SlimVirgin II (talk | contribs) restored posts, still being discussed |
m Signing comment by SlimVirgin II - "restored posts, still being discussed" |
||
Line 479: | Line 479: | ||
Seriously, just topic ban both of them from anything vegan related and call it a day. [[User:Jtrainor|Jtrainor]] ([[User talk:Jtrainor|talk]]) 01:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC) |
Seriously, just topic ban both of them from anything vegan related and call it a day. [[User:Jtrainor|Jtrainor]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Helpsome|Helpsome]] ([[User talk:Helpsome|talk]]) 01:38, 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. [[User:Helpsome|Helpsome]] ([[User talk:Helpsome|talk]]) 01:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:SlimVirgin II|SlimVirgin II]] ([[User talk:SlimVirgin II|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin II|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== RevisionDelete request == |
== RevisionDelete request == |
Revision as of 01:49, 24 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).
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.
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.
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.
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
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu
(Initiated 20 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?
(Initiated 74 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 52 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)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators
(Initiated 51 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 51 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 48 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:SpaceX Starship flight tests#RfC: Should we list IFT mission outcome alongside launch outcome?
(Initiated 38 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- To clarify, the RfC was closed in this dif, and an IP editor unclosed it, with this statement: "involved and pushing"
- In just over an hour, the above editor voiced support for the proposal.
- I reclosed it, and the same IP opened the RfC again, with this message: "pushing by involved users so ask for more comments".
- I reclosed once more. And then the editor who opened this requests opened it. To avoid violated WP:3RR, I have not reclosed it, instead messaging the original closer to notify them.
- The proposal itself was an edit request that I rejected. The IP who made the request reopened the request, which I rejected once more. They then proceeded to open an RfC. Redacted II (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails
(Initiated 35 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPathtalk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
V | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 9 | 17 | 26 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 23 | 27 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States
(Initiated 52 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:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words
(Initiated 23 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh
(Initiated 22 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 42 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)
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#Multiple page move of David articles
(Initiated 28 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Done-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles
(Initiated 26 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal
(Initiated 26 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#2018–2019 Gaza border protests
(Initiated 20 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
Please remove my ban.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to protest a ban on Armenian and BLP articles I have been given.
The ban was given for using Twitter as a source for the nationality of UFC fighter Gegard Mousasi.
This is the ANI discussion. As I pointed out, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says of Twitter, "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." This tweet comes from Gegard Mousasi himself.
However, Admin Gwickwire (he deleted his user page) said "twitter is never a reliable source" which directly contridicts what Wikipedia has established as reliable sources. I would like to point out Twitter is also used as a source for the ethnic backgrounds of other UFC fighters Scott Jorgensen and Chad Mendes.
Then User:Little green rosetta said that if the Twitter account is verified or acknowledged by reliable sources as the person's Twitter account, it is an acceptable source.
Here is where things got messy. At the time, I only knew one, apparently unreliable, source that acknowledged this as the account of Gegard Mousasi. However, I later found good sources, such as Yahoo! Sports and Bleacher Report, that confirm it is in fact the real Gegard Mousasi. And UFC President Dana White has talked to Mousasi on that account. He also puts unprofessional pictures of himself up that no website had first. However, at this time I no longer cared about my original edit and Glickwire said, "User now seems to be a bit remorseful, there wasn't any major WP:DDMP type problems, so.. WP:ROPE applies here imo, with the knowledge that next time, it will result in a significant ban/block." I assumed I wouldn't be getting in trouble and left the thread without showing my sources.
But I didn't realize a punishment was being decided behind my back and didn't get to appeal it. Had I known, I would have shown my sources.
As has already been established here, that while I haven't made personal attacks and have not used the undo button more than three times, User:BearMan998, who made this ANI, has said things like "Clearly you should know by now", "I believe this is what got you banned previously", "This is a pattern and it looks like you are repeating it despite multiple warnings and bans in the past" and "Based on your past behavior". These show he has very foul faith. Also, take a look at his contributions. He has spent most of his time on Wikipedia for the past month undoing my edits on the Gegard Mousasi and Karo Parisyan pages and trying to get me banned.
And as I told User:King of Hearts, this did not take place on an Armenian page because Mousasi is not a technical Armenian. Nor was the discussion about if he was Armenian. So, if I should be blocked from anything, it should be Iranian and/or MMA articles. But I do not think I should be blocked at all and that is why I'm here. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- I assume you're going to notify all involved, as didn't happen with me. My comments still stand, his twitter account is not verified, and therefore no matter how many people think it's the real him, we have no way of knowing. Plus, it's still a primary source, which you continued to use to try to source what it turns out was contentious material after being told not to. I'm still in support of this ban (and remind people that if I remember right, some people were actually quite close to recommending a full site ban). gwickwiretalkediting 22:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- If his boss thinks it's him, we can be pretty sure it is. Plus there are also reliable sources that have conducted interviews with Mousasi. Remember, Little green rosetta said "Is the twitter account in question "verified" by twitter or a RS?". Please elaborate on this: Plus, it's still a primary source, which you continued to use to try to source what it turns out was contentious material after being told not to.
- Take note at the end that I said if the ban must remain, it sould be changed to Iranian and/or MMA articles. Mousasi and the edit conflict are not related to Armenia. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- "Nor was the discussion about if he was Armenian" By definition, a discussion about "Armenian" is related to Armenia. How do we know his boss thinks it's him? Has Twitter verified that? Not that I see. You continued to push the issue of using a primary source (regardless of whether or not it's him really) for what apparently was contentious facts after being told they were contentious. That's against WP:PRIMARY, which (not exact quote) says that primary sources must only be used for uncontroversial facts. Still haven't been notified, not sure about the others. gwickwiretalkediting 22:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- By definition, a discussion about "Armenian" is related to Armenia. Which this wasn't?
- How do we know his boss thinks it's him? Because he talked to him. Also, so does Bleacher Report, which has interviewed him in person.
