→Anatolii Alexeevitch Karatsuba: This is an incident |
→RB/Reviewer: new section |
||
Line 370: | Line 370: | ||
== [[Anatolii Alexeevitch Karatsuba]] == |
== [[Anatolii Alexeevitch Karatsuba]] == |
||
{{main|WP:ANI#Anatolii Alexeevitch Karatsuba}} |
{{main|WP:ANI#Anatolii Alexeevitch Karatsuba}} |
||
== RB/Reviewer == |
|||
If someone could remove my rights I'd appreciate it. Thanks. [[User:gwickwire|<span style="color:#3D0376">gwickwire</span>]]<span style="position:absolute"><sup>[[user talk:gwickwire|talk]]</sup></span><sub>[[special:contributions/gwickwire|editing]]</sub> 00:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:54, 30 April 2013
Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussion
|
You may {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38
as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/1ball.svg/40px-1ball.svg.png)
Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.
Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/2ball.svg/40px-2ball.svg.png)
Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.
On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.
There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/3_billiard_ball.svg/40px-3_billiard_ball.svg.png)
When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.
Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/4ball.svg/40px-4ball.svg.png)
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
Technical instructions for closers
|
---|
Please append |
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
Other areas tracking old discussions
- Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
- Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits
Administrative discussions
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
Talk:Anatolia#RfC:_Should_the_map_be_changed?
(Initiated 118 days ago on 18 February 2024) RfC tag has expired and there haven't been new comments in months. Vanezi (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment: The RfC starter, Youprayteas, did not include any sources when starting his request. Multiple new sources have been added since February. Bogazicili (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?
(Initiated 92 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
new closer needed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League
(Initiated 70 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC) - As an update, it's been almost two months, the comments have died down and the discussion appears to have ended. I suggest three or more uninvolved editors step forward to do so, to reduce the responsibility and burden of a single editor. Either taking a part each or otherwise. I'm aware that's not the normal procedure, but this isn't a normal RfC and remains highly contentious. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Bump nableezy - 19:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- "Part 1: Israel/Palestine" has been closed by editor TrangaBellam – "part 2: antisemitism" & "part 3: hate symbol database" remain open. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there
19:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)20:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators
(Initiated 69 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)
(Initiated 68 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead
(Initiated 66 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Climate_change#RFC:_Food_and_health_section
(Initiated 60 days ago on 17 April 2024) This was part of DRN process (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_245#Climate_change). It is ready to be closed [1] [2]. Bogazicili (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals
(Initiated 45 days ago on 2 May 2024) RfC template has been removed by the bot. TarnishedPathtalk 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Andy Ngo#RfC: First sentence of the lead
(Initiated 43 days ago on 3 May 2024) Discussion has slowed with only one !vote in the last 5 days. TarnishedPathtalk 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 440#RfC: RFE/RL
(Initiated 39 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Discussion -- New Proposal for layout of Tornadoes of YYYY articles
(Initiated 36 days ago on 10 May 2024) RFC outcome is fairly clear (very clear majority consensus), however, a non WikiProject Weather person should close it. I was the RFC proposer, so I am classified too involved to close. There were three “points” in the RFC, and editors supported/opposed the points individually. Point one and three had 3-to-1 consensus’ and point two had a 2-to-1 consensus. Just need a non WP:Weather person to do the closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Anti-Normanism#Requested move 22 May 2024
(Initiated 24 days ago on 22 May 2024). Should be closed by an uninvolved admin.--Berig (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
V | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 6 | 17 | 34 | 57 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 10 | 25 | 35 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Crafts deities
(Initiated 73 days ago on 3 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Mohave tribe
(Initiated 70 days ago on 6 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States
(Initiated 70 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Indian massacres
(Initiated 69 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Volodimerovichi family
(Initiated 69 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Category:Muppet performers
(Initiated 64 days ago on 12 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:First Nations drawing artists
(Initiated 63 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Neo-Latin writers
(Initiated 62 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons
(Initiated 52 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Fictional West Asian people
(Initiated 50 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Natural history
(Initiated 50 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Roman Catholic bishops in Macau
(Initiated 48 days ago on 28 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 3#Frances and Richard Lockridge
(Initiated 46 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh
(Initiated 40 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD
(Initiated 60 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Fwiw, one more comment in discussion since this comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles
(Initiated 44 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS
(Initiated 19 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 29 May 2024
(Initiated 18 days ago on 29 May 2024) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josethewikier (talk • contribs) 01:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 June#X (social network)
(Initiated 13 days ago on 3 June 2024) - Only been open three days but consensus appears clear, and the earlier it is resolved the easier it will be to clean up as edits are being made based on the current result. BilledMammal (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
Betty Logan owns articles
Betty Logan seems to think she owns articles. Whenever anyone else edits List of vegans or List of vegetarians she just changes it back and claims that the other person has to discuss it with her before editing. She uses her own personal criteria to decide what does or doesn't belong in articles. For instance, Tobey Maguire is a vegan. Betty, however, doesn't think he should get to be called one so she won't let him be listed. "If someone eats dairy products it is irrlevant what they refer to themselves as! They are not vegan." and here she says "it doesn't matter what he self-identifies as! If someone eats dairy products they are not vegan." And here she threatens to block me for disagreeing with her. She has threatened me with blocking before and told me I shouldn't edit here if I can't do it her way. How is this right? Helpsome (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Purely on a practical level, if someone does consume dairy products, then they are not vegan. I'd say that on the face of it, she is not "owning" anything, but correcting your erroneous edit. As to the "threats" of blocking, I read that she has pointed out that the end result of edit warring, (which you were being warned about) is a possible block. I think you should have a
quickslow and thorough read of WP:BRD, which advises you to discuss matters on the talk page, rather than keep reverting back to your own preferred version. - SchroCat (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Except it isn't true. There are four references given and in at least one he expressly states he doesn't eat dairy or eggs. Betty has just decided for herself that he isn't vegan. Helpsome (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- The individual should a) have an article, b) explicitly identify as a vegan, and c) be known as a vegan (i.e. not consume dairy or eggs). If someone self-identifies as a vegan but eats dairy, then they misunderstand what "vegan" means. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Except it isn't true. There are four references given and in at least one he expressly states he doesn't eat dairy or eggs. Betty has just decided for herself that he isn't vegan. Helpsome (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Are you kidding me? Because I am relatively new and she is a "Senior Editor" everyone lines up to say that I need to read rules but she can keep reverting back to HER preferred version? Where is she discussing things on talk pages? Or do those rules only apply to me? Helpsome (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, I'm not kidding, and no it's not because you're new and she isn't. Read WP:BRD. You made a Bold edit which Betty Reverted. You need to then Discuss on the talk page. It's you who wants to make the changes, so you have to be the one that opens up a discussion thread and work it out there. - SchroCat (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- WP:TRUTH is not listed as one of the exceptions to edit-warring. The process is be bold ... if it's reverted, do not re-add, but discuss until new consensus is obtained. Nobody is saying the rules don't apply to a senior editor, because they do. You simply need to read the rules and also act accordingly (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- While I'd agree entirely that the place to discuss this is the article talk page, I think that Helpsome may have a point. It appears that Betty Logan is applying WP:OR to 'determine' who is or isn't a vegan. WP:TRUTH works both ways here, and it shouldn't be up to contributors to decide who is or isn't a member of a less-than-unambiguous category. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure that's the case, Andy. It looks like where there is evidence that someone is a vegan (they have stated that and confirmed that they eat NO dairy products etc, they go on the list. Those who claim to be vegan but have said they still eat some form of non-vegan product don't go on the list, but onto the vegetarian one, as far as I can see. I'm not sure there is any WP:OR going on. Where do you see this OR going on? - SchroCat (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- 'Evidence'? That is the problem. If contributors look at 'evidence', and reach 'conclusions', it is WP:OR. The fundamental problem is that a 'list of vegans' is always going to be questionable from a WP policy perspective - we are assigning individuals into an ambiguous category (there are differing definitions of veganism) on the basis of our own judgement. Given that this is an issue of ethics and/or individual choice, and that it is rarely something that individuals are notable for, I can see no particular reason why we should be making such judgements at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Tobey Maguire is a well-known vegan. We should try to avoid imposing our own standards of purity, unless the subject has strayed so far that no reasonable person would continue to use the word "vegan" for him. I remember editors arguing that Bill Clinton wasn't a vegan because he admitted to eating one mouthful of turkey at Thanksgiving. Maguire admits to eating honey and the occasional piece of milk chocolate. [3] It's true that there are vegans and non-vegans who would exclude him for that, but in general someone who avoids meat, eggs and dairy and calls himself a vegan is regarded as a dietary vegan by Wikipedia, especially when lots of secondary sources call him a vegan too. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
If you want more proof of ownership, here is Betty Logan blindly reverting an edit where I added another reference just because I added it. How is an interview with Oprah Winfrey clarifying that Thich Nhat Hanh is a vegan not a good reference? Helpsome (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Helpsome, I think you ought to soft pedal on the accusations a little. You've changed the nationality of someone from Vietnamese to Vietnamese/French, based on the fact that they live in France. Surely you can see why that's been reverted? If in doubt, the edit summary kinda makes it clear... and I'm fairly speechless that you've gone ahead and reverted her, despite what people have been saying to you here. Have you read WP:BRD yet? If not, I strongly suggest that you do so without fail. Once you've read it, read it again and make you you understand about going to the talk page, rather than reverting. In terms of the number of sources: if one is sufficient, then that is all it needs. - SchroCat (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- That isn't what happened. I added a reference which clarified that Thich Nhan Hanh is a vegan in his own words in an interview with Oprah Winfrey. The existing reference is a blog. I also added that Nhat Hanh lives in France not Vietnam as he was exiled from Vietnam over forty years ago. Betty removed the addition of France AND the reference without even looking at it. I added the reference back but didn't alter the place of residence and now you are claiming that I reverted her which didn't happen at all. I think maybe you should stop blindly defending Betty and actually look at the actions here. Helpsome (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- In fact, YOU reverted me and claimed "As per the ANI thread. Multiple sources are not needed, if one will suffice" but where in this thread did you state that multiple references aren't needed? Why didn't you remove multiple references from the other twenty some entires with multiple references? You accused me of one thing here and another in your edit summary. Helpsome (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Did you ask Betty Logan on the talk page why she reverted your edit? No. You didn't, and you should have done instead of reverting.
