Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard
This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by ClueBot III. Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices. If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page - email oversight-en-wpwikimedia.org directly with your concern. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} to do so.
Click here to start a new discussion

Centralized discussion RfC on the use of the account creator flag for purposes other than account creation. RfC on utilizing Wikidata Phase 2. RfC about the new speedy deletion criterion G13's scope. A proposal to merge WP:AFD, WP:PM, and WP:ATD-R into a single Articles for discussion process. A proposal to revert most old indefinite rangeblocks under controlled conditions. RfC about a new user right called "Protected page editor". RfC about whether the authors of copyrighted images should be credited in a footnote in the article where the image is used. A proposal to unbundle autopatrolled from the administrator tools

Requests for Comment on User Conduct Candidate pages Certified pages Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jax 0677 - concern over the number of navbox templates and stub articles being created and brought to XfD. (29 March 2013) User:Jmh649/Will Beback – to discuss whether Will should be allowed back to edit. (23 March 2013‎) General

Noticeboard archives

Requests for closure

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.

The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia. Most discussions do not need formal closure.

The RfC Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 12#Review discussed how to appeal RfC closures and whether an administrator should summarily overturn a non-administrator's RfC closure.

Please post new requests at the end of the appropriate section(s).

Article namespace

Talk:Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012#RfC_on_other_Comments_Section

Issues of WP:SYN and WP:OR have been highly controversial in this article. I am requesting closure for that reason, even though I think consensus is rather clear.Casprings (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Ugg boots trademark disputes#RfC: Should this article include other disputes involving Ugg boots?

Would an experienced admininstrator assess the consensus and close as resolved or abandoned the RfC at Talk:Ugg boots trademark disputes. This may be a difficult closure due to the editor issues involved and advice regarding the behavior of the two main editors, User:Wayne and User:Phoenix and Winslow, would be appreciated.
This RfC has been somewhat compromised by a supporting editor canvassing a large number of editors and asking them to vote in Support. This editor was warned not to canvass [1][2][3] but continued, justifying it as a request to vote per WP:FRS with no knowledge on his part as to how they would vote. This editor has also posted a competing RfC with the question reframed to encourage a "support" vote.[4] Three editors (two supporters and one who voted to abandon) want the RfC abandoned due to the above issues rather than have it closed as resolved. However, despite these problems only two of the canvassed editors voted (both in support) which has not significantly impacted on the survey result which is currently seven votes for oppose, three votes for support and one vote for abandon with no further votes made in the last seven days. Closure will require significant patience on the part of the closing admin as the discussion currently runs to 25 pages. Wayne (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:dot the i#Requested move

There has been a move discussion for nearly a month now to move dot the i to Dot the I. Can someone have a look and determine whether it’s possible to take action? To summarize the arguments: Some want it moved because most sources have it capitalized, and because of Wikipedia’s naming conventions. Some want it to stay as is because a few sources have it in lowercase, and because only the lowercase “i” has a dot. Thanks. —Frungi (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Timeline_of_the_Turks_(500–1300)#Requested_move

Can this discussion be closed in light of the closure of related discussion at Template_talk:History_of_the_Turkic_peoples_pre-14th_century#Requested_move? Thanks. Cavann (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia namespace

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#RFC-birth date format conformity when used to disambiguate

RFC has expired, requesting and admin to close. Ego White Tray (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD (initiated 26 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Archived to WP:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 98#Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD. Flatscan (talk) 04:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

That link has been archived, is it now too late to close it? See also:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge#Automation of merge proposals
• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Merge bot

—Wbm1058 (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• I second this request for a closing.  Are the technical people still working on this?  This is an ongoing point of contention at AfD, because AfD gets discussions for which there is no theoretical case for deletion.  It would help for someone to close this discussion, or at least summarize the opinion and clarify the current technical status of implementation.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Tea Party movement; looking for community input

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Tea Party movement; looking for community input? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#RfC: Proposal for RfA conduct clarification (amendments to editnotice and addition to Template:RfA)

This was recently archived to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 222. I've restored it because the discussion wasn't closed. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like no consensus to me. Maybe I'll just close it myself, despite being involved! -- Trevj (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Y Done SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Talk:Administrators#Proposal for discussion regarding admin action by other admins who disagree