- I'd also like to see where it says Twitter sources must be verified. Not on WP:TWITTER, for one. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- I had a boss talk to someone who was sitting in the restroom stall, thinking it was me. It wasn't. The WP:RSN is where you take questions regarding the reliability of a source - if the Twitter is contested, you go there for external advice/opinion - you sure as hell don't charge forward like a bull in a china shop (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:No original research: Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Wilkins is talking about his personal life. We can't have that shit here. And I've notified everyone, even though none of you notified me about my ban. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- You made the comment "his boss thinks it's him" - I was proving how wrong you could be by example - and it was an excellent example. Your response was ridiculous, and had no regard for the discussion as a whole (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- TheShadowCrow, you don't have to answer back. Really, don't go down that road. Your ban should be lifted, in my opinion, so just keep being civil and polite, and everything will work out (hopefully). ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Wilkins is talking about his personal life. We can't have that shit here. And I've notified everyone, even though none of you notified me about my ban. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Done. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Just my 2 cents here - Regarding just the Twitter account, I think we can take it as a reliable enough source. The twitter page is verified by his official website (unless we are disputing that fact), his official facebook page (same here), and the mma website. Which makes it a reliable primary source, in my opinion. No comments on the rest of the issues. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Twitter should only be used as a source when it is absolutely confirmed that the person's account is the real/official one (e.g. like Justin Bieber's), but even then it is usually better to find secondary sources. Now, in this case, I also happen to think that Gegard Mousasi's account is the real thing, and therefore reliable, but even if it isn't, User:TheShadowCrow's edits were all made in good faith, so I support lifting the topic ban, although it would be best if he could try to avoid using primary sources as references for vital information from now on. Truly, DanielTom (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Just a quick question - How does one "absolutely confirm" if a person's account on Twitter is theirs? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- The only way to absolutely confirm is if Twitter verifies that. Twitter uses combinations of photo ID, and other small things to even meeting people in person in the past to verify their accounts. This will provide a blue checkmark next to their name on Twitter. Anything else is "maybe" "probably is" or unconfirmed nonetheless. gwickwiretalkediting 23:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, confirmation by a known official source is as good, probably better. The lack of verification from Twitter is often because Twitter hasn't asked, as according to their FAQ they don't accept requests. Peter James (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- The only way to absolutely confirm is if Twitter verifies that. Twitter uses combinations of photo ID, and other small things to even meeting people in person in the past to verify their accounts. This will provide a blue checkmark next to their name on Twitter. Anything else is "maybe" "probably is" or unconfirmed nonetheless. gwickwiretalkediting 23:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - The issue that led to the topic ban(s) was that the user in question refused to listen when told to stop and discuss the reliability of Twitter, and then proceeded to continue to grasp at straws when told by multiple people it was not going to be reliable in this case, and continued adding it in. That's the issue, not the reliability of the source. gwickwiretalkediting 23:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- If you had seen my appeal, you would have found such a link. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Here. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
In the initial discussion, I opined that TheShadowCrow was now quite sufficiently "on notice" and that a ban was not required at this juncture, and I suggest that my position still holds. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive791#Proposal:_topic_ban. Collect (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- By the way, somehow it did not get successfully archived in full. The entire discussion is at [1]. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment It was a 5-1 discussion, with significant policy-based conversation, and not just 1 person's decision. Normal people just don't care about MMA, and thus the conversation didn't attract more people. As the topic ban was properly discussed, the editor had been blocked for similar reasons before (which counts as a warning) is there any good reason why a mere 7 days later, there is a request for removal of the topic ban? I have seen nothing new in the argument, and we sure should not be entertaining such a mere week later (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I think TheShadowCrow is missing the point that his use of Twitter was not the main reason for the ban, but it was his continued violation of WP:BLP. In the discussion, Twitter was just one of many examples. As noted in the initial ANI discussion, TheShadowCrow also misrepresented a source violating WP:STICKTOSOURCE in relation to the Karo Parisyan article and made a misleading edit summary reinstating unsourced POV in the Gegard Mousasi article as well, ignoring the warnings that further BLP violations would result in sanctions. This is what TheShadowCrow should be addressing in this appeal, instead of focusing on the Twitter issue which is a very small part of the reason for the ban. BearMan998 (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- "ignoring the warnings that further BLP violations would result in sanctions"
- This proves that Bearman thinks he is an Admin. He has acted like he is superior to me in the past and on my talk page. This needs to be addressed. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- TheShadowCrow continues to belabor one point, losing sight of the whole. They were blocked for BLP violations, in a discussion that revealed his ad-hominem approach demonstrated here again. I don't see any reason to lift the ban, since they don't give any indication of understanding why they were blocked. Since they don't do that, they can't indicate how they would conform to our guidelines going forward. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- A quick point as my internet time will be very limited over the next few days - TSC was topic banned for more than just using Twiter - we also have disruptive editing, POINTy editing, repeated addition of unreferenced material, repeated addition of poorly referenced material, edit warring etc. GiantSnowman 08:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - ShadowCrow, If unbanned, can you agree not to edit the article in question, and try to avoid twitter as a reference because of the issues involved? It should be obvious that no matter the policy or guidelines, the issue is a contentious one. If the user agrees to the stated term, then I would support a removal of the ban. Sephiroth storm (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes I do. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Right, but sadly that only addresses about 1/4 of the issues that led to your topic ban. Once you decide to follow the community nature that is Wikipedia, and address the other 3/4 of the issues, then I'd also be willing to entertain such a removal ... in a minimum of 3 months after it was implemented. However, since there's no sign whatsoever that you are choosing to address those behaviours - indeed, your poorly-chosen attack on Bearman above proves that you're simply treating this entire project as a battleground (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I attacked Bearman? He spends 80% of his time attacking me. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- 80%???? Seems rather high, compared to his editing record. (Hint: when trying to prove that you're not attacking someone, using skewed numbers actually is an attack) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- TheShadowCrow, I once again suggest you ignore BWilkins' provocations. I still think that the topic ban we are discussing is not necessary nor is it reasonable, especially now that TSC has agreed to be more careful with his selection of sources. In any case, let's try to focus on the issue at hand, shall we? ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- DanielTom, I'll encourage you to pay a little closer attention, and stop referring to "provocations". ShadowCrow's topic ban was in part because of his incivility. He's not only refused to promise to stop his incivility, but it has been extremely apparent in this very thread. Promising to stop 25% of his behaviour is not sufficient - unless of course you choose to believe his rather cherrypicked story at the beginning of this thread. It's people who refuse to read that cause the most problems as they set expectations for editors that cannot be met. Pay a little more attention to the whole story, and not just the bullshit bubblegum you've been fed (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- I did read the archived discussions relevant to this case before commenting here, so the remark you've just made suggesting that I need to "pay a little more attention", besides being extremely ironic (given that it was you who didn't even notice the link in TSC's original statement), really is uncivil and fails to assume good faith. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- I know Daniel. But I couldn't let him fool anyone reading into thinking I attacked Bearman when I clearly didn't. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Shadow, you stated above "This proves that Bearman thinks he is an Admin. He has acted like he is superior to me in the past and on my talk page. This needs to be addressed. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)" - that's a personal attack. All editors have the same rights to provide the same warnings on this project. The fact that your "opponent" gave it to you does not mean you get to accuse them of "thinking he is an admin". Your WP:BATTLE mentality and tenuous grasp on even the most basic of Wikipedia policies is digging you deeper and deeper. I mean crikey, when User:Dennis Brown !votes "oppose", you know you're in real deep (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Bwilkins, I was warming to you, but your wild accusation of personal attack is totally bogus, and your argument to use Dennis Brown as some sort of angelic Admin standard is beyond comic. You're picking on this guy, and references to his incivility in this thread up to now -- I don't see it. ANI = cesspool of irresponsibility, pure and simple. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- No one has ever accused me of being angelic here. They sometimes mistakenly call me too lenient, but not angelic. I actually like TheShadowCrow, even if I think he needs to pull back for bit, have a tea, and catch his breath. Many people (including Bwilkins) likely know that I'm not a fan of interaction or topic bans except under the worst of circumstances, and I tend to tolerate heated discourse past the point that other admin might (sometimes to the frustration of those admin), for various reasons. I don't support a long term ban and I hope this is something that can be lifted in a month, but that is up to TSC. TheShadowCrow and I have been discussing this on my talk page, and I've offered to help him setup user space areas to edit, but my previous opinions stand. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Bwilkins, I was warming to you, but your wild accusation of personal attack is totally bogus, and your argument to use Dennis Brown as some sort of angelic Admin standard is beyond comic. You're picking on this guy, and references to his incivility in this thread up to now -- I don't see it. ANI = cesspool of irresponsibility, pure and simple. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Shadow, you stated above "This proves that Bearman thinks he is an Admin. He has acted like he is superior to me in the past and on my talk page. This needs to be addressed. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)" - that's a personal attack. All editors have the same rights to provide the same warnings on this project. The fact that your "opponent" gave it to you does not mean you get to accuse them of "thinking he is an admin". Your WP:BATTLE mentality and tenuous grasp on even the most basic of Wikipedia policies is digging you deeper and deeper. I mean crikey, when User:Dennis Brown !votes "oppose", you know you're in real deep (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- DanielTom, I'll encourage you to pay a little closer attention, and stop referring to "provocations". ShadowCrow's topic ban was in part because of his incivility. He's not only refused to promise to stop his incivility, but it has been extremely apparent in this very thread. Promising to stop 25% of his behaviour is not sufficient - unless of course you choose to believe his rather cherrypicked story at the beginning of this thread. It's people who refuse to read that cause the most problems as they set expectations for editors that cannot be met. Pay a little more attention to the whole story, and not just the bullshit bubblegum you've been fed (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- TheShadowCrow, I once again suggest you ignore BWilkins' provocations. I still think that the topic ban we are discussing is not necessary nor is it reasonable, especially now that TSC has agreed to be more careful with his selection of sources. In any case, let's try to focus on the issue at hand, shall we? ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- 80%???? Seems rather high, compared to his editing record. (Hint: when trying to prove that you're not attacking someone, using skewed numbers actually is an attack) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I attacked Bearman? He spends 80% of his time attacking me. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Right, but sadly that only addresses about 1/4 of the issues that led to your topic ban. Once you decide to follow the community nature that is Wikipedia, and address the other 3/4 of the issues, then I'd also be willing to entertain such a removal ... in a minimum of 3 months after it was implemented. However, since there's no sign whatsoever that you are choosing to address those behaviours - indeed, your poorly-chosen attack on Bearman above proves that you're simply treating this entire project as a battleground (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Lifting of Ban Per the above, TheShadowCrow has refused to address the reason for the ban (continued BLP Violations despite multiple warnings including POV edits with no sources and manipulating sources, edit warring to keep such edits, battleground mentality, pointy editing, ect.) and has not shown any inclination to change the behavior that led to the ban in the first place. BearMan998 (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - Bearman and Snowman both have their own fictional accounts of why this ban was placed, but the fact remains the ANI discussion was based off the Twitter incident. So, because the Twitter source was the topic that placed the ban, it should also be the topic of removing it. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose simply because no valid rationale has been provided. TheShadowCrow has received an AE block for violating WP:ARBAA2, then I had to block him for sockpuppetry during that block at SPI [2]. Then, this exact same thing happened again, violating ARBAA2 and sockpuppeting to get around it, just a few months after the first time. This was before the topic ban. And these aren't his only blocks [3], demonstrating a long term pattern. Through all this, he has a facination with using Twitter as a source for many "facts", in spite of being told that this is often clearly against policy, and almost never a good idea to begin with. Its a shame, as I've found him to often be quite reasonable, but when he isn't, he isn't. As it is, he is on the edge of an indef block for the next infraction, so tempting fate by lifting the ban seems a bad idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- The Twitter incidents have been addressed, so, in my opinion, it is you, Dennis Brown, who haven't provided a valid rationale. To quote User:TheShadowCrow: I don't see the math behind me being banned for being banned in the past. He is right, too. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- The math is simple: a topic ban is going to be based on the history of the editor, a history I've used diffs to demonstrate. We don't topic ban for single incidents, we topic ban for people who show an obvious pattern of disruptive behavior. The reason for the ban wasn't "Twitter", it was his behavior. Twitter use was just the problem du jure when the ban was put into place. He has yet to accept responsibility for his behavior, and instead he attempts to blame shift, thus reinforcing the case for the ban. The history of edit warring, BLP violations, improper sourcing, sockpuppetry and WP:IDHT isn't overcome with a simple pledge to stop use Twitter as a source. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't know that a topic ban was an effective way to deal with sock puppetry. Silly me. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Note: As DanielTom has now taken to disrupting this thread with hidden text that serves only to denigrate the poster immediately above, he has been requested to refrain from further posts in this thread, or else it could lead to a block. Please see his talkpage for details (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't know that a topic ban was an effective way to deal with sock puppetry. Silly me. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- The math is simple: a topic ban is going to be based on the history of the editor, a history I've used diffs to demonstrate. We don't topic ban for single incidents, we topic ban for people who show an obvious pattern of disruptive behavior. The reason for the ban wasn't "Twitter", it was his behavior. Twitter use was just the problem du jure when the ban was put into place. He has yet to accept responsibility for his behavior, and instead he attempts to blame shift, thus reinforcing the case for the ban. The history of edit warring, BLP violations, improper sourcing, sockpuppetry and WP:IDHT isn't overcome with a simple pledge to stop use Twitter as a source. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- The Twitter incidents have been addressed, so, in my opinion, it is you, Dennis Brown, who haven't provided a valid rationale. To quote User:TheShadowCrow: I don't see the math behind me being banned for being banned in the past. He is right, too. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. I just don't see any proper understanding of the ban reason - or even any attempts to listen to or understand what people are saying here. All I see is battling argument, interspersed with the occasional personal attack. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I closed this thread at 12:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC) as (in my opinion) the way it was trending was more likely that more sanctions would end being applied rather than any reduced. I'm reverting that close as a courtesy (I think) to the original poster in response to a request on my talk page; my advice remains that the drop the appeal for now. NE Ent 01:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Editor doesn't get it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not only does this editor not get the point, but he is being totally disruptive from what I see. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - Several of the opposition against me have based their opinion's off lies. DennisBrown claims I have a "facination with using Twitter" when I have never sourced it before. He also claimed I was "told that this is often clearly against policy" before I sourced it, yet that is untrue.