- " where in this thread did you state that multiple references aren't needed?" right here
- "I also added that Nhat Hanh lives in France": it's a list of nationalities, not places of residence (although to be fair, the column heading looks to be misleading here)
- It all boils down to the fact that instead of reverting you need to go to the discussion page. Rather than reverting you should have said on the discussion page, "Betty, why did you revert xxx?" Let them explain their rationale or the policy, or the MOS and you can have a discussion rather than an edit war. - SchroCat (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- You edited your own comment after you reverted me and put that in your summary. Proof. And why is it ME that has to take things to the talk pages while you and Betty get to be bold? I'm sure the fact that SchroCat gives Betty "new WikiLove message" and keeps an eye on her talk page has nothing at all to do with taking her side and reverting my edits to protect her. I'm not part of your little good guys club so Betty can do whatever she wants and control articles and I will just leave. You win. You chased away another editor who was just trying to help around here. Good job. Helpsome (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Helpsome, I am slightly at a loss here. You have been advised by a number of people (in other words, more than just me) to read BRD and if your bold edit is reverted then you go to the talk page. You. You need to start the discussion to get it going if you want to change the article. The other person has to join in with it, it's that simple. I am sorry that you are thinking of walking off, but you really do need to get to grips with the fact that discussion is the way to build a consensus, not by endless reversions. If you had asked Betty why she reverted you, she would have explained, and you may have learnt something, if you had tried. But you obviously think you know much better than anyone else and that everyone is against you. No-one has "won" here and it looks like no-one has leant anything either. - SchroCat (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I can't see why Helpsome's addition of Oprah Winfrey as a source was reverted, when the existing source is just a blog. [4] Is it not better to have both, or to let the Oprah interview replace the blog? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I would suspect that it may be because the Oprah interview refers to him as a vegetarian, not a vegan, so it's not terribly clear (although he says "Yes. Vegetarian. Complete. We do not use animal products anymore." and "No egg, no milk, no cheese."). The letter he wrote says vegan. I'm sure it would be a very good question to ask on the article's talk page, which is what should have happened some time ago. - SchroCat (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- (ec) Okay, that's a fair point. Some people use "strict vegetarian" instead of vegan, so that's probably what he meant by "Vegetarian. Complete." Personally, I'd just add that as a second source. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- You "would suspect"? So you have no idea why it was removed but you went ahead and removed it a second time without having any idea why. And you claim I am being paranoid about you guys ganging up on me. When Betty removed the addition of France to Nhat Hanh's entry she turned around and changed the intro to the article to defend it. Where was the talk page discussion there? Oh right only I have to run my edits past everyone else. Not Betty. She's special. She has SchroCat to defend her edits even when he doesn't understand them. Helpsome (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm English: we have a different way of talking that sometimes understates things. Perhaps I should just have said "It is because...", but that pre-supposes I am able to read the minds of other editors. Maybe I'll get round this by asking the person involved why they did it... what a cunning plan that is! Helpsome, the problem is that you have not asked the question on the article talk page, and it is you who want and need to know the answer. Go ahead, ask it: it will be answered and you may gain some understanding as to why it happened. If you do not ask, then you are not going to find out why except by double guessing others, getting paranoid and winding yourself up into a temper. Seek and ye shall find. - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think the problem is me not talking. What makes you so sure I would have "learnt" something? Where is Betty? She was notified of this and yet where is she? You are here which is strange since the last instance of you coming to this page was December 19th of last year. I guess you just woke up this morning, stretched, yawned, scratched yourself and then decided to pop on over to a page you had not visited in four months and just happened to defend your good friend Betty. But I am just paranoid. You aren't in any way blindly defending Betty. You didn't discover this thread by keeping an eye on your friends talk page. I'm sure it is all just a big coincidence. Helpsome (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Helpsome, I am sorry you feel this way, but if you ask the question on the article talk page it will be answered. I can't do any more than to advise you to do that. If you won't ask, then you won't learn what the reason behind it was. What have you got to lose? - SchroCat (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't need to ask Betty's permission to edit her pet article. Even though you like to pretend you are just being a friendly policy wonk, I have read BRD. It says "BRD is not a policy". It also says "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." It also says "BRD is not for reverting changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect your preferred version or ideas". My edits were in good faith and you and Betty blindly revert them to protect her preferred version. So I'm pretty sure you and Betty tag-team reverting me are in violation of BRD not me. Helpsome (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Right, but WP:CONSENSUS is one of the 5 pillars, and WP:BRD merely makes consensus easier to understand - yet, lo and behold, you're having issues. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't need to ask Betty's permission to edit her pet article. Even though you like to pretend you are just being a friendly policy wonk, I have read BRD. It says "BRD is not a policy". It also says "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." It also says "BRD is not for reverting changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect your preferred version or ideas". My edits were in good faith and you and Betty blindly revert them to protect her preferred version. So I'm pretty sure you and Betty tag-team reverting me are in violation of BRD not me. Helpsome (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- That's fine: ignore everything you've been advised by others and just do what you want. If you won't listen to the good advice of "discuss, don't war", then you will probably find yourself on the end of a 3RR warning before long. As for "you and Betty blindly revert them to protect her preferred version": you have not bothered to ask the question to find out, have you? I'm wondering why you won't ask the very simple question. - SchroCat (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I just quoted the non-policy to you and outlined how you are in violation of it and that means I am ignoring everything I have been advised to do and just doing whatever I want? Why won't you clarify whether or not you are solely here due to your friendship with Betty? Helpsome (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I have not violated anything. If you will not open a new discussion on the talk page, or join in the ongoing discussion there, then there is little more help that can be offered. Advice has been given. If you wish to ignore it and carry on your own path, that is your concern. - SchroCat (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- In the kindest way I can say this: bull. You have blindly reverted to Betty's favored version while admitting you didn't even know why she reverted me in the first place. Then you backpedaled and tried to make it look like the reason was that there were too many references as if there is a policy on only having one reference per statement. You even claimed in the edit summary that you were going along with the thread here but that required you to come back here and edit your statement to make your edit summary true. You were the first person to show up to respond to this compaint and you did it literally two minutes after I posted. You must really watch her talk page like a hawk. Helpsome (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I have not violated anything. If you will not open a new discussion on the talk page, or join in the ongoing discussion there, then there is little more help that can be offered. Advice has been given. If you wish to ignore it and carry on your own path, that is your concern. - SchroCat (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I just quoted the non-policy to you and outlined how you are in violation of it and that means I am ignoring everything I have been advised to do and just doing whatever I want? Why won't you clarify whether or not you are solely here due to your friendship with Betty? Helpsome (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Helpsome, I'm going to withdraw from this because it's just going nowhere and you are becoming less logical and more paranoid with each posting. You have little grasp of good faith, are making jumps of logic that are, quite frankly, ridiculous and you have not done the one thing that may give you an answer, which is to ask the question on the article talk page. I have no doubt you'll come back with some other twisted interpretation of other people's motives, but I am afraid you are barking up the wrong tree in attacking me. For the last time, I'll advise you go to the article talk page, which is the right place to discuss your question. - SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Uninvolved observation: There's a dicussion on at least one of the talk pages that Betty is participating in. I may have missed it, but I haven't see you (Helpsome) participate, yet. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- The masses are generally hysterical. It's a good thing the judicial system isn't a function of the masses, else we'd have anarchy and chaos. Helpsome is correct and Betty is OWNing the article. 