Would an administrator or an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia Talk:Administrators#Proposal for discussion regarding admin action by other admins who disagree (initiated early January 2013)? Thanks,Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 19#Template:Rozz_Williams

now open for over a month (since March 16 including the relisting). Frietjes (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GroundRisk/sandbox

Been running for 19 days, last comment was 6 days ago, last new user comment was 13 days ago. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Other namespaces

User:Jmh649/Will Beback

It would be appreciated if an uninvolved editor would close this informal RfC (opened 23 March) regarding whether Will Beback's indefinite ban should be lifted. The arbitration committee imposed the ban in February 2012, and last month rejected Will's appeal against it. The issue may proceed to a formal request to the committee, so it would be helpful to have a summary of the RfC's consensus. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I read part of the page with a thought toward closing it, but what's the point? The discussion has already moved on to [5] so closing the RFC in the userspace page will not help. Chutznik (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said, there might be a formal approach to the arbcom, so it would help if someone completely uninvolved in past disputes with Will, BASC, or any of the individual arbs, would close and sum up the RfC. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Premature close requests

None currently.

List of countries by military expenditures

RESOLVED:

Needlessly simmering away, closing discussion before completely unnecessary behaviour gets out of hand. Article in question has been unprotected since 13:00 today and all parties have been too busy getting upset with each other to resume editing. Nick (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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)
• Nick, please check my concerns on A, B,C , D, and E. on talk page.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't find any blatant personal attacks from any other users in the page. Otherwise I would have warned them too. Instead of commenting on my actions, I very strongly suggest you look for the sources to support your edits. TheStrikeΣagle

• 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)

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)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Betty Logan seems to think she owns articles. Whenever anyone else edits List of vegans or List of vegetarians she just changes it back and claims that the other person has to discuss it with her before editing. She uses her own personal criteria to decide what does or doesn't belong in articles. For instance, Tobey Maguire is a vegan. Betty, however, doesn't think he should get to be called one so she won't let him be listed. "If someone eats dairy products it is irrlevant what they refer to themselves as! They are not vegan." and here she says "it doesn't matter what he self-identifies as! If someone eats dairy products they are not vegan." And here she threatens to block me for disagreeing with her. She has threatened me with blocking before and told me I shouldn't edit here if I can't do it her way. How is this right? Helpsome (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Purely on a practical level, if someone does consume dairy products, then they are not vegan. I'd say that on the face of it, she is not "owning" anything, but correcting your erroneous edit. As to the "threats" of blocking, I read that she has pointed out that the end result of edit warring, (which you were being warned about) is a possible block. I think you should have a quick slow 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)

I think you need to read the sources more carefully. In one of them he says "I don't eat eggs, or nearly any dairy". Note the word nearly. He's not a vegan. He's nearly one, but not quite. The other refs refer to him being a vegetarian only. - SchroCat (talk) 15:49, 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. [15] 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. [16] 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)

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)

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. Jauerback^dude?/_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)