- This discussion cannot be decided by "user doesn't get it", facts are needed. I want someone who can tell me why it's ok for a normal user to threaten me with sanctions, when I was warned Twitter isn't reliable, how I can be banned from Armenian articles even though I didn't edit any, etc. The fact is no one has. Until someone can provide an arguement against me, this I won't stop defending the fact this ban was wrongly given. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose lifting topic ban. Indeed, having read this whole thing, I'm not even convinced this user should continue to edit Wikipedia at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - Most of the Opposes fail to provide a reason. This provides nothing to the discussion. Unless the users care to elaborate, these should not be given much attention. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- The closing admin is perfectly able to judge the quality of the comments without your assistance - and from what I can see, almost every oppose gives a valid reason, such as your seeming incapability of editing productively and collegially without causing disruption. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's mostly "user doesn't get it" and "agree with above"'s. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- That's still more reason than the zero support votes provide.--Atlan (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- If we don't count votes that lack depth, the consensus is 3-2. And this isn't a vote, of course. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- That's still more reason than the zero support votes provide.--Atlan (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's mostly "user doesn't get it" and "agree with above"'s. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- The closing admin is perfectly able to judge the quality of the comments without your assistance - and from what I can see, almost every oppose gives a valid reason, such as your seeming incapability of editing productively and collegially without causing disruption. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment TheShadowCrow wrote " how I can be banned from Armenian articles even though I didn't edit any." Well, to answer your question, as noted in the initial ANI discussion and noted again here, you edited the Karo Parisyan article who is of Armenian descent. In this edit, you misrepresented a source, violating WP:STICKTOSOURCE. I believe GiantSnowman noted several Armenian related articles where there were BLP violations as well as can be seen on your Talk page. Additionally, I would like to note that you already broke the topic ban on BLP articles with this edit, this edit, and this edit today. BearMan998 (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is about Gegard Mousasi. Whatever you and Snowy think I did on any other page is your opinion and not fact. For example, Snow claims I made POINTy editing in the past, something I never did. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Kudos, User:Dennis Brown. Seriously. At least you tried to provide actual arguments for opposing the ban lift; the same cannot be said of the others who've recently just voted "Oppose". Sorry to say, but the way User:TheShadowCrow is being treated really is shameful, to say the least. I still think that the topic ban imposed on him was unjustified and unfair (see above), but I also understand that this case is now essentially hopeless, much to my regret. But hey! At least some people here will be happy knowing that they've crippled the ability to edit of yet another user for no valid reason. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- If this were real court, this guy would be the judge. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - Having reviewed recent edits from TheShadowCrow, I have to oppose lifting the topic ban at this time. The easiest and best way to have a topic ban lifted is to comply with it for a time. Show that you are able to abide by consensus, even if you do not agree with it. Show that, if the ban is lifted, you intend to work with other editors and make sure your future edits are not disruptive. The easiest way to have a topic ban extended is by violating it, as with this edit and others yesterday, while this discussion was ongoing. It's not a bad edit, honestly, sourced and concise. But it's on a BLP, and could not be a more blatant violation of the topic ban. The fact that it came during this discussion tells me all I need to know about your willingness to work with other editors and abide consensus. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Quick point. If you agree that his edits to articles are fine, I think that you should have voted Support, not oppose. The whole point of this thread is not to enforce the previous (unfair) "consensus", but to question it. Oh well. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that that edit is not inherently flawed, except for the fact that the article is a BLP and TSC is prohibited by the topic ban from editing BLPs. But to support removing the topic ban on that basis would be for me to say "He was topic banned, and violated the topic ban, but it's OK because the edits are OK." And that's not how it works here. He's topic banned from BLPs - that means He cannot edit BLPs. Period. Full stop. He appealed the ban here, as was his right, and - while this discussion was ongoing - edited in violation of the topic ban. That says "I'm going to ignore consensus", and that's not a reasonable argument for lifting the topic ban - that's a reasonable argument for extending it or for blocking TSC for disruption. You might have concerns about the original consensus for the topic ban, but now - thanks to this appeal - you have more editors who have affirmed it. TSC does not get to decide whether the topic ban is enforced, nor do you. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Given the above, I would recommend that the Topic Ban be reset to expire three months from 22 April 2013, given yesterday's violation of the ban. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- It was an accident. I was trying to avoid Armenia and Armenia BLPs. I'm trying to get the consensus of the ban changed to Iranian and/or MMA articles. So I thought those articles were OK. It was a mistake. BLP covers a wide range of articles. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I did some checking based on those violations of the topic ban and I found an even more blatant example. After you were notified of the topic ban on April 14th and objected to King of Hearts here you made an edit to change the spelling of Khoren Oganesyan to Khoren Hovhannisyan on the Grigory Fedotov club page on April 15th as seen here. It turns out Khoren Oganesyan is an Armenian footballer whose article you attempted to move to Khoren Oganesian but failed to gain consensus as seen on the article talk page. After failing to gain consensus you tried to get the closing admin to change it anyway against consensus as seen here. However when that didn't work, you changed the player's name on another page anyway, going against consensus and violating your topic ban on broadly construed Armenian related topics. Now this does not look like an accident, it looks like an intentional move against consensus. In light of the multiple violations of the topic ban I would even suggest a longer ban based on this. BearMan998 (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Grigory Fedotov club is not BLP or Armenia related. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I did some checking based on those violations of the topic ban and I found an even more blatant example. After you were notified of the topic ban on April 14th and objected to King of Hearts here you made an edit to change the spelling of Khoren Oganesyan to Khoren Hovhannisyan on the Grigory Fedotov club page on April 15th as seen here. It turns out Khoren Oganesyan is an Armenian footballer whose article you attempted to move to Khoren Oganesian but failed to gain consensus as seen on the article talk page. After failing to gain consensus you tried to get the closing admin to change it anyway against consensus as seen here. However when that didn't work, you changed the player's name on another page anyway, going against consensus and violating your topic ban on broadly construed Armenian related topics. Now this does not look like an accident, it looks like an intentional move against consensus. In light of the multiple violations of the topic ban I would even suggest a longer ban based on this. BearMan998 (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- It was an accident. I was trying to avoid Armenia and Armenia BLPs. I'm trying to get the consensus of the ban changed to Iranian and/or MMA articles. So I thought those articles were OK. It was a mistake. BLP covers a wide range of articles. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Quick point. If you agree that his edits to articles are fine, I think that you should have voted Support, not oppose. The whole point of this thread is not to enforce the previous (unfair) "consensus", but to question it. Oh well. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - been reading through this noticeboard for a change, and I do remember the AN/I thread. It's very, very obvious to me that they are violating WP:IDHT, and both TSC and DanielTom have resorted to personal attacks, some subtle (and hidden, in DanielTom's case, at least once), some rather not so. I'd support a lengthy block for TSC for constant personal attacks (and, apparently, violating the topic ban a few times), and a shorter one for DanielTom for personal attacks - and for returning here to be disruptive, having been warned to stay away. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Close Request - Reviving this clearly was a bad idea. Can someone close it per "Consensus is not going to support an unban"; what it was closed as before? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I wholeheartedly agree with UltraExactZZ's suggestion of extending the topic ban to three months past the last ban violation, though (as I said originally) I'd be extremely surprised if there aren't more issues down the road. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- He said it was an "accident". Why don't you WP:assume good faith? ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'd be extremely surprised if there aren't more issues down the road
- Apparently users who support the facist movement don't have to use good faith> --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- You just shot yourself in the foot, TSC. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I've already been shot in the back. Just fuck it. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- You just shot yourself in the foot, TSC. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
WBB ban appeal