134.241.58.251 (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- She started that discussion after I filed this complaint and since she seems to be arguing with everyone over there so what would be the point? Helpsome (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't want anyone to be blocked I just want Betty to release the hold she has on articles and allow others to edit without her just reverting it. Getting consensus is impossible. Look at the talk page right now. Betty just replies to everyone and tells them they are wrong. How would it ever be possible to create consensus with someone who owns an article and doesn't allow others to edit? Helpsome (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I have to say as an uninvolved user I was quite surprised at how quickly Betty Logan jumped to lash out at me when I made comment that was merely answering her RfC question and wasn't even taking a stance on whether or not Tobey Maguire, in particular, should be included. I don't have a dog in this hunt but that kind of response to outside comment does not help promote constructive and civil dialogue. AgneCheese/Wine 20:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment As an uninvolved user, may I ask something? Why you have so few comments on talk page, Helpsome? And why is Betty Logan not writing anything here? Just curious. --Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Simply because I don't see what there is for me to discuss. Helpsome has edited the page on four occasions prior to this dispute and I did not interfere with those edits in any way. In fact if you go through my edits, apart from some restructuring which was agreed upon in an RFC, they are nearly all reverts (exclusively unsourced additions, additions sourced to facebook, blogs etc, unexplained removal of validly sourced entries). I have probably reverted more times on the vegan and vegetarian list than all other Wikipedia articles put together, but that's more of a symptom of the topic area. I edit a lot of snooker and film articles too, and I have never run into the level of poor editing I encounter on these two vegetarian lists. Ultimately what this comes down to is that I disagreed with the interpretation of the sources Helpsome provided and reverted him twice, and he ran off to report me for "ownership issues". It's rather telling that he came here first rather than the talk page. Crucially he hasn't supplied a list of edits showing my "ownership" issues, and I can't really refute an allegation. Betty Logan (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Saying you haven't reverted any of my edits until now is just a lie. You did on List of vegetarians a few months back and even threatened to block me back then. You just admitted that most of you work on these two articles is reverting other people. You want a list of edits showing "ownership" ok. Here is you unilaterally deciding that WTF with Marc Maron isn't a valid reference. Here is you deciding that an interview with the subject isn't a valid reference. Here is you deciding that About.com isn't a valid reference. Here is you having an edit war about using dead references. Here is you actually reverting someone who changed Paris Hilton's entry to say "socialite" instead of your prefered "appeared in a sex tape". But sure you don't show any signs of ownership at all. Helpsome (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Erm, about.com isn't reliable in 9 times out of ten. The Blum video may have been a copyvio (and should rightfully have been removed unless shown otherwise). I'd question a source titled WTF too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Also, Youtube isn't reliable either as per WP:NOYT, and WP:DEADREF makes it perfectly clear we don't delete citations just because they have died, since a search through archives may locate replacements. As for Paris Hilton, well, what does she do exactly? "Socialising" is a polite way of putting it... Maybe one or two of those may turn out to be reliable, but they are all incredibly weak sources at the end of the day. I made a judgment call. If someone challenges me over a source I take it to RS/N. Ownership is essentially not permitting anyone to make edits, which is not true. Betty Logan (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Saying you haven't reverted any of my edits until now is just a lie. You did on List of vegetarians a few months back and even threatened to block me back then. You just admitted that most of you work on these two articles is reverting other people. You want a list of edits showing "ownership" ok. Here is you unilaterally deciding that WTF with Marc Maron isn't a valid reference. Here is you deciding that an interview with the subject isn't a valid reference. Here is you deciding that About.com isn't a valid reference. Here is you having an edit war about using dead references. Here is you actually reverting someone who changed Paris Hilton's entry to say "socialite" instead of your prefered "appeared in a sex tape". But sure you don't show any signs of ownership at all. Helpsome (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see any evidence of ownership. I do see edit warring by both editors. Betty has not violated WP:3RR on either article, but Helpsome has. Other than the edit warring, which belongs, if anywhere at WP:ANEW, I don't see any administrative action required. (I also don't see any "lashing out" by Betty. In my experience, she can be a strong and blunt editor, but she's not uncivil.)--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I was sharper than what I should have been with Agne, but I was cheesed off by then so he got the brunt of it, and for that I apologize. There was very little edit-warring in reality. I reverted twice with comprehensive edit summaries and then started the RFC, which is par for the course for me when it becomes clear the situation cannot be resolved through edit summary reasoning. The third revert, and the one that precipitated Helpsome violating 3RR was due to an unrelated misunderstanding: the article used to be a "List of vegans by nationality", but has been restructured over the last few months, and we lost the nationality distinction when we ordered it alphabetically. Since this wasn't clear to him I decided it would be unfair to get someone blocked based on what was a genuine misunderstanding, and I added the clarification that the countries are explicitly related to nationality. Betty Logan (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Solution Idea
As an uninvolved user, I have a solution offer. You can create an extra table of list for people who claim to be vegan but not strictly hold to it. Just an idea to be helpful to both sides.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Agree, perhaps under the List of vegans#Disputed table?Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Disputed by whom, though? We can't have contributors engaging in WP:OR to dispute whether someone is vegan. I'm not sure that a cited source saying that "X claims to be vegan but isn't" is particularly beneficial either. Anyway, this belongs on the talk page, not here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- It is disputed by Tobey Maguire, who once declared that he is "not technically vegan". Would you advocate adding him to a list of gays without explicit acknowledgment from the subject himself? Betty Logan (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- WP:BLPVEG?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't advocate adding anyone to a 'list of gays', full stop. Fortunately, we at least have the decency to insist on self-identification regarding sexual orientation, rather than engaging in WP:OR to decide who goes on a list, which is what you seemed to be advocating in the RFC you started earlier [5]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- There has been no evidence of WP:OR in the actual list article content, which is what the policy forbids. There is no prohibition for editors using their collective and independent thoughts and analysis on the talk pages to determine what is presented in the article and how it is presented and whether or not the source's claims are actually valid. WP:RS / WP:SPS / WP:V. You could find a reliable source published where I said I am the President of Pendoomistan, but that doesnt automatically validate an insistence that my name must be included on the List of Presidents of Pendoomistan.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- It is disputed by Tobey Maguire, who once declared that he is "not technically vegan". Would you advocate adding him to a list of gays without explicit acknowledgment from the subject himself? Betty Logan (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Disputed by whom, though? We can't have contributors engaging in WP:OR to dispute whether someone is vegan. I'm not sure that a cited source saying that "X claims to be vegan but isn't" is particularly beneficial either. Anyway, this belongs on the talk page, not here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
This is the dumbest argument
Seriously, just topic ban both of them from anything vegan related and call it a day. Jtrainor (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- I assume that means neither of us can edit vegan articles. I'll take it if it means she won't get to control those articles anymore. No complaints from me. Ban us both. Helpsome (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Topic ban is a Good Idea. Or a voluntary four-week vacation by each party. I have done this voluntarily myself, and I felt much better on a psychological basis when I finally went back to editing. How about taking a breather, all interested people? GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, why should I be topic banned when no actual evidence of ownership has been brought forward? Which edits of mine do you think display a systematic ownership of the article, as opposed to just being a valid interpretation of sourcing policy? I urge Bbb23 to reclose this unless an uninvolved admin is actually prepared to go through my edits and put together a case for me to answer to, because there really is nothing for me to defend myself from so far. I hope I'm not on the end of red-link prejudice here. The fact that Helpsome above has highlighted my reverts of additions sourced to About.com and Youtube, and that he thinks it is ok to removed dead references without attempting to replace them through archives should send out warning signs that he does not have a firm grasp on Wikipedia's sourcing policy. Betty Logan (talk) 05:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- I really think I need to step in here. I might be no admin but I think just because a source violates some copyrights and says "WTF" doesn't mean it can't be qualified as a reliable source. A video is always a clear proof no matter what. I'm not saying whether Toby Maguire is a vegan or not. Second of all Betty Logan you can't say that somebody needs to discuss with you before editing a page. Helpsome is correctly saying that it seems like you think you own the article. If there is an edit or edit war both of you have have equally participated in it. Instead of saying that someone should read the rules before editing you need to concentrate on the discussion. If they have committed some mistake then should e just politely informed. Your behaviour has also been disputive with other editors too and I think you need to improve your own first before telling others to improve theirs. 07:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KahnJohn27 (talk • contribs)
- It is not really your place to comment on another editor's conduct when you were recently warned about threatening behavior and harrassment of an editor at the Film project by an admin. I filed an RFC to get an independent opinion, which is what you should have done on the film articles when you kept reverting User:BattleshipMan and User:Darkwarriorblake (a dispute which I only ever participated in at discussion level after they brought the issue to the Film project). Also, we would all love to hear about these ownership issues you encountered from me when I never actively reverted an edit of yours. Betty Logan (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Kahn, if you seriously think linking to a copyright violation is within our policies and guidelines then you need to read again (here too). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- It is not really your place to comment on another editor's conduct when you were recently warned about threatening behavior and harrassment of an editor at the Film project by an admin. I filed an RFC to get an independent opinion, which is what you should have done on the film articles when you kept reverting User:BattleshipMan and User:Darkwarriorblake (a dispute which I only ever participated in at discussion level after they brought the issue to the Film project). Also, we would all love to hear about these ownership issues you encountered from me when I never actively reverted an edit of yours. Betty Logan (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- I really think I need to step in here. I might be no admin but I think just because a source violates some copyrights and says "WTF" doesn't mean it can't be qualified as a reliable source. A video is always a clear proof no matter what. I'm not saying whether Toby Maguire is a vegan or not. Second of all Betty Logan you can't say that somebody needs to discuss with you before editing a page. Helpsome is correctly saying that it seems like you think you own the article. If there is an edit or edit war both of you have have equally participated in it. Instead of saying that someone should read the rules before editing you need to concentrate on the discussion. If they have committed some mistake then should e just politely informed. Your behaviour has also been disputive with other editors too and I think you need to improve your own first before telling others to improve theirs. 07:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KahnJohn27 (talk • contribs)
