Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jbhunley (talk | contribs) at 12:48, 23 September 2016 (→Closure at ANI too soon.: support close). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

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

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages 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.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

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 is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need 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.

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

• Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion
• Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers/Log
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

(Initiated 35 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

(Initiated 33 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 101 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

(Initiated 81 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

would like to see what close is. seems like it was option 1 in general, possibly 1/2 for IP area. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide#RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples

(Initiated 72 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Australia#RFC: Should the article state that Indigenous Australians were victims of genocide?

(Initiated 70 days ago on 8 November 2024), RFC expired weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 56 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. Bogazicili (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi)#RfC on the Inclusion of Guard Actions and Court Findings on Motivations

(Initiated 31 days ago on 17 December 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice and the last comment was a few days ago. Can we get an independent close please. TarnishedPath 22:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Estado Novo (Portugal)#RFC Should the Estado Novo be considered fascist?

(Initiated 9 days ago on 8 January 2025) RfC opened last month, and was re-opened last week, but hasn't received further discussion. Outcome clear and unlikely to change if it were to run the full 30 days. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 00:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Does this need a close? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I would have just closed it myself, but I don't exactly feel comfortable doing so since I've responded and have a bias about how it should close. Not opposed to just letting it expire, though. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 23:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it should just be left to expire. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Category:Belarusian saints

(Initiated 28 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Category:Misplaced Pages oversighters

(Initiated 28 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#Category:Disambig-Class Star Trek pages

(Initiated 16 days ago on 31 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#Category:Category-Class 20th Century Studios pages of NA-importance

(Initiated 16 days ago on 1 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Redundant WPANIMATION categories

(Initiated 11 days ago on 6 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 114 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 80 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

(Initiated 71 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Note: I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. CNC (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 20 days ago on 27 December 2024) Proposed merge discussion originally opened on 30 May 2024, closed on 27 October 2024, and reopened on 27 December 2024 following the closure being overturned at AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Selected Ambient Works Volume II#Proposed merge of Stone in Focus into Selected Ambient Works Volume II

(Initiated 11 days ago on 6 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; proposal is blocking GA closure czar 11:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Pages recently put under Extended-confirmed protection

Content translator tool creating nonsense pages

• See also: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review

This discussion has gotten very large, to see the entire discussion please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT. Sections that are resolved or already enacted have been noincluded.

Machine translation gadget

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

Thank you, I didn't remember about that gadget; I surely can make good use of it. That's the kind of tools that may be invaluable time savers in the hands of us who know how to use them, making the difference between translating a stub right now when you first stumble upon it (thanks to the kick-start of having part of the work already done), or leaving it for another day (and never coming back to it).

Given that the CTX tool has been restricted to experienced editors, and that the GoogleTrans gadget needs to be explicitly activated, the combination of the two won't be at the hands unexperienced newbies in the way that created the current backlog. The GoogleTrans doesn't insert translated content into text fields, it merely shows the translation in a pop-up; so I don't agree that it "explicitly endorses machine translations". Any editor with your experience should know better than copy-paste machine translated text unedited into an article. Diego (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I am the creator of the GoogleTrans gadget and it does do Machine Translation Under The HTML Markup when used in the Content Translation system. I have used this to translate 226 articles from the frwiki to the enwiki and got all of them reviewed okay. The Machine Translation is a starting point. You still have to manually change each and every sentence to get the grammar and meaning right. It's not very sensible to ban it because, without human followup, it produces a bad article. The point is that it is a tool to quicken the translation of easy to medium difficulty articles, especially for good language pairs like English-French. Misplaced Pages, itself, uses both Apertium and Yandex translation engines to do machine translation and these have been used to good effect in the Catalan and Spanish wikipedias. GoogleTrans does the same thing as Apertium in the Content Translation system, except it uses Google Translate, which most people feel is a better translation engine. As Diego says this needs to be explicitly turned on, so it tends to restrict usage to competent editors. To stress the point, Machine Translation, as done by GoogleTrans gadget, is a starting point, it is not the end product. Human intervention is required to massage the MT into decent destination language text and grammar, but Machine Translation can help start the translation quite a bit. Misplaced Pages feels that Machine Translation is worth doing, because it has it as a feature (using both Yandex and Apertium machine translation engines) Endo999 (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Except that we have a policy against machine translation on en.wikipedia, because the requirements for correcting its output are far higher than users tend to realise; in fact it is easier and faster to translate from scratch than to spend the necessary time and effort comparing the original with the translation to find the errors. Hence the whole long discussion above and the agreement that machine translations can be deleted as such. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no policy against Machine Translation on the enwiki. That would have to be posted on the Content Translation blog, and it isn't. I've done 226 of these articles successfully and I can tell you there is more editing for non text issues, like links around dates coming from the frwiki, editing getting references right, manual changing of TAGS because their parameter headings are in the origin language. The actual translation work postprocessing, when polished up by a person competent in the destination language is far less than you say. But style differences between the wikis take more of the editors time. Endo999 (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The policy is at WP:MACHINETRANSLATION, and has been in force for a decade. ‑ Iridescent 19:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The policy is against unedited machine translation. It doesn't apply to using machine translation as a starting point to be cleaned up by hand. Diego (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