I know this has already been requested at ANRFC, but can someone completely uninvolved in past disputes with Will, the BASC, or any of the individual arbitrators assess the consensus and close the RFC for the Will Beback ban appeal. Thanks. On an unrelated and very sad note, Dreadstar, one of the administrators involved in the WBB case, has unfortunately left Wikipedia. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- I took a look at it as I believe I am uninvolved, but I really don't know what it is. At least in my view, it's not an RfC or even an RfC/U. I've read what User:SlimVirgin wants ("a summary of the RfC's consensus on the various issues"), but if I hadn't read that and I were to "close" it, that wouldn't have been what I would have done. Considering the breadth of issues discussed on that page, summarizing all of them would be a significant task and I don't believe it would be productive or appropriate. The RfC (I'll call it that only because everyone else is calling it that) has a proposal. I would focus on that proposal if I were to close it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Bbb, if you're willing to close it, please go ahead as you see fit. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is also currently discussed at BASC. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Bbb, if you're willing to close it, please go ahead as you see fit. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Request for Standard offer - MidnightBlueMan
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Unblock Request
I received UTRS Ticket #7429 from User:MidnightBlueMan who received a block for sockpuppetry and edit warring. The request was:
I've now been blocked for over 2 1/2 years. My block was for sockpuppetry, which I admit. Details: socks 1) Dragley, although technically a sock, the account was my first, and I didn't really like the name, so I set up FootballPhil and moved to it. I hardly used the Dragley account thereafter, and didn't intend to play it off against FootballPhil, but I think there are a couple of edits where I edited in the same general area. FootballPhil wasn't a name I liked so I set up MidnightBlueMan and abandoned FootballPhil (though I may have made a small number of edits thereafter).
I set up MBM as my "proper" account but eventually came across the Troubles (Ireland) issue and this, at the time, was my downfall.
Contrary to the sock report, the user Mister Flash is not a sock. However, he was a colleague of mine, who I shared a flat with at the time, and I recuited him to assist me with POV pushing. This went on for some time. "Mister Flash" has moved on and I now rarely hear from him (christmas card stuff). He may, or may not, still be interested in Wiki - I don't know.
Other socks were set up in shear frustration at being blocked. I made no bones about them being socks at the time and they were quickly blocked: SpongerJack CarbonNumbers BritishIslesPOVers
I understand the problem of socking and how it strikes at the heart of trust, a fundamental requirement - to be able to be trusted - of those participating in the Wiki user community. I won't sock again; It doesn't get anyone anywhere in the long run. For me it wasn't really socking, it was recruiting a colleague, which I know is just as bad, so again, this won't happen again.
I therefore ask, that after a considerable amount of time, I be given another chance.
The user wishes to invoke the WP:Standard offer. The user claims to have no socked in 2.5 years and has agreed to a checkuser. The user has preemptively agreed to a 6 month community topic ban from articles related to British Isles and a WP:1RR restriction if the community feels it's neccessary.
He has also suggested a sort of mentor:
If you agree to my request I would like to invite you, or your nominee, to monitor my work for six months or however long you deem appropriate.
User:DoRD performed a checkuser based on the IP Address in the UTRS system and has found no socks on that IP address. The SPI hasn't seen a sock since October 2010, and the old accounts are too stale to check for others.
Although the user has agreed to a topic ban or 1RR if the community deems it appropriate, I invite the community to start the discussion from the least restrictions and move up toward the most restrictive if a unblock is allowable.--v/r - TP 14:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sidenote: There were some privacy lapses in the SPI casepage from several years ago that should've never happened and violated the WMF privacy policy. It was cleaned up at the user's request and the offending revisions were oversighted, but the private data had no bearing on this request.--v/r - TP 14:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
MidnightBlueSun's responses
Thanks to TParis and all of you who have the confidence in me to agree my return. And thank you for also having the confidence not to impose mandatory restrictions. However, I think it is only right that I impose a self-restriction, so I give the undertaking that I will avoid all Troubles related articles for three months and also accept 1RR. I have a clear underststanding of what constitutes a Troubles article, but if anyone would care to monitor my edits over the next few months and if you think I've transgressed let me know and I'll immediately self-revert. I take 1RR to mean that I won'r revert anything, save for obvious errors and vandalism. Thanks again. MidnightBlue (Talk) 07:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Community Discussion
- Support with topic ban for 3 to 6 months on Troubles articles, no other restriction, encourage to get a mentor. This seems to be a proper Standard Offer as he has admitted the mistakes, it has been long enough and we have some evidence he has lived up to the requirements for the SO. In the spirit of what we stand for, I think we should offer this second chance. I would support without the topic ban as well, but the Troubles area got him into trouble to begin with. In order to give him every opportunity to succeed in the transition, it is in his best interest to avoid that area temporarily. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support think a topic ban is wise but would be okay without having one if that's the consensus. Unless someone turns up recent socks or solid evidence that he's lying about something in this request I think he should get a second chance. Hobit (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support ~ two and a half years is close to an eternity here; if he's gone that long without reoffending, that's great. I would not support without a three month topic ban from The Troubles, just so's he can ease back in. And a mentor is certainly a good idea, but not essential. Cheers, LindsayHello 16:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support unblock: he seems to be "cured", and I certainly appreciate his honesty and candor. In my opinion, a topic ban is not necessary after such a long time. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support This is why we have the standard offer. Once in a while it actually works.I don't see any need to formally topic ban them but they could always self-impose a topic ban if they are worried they will get into trouble in that area again. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support: Honest admission of wrongdoing, no passing the blame, and a credible sincere promise not to do it again. The topic ban gives him the opportunity to demonstrate his worth as a productive editor. I have to say, "Welcome back aboard!". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support though I would strongly suggest that you avoid a contentious subject such as the troubles for a few months. Best to reintegrate yourself into the community in an uncontentious area. ϢereSpielChequers 21:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support with no restrictions or need for mentoring. I don't think we'll have any "troubles" from him. Chutznik (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
2013 and Boston Marathon bombing
An uninvolved admin should check talk:2013 and see if consensus exists to list the Boston Marathon bombings on the year's article. Hot Stop (Talk) 21:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
GoodDay banned
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
In remedy 2 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay, GoodDay (talk · contribs) was warned that "in the event of additional violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies (especially of the nature recorded in this decision as findings of fact), substantial sanctions, up to a ban from the project, may be imposed without further warning by the Arbitration Committee". It is apparent from the submissions in this amendment request that GoodDay has engaged in further violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies. Accordingly, GoodDay is banned from the English Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year. After one year has elapsed, a request may be made for the ban to be lifted. Any such request must address all the circumstances which led to this ban being imposed and demonstrate an understanding of and intention to refrain from similar actions in the future.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Account creator permission usage
Hello everyone, I have started a discussion at WT:PERM regarding the use and assignment of the account creator flag. I thought I would let the people affected by this know. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 01:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Backlog at Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests
Hi everyone. There is a long backlog at CAT:EP awaiting edits to protected pages. Can someone take a look at it, since some items are even as old as two weeks? Thanks. — Peterwhy 09:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
List of countries by military expenditures
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi. We have some issues here. Table which provided conflicting data, and which was misleading (expressed on talk page) was removed due to lack of consensus. But another editor Antiochus is desperately trying to push the table without consensus. He is not addressing my concerns, instead he is just making the issue personal. I wish some admin would come and check this out. Thank you.(Just 1 minute after he was reported to admins' board, he made another revert here breaking 3R rule as well. --Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I can see large amounts of what appears to be original research on your part, Hakan. Can you provide references detailing current military expenditure by Greece, for example, to prove your statement to be correct ? If you cannot, then removal of data based on original research is just as verboten as inclusion of data based on original research. There's also no consensus, you appear to be engaged in a one man crusade to remove the page of data that you personally disagree with. If you could please compile a list of reliable references showing the data to be out of date and providing new, accurate data, then the page can be altered, otherwise it is accurate and follows the references as best it can. I would also take this opportunity to caution you against providing inaccurate information here at WP:AN, and caution against edit warring.