- Well, why should I be topic banned when no actual evidence of ownership has been brought forward? Which edits of mine do you think display a systematic ownership of the article, as opposed to just being a valid interpretation of sourcing policy? I urge Bbb23 to reclose this unless an uninvolved admin is actually prepared to go through my edits and put together a case for me to answer to, because there really is nothing for me to defend myself from so far. I hope I'm not on the end of red-link prejudice here. The fact that Helpsome above has highlighted my reverts of additions sourced to About.com and Youtube, and that he thinks it is ok to removed dead references without attempting to replace them through archives should send out warning signs that he does not have a firm grasp on Wikipedia's sourcing policy. Betty Logan (talk) 05:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Topic ban is a Good Idea. Or a voluntary four-week vacation by each party. I have done this voluntarily myself, and I felt much better on a psychological basis when I finally went back to editing. How about taking a breather, all interested people? GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. Why Jtrainor feels the need to edit Wikipedia once every four months to make unhelpful comments is much more concerning than the current topic. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Request that this support is struck – This is a "revenge" vote since I have have started an RFC to resolve an issue related to this editor's actions at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts, so it is not impartial. Betty Logan (talk) 06:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Betty's edits on List of vegans
This is one of the articles I have been accused of ownership of. I am going to list all the diffs of every single one my edits from the last six months, and before any editor calls for me to be topic banned I would like them to sign their signatures next to the edits where they feel I displayed "ownership" as opposed to a valid interpretation of policy and guidelines. Once we have identified the edits where I have a case to answer, we will examine the edit more closely to determine whether it was an issue of ownership or whether it was in the spirit of collegiate, policy observing editing. This is a complete list, so there are some uneventful edits where I simply put names in the correct order etc, but I feel they are important to include to give a full picture of my activity. It's also worth noting I made 26 in total, out of a total of 135 edits: Betty Logan (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- [6]
- [7]
- [8]
- [9]
- [10]
- [11]
- [12]
- [13] StAnselm (talk)
- [14]
- [15]
- [16]
- [17]
- [18]
- [19]
- [20]
- [21]
- [22]
- [23]
- [24]
- [25]
- [26] StAnselm (talk)
- [27]
- [28]
- [29]
- [30]
- [31]
- Comment: I clicked on a random edit, and it was very close to ownership, and certainly below par. You reverted another editor without giving a reason. The editor had removed a dubious entry (based on a translation from another language, and I'm immediately wondering whether the correct translation is "vegan" or "vegetarian"). Why didn't you provide a reason? Why didn't you start a discussion on the talk page? Sertab Erener isn't listed as a vegan on her wikipedia article - why did you restore her to the list? Reading the discussion, I thought that topic banning you sounded over the top, but now I'm warming to the idea. StAnselm (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, that doesn't look good. The ref used there is below par too; gazetehayat is not used anywhere else on Wikipedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- In that regard, but leaving the question of it being a reliable source apart: I had a look at the Turkish article that it was taken from, and she spoke about "vegetarian and vegan" as a lifestyle to follow, not necessarily for herself, but that her intentions go in that direction.....Only if you took a look at the title would you get the idea that she was (already) vegan herself. Lectonar (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- (source 8) I do always try to check translated sources when they are added. Google translator describes veganism as a "higher order of vegetarianism" and mentions other aspects of vegansism in that article, so the source seems to do what it says on the tin. I did once challenge the use of foreign language sources since I couldn't assess them properly, and was chastised by an admin (way back in 2010) that if I didn't have a credible reason for doubting their authenticity other than the fact it was a foreign language source, then I did not have a basis for removing them. The editor provided no alternative proof for negating the claim, nor did they say the source did not back up the claim. If the editor had disputed the edit then it would have progressed to the talk page as they usually do in these cases. Out of interest, if someone had come along and added that entry and I had removed it in that edit, would you have been sanctioning a ban then? The bottom line is that we had a source that I couldn't say for sure didn't back up what it claimed, so I had two options: leave it off or add it back on, and I generally just restore sourced content if the source itself isn't questioned. For the record I would more than happily remove the foreign language sources if that is what everyone would prefer. Betty Logan (talk) 09:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- The most obvious response is, why didn't you say this in your edit summaries? Why didn't you post a note like this on the talk page? StAnselm (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- It is a fault I do admit that I probably don't use the edit summaries enough. I spend a lot of time creating/editing templates and stat articles where there just isn't much conflict anyway, so I never really have cause to use them. Sometimes I try hard with them for a while and then it just tapers off, and you can probably see this from the edit history of the article, where I use edit summaries for a while and then I don't. Betty Logan (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Coupled with (Source 21) I can see it doesn't look great, but even though it's the same edit it is 5 months apart; I doubt I was aware of it at the time. Betty Logan (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I am satisfied with that acknowledgement, and I think Betty Logan will learn from this experience. I would oppose a topic ban, as a needless loss to the community. StAnselm (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, it does mean a lot, although in reality I would have just diverted my efforts in the event of a topic ban. Betty Logan (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Unsolicited advice ahead: lack of edit summaries contributes to an image of page ownership. For example, there are some folks in the area of military history that I feel exhibit borderline ownership behavior, and recently one of those editors reverted an IP's contribution without any explanation. I felt it crossed a line and I called them out for it on their talk page, and their response explained the (legitimate) reversion... but if they had just done so in the edit summary, then some micro-drama would have been avoided. That's what edit summaries are there for. There are nearly 100 watchers of List of vegans; the next time you edit the list you can imagine that some of those watchers might want to know what's going on. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, it does mean a lot, although in reality I would have just diverted my efforts in the event of a topic ban. Betty Logan (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I am satisfied with that acknowledgement, and I think Betty Logan will learn from this experience. I would oppose a topic ban, as a needless loss to the community. StAnselm (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Coupled with (Source 21) I can see it doesn't look great, but even though it's the same edit it is 5 months apart; I doubt I was aware of it at the time. Betty Logan (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- It is a fault I do admit that I probably don't use the edit summaries enough. I spend a lot of time creating/editing templates and stat articles where there just isn't much conflict anyway, so I never really have cause to use them. Sometimes I try hard with them for a while and then it just tapers off, and you can probably see this from the edit history of the article, where I use edit summaries for a while and then I don't. Betty Logan (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- The most obvious response is, why didn't you say this in your edit summaries? Why didn't you post a note like this on the talk page? StAnselm (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- (source 8) I do always try to check translated sources when they are added. Google translator describes veganism as a "higher order of vegetarianism" and mentions other aspects of vegansism in that article, so the source seems to do what it says on the tin. I did once challenge the use of foreign language sources since I couldn't assess them properly, and was chastised by an admin (way back in 2010) that if I didn't have a credible reason for doubting their authenticity other than the fact it was a foreign language source, then I did not have a basis for removing them. The editor provided no alternative proof for negating the claim, nor did they say the source did not back up the claim. If the editor had disputed the edit then it would have progressed to the talk page as they usually do in these cases. Out of interest, if someone had come along and added that entry and I had removed it in that edit, would you have been sanctioning a ban then? The bottom line is that we had a source that I couldn't say for sure didn't back up what it claimed, so I had two options: leave it off or add it back on, and I generally just restore sourced content if the source itself isn't questioned. For the record I would more than happily remove the foreign language sources if that is what everyone would prefer. Betty Logan (talk) 09:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Based on my clicks Betty needs to use edit summaries a bit more, but those I've looked at seem viable. Revert unexplained removals, revert additions with poor sources, etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with either of those edits. In a perfect world betty would investigate the source and provide a brief summary of her findings on a talk page or an edit summary, but I'm not going to fault her for that when the other editor's edit summary was no more informative than "not true". Anyway, the rest of this whole thread is just silly. What the OP needs to do is just go back down the road of dispute resolution, rather than trying to have an editor banned from a page because she consistently disagrees with him. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Please know that it is not your place to say what user has what kind of behavior the other user has when you have induldged in the same Betty Logan. Apart from that sorry I misread the policy of WP:LINKVIO. I'm sorry about that. But that does not change the fact that you have a real serious combative behavior. This can be seen from your statement "Apart from that if you really think that I really threatened MarnetteD then you should first have a hard proof. Apart from that I request Helpsome not to worry since her unfair block warning to you has already been noticed by many users. This is actual bullying. As I've said that I was only acting upon what I see. It was actually a violation of WP:CONSENSUS but as his behavior was in good faith I thought that I'm making a mistake reporting about him because his intention were always good. We can clearly see how disputive the behavior of Betty Logan is and anyway it is you being discussed here not me. Apart from that I'm not going to comment here further because I already have said whatever there is to say. I think rather than saying that he did this and he did that you should focus on improving your behaviour. KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.184.57 (talk)