WP:DRN is the place for content disputes. Nobody is going to get blocked if they actually followed WP:BRD properly. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:11, 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. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment As an uninvolved user, may I ask something? Why you have so few comments on talk page, Helpsome? And why is Betty Logan not writing anything here? Just curious. --Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Simply because I don't see what there is for me to discuss. Helpsome has edited the page on four occasions prior to this dispute and I did not interfere with those edits in any way. In fact if you go through my edits, apart from some restructuring which was agreed upon in an RFC, they are nearly all reverts (exclusively unsourced additions, additions sourced to facebook, blogs etc, unexplained removal of validly sourced entries). I have probably reverted more times on the vegan and vegetarian list than all other Wikipedia articles put together, but that's more of a symptom of the topic area. I edit a lot of snooker and film articles too, and I have never run into the level of poor editing I encounter on these two vegetarian lists. Ultimately what this comes down to is that I disagreed with the interpretation of the sources Helpsome provided and reverted him twice, and he ran off to report me for "ownership issues". It's rather telling that he came here first rather than the talk page. Crucially he hasn't supplied a list of edits showing my "ownership" issues, and I can't really refute an allegation. Betty Logan (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Saying you haven't reverted any of my edits until now is just a lie. You did on List of vegetarians a few months back and even threatened to block me back then. You just admitted that most of you work on these two articles is reverting other people. You want a list of edits showing "ownership" ok. Here is you unilaterally deciding that WTF with Marc Maron isn't a valid reference. Here is you deciding that an interview with the subject isn't a valid reference. Here is you deciding that About.com isn't a valid reference. Here is you having an edit war about using dead references. Here is you actually reverting someone who changed Paris Hilton's entry to say "socialite" instead of your prefered "appeared in a sex tape". But sure you don't show any signs of ownership at all. Helpsome (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Erm, about.com isn't reliable in 9 times out of ten. The Blum video may have been a copyvio (and should rightfully have been removed unless shown otherwise). I'd question a source titled WTF too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, Youtube isn't reliable either as per WP:NOYT, and WP:DEADREF makes it perfectly clear we don't delete citations just because they have died, since a search through archives may locate replacements. As for Paris Hilton, well, what does she do exactly? "Socialising" is a polite way of putting it... Maybe one or two of those may turn out to be reliable, but they are all incredibly weak sources at the end of the day. I made a judgment call. If someone challenges me over a source I take it to RS/N. Ownership is essentially not permitting anyone to make edits, which is not true. Betty Logan (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• 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 [17]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

This is the dumbest argument

Seriously, just topic ban both of them from anything vegan related and call it a day. Jtrainor (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I assume that means neither of us can edit vegan articles. I'll take it if it means she won't get to control those articles anymore. No complaints from me. Ban us both. Helpsome (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban is a Good Idea. Or a voluntary four-week vacation by each party. I have done this voluntarily myself, and I felt much better on a psychological basis when I finally went back to editing. How about taking a breather, all interested people? GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, why should I be topic banned when no actual evidence of ownership has been brought forward? Which edits of mine do you think display a systematic ownership of the article, as opposed to just being a valid interpretation of sourcing policy? I urge Bbb23 to reclose this unless an uninvolved admin is actually prepared to go through my edits and put together a case for me to answer to, because there really is nothing for me to defend myself from so far. I hope I'm not on the end of red-link prejudice here. The fact that Helpsome above has highlighted my reverts of additions sourced to About.com and Youtube, and that he thinks it is ok to removed dead references without attempting to replace them through archives should send out warning signs that he does not have a firm grasp on Wikipedia's sourcing policy. Betty Logan (talk) 05:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I really think I need to step in here. I might be no admin but I think just because a source violates some copyrights and says "WTF" doesn't mean it can't be qualified as a reliable source. A video is always a clear proof no matter what. I'm not saying whether Toby Maguire is a vegan or not. Second of all Betty Logan you can't say that somebody needs to discuss with you before editing a page. Helpsome is correctly saying that it seems like you think you own the article. If there is an edit or edit war both of you have have equally participated in it. Instead of saying that someone should read the rules before editing you need to concentrate on the discussion. If they have committed some mistake then should e just politely informed. Your behaviour has also been disputive with other editors too and I think you need to improve your own first before telling others to improve theirs. 07:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KahnJohn27 (talk • contribs)

It is not really your place to comment on another editor's conduct when you were recently warned about threatening behavior and harrassment of an editor at the Film project by an admin. I filed an RFC to get an independent opinion, which is what you should have done on the film articles when you kept reverting User:BattleshipMan and User:Darkwarriorblake (a dispute which I only ever participated in at discussion level after they brought the issue to the Film project). Also, we would all love to hear about these ownership issues you encountered from me when I never actively reverted an edit of yours. Betty Logan (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Kahn, if you seriously think linking to a copyright violation is within our policies and guidelines then you need to read again (here too). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Why Jtrainor feels the need to edit Wikipedia once every four months to make unhelpful comments is much more concerning than the current topic. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support pbp 14:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Betty's edits on List of vegans