- I have locked the page for 24 hours, in that time, can you please find reliable sources to support your point of view, or cease editing the page completely until such times are you're able to compromise and agree with other editors concerning the direction of the page. Your unilateral edits are unhelpful at present. Nick (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment There is no consensus to remove the table..so continuous removal is treated as vandalism. TheStrikeΣagle 13:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- First of all, there is no consensus to have conflict and misleading data from 2011 and 2013.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Strike Eagle, it was very fair (sarcasm) from you, that you don't say a word to the guy who was making the issue personal, AND breaking 3R rule just as he was reported, instead, writing comments to my page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakan Erbaslar (talk • contribs) 13:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Whoa whoa whoa, hang on a minute strike eagle. Read WP:NOTVAND. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to deface the encyclopedia in bad faith. Any good faith edit, even against consensus, is not vandalism. Treating it like vandalism will not save you from an WP:EW block in the future so be careful. You might want to strike your comment and change your direction on calling things vandalism.--v/r - TP 13:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Strike Eagle, it was very fair (sarcasm) from you, that you don't say a word to the guy who was making the issue personal, AND breaking 3R rule just as he was reported, instead, writing comments to my page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakan Erbaslar (talk • contribs) 13:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- First of all, there is no consensus to have conflict and misleading data from 2011 and 2013.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Nick, please check my concerns on A, B,C , D, and E. on talk page.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- As Strike Eagle has mentioned you have no consensus and the 3RR does not apply when reverting obvious vandalism - blanking half of an entire article constitutes obvious vandalism. Also the Admins should be aware that I and other editors have communicated the need for consensus at the articles talk page and I my self have warned the editor twice at his talk page to refrain from vandalising the article.Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Antiochus, You said it was in the archieve that it was a consensus to have conflicting tables from 2011 and 2013 ? Yet you failed to show us. Now you are claiming that removed of data without consensus is vandalism? --Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- How could I possibly know what you already know? Anyway, from what I gather from the archives of this discussion page there is already an existing consensus to have the two tables single sourced from SIPRI. So no, you would need to gain consensus to remove the second table. For now, I will keep my eye on this article. Additionally, could you please clarify what it is exactly you don't agree with regarding the second table? I ask this because presently, the second table is inline with fundamental Wikipedia policies. Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Removing data without consensus is not "obvious vandalism". I'm still waiting you showed me the consensus in the "archieve pages", which you claimed. Where is it?
- 1) Claim of earlier consensus in the archieve, failure to point it out.
- 2) Breaking 3R rule.
- 3) Reverting the article EVEN AFTER being reported to admins' board.
- 4) For example, China has conflicting data. Big difference between numbers. No word about it. No debate about the topic. Because he knows the data is MISLEADING.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is correct, removing data with an edit summary explaining the reasons behind that removal does not constitute obvious vandalism. This is, as far as WP is concerned, a content dispute, pure and simple. What is needed is more references, especially up to date ones, which support either point of view in this dispute, and a compromise from both editors in question to allow accurate, up to date, correct data to be added to the article, and if necessary, out of date, incorrect or suspect data to be removed. None of that can be done without proper, reliable references, certainly not with original research. Most governments publicise their defence spending in their budgets, it should not be difficult for both editors involved to find correct, proper references and compile an accurate, up to date list. I would ask they do that instead of edit warring, warning each other and spending time here at WP:AN. Nick (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Nick. There is already duplicate data for the top 15 countries. For example China's 2013 military expenditure is clear. However the falso information of 2011 is also written on the same article. So it's not about finding sources for the top 15.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- With the utmost respect to the Admin (Nick), your comment although positive and productive does show how far removed you are from the situation. Quote: "for both editors involved to find correct, proper references and compile an accurate, up to date list". I emphasise "correct, proper references". Can I clarify that SIPRI is both reliable and authoritative as well as being the #1 source on military expenditure. At present both tables are single sourced from SIPRI, as recommended by policy to single source tables for consistency, reliability and to avoid improper WP:SYNTH. The first table is sourced from the SIPRI yearbook for the top 15 military spenders and is updated every year using current exchange rates. The second table is sourced from the SIPRI database and is updated every year using fixed exchange rates. However, the second table is updated sometime after the SIPRI yearbook is released and thus why the table is presently "out of date". I have already communicated this to Hakan and urged him to be patient and await the SIPRI database update which will be available shortly. As Hakan has no legit policy issue it is my belief his edits are a deliberate attempt to destroy the integrity of the article while masking it as a "good faith edit".Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
That explanation needs to be added to the page in question. It also needs to be clearly communicated to the reader that whilst spending as a percentage of GDP is the same (i.e France in both lists is quoted at 2.3% because of exchange rates etc, the dollar figure can vary). Nick (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Ignore that, such a description is found at the very top of the page. It perhaps needs to be made clear at the top of each table how the calculations are made by SIPRI. Nick (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- With the utmost respect to the Admin (Nick), your comment although positive and productive does show how far removed you are from the situation. Quote: "for both editors involved to find correct, proper references and compile an accurate, up to date list". I emphasise "correct, proper references". Can I clarify that SIPRI is both reliable and authoritative as well as being the #1 source on military expenditure. At present both tables are single sourced from SIPRI, as recommended by policy to single source tables for consistency, reliability and to avoid improper WP:SYNTH. The first table is sourced from the SIPRI yearbook for the top 15 military spenders and is updated every year using current exchange rates. The second table is sourced from the SIPRI database and is updated every year using fixed exchange rates. However, the second table is updated sometime after the SIPRI yearbook is released and thus why the table is presently "out of date". I have already communicated this to Hakan and urged him to be patient and await the SIPRI database update which will be available shortly. As Hakan has no legit policy issue it is my belief his edits are a deliberate attempt to destroy the integrity of the article while masking it as a "good faith edit".Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Following my previous post, I would like to inform the Admin that the article used to be sourced from various citations provided by national governments. This lead to a table of 100+ countries using different citations each with different calculation methods and the sum total being given in national currency and not US$. This lead to edit warring on a continual basis and inconsistent figures derived from fluctuating exchange rates (i.e editors using an online currency exchange site to convert national currency to US$). The consensus was to use a single authoritative source with consistent calculation methods as per Wikipedia policy. The result was SIPRI and the article has been as such since.Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Antiochus,
- Stop making assumptions about me and my earlier edits. Please address the topic only.