MACHINETRANSLATION isn't a policy. It isn't even a guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I have never claimed that Machine Translation first drafts are good enough for articles on the enwiki. They aren't, but responsible use of Machine Translation, as a first draft, that is then worked on to become readable and accurate in the destination language is quite okay and even helpful. Endo999 (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The consensus is pretty clear that unless you are translating at a professional level, machine translation is a trap. It looks good at first glance, but often introduces bad and difficult to detect errors, such as missed negations or cultural differences. Even if a human caught 9 out of 10 of these errors, the translation would be grossly unacceptable and inaccurate. I'd request that this gadget be disabled, or at minimum, de-integrated from the content translation tool. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Well. I'm pretty far from being a fan of machine translations, but it's always been possible to copy/paste from Google Translate. Anyone autoconfirmed can do that without going to all the trouble of finding and enabling this gadget. The problem is fundamentally behavioural rather than technological. The specific problem behaviour is putting incomprehensible or misleading information in the mainspace. Over-reliance on machine translation is a cause of this, but we can't prevent or disable machine translation entirely, and there's not much point trying. I think the position we should adopt is that it is okay to use machine-aided translations provided you don't put them in the mainspace until they've been thoroughly checked by someone who reads the source language and writes the target language fluently. I suggest the approach we take to Endo999's tool is to add some warnings and instructions rather than try to disable it.—S Marshall T/C 23:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget that the use of Machine Translation in the Content Translation system is expanding all the time, and I'm am pretty much the only regular user of my GoogleTrans gadget for translation purposes. Why is the gadget being singled out? Yandex machine translation is being turned on by the Content Translation people all the time for various languages, like Ukranian and Russian. The Catalan and Spanish wikipedias are at the forefront of machine translation for article creation and they are not being flamed like this. I reiterate that the majority of edits per my frwiki-to-enwiki articles are over differences in the frwiki for an article than for articles in the enwiki. The treatment of dates and athletic times is one such difference. You need to do postediting after the document has been published in order to please the editors of the destination wiki. This usually has nothing to do with the translated text but is actually the treatment of links, the treatment of dates, the removal of underlines in links, the adding of categories, the transfer of infoboxes, the addition of references (the fiwiki is particularly good for references of track and field athletes), and other wiki standards (that are different from the origin wiki). There's always going to be some postediting of translated articles because of these nontranslation specific items. It's just inherent in wiki to wiki article movement. Endo999 (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