- an observation: wikipedia has a big problem: edit conflicts. I see an edit conflict nearly in every article. the rules are too open for interpretation. wikipedia should not be edited by everyone. people should just upload info and source and comments, it must be up to admins to add it or not. (same like google translate). so many edit conflicts and endless debates are just stress for everyone and waste of energy and time.--85.103.120.170 (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is like a religion: you start off with a cult, move on to enlightenment and the spreading of knowledge, and then ultimately you will end up with the fanatics. Betty Logan (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: You should see BL's edits to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts and Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts. She edit-warred, claiming that the disclaimer allowing free editing of the page (which was being changed at that time) overrode WP:BRD. Then she didn't really delineate her proposal, when I asked "please just say delete articles X, Y, Z; add articles A, B, C" she called it overly bureaucratic pbp 14:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Purplebackpack89 is actually misrepresenting the situation. I have been the proactive editor in that discussion trying to resole the issue on the talk page. Here is the edit history of that page. I tried to remove some non core film articles on that page in full accordance with the update procedures at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded which state Be bold, though, and if something was added which seems obviously not able to stand as one of the 10,000, remove it, with discussion if necessary, assuming good faith always. Three of the editors reverted me a couple of times telling me to simply "discuss" it without providing any reasons for why they opposed the removal of the films. I found this rather strange, insisting on discussion for the sake of it, which was in direct contravention of the guidelines. I started a discussion on the talk page but the three editors ignored it, so I started an RFC about removing the films I though should be removed at Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Arts#Discussion. It should be pointed out that the RFC is going in my direction too, although they are on there saying they don't acknowledge the RFC. But as you can see I had never edited the page before, reverted a couple of times, but when it became clear there was a problem I took it to the discussion page. To be honest I don't see what this has to do with the vegetarian articles: I tried to edit the page, when it was clear the edits were a problem I took it to the talk page, and when it was ignored I started an RFC. I don't think this issue is relevant to the vegan one, but I wouldn't mind if some of you added to the RFC because it is dragging on a bit. Betty Logan (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Betty Logan's reverting at List of vegans has been a problem for over two years, and I know one new editor, User:Andomedium, stopped editing Wikipedia because of it. I'll offer just one diff to show the problem. Andomedium's first edit to the page was to add a name out of alphabetical order, which Betty Logan moved with the edit summary: "They don't teach the alphabet in schools anymore??" Andomedium ended up putting a lot of work into trying to fix the article, including making the ref formats consistent, all of which Betty Logan reverted. There's a similar attitude at List of vegetarians; this shows Betty Logan removing a name with the edit summary: "Put it in alphabetical order or don't bother."
I have no problem with a bit of ownership if the article is high quality or heading in that direction; I understand wanting to stop an article from deteriorating and on some pages reverting a lot is the only way to do that. But the situation at List of vegans is that people are being stopped from improving it, and it's not currently in a good state. For example, there are lots of notable names missing, the ref formats are inconsistent, and there are three sections, one called "active" (without indicating what that means), then one each for UK and US, which makes no sense. Betty Logan has maintained it in that transitional state (he is changing it from country-of-birth sections to no sections) since August 2012. It would be good if others could now be allowed to get it in shape. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's true it was a terrible edit, and I did apologise for it at the time, it was a moment of frustration at a stressful time in the article's development, and I haven't done it since I was asked not to in over a year. An admin had to step in because Slimvirgin was trying to remove all the citation templates under the cover of fabricated edit summaries: [32]. Admin User:kww had this to say: refusal to participate in dispute resolution and false edit summaries ... render SlimVirgin's edits highly problematic. I did try to take the issue to dispute resoultion but she refused to participate, so there you go. Also I don't agree I am keeping the article in a transtional state. It is in a transitional state because there is a consensus to transition it and all the work has been left to me. I don't mind, but it just takes time. This was the state it was in before it went into "transitional state": [33]. I disagreed with this direction for the article so I opened an RFC to remove the images from the tables, and there is a clear consensus to remove the images and sort the table alhphabetically]]. As a result I am merging the tabels and sorting: List of vegans. It is not finished yet, but it's been a big job. I have completed the List of vegetarians if anyone wants to see how the List of vegans will look. The problem everything takes so long is that Slimvirgin disrupts development at every stage she can. Despite the fact that there is a clear consensus to order the table alphabetically (every one of six neutral editors agreed with my proposal) she still won't accept the consensus: Talk:List_of_vegans#Active_list. I really don't know what to do when an admin refuses to accept the decision of six neutral editors. All I can is push on. There is an agreement to add section breaks to the table if it becomes too large, and I am happy to do that. Obvioysly, a clear consensus from an RFC is not proof of "ownership", and an admin fabricating edit summaries to cover up her removal of citation templates is, not least because they shouldn't have been removed, nevermind the dishonesty. Betty Logan (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- I could spend hours finding diffs to show that what you're saying is wrong, but there's no point. The point is twofold: first, that several people have been upset by your editing of that article for some time, and secondly, that it's not in a good state. If you'd managed to get it to FL quality (or at least improving) despite the upset, I wouldn't be complaining, but here we have a behaviour problem and a quality problem, so no one is benefiting. You've said elsewhere that you don't care about the article that much anyway, so please allow other people to help fix and maintain it. That's all that's being requested: that you relax your grip a little. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, there is one point in Betty Logan's post that is so absurd I have to correct and draw attention to it, because it illustrates the problem. He wrote of his maintaining the article in a transitional state regarding the subsections (which have looked odd for months): "The problem everything takes so long is that Slimvirgin disrupts development at every stage she can. Despite the fact that there is a clear consensus to order the table alphabetically (every one of six neutral editors agreed with my proposal) she still won't accept the consensus ..." Betty Logan started changing the sections in August last year and still hasn't finished. I didn't edit the article or talk page from 20 July 2012 to 23 April 2013. Yet it is my fault the article is in poor shape because I am disrupting development at every stage. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- "Relaxing" my "grip" to you essentially means removal of citation templates, and abandoning the consensus I obtained from the RFC to order the table alphabetically. I am not going to back down on that when I have the backing of the community for that particular development. I am also not going to back down in regards to source vetting. When we had this dispute last year, I was forced into taking many of yours to the RS/N where they were ruled not reliable. This discussion is to determine whether I have an ownership issue. Actually, the only clear evidence of ownership was when I reverted some of the non-alphabetic additions, since that was not in accordance with any guideline or policy, and I have not done that since I was asked to stop over a year ago. Every other action on there I take in accordance with the consensus from the RFC and verifiability guidelines:
- There was a consensus to remove images from the table, so I removed them.
- There is a consensus to merge the tables and order the list alphabetically, and I am undertaking that. The trouble is I only get a large chunck of time off in the summer, so while I got List of vegetarians merged I didn't complete List of vegans. But the merge will be completed this summer if it isn't completed by then.
- I have no problem with your suggestion to add sections breaks to the table. But they will just be section breaks, not a compeletely different ordering section contrary to the one agreed at the RFC.
- The guidelines do not permit the wholesale removal of citation templates, so I will revert you every time you try to remove them. Most articles have them, and it encourages editors to include the correct bibilographic details.
- If an entry is added that I do not consider reliably sourced, I will revert the edit. I carry out a lot of assessment and have fairly good judgment when it comes to assessing sources. It's worth noting that whenever I do take a source to RS/N to question it my instincts are proven right 9 times out of 10. However, if this really is a problem, I will agree to move each one I feel is inappropriate to the talk page, and someone else can check them besides me.
- If someone removes a sourced entry without good cause, then I will restore it. I simply don't think it is appropriate to remove sourced content, and the onus is on the remover to give a valid reason why the source is incorrect or not reliable, if the entry really is to be removed.