This is one of the articles I have been accused of ownership of. I am going to list all the diffs of every single one my edits from the last six months, and before any editor calls for me to be topic banned I would like them to sign their signatures next to the edits where they feel I displayed "ownership" as opposed to a valid interpretation of policy and guidelines. Once we have identified the edits where I have a case to answer, we will examine the edit more closely to determine whether it was an issue of ownership or whether it was in the spirit of collegiate, policy observing editing. This is a complete list, so there are some uneventful edits where I simply put names in the correct order etc, but I feel they are important to include to give a full picture of my activity. It's also worth noting I made 26 in total, out of a total of 135 edits: Betty Logan (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]
4. [21]
5. [22]
6. [23]
7. [24]
8. [25] StAnselm (talk)
9. [26]
10. [27]
11. [28]
12. [29]
13. [30]
14. [31]
15. [32]
16. [33]
17. [34]
18. [35]
19. [36]
20. [37]
21. [38] StAnselm (talk)
22. [39]
23. [40]
24. [41]
25. [42]
26. [43]

• Comment: I clicked on a random edit, and it was very close to ownership, and certainly below par. You reverted another editor without giving a reason. The editor had removed a dubious entry (based on a translation from another language, and I'm immediately wondering whether the correct translation is "vegan" or "vegetarian"). Why didn't you provide a reason? Why didn't you start a discussion on the talk page? Sertab Erener isn't listed as a vegan on her wikipedia article - why did you restore her to the list? Reading the discussion, I thought that topic banning you sounded over the top, but now I'm warming to the idea. StAnselm (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that doesn't look good. The ref used there is below par too; gazetehayat is not used anywhere else on Wikipedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• In that regard, but leaving the question of it being a reliable source apart: I had a look at the Turkish article that it was taken from, and she spoke about "vegetarian and vegan" as a lifestyle to follow, not necessarily for herself, but that her intentions go in that direction.....Only if you took a look at the title would you get the idea that she was (already) vegan herself. Lectonar (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

(source 8) I do always try to check translated sources when they are added. Google translator describes veganism as a "higher order of vegetarianism" and mentions other aspects of vegansism in that article, so the source seems to do what it says on the tin. I did once challenge the use of foreign language sources since I couldn't assess them properly, and was chastised by an admin (way back in 2010) that if I didn't have a credible reason for doubting their authenticity other than the fact it was a foreign language source, then I did not have a basis for removing them. The editor provided no alternative proof for negating the claim, nor did they say the source did not back up the claim. If the editor had disputed the edit then it would have progressed to the talk page as they usually do in these cases. Out of interest, if someone had come along and added that entry and I had removed it in that edit, would you have been sanctioning a ban then? The bottom line is that we had a source that I couldn't say for sure didn't back up what it claimed, so I had two options: leave it off or add it back on, and I generally just restore sourced content if the source itself isn't questioned. For the record I would more than happily remove the foreign language sources if that is what everyone would prefer. Betty Logan (talk) 09:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The most obvious response is, why didn't you say this in your edit summaries? Why didn't you post a note like this on the talk page? StAnselm (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It is a fault I do admit that I probably don't use the edit summaries enough. I spend a lot of time creating/editing templates and stat articles where there just isn't much conflict anyway, so I never really have cause to use them. Sometimes I try hard with them for a while and then it just tapers off, and you can probably see this from the edit history of the article, where I use edit summaries for a while and then I don't. Betty Logan (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Coupled with (Source 21) I can see it doesn't look great, but even though it's the same edit it is 5 months apart; I doubt I was aware of it at the time. Betty Logan (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I am satisfied with that acknowledgement, and I think Betty Logan will learn from this experience. I would oppose a topic ban, as a needless loss to the community. StAnselm (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it does mean a lot, although in reality I would have just diverted my efforts in the event of a topic ban. Betty Logan (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice ahead: lack of edit summaries contributes to an image of page ownership. For example, there are some folks in the area of military history that I feel exhibit borderline ownership behavior, and recently one of those editors reverted an IP's contribution without any explanation. I felt it crossed a line and I called them out for it on their talk page, and their response explained the (legitimate) reversion... but if they had just done so in the edit summary, then some micro-drama would have been avoided. That's what edit summaries are there for. There are nearly 100 watchers of List of vegans; the next time you edit the list you can imagine that some of those watchers might want to know what's going on. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Based on my clicks Betty needs to use edit summaries a bit more, but those I've looked at seem viable. Revert unexplained removals, revert additions with poor sources, etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with either of those edits. In a perfect world betty would investigate the source and provide a brief summary of her findings on a talk page or an edit summary, but I'm not going to fault her for that when the other editor's edit summary was no more informative than "not true". Anyway, the rest of this whole thread is just silly. What the OP needs to do is just go back down the road of dispute resolution, rather than trying to have an editor banned from a page because she consistently disagrees with him. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Please know that it is not your place to say what user has what kind of behavior the other user has when you have induldged in the same Betty Logan. Apart from that sorry I misread the policy of WP:LINKVIO. I'm sorry about that. But that does not change the fact that you have a real serious combative behavior. This can be seen from your statement "Apart from that if you really think that I really threatened MarnetteD then you should first have a hard proof. Apart from that I request Helpsome not to worry since her unfair block warning to you has already been noticed by many users. This is actual bullying. As I've said that I was only acting upon what I see. It was actually a violation of WP:CONSENSUS but as his behavior was in good faith I thought that I'm making a mistake reporting about him because his intention were always good. We can clearly see how disputive the behavior of Betty Logan is and anyway it is you being discussed here not me. Apart from that I'm not going to comment here further because I already have said whatever there is to say. I think rather than saying that he did this and he did that you should focus on improving your behaviour. KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.184.57 (talk)