We don't care about what happens on other wikipedia language versions, basically. Some are happy to have 99% bot-created articles, some hate bot-created articles. Some are happy with machine-translated articles, some don't. It may be true that "the use of Machine Translation in the Content Translation system is expanding all the time", but at enwiki, such a recent "expansion" started all this as the results were mostly dreadful. "Why is the gadget being singled out? Yandex machine translation is being turned on by the Content Translation people all the time for various languages, like Ukranian and Russian." Your gadget is in use on enwiki, what gadgets they use on ruwiki or the like is of no concern to us. We "single out" tools in use on enwiki, since this is an enwiki-only discussion. And this discussion is not about the long list of more cosmetic things you give at the end (or else I would start a rant about your many faux-bluelinks to frwiki articles in enwiki articles, a practice I truly dislike), it is (mostly) about quality of translation, comprehensability and accuracy. Yours are a lot better than most articles created with ContentTranslation, luckily. Fram (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Endo999: I just happened to check Odette Ducas, one of your translations from French. You had Lille piped to read "Little". This is a good illustration of how easy it is to miss errors, and it's not fair, in fact counterproductive, to encourage machine-based translation and depend on other editors to do the necessary painstaking checking. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that error (Lille translated at Little). I had seen and corrected that problem in a later article on a french female track athlete from Lille, but didn't correct the earlier translated article. Don't forget that Misplaced Pages is about ordinary people creating Misplaced Pages articles and through the ARGUS (many eyes) phenonmenon having many people correct articles so they become good articles. This is one example of that. Misplaced Pages is not about translation being restricted to language experts or simply experts for article creation. Your argument does tend towards that line of thought. Endo999 (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it does (for one thing, all you can know of my level of expertise is what I demonstrate). The wiki method is about trusting the wisdom of the crowd: this tool hoodwinks people. It's led you to make a silly error you wouldn't have otherwise made, and it's led to at least one eager new editor being indeffed on en.wikipedia. It rests on condescending assumptions that the editing community can't be left to decide what to work on, in what order. (Not to mention the assumptions about how other Wikipedias must be delighted to get imported content just because.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Almost everyone of the articles I have translated, using the GoogleTrans gadget, has already been reviewed by other editors and passed. I can only translate the existing French, which is sometimes not well written. In Fatima Yvelain's case I transferred over all the sources from the frwiki article. Can you tell me which reference didn't work out. You've deleted the article, without the ordinary seven day deletion period, so you deleted the article without any challenges. Are you and a few other reviewers systematically going through every article I have translated looking for things to criticize? Endo999 (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

That's how Misplaced Pages rolls; it's the easiest way to demonstrate supposed incompetence, and since incompetence on the part of the creator reflects on the tool, it is therefore the easiest way in which to get the tool removed (along with phrases such as "I'd like to retract my compliment", which I hate as much as Fram hates faux-bluelinks). Simples. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Having just checked the article for myself, if it was really "reviewed by other editors and passed" it reflects just as badly on those other editors as it does on you, given that it contained an entire paragraph of grossly libellous comments sourced entirely to an alleged reference which is on a completely unrelated topic and doesn't mention the subject once. (The fr-wikipedia article still contains the same paragraph, complete with fake reference.) Checking the review log for the page in question, I see no evidence that the claim that anyone else reviewed it is actually true. ‑ Iridescent 15:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

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

You are all panicking. There's nothing wrong with using the GoogleTrans gadget with the Content Translation system if the appropriate editing happens alongside it. The ordinary review process can uncover articles that are not translated well enought. I'm being punished for showing ingenuity here. Punishing innovation is a modern trait I find. Endo999 (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

No, our reveiw processes are not adequate for this. Both the problems with translated articles, and the unrelated but similar problems with tool created articles (now discussed at WP:ANI show the problems we have in detecting articles which superficially look allright (certainly when made by editors with already some edits) but which are severely deficient nevertheless, and in both cases the problems were worse because tools made the mass creation of low quality articles much easier. While this is the responsability of the editors, not the tools, it makes sense to dismiss tools which encourage such creations. Fram (talk) 09:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Yes, I believe an RfC would be helpful assuming it is well prepared.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The GoogleTrans gadget has been running on the enwiki for the last 7 years and has 29,000 people who load the gadget when they sign into Misplaced Pages. It's quite a successful gadget and certainly, wiki to wiki translators have concentrated on the gadget because while they may know English (when they are translating articles between the enwiki and their home wikis) they like to get the translation of a word every once in a while. Endo999 (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on this matter seems to have mostly died down, but I was unaware of this discussion until now and I feel the need to speak up on behalf of translation tools. I don't believe the tool being discussed here is the one I am using, since *it* does not provide a machine translation into english. However. I do put english into French based on the machine translation. I repeat, *based on*. Many of my edits to date have been translation and cleanup after translation, so I am probably close to an ideal use case. The tool, Yandex.Translate, appeared on my French wikipedia account and I do find it useful, although it produces text that needs to be gone over 4-5 times, as, yes, it sometimes creates inappropriate wikilinks, often in the case where a word can mean a couple of different things and the tool picks the wrong one. And it consistently translates word by word. I have submitted a feature request for implementation of some basic rules -- for example in German the verb is always the last word in the sentence and in French the word order is almost always "dress blue" not "blue dress". But there are many many MANY articles with word order problems on Misplaced Pages; it's just usually more subtle that that when the originating editor was human but not a native English speaker. So it's a little like fixing up the stilted unreferenced prose of someone who can't write but yea verily does know MUCH more about the topic than I do. And has produced a set of ideas, possibly inelegantly expressed, I would not have conceived of. The inelegant writing is why we have all this text in a *wiki*