- The only real objection I see is to how I vet the sources, but that is simply my interpretation of sourcing policy. I do object to the insinuation that undertaking development that an RFC delivered consensus for is "ownership" though. Even if someone unilaterally undertakes development it is is not ownership if it clearly adheres to a consensus from an RFC. The RFC is above; does anyone feel that my development of the article has gone beyond the remit of what was agreed? Betty Logan (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- "Relaxing" my "grip" to you essentially means removal of citation templates, and abandoning the consensus I obtained from the RFC to order the table alphabetically. I am not going to back down on that when I have the backing of the community for that particular development. I am also not going to back down in regards to source vetting. When we had this dispute last year, I was forced into taking many of yours to the RS/N where they were ruled not reliable. This discussion is to determine whether I have an ownership issue. Actually, the only clear evidence of ownership was when I reverted some of the non-alphabetic additions, since that was not in accordance with any guideline or policy, and I have not done that since I was asked to stop over a year ago. Every other action on there I take in accordance with the consensus from the RFC and verifiability guidelines:
Break
- I also want to draw attention to the focus in List of vegetarians on images of women wearing little clothing. I raised the issue on the talk page here, pointing out that of the 13 images of women in the article, 3 are of "Playmates," 1 is an erotic dancer/porn star, and 1 is a glamour model, meaning that 5 out of 13 are women known for taking off their clothes (it was six until Pamela Anderson, photographed in a bikini, was moved by Betty Logan to List of vegans). Part of Betty Logan's response to my post was: "And if we can show a good looking guy with huge muscles or a pretty woman with huge jugs then why not?" [34] That kind of response really isn't acceptable. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is getting plain childish now. Yes there is a discussion about the images on the article. And no, I have never actually prevented editors from adding images, or replacing images if it extended the demographic range of the gallery. My comment has been unfairly taken out of context, and yes, I see no problem with having a muscular guy and a woman with huge jugs among the images any more than there is of having a photo of a statue of a dead philosopher. A female academic has no more right to be in the gallery than a porn star. Pamela Anderson's photo was part of PETA campaign where they remodelled her Baywatch bikini out of vegetables. This is a vegetarianism article, after all. To be honest I don't see how this relates to an ownership discussion. Does anyone see me in that discussion saying "you can't have this image, we're having this oen instead"? So far you have dragged up a couple of unacceptable edits that I apologised for last year and promised no to do it again; the reason you had to go back a year is because the issue was reolved then and I kept my word not to fo it. You have brought up my revelopment of the lists which I obtained a consensus for in an RFC, and no evidence has been put forward of me deviating form that consensus. Now you you are claiming that I have ownership issues because there was a photo of Pamela Anderson in a bikini as part of a PETA campaign on the list. In fact, if anyone is summoned the will to be still following this witch hunt, please go over to the discussion yourself. If the view is that I am being unreasonable in that discussion I will drop it and give her complete control over the images. Betty Logan (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- If your aim is to drive people away from Wikipedia, please do continue talking about "women with huge jugs." SlimVirgin [[User_talk:Sl
imVirgin|(talk)]] 02:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't particularly welcome your description of an erotic dancer as a "woman that takes her clothes off". It's a discipline, and she is a skilled professional. There is a sparse dress code, but your comment was derogatory. Women who work in erotic entertainment, glamor modelling and the sex industry don't deserve the stigma attached to those professions, and they certainly shouldn't be getting judged on Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Though I do not know the particular circumstances that surrounded the revert, this particular does look an aweful lot like ownership to me. My 2 cents if it is worth anything. No comment on any of the other revisions. I've not really looked at all of them. Zell Faze (talk) 02:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, but there is a background there you need to be aware of. The table is slightly mis-labelled, because we used to document what people were notable for when it was just a list. If you go through that chart, it doesn't really list the "occupation" in most cases, and should probably be changed to "notability". If you google "Paris Hilton"+"socialite" and "Paris Hilton"+"sex tape", it is clear she is mostly notable for appearing a sex tape. However, when it was reverted back to socialite again I left it in view of the new table heading, but in truth many of those "occupation" entries need to be changed. I prefer the old notability style, since we now have Hitler down as a "politician". Betty Logan (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: The problem isn't Betty Logan, who in my opinion is a fine editor with a proven track record of improving Wikipedia. The problem is that the list of vegans attracts problem editors, and the list itself isn't very encyclopedic and is best handled as a category. If Betty made some mistakes or didn't use an edit summary, I'm sure she'll make an effort to improve, but she isn't the problem here. Viriditas (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- With respect, Viriditas, if you look through his edits going right back to the beginning, they're really problematic. The article doesn't attract problem editors; it attracts new editors, as these lists often do because they're entry level. New editors see a name or source missing and feel they can add it without too much difficulty, except here they can't because Betty Logan almost always reverts, and is invariably abusive when challenged. And his response about "women with huge jugs" in reply to a concern about the preponderance of Playmates/porn stars isn't something that any female Wikipedian should have to put up with. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Viriditas and I continued discussing sexism on Wikipedia here for anyone who's interested. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not going to get back into this dispute for various reasons (and you and I have argued about this enough so there's no need to start that up again), but I will offer some advice to Betty instead: start a new thread on the list talk page and make your concerns known. Then, take this list off your watchlist and find something else to do. If it doesn't improve in a year, revisit your old concerns and address them again. I will say, SlimVirgin, that I feel you are misrepresenting Betty Logan to score a few points, and I find that unfortunate. Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- I took the page off my watchlist for almost a year, from around July 2012 to April 2013. When I looked again it had deteriorated, because Betty Logan had reverted Andomedium's work making the ref formats consistent (and it was a lot of work, reverted without discussion three months after he did it). Some editors would like to take the article to FL status. We shouldn't have to keep taking the page off our watchlists because of one editor. His edits speak for themselves if any of you take the time to go through them, and his behaviour is considerably worse than the editor who brought this complaint realized.
More to the point now, I'm disappointed that his "huge jugs" comment is allowed to stand as though it doesn't matter. That is very discouraging. That's all I have to say about this. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Do the references here look any more consistent than how how they are now? All entries that were added in the meantime were put back by me, so no information was lost despite the revert. This was just part of your ongoing campaign to eliminate citation templates from articles. The one editor who was most committed to this article User:Muleattack actually quit because of you ignoring his concerns, conveniently hidden by you ratcheting up the archiving process. Betty Logan (talk) 05:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- I took the page off my watchlist for almost a year, from around July 2012 to April 2013. When I looked again it had deteriorated, because Betty Logan had reverted Andomedium's work making the ref formats consistent (and it was a lot of work, reverted without discussion three months after he did it). Some editors would like to take the article to FL status. We shouldn't have to keep taking the page off our watchlists because of one editor. His edits speak for themselves if any of you take the time to go through them, and his behaviour is considerably worse than the editor who brought this complaint realized.
- A few points:
- Slim clearly has an issue with me, and the fact she keeps referring to me as "he" is actually very derogatory and she should have been pulled up on it by now. I have never actually identified myself as male or female so she has no basis for applying this descriptor, but since my name is of female gender I can only assume it is an attempt to disparage me. If you are unsure of someone's gender then the gender neutral descriptor "they" is available to use. Someone having a problem with an editor, does not mean the editor is the problem.
- Admin intervention has been required precisely once on the List of vegans, and it was taken against Slim at my behest. Whether she was wronged, misunderstood or out of order are irrelevant because the issue is done and dusted, but she has an axe to grind clearly. She is far from impartial in judging my actions.
- I hold my hands up to OWN in respect to the non-alphabetic reverts I made a year ago. Usually I just sorted non-alphabetic additions, but got cheesed off with editors just not bothering, so I reverted a few. And admin called me out on it and I promised not to do it again, and I haven't. That's why Slim has had to go back a year to dig an example out. This behavior clearly approached OWN since I set my own criteria for editing the article. That is basically what OWN is. Restoring removals of unsouced content, or removing poorly sourced or unsourced names is an application of policy.
- I am slightly perturbed at my words at Talk:List_of_vegetarians#Images of women being grossly taken out of context. My argument is for a representative visual demographic, and I think this is clear from the discussion. This is what always happens when Slim joins a discussion, and it is symptomatic across all animal rights articles where she is involved. She undermines, takes things out of context and tries to manipulate. I stand by all my points at that discussion about the images of women by the way. Betty Logan (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Sideshow collapsed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
There has been no admin intervention at List of vegans that I know of. Last year you persuaded an admin (Kww) to revert work that Andromedium and I had done there, and this year another (Crisco 1492) helped you revert Helpsome's edits, but they were acting as editors. Someone having the tools doesn't mean everything they do is admin intervention.