an observation: wikipedia has a big problem: edit conflicts. I see an edit conflict nearly in every article. the rules are too open for interpretation. wikipedia should not be edited by everyone. people should just upload info and source and comments, it must be up to admins to add it or not. (same like google translate). so many edit conflicts and endless debates are just stress for everyone and waste of energy and time.--85.103.120.170 (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is like a religion: you start off with a cult, move on to enlightenment and the spreading of knowledge, and then ultimately you will end up with the fanatics. Betty Logan (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: You should see BL's edits to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts and Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts. She edit-warred, claiming that the disclaimer allowing free editing of the page (which was being changed at that time) overrode WP:BRD. Then she didn't really delineate her proposal, when I asked "please just say delete articles X, Y, Z; add articles A, B, C" she called it overly bureaucratic pbp 14:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89 is actually misrepresenting the situation. I have been the proactive editor in that discussion trying to resole the issue on the talk page. Here is the edit history of that page. I tried to remove some non core film articles on that page in full accordance with the update procedures at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded which state Be bold, though, and if something was added which seems obviously not able to stand as one of the 10,000, remove it, with discussion if necessary, assuming good faith always. Three of the editors reverted me a couple of times telling me to simply "discuss" it without providing any reasons for why they opposed the removal of the films. I found this rather strange, insisting on discussion for the sake of it, which was in direct contravention of the guidelines. I started a discussion on the talk page but the three editors ignored it, so I started an RFC about removing the films I though should be removed at Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Arts#Discussion. It should be pointed out that the RFC is going in my direction too, although they are on there saying they don't acknowledge the RFC. But as you can see I had never edited the page before, reverted a couple of times, but when it became clear there was a problem I took it to the discussion page. To be honest I don't see what this has to do with the vegetarian articles: I tried to edit the page, when it was clear the edits were a problem I took it to the talk page, and when it was ignored I started an RFC. I don't think this issue is relevant to the vegan one, but I wouldn't mind if some of you added to the RFC because it is dragging on a bit. Betty Logan (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Betty Logan's reverting at List of vegans has been a problem for over two years, and I know one new editor, User:Andomedium, stopped editing Wikipedia because of it. I'll offer just one diff to show the problem. Andomedium's first edit to the page was to add a name out of alphabetical order, which Betty Logan moved with the edit summary: "They don't teach the alphabet in schools anymore??" Andomedium ended up putting a lot of work into trying to fix the article, including making the ref formats consistent, all of which Betty Logan reverted. There's a similar attitude at List of vegetarians; this shows Betty Logan removing a name with the edit summary: "Put it in alphabetical order or don't bother."