For the record, I agree that machine-translated text is an anathema and have spent way too many hours rescuing articles from its weirdnesses, such as "altar" coming through as "furnace branch" in Notre-Dame de la Garde. BUT. Used properly, machine translation is useful. For one thing it is often correct about the translation for specific obscure words. I deeply appreciated this when, for example, I was doing English into French on a bio of a marauding Ottoman corsair who, at one point or another, invaded most of the Mediterranean. I am an English speaker who was educated in French and has spent years operating in French, but the equivalent terms for galleon, caravel, Papal States, apse and nave, for example, not to mention Crusader castles and Aegean islands, weren't at the tip of my tongue. Its suggestions needed to be verified, but so do Google Search results. I could look these words up, sure, and do anyway, but Yandex gives my carpal tendons a break, in that I can do one thing at a time, ie translate a bit of text like "he said" then check to make sure that wikilink is correct, move down to the next paragraph and do some other simple task like correcting word order while I mull why it is that the suggested translation sounds awkward, walk away and come back... All of this is possible without the tool, but more difficult, and takes much longer. I have translated more articles in the past month, at least to a 0.95 version, that I had in the entire previous several years I've been editing wikipedia. Since the tool suggests articles that exist on one wikipedia but not the other, I am also embarking on translations I otherwise would not, because of length or sheer number of lookups needed to refresh my memory on French names for 16th-century Turkish or Albanian settlements or for product differentiation or demand curve or whatever. Or simply because while the topic may be important it's fundamentally tedious and needs to be taken in small doses, like some of the stuff I've been doing with French jurisprudence and which is carefully labeled, btw, as a translation in progress on those published articles that are still approaching completion.

I agree that such tools should not be available to people who don't have the vocabulary to use them. I don't really have suggestions as to what the criteria should be, but there is a good use for them. They -- or at least this tool -- do however make it possible to publish a fully-formed article, which reduces the odds of cranky people doing a speedy delete while you are pondering French template syntax for {{cn}} or whatever. This has happened to me. The tool is all still kinda beta and the algorithm does ignore special characters, which I hope they remedy soon. (In other words ê becomes e and ç becomes c etc.) Also, template syntax differs from one wiki to another so infoboxes and references often error out when the article is first published. Rule of thumb, possibly: don't publish until you can spend the hour or so chasing this sort of thing down down. And the second draft is usually still a bit stilted and in need of an edit for idiom. But the flip side of that is that until you do publish, the tool keeps your work safe from cranky people and in one place, as opposed to having to reinvent the version management wheel or wonder whether the draft is in Documents or on the desktop. Some people complain within 3 minutes of publication that the article has no references without taking the time to realize that the article is a translation of text that has no references. As the other editor said above, translation tools aren't magic and won't provide a reference that isn't there or fix a slightly editorial or GUIDEBOOK tang to language -- this needs to come next as a separate step. When references are present the results are uneven, but I understand that this issue *is* on the other hand on the to-do list. Anyway, these are my thoughts on the subject; as you can see I have thunk quite a few of them and incidentally have reported more than one bug. But we are all better off if people like me do have these tools, assuming that there is value in French wikipedia finding out about trade theory and ottoman naval campaigns, and English wikipedia learning about the French court system. Elinruby (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Hi there. I have had a look today at that list, but haven't really been posting comments since as far as I could see nobody else has been there in several days. I do not know what happened with duckduckstop but as to the articles on the list

- I do not understand why an article about a French general who invaded several countries under Napoleon is nominated for deletion as far as I can tell solely on based on authorship? Do we not trust the content because of the person who wrote it? Can someone explain this to me? I glanced at the article quickly and the English seems fine. This is a serious question; I don't get it. Also, why did we delete Genocide in Guatemala? It was already redlinked when I noticed it, but unless the article was truly astonishing bad, I would have made an effort to clean that one up. Personally. Considering that some of the stuff that's been on the "cleanup after translation" list the past few years --- we have had articles on individual addresses in Paris. We have lists of say, songs on a 1990s album in Indonesian, sheriffs of individual municipalities in Wales (one list per century), and government hierarchies in well, pretty much everywhere.