You asked why I refer to you as he. First, Betty Logan is a character from a film, and lots of editors choose names not related to their real lives, so I judge nothing by a user name. But your contribs made me assume you're male (particularly restoring the images in Bikini waxing, the focus on nude scenes of actresses, the porn stars in List of vegetarians, the "huge jugs" remark). And also the comments you made at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WalterMitty when you were accused of editing as WalterMitty (another character from book and film) and Melody Perkins (name of an actress). But I can use gender-neutral language in future to avoid the issue. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- With due respect Slim, you are being selective and focusing on edits with regards to female sexuality, yet you overlook my edits on male sexuality, for instance in which I voice my support for an image of a human penis at the Penis article. None of these edits have been troublesome: it would be quite absurd to not have images showing the different styles at the bikini waxing article; I don't think I even added them, I just restored them when they were removed. I don't have a problem with naked men and women, vaginas and penises, or even sexual imagery being present on Wikipedia, provided it is informative. And like I said, I have huge edit overlaps with other editors, since sometimes people I know from other areas pop up on articles that are usually outside their normal editing ranges, and I have no control over that, and sometimes I do the same back; I guess people just get curious about each other. The problem isn't edit overlaps, the problem is repetive problematic behavior within those overlaps, especially if someone is socking to evade an editing block to repeat those edits. Now, this is a discussion to address ownership, not whether I restore a bikini wax photo to a page, or whether I was involved in an SPI (something from three years ago where the editor who made the allegation was subsequently blocked for socking himself!); I have been accused of being other editors since then and no doubt will again since it is par for the course for regular editors, but if you honestly think I am socking file an SPI and request a user check, you have my blessing to do that. If you think the images I have added to articles are inappropriate then maybe there should be a separate discussion for that, because this is a discussion about whether my edits in one particular area constitute ownership. Betty Logan (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know which editor you mean who was subsequently blocked for socking. The SPI against you was opened by Paul McDermott, previously TheRetroGuy, who's still editing. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- I was referring to User:Beyond My Ken, who is currently embroiled in yet another edit war. Betty Logan (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know which editor you mean who was subsequently blocked for socking. The SPI against you was opened by Paul McDermott, previously TheRetroGuy, who's still editing. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- SlimVirgin, no one had to persuade me to revert your edits. At the time it was clear to me that you had taken ownership of the article and were not permitting good faith edits by anyone that disagreed with you.—Kww(talk) 07:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Then with respect you misread the article's history. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
State of development on the vegatarian and vegan articles
It's pretty obvious there is a lot of bad blood between Slimvirgin and myself over the development of these two articles, and that some of my edit summaries have been left wanting, and that I apply the verifiability guidelines rigoroulsy, but the real question I suppose is whether my participation has hindered or aided development. Here is the course of development (I am going to leave out all the disputes because I just want to plot the course of development on these articles):
- January 2003 – List of vegetarians is created
- June 2004 – List of vegans is created
- I occasionally edit them as an IP starting in 2007
- January 2009 – The state of List of vegetarians before my first registered edit.
- April 2009 – The state of List of vegetarians after undertaking sourcing mission.
- March 2010 – The state of List of vegans before my first registered edit.
- September 2011 – User:Muleattack suggests making the table sortable: Talk:List_of_vegans/Archive_2#Can we make this sortable?. Potential soultions put forward by Muleattack, Slimvirgin and myself: Talk:List of vegans/Temp. We were all on the same page up to this point.
- April 2012 – A major difference in opinion over the development of the article: Talk:List of vegans/Archive 2. Nothing is really agreed up upon apart from the removal of a color coding template. A total breakdown in communications between two parties: User:Muleattack & me on one side, Slim & User:Andomedium on the other.
- July 2012 – The list had evolved to this since the dispute, and Talk:List of vegans#RfC: Proposals for table format established that the list should be sorted alphabetically (as opposed to by nationality) and the images should be removed from the tables.
- April 2013 - List of vegetarians and List of vegans as they are today. A table still needs to be merged in the List of vegans, but that will be completed this summer at the latest.
- Contribution histories: [36] and [37].
Now, these articles were around for years before I became involved, and have come on substantially in the three or four years that I have been involved with them. I don't think it is fair to claim I have "held up" development, and while I am not going to say all the improvemnets were down to me (there are editors who have put in just as much work and possibly more) I think I have been a catalyst to some extent, if you compare the 3/4 years prior to my involvement to the 3/4 years since. It's a very simple question really: is the community happy with the trajectory of development on these articles or is my stewardship really harming this article? Yes, I revert a ton of edits because frankly they do not benefit the article (roughly a 20% rate — the revert rate on the article is more like 50% because other editors beat me to it), while many others I allow through. I am more than capable of developing articles to a high standard (my most recent GA success was Gone with the Wind (Before and After, and while I am not a regular list developer I have got one to FL standard and that was List of highest-grossing films (Before and Today). Now, as someone pointed out above these articles are watched by plenty of editors, but crucially it is only seems to be new editors (besides Slim who I have history with) that ever have a problem with my reverts, so really, whose judgment would you rather rely on? If the community is confident that these articles will continue to evolve while maintaining neutrality and an acceptable standard of sourcing then yeah just topic ban me and I will restrict myself to other areas, otherwise you should take a hands off approach and just let me exercise my judgment. If there is a genuine dispute then that is what RS/N and RFCs are for, and I do use them frequently in regards to these articles, so there is plenty of evidence of me seeking community opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 10:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Lets get back to the point of the original ANI shall we...?
Right, having spent the last 15/20 minutes of my life reading through this it is clear to me on 2 points.
- No way is Betty Logan saying or implying that she owns any article. Granted, she could do with perhaps using Edit Summaries a bit more...but when do we all use an Edit Summary for EVERY edit/change/revert?
- Secondly, It is quite clear to me that SlimVirgin has some issue with Betty Logan because he/she/they have gone back over a year to bring up "evidence" against Betty Logan which quite frankly bears no relation on the current ANI. I am of the opinion that unless it is evidence of repeated behaviour in a short period of time, then past indiscretions should not be used as evidence for a current discussion.
When an editor works hard on articles and makes constructive changes and pointers to other editors, then they have immediately "put their head above the parapet" for people to make pot shots at. Betty Logan as far as I see does nothing but make constructive edits to pages left, right and centre. She is a warm, welcoming editor with a good sense of humour and an editor who is not afraid to ask for outside help when it comes to resolving disputes. The fact that SlimVirgin is trying to bring up old indiscretions, which we are all have some of, just shows how much she does not like Betty Logan and how long he/she/they hold grudges. Especially when they take comments - such as the huge jugs comment - completely out of context in an attempt to sway other editors to their way of thinking which reeks of Meat!!. That's my 2 pence. I am available for comment. -- MisterShiney ✉ 21:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- I have to say that SlimVirgin accusing others of having article ownership problems would appear to be a WP:KETTLE violation.—Kww(talk) 07:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Update: Slim and I are making some headway. The biggest problem for her is how I remove entries when I feel the sourcing is not adequate, and I generally do feel the sourcing is sub-standard across both articles, but we have proposed a system for this. From now on I will remove all entries I am dissatisfied with to the talk page, and if we can't address the problems we'll take them to RS/N where we will both abide by the outcome. I've invited Helpsome to the discussion to see if they would be ok with the system. Slim and I are never going to agree on much, but if we can find an approach for resolving these conflicts then that will take the heat out of our collaboration. For her part she has agreed to retain the alphabetical ordering of the list, and there is an RFC open in regards to the selection of the images. Betty Logan (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Uninvolved Observer here: I applaud you, Betty, and Slim for trying to work out your differences. Having read through most of this dispute (hey, it's a slow day), I would not have expected this to happen as there was a lot of mutual animosity. Kudos for cooling off and working to improve the Pages. 63.143.218.107 (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Help: move fail
I performed this move but the talk page did not move as it normally does. I'm thinking its a permission thing; could an admin (try to) move the associated talk page? NE Ent 14:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- It was FMPP'ed. I moved it. Please check what you want to do with the archives. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 16:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I think someone uninvolved needs to step in and close this. It is pretty obvious that this is probably closing as "no consensus", and it cannot be that such an important thing would default to "keep". There obviously needs to be a larger discussion on how to categorize people. There are clear advantages to "gendering" these articles, I won't deny that--there are reasons pertaining to doing research on gender, for instance, as in someone might want to know what women writers were active (but really, those should intersect with geography and gender, for instance). "Woman writers from the middle ages", for instance, or "Women writers from Japan" can be very useful. But to divide the larger, parent category in this way has raised a predictable shit storm (well, predictable to anyone with some common sense) that is dividing the community. I read in the CfD that, basically, the NYT and other media outlets and all the readers who go to Wikipedia from there, are dumb for not understanding the category system. Maybe, but it's hardly our mission to be snooty here. There is a clear appearance, found all over the internet, that this is an essentialist move that ghettoizes women writers, and one can't simply shrug off the arguments proposed there. And categorizing by gender (they do this in the German wiki, uselessly) begs the question of what to do if someone doesn't want to be gendered (in the way someone might not want to be categorized as Jewish or Catholic), or if someone is transgendered, or whatever--or we just don't know. Where do we put the Pearl Poet? I'm willing to bet money that he was a boy, but this is not a betting game.