- Why does China have two difficult numbers from the same source on the same article?
- The data is conflicting and misleading and there was no consensus in the archieve as you claimed.
- When did I say I have a problem about SIPRI? Oh my God. do you read/speak english?
--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Could we stop with the personal attacks and unhelpful language, Hakan. I'd ask that you strike your fourth point and apologise to Antiochus the Great. Nick (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Problem Solved...
The issue with Table 2 being out of date can now be solved. The data needed to update table 2 (all countries data) is available now at http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/milex_database and this ties in with the data from http://books.sipri.org/product_info?c_product_id=458# used to complete table 1 (top 15 countries). That should fully resolve all the issues, if both parties can review this data, confirm that by updating Table 2, the issue is resolved, I will unprotect the page and allow you chaps to resume editing it. Nick (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you Nick, this is exactly what I and other editors have been waiting for, an updated SIPRI database. It appears the old SIPRI database is in the process of being overhauled and since the 15th of April the database is instead available for download in excel form -until the on-site database is up and running again post overhaul. Consider everything ok on my side and I hope Hakan will be satisfied with the updated SIPRI citation. In future Hakan, it would probably be best to place a tag on the article suggesting the table needs updating and/or raising the concern clearly on the articles talk page. Best not to delete half the article instead!Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you Nick, I trust you on this subject. However the other party is still trying to give lessons, with his last sentence ending with commands and (!) signs. (Not even admins act like this) Please tell him to drop this arrogant language, it's kind of boring when the other side in an hallucination as if he is an army commander and we are his soldiers at his service.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is quite funny really:
- 1. "Could we stop with the personal attacks and unhelpful language, Hakan."
- 2. "it's kind of boring when the other side in an hallucination as if he is an army commander and we are his soldiers at his service"
- By the way, there really is nothing wrong with using exclamation marks and Antiochus the Great wasn't giving commands, he was making perfectly reasonable suggestions. Kookiethebird (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I am not obliged to offer any apologies towards Hakan. I am however happy with the current situation and thank Nick for finding the updated SIPRI citation. I would also like to remind Hakan of what I wrote in my second comment at the articles talk page before this all started. Quote; "The SIPRI database is updated after they release their yearbook, so just be patient." From this quote of mine you can clearly see I had communicated to Hakan that we were awaiting the new and updated SIPRI citation so we could update the second table. However, Hakan ignored my comment and continued his rather aggressive approach to the situation.Antiochus the Great (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Kookiet, Are you an adminstrator? are you trying to speak on behalf of Antiochus? What are you trying to achieve on topic? Are you trying to provoke the situation? Why are you copy-pasting my comments? --Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- And you Antichos, what is your purpose in posting messages to my talk page that you don't follow an administrator's request to apologize? Why are you writing here a full aggressive unhelpful parapgraph about me ? Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Nick, I think the problem is not solved, because I get the feeling, Antiochus has any right to continue his aggressive language.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- What you've said here has nothing to do with what I put above! Firstly, I was highlighting how you had been told to "stop with the personal attacks and unhelpful language", before carrying on with the personal attacks and unhelpful language. Secondly, I was pointing out that there was nothing wrong with what Antiochus the Great had done. It is you that is in the wrong here! Kookiethebird (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Kookiet, I ask again. Are you an adminstrator? Are you trying to speak on behalf of Antiochus? What are you trying to achieve on topic? Are you trying to provoke the situation? Why are you copy-pasting my comments? --Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, you've removed your comment that I was replying to. For the record, this is it: ":It seems we have here two angry guys who want to make this issue personal and refuse to accept the offer from an administrator. I wonder what Nick will say to this. Nick, do you see in what kind of behaviour even after you demanded an apology from both sides_?" Secondly, in answer to your questions: (1) No. (2) No. (4) No. (3 and 5) I simply wanted to have my say, to try to get through to you that it is you that is behaving badly, no-one else. I have given an example of that by copying one of your comments after one of Nick's comments. You have been told to "stop with the personal attacks and unhelpful language" and then you just carried on with the personal attacks and unhelpful language. Do you understand? Kookiethebird (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Kookiet, I ask again. Are you an adminstrator? Are you trying to speak on behalf of Antiochus? What are you trying to achieve on topic? Are you trying to provoke a resolved issue? Why are you copy-pasting my comments? Stop being silly with "Do you understand?" type unhelpful questions.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- You've just repeated your questions! If you want answers to them, look above! And as for the "Do you understand?" question, it was perfectly reasonable given what had happened. So I ask you again, do you understand, yes or no? Kookiethebird (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Kookiet, since you are a 3rd person who arrived after the issue was solved, I am going to ask these questions: Are you an adminstrator? Are you trying to speak on behalf of Antiochus? What are you trying to achieve on topic? (topic is list of military spending). Are you trying to provoke a resolved issue? What kind of bullshit language is this "Do you understand?" Do you think you have any right to be aggressive here?--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hakan, Kookiethebird answered your questions above. GB fan 17:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Also, one doesn't have to be an administrator to post here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- yes he did.
- He is no administrator.
- He is achieving nothing except trolling around and provoking an already resolved topic.