- I have a suggestion: The person who decides that we need a set of articles for each madrasa in Tunis, water tower in Holland or mountain in Corsica is responsible for finishing the work on the articles in the set to a certain standard. Which can be quite low, incidentally. I have no objection to some of the association football and track and field articles that are being nominated for deletion. They may not be sparking entralling prose but they are there and tell you, should you want to know, who that person is. Similarly the articles about figures in the literature of Quebec, while only placeholders, do contain information and are preferable to nothing. Although I don't see machine translation as the huge problem some people apparently do, the translation tool also does need work. It might be nice if it sent articles to user space by default, and the articles could then be published from there there after polishing. Elinruby (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Guatemalan genocide was redirected, not deleted, for being a very poor translation, resulting in sentences like this (one sentence!): "The perpetración of systematic massacres in Guatemala arose of the prolonged civil war of this country centroamericano, where the violence against the citizenship, native mayas of the rural communities of the country in his majority, has defined in level extensivo like genocide -of agreement to the Commission for the Esclarecimiento Historical- according to the crimes continued against the minoritary group maya ixil settled between 1981 and 1983 in the northern demarcation of the department of The Quiché, in the oil region of the north Transversal Band, with the implication of extermination in front of the low demographic density of the etnia -since it #finish to begin to populate the region hardly from the decade of 1960- and the migration forced of complete communities to the border region in search of asylum in Chiapas, Mexico , desarraigadas by the persecution; in addition to becoming like procedure of tactical State of earth arrasada, tortures, disappearances, «poles of development» -euphemism for fields of concentration- and recurrent outrages against the women and girls ixiles, many of them dying by this cause, crimes of lesa humanity against of all the international orders of Human rights." Fram (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Heh. That's not unusual. But see there *is* an article, which was my primary concern. I should have checked before using it as an example. Here is the point I was trying to make. Since apparently I didn't, let me spell it out. -- I have put in a considerable amount of time on the "cleanup after translation" list so yes, I absolutely agree that horrible machine translations exist. I have cleaned many of them up. But. Many of the articles we keep are extremely trivial. Many get deleted that seem somewhat important, actually, just not to the particular person who AfD's them. I have seen articles on US topics get kept because of a link to Zazzle. (!) Perhaps my POV is warped by the current mess I am trying to straighten out in the articles on the French court system, but it seems to me that the english wiki is rather dismissive of other cultures. (Cour d'assises != Assizes, just saying; this is what we call a cognate.) That is all; just something that has been bothering me. Elinruby (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The interim period ends today

But most articles have not been reviewed--it will apparently take many months. Of the ones still on the list that I have reviewed, I am able to find at least one-third which are worth rescuing and which I am able to rescue. We need a long continuation.If this is not agreed here, we will need to discuss it on WP:ANB. I would call the discussion "Emergency postponement of CSD X2" DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

My understanding was that we were still working out how to begin the vaccination process. I'm happy if we simply moved to draft space instead of deleting at the end of the two weeks, but I'm not sure if that would address your concern. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@S Marshall, Elinruby, Cryptic, No such user, Atlantic306, DGG, Acer, Graeme Bartlett, Mortee, Xaosflux, HyperGaruda, Ymblanter, BrightR, and Tazerdadog:

I call "reltime" on the section title! ;-) But seriously, it does end in a few days, and although I've been active in pushing to stick with the current date (June 6) to finalize this, so I almost hate to say this, but I'd like to ask for a short postponement, for good cause. This is due to two different things that have happened in the last few days, that materially change the picture, imho:

• CXT Overwrites - this issue about CXT clobbering good articles of long-standing, was raised some time ago, and languished, but has been revived recently, and we now (finally!) have the list of overwrites we were looking for in order to attack this problem: around 200 of them. All that remains to completely solve this for good, is to go through the list, and if the entry also appears in WP:CXT/PTR, strike it. See WP:CXT/PTR/Clobbers for details.
• Asian language review - this was stalled for lack of skilled translator/proofreaders in these and other languages. In response to a suggestion by Elinruby, I made an overture a few days ago about starting a recruitment effort. Since time is so short, rather than wait for a response, I went ahead and started one at WP:CXT/PTR/By language. In just three days this has started to bear fruit, with editors working on articles in Gujarati, Hindi, Hungarian, Farsi, Romanian and Arabic; with over 50 or 60 analyzed. I'm ready to ramp up the recruitment effort on Turkish, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, and more European languages (hopefully with the help of others here) but this does need some time as it's only got started literally in the last few days.