In short, keeping the gendered categories is, at this moment, divisive and a lack of consensus should not default to keeping it that way. We need a larger discussion to determine how we're going to handle this, what the pros and cons are, what perceptions are, and whether it might not be smarter to allow double categorization and/or gendering only at the lower level categories. This CfD needs closing and the disruptive (good-faith, maybe, but nonetheless disruptive) categorization needs to be reverted. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- I've posted some relevant comments on User talk:Jimbo Wales. Not that that's where the discussion belongs, but meh. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- In a related discussion, Category:Male film directors now has two different CfD discussions on it; one that was opened a while ago, and the new one I assume created by the newspaper kerfuffle. I don't handle CfDs, and my own personal opinions on the matter preclude me from closing either one neutrally anyway, but I'm sure that having 2 CfDs isn't correce. Qwyrxian (talk)
- It's fine ... the older one (about a month old) is an actual delete and the more recent a general rename consistently discussion. NE Ent 21:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- In a related discussion, Category:Male film directors now has two different CfD discussions on it; one that was opened a while ago, and the new one I assume created by the newspaper kerfuffle. I don't handle CfDs, and my own personal opinions on the matter preclude me from closing either one neutrally anyway, but I'm sure that having 2 CfDs isn't correce. Qwyrxian (talk)
- The irony... we should create a category for media reports that misunderstand wikipedia's category system, which of course would be a subcategory of media reports that misunderstand wikipedia. Digressing though, I reluctantly think Drmies is right, at least for the short term, but I don't understand why we're so passive in the face of these arguments when they have clear responses; the most obvious of which being 'quit painting all of wikipedia with one brush'... one or two editors is editorialized as "wikipedia", while it's is absurd that gets past editors, I suppose it's an editorial. (Note: I'm not passing judgment either way on the editors involved in this or any other dust up.) We really need to have a better education campaign for the media (or actually, it appears to me, authors, who occasionally bend the ear of a journalist). Shadowjams (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Short term, yes--that's what I was thinking of. This needs larger discussion, but not in a CfD on one (and then a lot more) individual categories. As for educating the media and the occasional involved party with access to such media, that's a tough nut to crack. I agree in part with Filipacchi's argument: at least the appearance of sexism is there (and is noted in many, many reliable sources, not just in op-ed pieces), though misunderstanding is part of that. At the same time I must object to the persistent gendering (in only two genders) that's part and parcel of these categorization efforts. What to many may seem natural is a. not so natural at all and b. outdated--the world don't work that way anymore. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Removing the "Secure your account" information from the login screen
Hi. I've started a discussion at MediaWiki talk:Loginend#Future of this message about whether we want to continue including the "Secure your account" information on the login screen. Please discuss at the link provided. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Quick request for help on WP:RFD
Could someone please close and/or relist the remaining two discussion on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 11 and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 14. Consensus looks pretty clear on both, and I would close them myself, but I am involved in both of the discussions. Steel1943 (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please userfy Once Upon Our Yesterdays?
Over one week ago, I asked the closing administrator of Once Upon Our Yesterdays to userfy the article. Can someone please userfy Once Upon Our Yesterdays? --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- User: Mr. Stradivarius is doing it now, I think. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 06:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, done. It can now be found at User:Jax 0677/Once Upon Our Yesterdays. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Request to close a merger discussion
Merge proposal of "Kurdish separatism in Iran" into "Iranian Kurdistan" requires the attention of an uninvolved administrator to close the discussion. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 07:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Appeal of community restriction
Restriction was imposed following this discussion and, per the terms of the restriction, subsequently modified here. The restriction was imposed due to several ANI filings I made about the Article Rescue Squadron and my efforts to re-open an MfD on the project's rescue list. As it stands, the main reason for my actions was that I wanted to have an open discussion about the project and its activities with significant community input. I feel that was largely satisfied with the RfC on the group and a second MfD another editor opened up regarding the list late last year. Under no scenario can I envision myself returning to such noticeboard filings as I feel that, if the project should remain a concern, it will have to be handled in a more managed process such as another RfC or arbitration. Even there I see no present cause for such action as the group has seemed to decline in activity to the point of effectively being a non-issue. So the restriction at this point is moot in my opinion and I would rather not have the black mark.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Support removing topic ban
NE Ent 01:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Since I weighed in at the original ANI thread, I'll respond here as well. I see no reason to avoid assuming the best or doubt the sincerity of TDA's request. This was over a year ago, and I am usually supportive removing "black marks" and reducing restrictions when an honest attempt is made to work within the rules we have here. I therefor support this removal, and note that the closing admin. in that determination is not currently active. I also note that TDA did approach that closing admin. as well. Also: "per NE Ent". — Ched : ? 02:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Whatever the merits of the original ban proposal it's unavoidable that it was a politically contentious issue, and it's been long enough, and the issues moot enough, that there's no need for any continued restriction. Shadowjams (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Do you mean "...ban proposal, it's unavoidable..."? Not trying to be picky; I'm just having a mildly hard time understanding the first part of your sentence. Nyttend (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Your punctuation is much better than mine :). The first was politically (wiki politics) charged. Shadowjams (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Mainly because I see no reason to maintain the ban at the present time. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 04:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose There have been plenty of folks topic banned on both sides, and things have calmed down appropriately. I see no reason to monkey with success, and a topic ban that a user does not intend to violate is no particular hindrance to their editing. Without a desire to reengage, there is no compelling reason to remove a working restriction. Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Per (NOT Jclemens) & NE Ent, Ched. No need to keep restrictions that a user does not intend to violate - judge next on their own, not by default. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, there IS a good reason to keep them: users who say they will not go back to the same topic area have, eh, I'll give it a generous 50% chance of following through with their promises, in my experience. I'll withdraw my oppose if he'll stipulate that I get to block him and/or discretionarily reinstate the topic ban, previous INVOLVEment or not, if he goes back to what I perceive to be battlefield involvement in the topic area. I have no particular reason to think that he will be one of the 50% who make campaign promises they never intend to keep, but if some teeth were put into those campaign promises, I'd be happy to accept them at face value. What says the appellant? Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- ".. I'll give it a generous 50% chance of following through with their promises ..." .. and that is exactly the problem, Jclemens, and exactly why I have not a single bit of confidence in you anymore (I guess that got reflected in the last ArbCom elections), in ArbCom, and actually, in almost all of Wikipedia. Restrictions for the sake of restrictions, restrictions which are just way beyond reasonable, etc. etc., and make sure that they stay, and make sure that they get enforced. But I still hope that other editors have more faith in the editors that make this encyclopedia than in the ones that think that they need to police it (and seen the other !votes here .. I don't think that that hope is completely futile). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, I think Jclemens' approach is exactly the wrong one, and is diametrically opposed to the Wikipedia ethos. We should be aiming for minimum sanctions, maximum freedom, and maximum support for our content creators - not authoritarianism and high-security containment based on assuming the worst of people. (But I do have significantly more faith in the current ArbCom than I did in the previous one - I think the last election achieved an overall positive result) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Boing! said Zebedee, I have lost so much faith in ArbCom over the last couple of years that I can only hope that the 'new generation' will be able to restore some of my faith. As I said, I think my hope is not completely futile (I even saw positive changes in some of the old ArbCom members...). Anyways, lets examine restrictions for what they are supposed to do. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, I think Jclemens' approach is exactly the wrong one, and is diametrically opposed to the Wikipedia ethos. We should be aiming for minimum sanctions, maximum freedom, and maximum support for our content creators - not authoritarianism and high-security containment based on assuming the worst of people. (But I do have significantly more faith in the current ArbCom than I did in the previous one - I think the last election achieved an overall positive result) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- ".. I'll give it a generous 50% chance of following through with their promises ..." .. and that is exactly the problem, Jclemens, and exactly why I have not a single bit of confidence in you anymore (I guess that got reflected in the last ArbCom elections), in ArbCom, and actually, in almost all of Wikipedia. Restrictions for the sake of restrictions, restrictions which are just way beyond reasonable, etc. etc., and make sure that they stay, and make sure that they get enforced. But I still hope that other editors have more faith in the editors that make this encyclopedia than in the ones that think that they need to police it (and seen the other !votes here .. I don't think that that hope is completely futile). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, there IS a good reason to keep them: users who say they will not go back to the same topic area have, eh, I'll give it a generous 50% chance of following through with their promises, in my experience. I'll withdraw my oppose if he'll stipulate that I get to block him and/or discretionarily reinstate the topic ban, previous INVOLVEment or not, if he goes back to what I perceive to be battlefield involvement in the topic area. I have no particular reason to think that he will be one of the 50% who make campaign promises they never intend to keep, but if some teeth were put into those campaign promises, I'd be happy to accept them at face value. What says the appellant? Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support I closed the RfC on ARS last summer and at that point I wasn't certain that the topic ban was required. At the time I erred on the side of caution and left it in place. I'm happy that sufficient time has passed and attitudes have changes sufficiently that this topic ban primarily serves as a blot on TDA's record and I would support it being lifted. WormTT(talk) 07:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support. The whole thing was some time ago and it's all settled now, and I see no need for any ongoing topic ban. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support per Ched and others. I am not even sure this ban was really needed from the beginning. My very best wishes (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support with the specific proviso that TDA will undertake no actions which could conceivably be viewed as "pointy" about the topic in future without incurring the possibility of renewed sanctions. Collect (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Need an uninvolved admin to assess whether article probation has been violated with the closure of a discussion, an incorrect assessment of consensus, and subsequent article edits--please see Talk:Men's_rights_movement#Removal_of_SPLC_section_and_material_in_the_lead. Since I spoke out in that discussion I consider myself a bit too involved, certainly as far as appearances are concerned. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea if this is in the correct place or not,
but could someone please move User:Launchballer/Don't Let It Die on top of Don't Let It Die? Thank you.--Launchballer 05:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Done. For next time, you can just use {{db-move}} on the target page if the move is uncontroversial. The response time is usually pretty quick. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
RB/Reviewer
If someone could remove my rights I'd appreciate it. Thanks. gwickwiretalkediting 00:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)