- He has nothing to say about the topic of military spending but just thinks he will sit there and say anything and expects everyone else will stand idle.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Why don't you tell us all what you're trying to achieve by asking the same questions that have been answered? And I think when talking about "bullshit language" it really is you being aggressive. I am not being aggressive, I am trying to engage in discussion with you. By the way, the fact that you can't bring yourself to answer the question "Do you understand?" suggests that you don't understand but can't bring yourself to admit it. Kookiethebird (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
*The users Kookiethebird and Antiochus are buddies and both from the Great Britain (GB), Kookiethebird came here to defend Antiochus and rally the lobby behind him. (he came after the issue was solved) It's funny we have some cheerleaders here.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
:I will not talk anymore on this subject since it's useless to debate when someone is not listening to adminstrator (Nick) and only interested in insults by bringing buddies and friends to this board.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
An Open Letter To Nick
Nick, I think you should interfere in this situation. Please tell me why Antiochus refuses to respond to my apology and why he is allowed to continue his aggressive language.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I cannot force anybody to apologise or magically make everybody get on with each other. Both editors obviously have similar interests and should be working together to improve the project, instead of spending much of their time here getting upset with each other. A dispute occurred, some unfortunate things have been said, it's now time for everybody to move on and do something more productive. Ideally, that will start with everybody apologising and starting afresh, but I'm powerless to force everybody to be best friends forever. Nick (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Nick, you are an administrator and you are telling both sides to apologize. One side apologizes, the other side refuses to do so, and continues with aggressive language. Do you think there should be no consequences?--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Nick has not demanded an apology from anyone, he has only suggested an apology. I have not resorted to personal attacks (other editors also mention I have not personally attacked you Hakan) therefore I am not obliged to offer an apology, so I didn't. Furthermore I was not offended by any remarks made by you Hakan, but other editors have the right (and duty) to inform you personal attacks are against policy even if it didn't offend the person to whom it was directed. I really don't want to waste anymore of my time, your time, Nicks time and other editors time continuing this drawn out and pointless discussion. Fundamentally we are both happy with the updated SIPRI citation provided by Nick and i am now just waiting for the page protection to expire or be lifted and make the agreed upon changes. This will be my last comment regarding the issue.Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
:Antiochus, unfortunately you turned down an administrator's offer, (Nick's offer on your talk page) instead you called your buddies to further increase tensions. I will not respond anymore to such type of discussion. and I will not respond to people like you, who just call friends and buddies to an already resolved issue and do not even listen an offer from an administrator.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Someone removing my edits
Hello. On April 16, I've made very useful contribution to the page "Ghurid Dynasty" [4] (which is well sourced) and needed for the readers but someone is deleting it. What must I do to stop this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BarryM9944 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- You need to discuss it at Talk:Ghurid Dynasty and stop edit warring. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
J. Leon Altemose is blatant COPYVIO. Need assistance.
J. Leon Altemose is 95% verbatim from "Downey, Sally and Jane M. Von Bergen. 16 April 2008, Philadelphia Inquirer, "J. Leon Altemose, controversial contractor, dies at 68" which can be found online at www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2002543/posts.
I do not know know to apply CSD-G12 to this situation, and believe this is a candidate because being entirely content that is another entity's protected intellectual property.
The article is no longer on the Philadelphia Inquirer's website (that I can see), but this article's content still belongs to the Inquirer and has not been put into public domain. The text of the article can be found on the free republic forums as linked above and in other locations online (which are likely COPYVIO also).
I noticed that the Altemose article was heavily reliant on this one source from the Inquirer...in fact, cited it 18 times. I gave User:SummerPhD, the article's creator, a week to revise and address these issues, but she has been belligerently defiant when this and other shortcomings of the article that were brought to light. I advised that other sources be introduced. She acted belligerent to the suggestion. I finally was able to locate the source article today, and noticed that the Wikipedia article is little more than a plagiarised reiteration of that source.
Thank you for your assistance.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- And, quite frankly, User:SummerPhD is an asshole. Relentlessly abusive, unreasonable, acting like a petty dictator with rule enforcement, obstructive, etc. She's badgered people because they've disagreed with her AfD nominations. She tag-bombs articles seemingly immediately after their creation while it is apparent the creator is at that very moment working on them. Users like this drive people away from Wikipedia. I'm only concerned about the copyvio on this article despite how much this user irks me--but perhaps someone might wants to look into this user's pattern of behavior.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Converted to a copyvio tag. This is, in my opinion, way too close to the source to remain unblanked and I almost G12'd it. Listed it as a copyvio to get a second opinion and to give people the chance to use the information (but not the text) in a new article per the instructions on the tag. Dpmuk (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, that's basically the poster child for close paraphrasing. Way too close; I'd say stubify it by reverting to one of the earliest reversions, either this one or this one (sans under construction template, of course). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Copyvio cleaned. ColonelHenry, why did you tag the Philadelphia Inquirer citations as unreliable? It's a major US newspaper, and such publications we assume to be reliable unless we have evidence otherwise. Nyttend (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- ColonelHenry, following a brief dispute at another article sought out several articles I created and tagged them with numerous irrelevant tags to "be a dick"[5] (his words, not mine). (I didn't look back to examine his copyvio tag because of the on-going BS this was part of. Can't say I recall my original work on the article. In the context of labeling the Philadelphia Inquirer unreliable, it seemed like more of the same.) - SummerPhD (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry Dennis--I hate to revert a close. But I am a bit surprised to see someone referring to an editor on AN as an "asshole" and no one bats an eye lid. I don't know what all happened between these two, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denyse Tontz (3rd nomination) may have something to do with it, and in those exchanges Summer is not an asshole. ColonelHenry, in my opinion, has crosses the civility line with this and other comments ("woeful Pharisees" at the AfD, besides "stop abusing contributors", claims of harassment, etc. This particular copyvio/paraphrase having been dealt with, I think ColonelHenry's uncivil remarks need to be addressed. If you, some of you, agree that none of these comments warrant even a response, then you can reclose this thread. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- No problem, I knew closing it would be iffy, and anyone (even Ent) is welcome to revert any close if they disagree. I didn't want to drag this out with drama, and figured ColonelHenry already knew he had crossed the line from heated discussion into personal attacks. Maybe he will be wise enough to address the issue here so we can be done with it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
UAA Backlog
Just FYI, there's a pretty hefty backlog at WP: UAA. If any admins have a little time on their hands, it looks like they could use an extra mop over there. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 02:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Do we have the budget to clone Daniel Case (talk · contribs)? Drmies (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Informal User talk:Centre des Professions Financières unblock decline opinion needs more senior admin assessment
Hello all, fledgling admin Shirt58 here.
I have informally declined User talk:Centre des Professions Financières' unblock request. In my opinion, the unblock request to change username to another username is a request to change username to one that is still unacceptable.
I haven't edited the "unblock" message. I would ask that much more experienced admins step in and formally assess the unblock request. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, "Lucie CPF" would be acceptable, but drop the {{coiq}} on there to make sure they won't repeat the additional problems (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Betty Logan owns articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
- 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. [6] 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. [7] 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)
- 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 [8]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:01, 24 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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlimVirgin II (talk • contribs)
RevisionDelete request
I'm not sure if this is the right place to request this, but here, Rmmcgrath apparently asked a question while logged out, revealing their IP address. Could an admin please redact that information? Thanks, FrigidNinja 22:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Done To avoid calling attention to such requests, you can also approach admins who list themselves at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests. Probably not a big deal here, but useful to keep in mind. Thanks! --j⚛e deckertalk 22:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Actually in this situation, this material is covered under the oversight policy and should be suppressed. In the future, you can follow the procedure here to contact an oversighter and they can help address your request. Best, Mike V • Talk 01:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)