A postponement would give us the time to save all the clobbers, and make a significant dent in the articles from Asian and other languages for which we don't have a lot of expertise. Mathglot (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that the clobbers have all been taken care of. This leaves the Asian language articles. I'm sure that if someone with the needed language skills comes along in the future, admins would be more than happy to mass-undelete the drafts so that they could be reviewed. However, I don't see a reason to postpone in the hope that this will occur. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Clobbers *are* taken care of, because we (two of us) have been taking care of them. Asian (and other) languages have plenty of translators td.hat could take care of them, it's not a matter of "hoping" for anything in the future, they exist now, so all we have to do is continue the effort begun only a few (5) days ago here. Going forward, this should be even more efficient, now we have the results of Cryptic's queries 19218 and 19243 created only today, and wikified here: WT:CXT/PTR/By language. We have editors working on Gujarati, Hindi, Bengali, Arabic, Romanian, and Hungarian, with more in the pipeline. This is a ton of progress in five days, and I wish it had been thought of a month ago, but it wasn't, and we are where we are. A postponement will simply allow ongoing evaluations by editors recruited less than a week ago and are delivering fast results, to continue instead of being cut off, and additional languages to be handled. Go look at WP:CXT/PTR/By language to see what has been accomplished so far, and at what speed. @Cryptic and Elinruby:. Mathglot (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Still need to recruit de, bg and ru. Also still very distracted by real life -- I have had one parent die and another go into hospice in the course of this project, and we have still gotten all this done, so it's not like we are dragging this out into never-never land. A majority of these articles are rescuable, esp as we bring in new editors who are not burned out by re-arranging the word order of the sentences for the 10,000 time. I think the really stellar articles have all been flagged now, but we have still found some very recently and I have said this before. Beyond the really stellar though are the many many not-bad articles and the more mediocre ones that are nonetheless easier to fix than to do over.I am in favor of an extension, personally, though as we all know I would not have started this at all if it were up to me. Many of the really bad articles were already at PNT.

I will be flying almost all day today but will check into wikipedia tonight. Elinruby (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm involved in many other things, and get here as I can, and each time I do, I find more than can and should be rescued. There are whole classes of articles, like those of small towns or sports stadiums, which have merely been assumed to be of secondary importance and not actually looked at. If we delete now, we will be judging article by the title. It is very tempting to easily remove all the junk by removing everything, but that;'s the opposite of sensibler ,and the opposite of WP:PRESERVE/ DGG ( talk ) 09:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I found a couple today that kind of amazed me, they were so good. But let's play out the chinese fire drill. I'm afraid we're going to find out that we've all done a huge amount of work to delete 30 articles that need to be deleted and 350 whose authors will will not contribute again. Anyway. I have not touched stadiums, personally, because I suspect they will be deleted for notability so why? Ditto all these people with Olympic gold medals because I already have plenty to do without getting involved with articles that are certain to be deleted, not to mention all the argentinian actresses and whatnot.... grumble. Gonna go recruit some chinese and norwegians, because the articles are just going into some other namespace we can still send links to right? Elinruby (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The plan is to draftify the articles prior to deletion, but I think deletion can be postponed basically indefinitely once they are draftified Tazerdadog (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: I'd like to be sure of that. This is why you lose editors, wikipedia... anyway. Am cranky at the moment. Let me get done what I can with this and then I'll have some things to say. Hopefully some intelligent and civil things. Are we really getting articles from PootisHeavy still? Elinruby (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Fixing pings like you just did doesn't work. Pings only work if you sign your post in the same edit and do nothing but add content. Pppery 02:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Elinruby: The second part statement I made above is a departure from the established consensus as I understand it. The plan which achieved consensus was to draftify, hold in draft for just long enough to check for massive clerical errors, and then delete. I floated the above statement to try to gain consensus to hold the articles in draft space for longer (or indefinitely). While it is important to get potential BLP violations and gross inaccuracies out of mainspace in a timely manner, i don't think it is nearly so important to delete the drafts, especially if salvageable to good articles are regularly being pulled out of them. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: Thanks for the suggestion. I think that would help limit the potential for damage and it would alleviate some of my concerns. My assessment differs widely from what I keep reading on this board, but, hey. If anyone cares I would say that 10% of these articles are stellar and very advanced and sophisticated translations. Don't need a thing. Another 10% are full or partial translations, quite correct, of articles that do not meet en.wiki standards for references or tone but do faithfully reflect the translated article. Many of these are extremely boring unless you are doing nitty-gritty research into something like energy policy in Equatorial Guinea, but they then become important... About another 5% I cannot read at all and let's say another 10% are heavy going and require referencing one or more equivalent articles in other languages. Say 5% if anyone ever gets around to dealing with PootisHeavy. The rest are... sloppy english but accurate, unclear but wikilinked, or some other intermediate or mixed level. This has not, in my opinion, been a good use of my time and I have stopped doing any translations, personally, until we get some sanity here. The whole process, it seems to me, simultaneously assumes that translation is easy and also that it is of no value. If wikipedia does not value translation then -- argh. It just makes me to see a good organization eat its own foot this way, is all. Off to see if I can catch us a nepali speaker ;) Elinruby (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Elinruby: No Nepali speakers needed, there are no Nepali articles in the batch, afaict. Also, Pootis stopped translating following a March 23 addition to his talk page, currently at #53 on the page.