  I have no problem with a bit of ownership if the article is high quality or heading in that direction; I understand wanting to stop an article from deteriorating and on some pages reverting a lot is the only way to do that. But the situation at List of vegans is that people are being stopped from improving it, and it's not currently in a good state. For example, there are lots of notable names missing, the ref formats are inconsistent, and there are three sections, one called "active" (without indicating what that means), then one each for UK and US, which makes no sense. Betty Logan has maintained it in that transitional state (he is changing it from country-of-birth sections to no sections) since August 2012. It would be good if others could now be allowed to get it in shape. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It's true it was a terrible edit, and I did apologise for it at the time, it was a moment of frustration at a stressful time in the article's development, and I haven't done it since I was asked not to in over a year. An admin had to step in because Slimvirgin was trying to remove all the citation templates under the cover of fabricated edit summaries: [44]. Admin User:kww had this to say: refusal to participate in dispute resolution and false edit summaries ... render SlimVirgin's edits highly problematic. I did try to take the issue to dispute resoultion but she refused to participate, so there you go. Also I don't agree I am keeping the article in a transtional state. It is in a transitional state because there is a consensus to transition it and all the work has been left to me. I don't mind, but it just takes time. This was the state it was in before it went into "transitional state": [45]. I disagreed with this direction for the article so I opened an RFC to remove the images from the tables, and there is a clear consensus to remove the images and sort the table alhphabetically]]. As a result I am merging the tabels and sorting: List of vegans. It is not finished yet, but it's been a big job. I have completed the List of vegetarians if anyone wants to see how the List of vegans will look. The problem everything takes so long is that Slimvirgin disrupts development at every stage she can. Despite the fact that there is a clear consensus to order the table alphabetically (every one of six neutral editors agreed with my proposal) she still won't accept the consensus: Talk:List_of_vegans#Active_list. I really don't know what to do when an admin refuses to accept the decision of six neutral editors. All I can is push on. There is an agreement to add section breaks to the table if it becomes too large, and I am happy to do that. Obvioysly, a clear consensus from an RFC is not proof of "ownership", and an admin fabricating edit summaries to cover up her removal of citation templates is, not least because they shouldn't have been removed, nevermind the dishonesty. Betty Logan (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I could spend hours finding diffs to show that what you're saying is wrong, but there's no point. The point is twofold: first, that several people have been upset by your editing of that article for some time, and secondly, that it's not in a good state. If you'd managed to get it to FL quality (or at least improving) despite the upset, I wouldn't be complaining, but here we have a behaviour problem and a quality problem, so no one is benefiting. You've said elsewhere that you don't care about the article that much anyway, so please allow other people to help fix and maintain it. That's all that's being requested: that you relax your grip a little. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, there is one point in Betty Logan's post that is so absurd I have to correct and draw attention to it, because it illustrates the problem. He wrote of his maintaining the article in a transitional state regarding the subsections (which have looked odd for months): "The problem everything takes so long is that Slimvirgin disrupts development at every stage she can. Despite the fact that there is a clear consensus to order the table alphabetically (every one of six neutral editors agreed with my proposal) she still won't accept the consensus ..." Betty Logan started changing the sections in August last year and still hasn't finished. I didn't edit the article or talk page from 20 July 2012 to 23 April 2013. Yet it is my fault the article is in poor shape because I am disrupting development at every stage. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

"Relaxing" my "grip" to you essentially means removal of citation templates, and abandoning the consensus I obtained from the RFC to order the table alphabetically. I am not going to back down on that when I have the backing of the community for that particular development. I am also not going to back down in regards to source vetting. When we had this dispute last year, I was forced into taking many of yours to the RS/N where they were ruled not reliable. This discussion is to determine whether I have an ownership issue. Actually, the only clear evidence of ownership was when I reverted some of the non-alphabetic additions, since that was not in accordance with any guideline or policy, and I have not done that since I was asked to stop over a year ago. Every other action on there I take in accordance with the consensus from the RFC and verifiability guidelines:

1. There was a consensus to remove images from the table, so I removed them.
2. There is a consensus to merge the tables and order the list alphabetically, and I am undertaking that. The trouble is I only get a large chunck of time off in the summer, so while I got List of vegetarians merged I didn't complete List of vegans. But the merge will be completed this summer if it isn't completed by then.
3. I have no problem with your suggestion to add sections breaks to the table. But they will just be section breaks, not a compeletely different ordering section contrary to the one agreed at the RFC.
4. The guidelines do not permit the wholesale removal of citation templates, so I will revert you every time you try to remove them. Most articles have them, and it encourages editors to include the correct bibilographic details.
5. If an entry is added that I do not consider reliably sourced, I will revert the edit. I carry out a lot of assessment and have fairly good judgment when it comes to assessing sources. It's worth noting that whenever I do take a source to RS/N to question it my instincts are proven right 9 times out of 10. However, if this really is a problem, I will agree to move each one I feel is inappropriate to the talk page, and someone else can check them besides me.
6. If someone removes a sourced entry without good cause, then I will restore it. I simply don't think it is appropriate to remove sourced content, and the onus is on the remover to give a valid reason why the source is incorrect or not reliable, if the entry really is to be removed.

The only real objection I see is to how I vet the sources, but that is simply my interpretation of sourcing policy. I do object to the insinuation that undertaking development that an RFC delivered consensus for is "ownership" though. Even if someone unilaterally undertakes development it is is not ownership if it clearly adheres to a consensus from an RFC. The RFC is above; does anyone feel that my development of the article has gone beyond the remit of what was agreed? Betty Logan (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

Y 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 decker^talk 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)

Vandalism by IP

Edit 1

Edit 2 --Kazemita1 (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the IP undid his or her own edits... Anyways, I left a note for the IP informing him or her that such edits are not constructive. Also for routine cases of vandalism, it would be best to post a request at the Admin's noticeboard for vandalism instead of here. This noticeboard tends to be highly frequented and in order to prevent overcrowding of posts, separate noticeboards have been established to handle such common situations. Thank you for the report, though! Mike V • Talk 02:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Mikemikev again

• UltimateBoss (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser (log))
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev

Obvious sock as explained in the SPI/CU report above. Making too many problematic edits. Incidentally he is doing exactly the same elsewhere.[46] [47] Mathsci (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Further disruptive edits confirm this is Mikemikev (click on his contributions). Please block this account. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

CfD backlog

There is a serious backlog at WP:CfD. There are hundreds of overdue discussions, some of which should have closed a month ago pbp 14:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Odd image revert problem

So I reverted to an earlier version of File:Loews Corp.svg, but the image in the file history is displaying the old version. So I tried reverting to the good version again, which caused the same problem, except the first revert now displays the right image in the file history. I've tried purging, forced refreshing, etc. No dice. Is this something that needs to be fixed? If not, could/should an admin delete the unnecessary extra versions I caused? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

SNOWBALL/IAR delete please - URGENT

Would an admin please act on this ASAP. There is no need for this to be discussed further.--ukexpat (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Y Done --Jayron32 16:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Daniel NIazi

A user have creatid the article at another name see Daniel Niazi to see how many times it have been deleted on english wiki. --80.161.143.239 (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Article deleted and salted, sock blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

note

hi there. are you guys still here? I just left about 5 or 6 notes at 5 or 6 different places, and didn't get any reply. also, no one has revised those pages since my note.

would appreciate any feedback. or just a note. :-) thanks. feel free to read and review my contribs history for more information and details. thanks very much. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It might help if you gave more context. Do you mean here at this page, or one of the comments you've made at arbitrators' talk pages, or somewhere else? Nyttend (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

thanks so much for your note. was writing this note as you posted your reply. well, sure happy to clarify.

well, here is is my note to Arbcomm. it provides a link to the suggestion I made at a specific arbcomm page, which is here. my whole suggestions relates to proceedings at this page, and my input there. appreciate any feedback. thanks!!! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Pending release of Echo (notifications)

Hey all :). Tomorrow, if things go according to plan (or next Tuesday if they don't!) we'll be launching Notifications, or Echo, which does what it says on the tin - offers a notifications system for Wikimedia projects. You can read more about what's in the release and what we've got planned on the project page. Once things are launched, we'll be gathering feedback on any bugs, annoyances or features people would like to see - if you'd like to get involved in that (and I sincerely hope you all will!) the best venue is the talkpage.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)