a few things to do today but will study how to go about clearing a few a little later in the afternoon. Blackmane (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The instructions for this process neither explained to edit requesters the need for good sourcing in any detail nor how to place citations, nor provided any explanation of the dos and don'ts of copyright to avoid infringement (I do a lot of copyright work and you'd be amazed at the number of infringers who did not have an inkling they were doing anything improper and would not have done so had they known). I have added both to the instructions, in the hope that we will have less copyvios to deal with through this process, and more attempts at placing good sourcing, and thereby lessen the number of necessary declines.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Image in use, author requests deletion under G7[edit]

A good number of images have been nominated for deletion under WP:G7 and are unattended for some time now. Those non-free files are being used in different articles. Should these files be deleted under G7? I am a bit confused. --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

They are lacking copyright tags and fair use rationales, so they'll need to be deleted anyway. If someone feels like adding proper tagging, they can do so - or reupload them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
They had fair use rationales. The uploader blanked them when requesting deletion. As a matter of general principle, if an image is being used in an article that several people have contributed to, it seems like it should go through WP:FFD rather than be eligible for CSD. That said, these appear to all be mugshots of living people. As they included fair use rationales I presume they're not in the public domain and thus would need to be treated like any other image of a living person -- which is to say, that they don't typically qualify for fair use on Wikipedia. Might be a good idea to decline and send them all to FfD. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Admin attention → AIV, again[edit]

AIV has a huge backlog again, with some reports going almost 7 hours without action. This is becoming a serious and regular issue...could we get some extra eyes over there, please? Thanks. WikiPuppies bark dig 01:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

A lot of these entries are either not clearly vandalism, or are supported only by really cryptic messages. Am I supposed to know who the "nazi ref desk troll" is? Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC).
@Lankiveil: LTA case. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Soft_skin. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: Thanks for that. I did look on WP:LTA, but it looks like that report isn't in the master list there. I think my point stands; if that report had been linked in the AIV report I would have been comfortable acting quickly and blocking right away. If folks want quick action in their AIV reports, it helps to include more information. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC).

WP:AIV & WP:RFPP[edit]

FYI – the backlogs for these two noticeboards appear to be very large at the time that I am writing this... Maybe a couple of admins can come help clean up the mess...? There are currently 30+ page protection requests at WP:RFPP now... (talk) 04:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Candidates for speedy deletion backlog[edit]

Hi. There's currently a backlog in the speedy deletion category of approx 150+ items. Be grateful if someone could address this. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Modification of block; reminder about unblock appeal channels[edit]

Following an appeal to the arbitration committee, TeeTylerToe's block (originating in this ANI thread) is modified to restore talk page access and permit appeals through normal community channels including UTRS and the {{unblock}} template. He is strongly advised to carefully consider the concerns that have been raised about his editing before attempting to appeal. This does not prohibit decline of appeals by any community mechanism or withdrawal of talk page access should problems arise.

The committee emphasizes that block appeals are an important component of community dispute resolution processes and should not be withdrawn without compelling evidence that appeal channels are likely to be abused.

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Modification of block; reminder about unblock appeal channels

For the Arbitration Committee Amortias (T)(C) 22:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Teacher editor[edit]

Hi, Apologies if this is in the wrong place however I'm lost as to where to ask this,
I've come across an editor (Mrcurtis) who wants to teach his Year 8/9 pupils on how to edit the article Woodham Ley Primary School, The editor had reverted the school redirect with the edit summary "Set up for our students to edit, please leave",
I've given some advice[58] however I'm utterly clueless when it comes to the whole student editing thing and as I don't want to give any incorrect advice I figured I'd ask here and hopefully an admin could kindly intervene,
Thanks and again my apologies if this is the wrong place, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)