@Tazerdadog: Whatever kind of draft/quarantine/hyperspace button you press, I plan to carry on with some of the Asian and other languages recruitment which we only recently got started on (which is going great, btw, and we could use some more help over at there if anyone wants to volunteer). I'll want to modify the editor recruitment template so that it can blue-link articles in whatever new location they reside in, so hopefully it will be a nice, systematic mapping of some sort so a dumb template can easily be coded to figure out the new location, given the old one. Just wanted to mention that, so that you can keep it in mind when you come up with the move schema. Naturally, if it's just a move to Draft namespace, then it will be an easy fix to the template.

There is one article in Nepali. I have not invited anyone for it yet, though I did do some of the less populated languages like latvian, indonesian and polish. I have several answers (da, es, pt as I recall) and most articles passed. I will put translated templates and strike those articles shortly. And yes, I just now struck one today. Anything about 3-d modeling is notable imho and I will work on it as long as I can read it at all. Also some of the bad translations about historical documents may be fixable given the response we are getting. If either of you gets enough help/time there are quite a few es/pt/de articles that I did that I believe to be correct but cannot myself certify in terms of the translated template Elinruby (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@DGG: I withdraw my aspersions on the section title name. This offer valid for twenty-four hours. Mathglot (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I do not understandd what you mean by this. I assume you mean you are withdrawing the attempt to start mass deletions immediately. If not, please let me know--for I will then proceed to do what I can to prevent them--and , if possible to try to change policy so that no X- speedy criteria can ever again be suggested. The more of these translations I look at, them ore I find that should be rescued. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The issue is bifurcated in the prior RfCs. There was a limited consensus that a company could be called a "vulture fund" but no consensus that a person should be described as a "vulture capitalist" in the lead of a BLP. My own position has always been that specific pejorative terms should only be used as opinions ascribed to the persons holding the opinions, and that use of pejoratives about individuals should very rarely be allowed at all. To that end, I suggest that reversing prior closes is inapt, and the claims made that the prior RfCs support calling a living person a "vulture" are incorrect. The company can have cites of opinions that it is a "vulture fund" cited and used as opinions, but the use of that pejorative as a statement of fact about a living person falls under WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. The current RfC has 6 editors specifically noting that the use of the pejorative in the lead about a person is wrong, 1 says the person is absolutely a "vulture capitalist", 1 asserts that every RfC supports calling the person a "vulture" and one says we should not have any more RfCs - that the issue is settled and we should call the living person a "vulture capitalist" in the lead on that basis. I rather that the current 6 to 3 opposition to use of the term in the lead indicates a substantial disagreement with the assertions made here, and the request that a close be overturned out of process. Collect (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

There has been no RfC to discuss whether someone should be called a vulture. I myself have said in past discussions that doing so, especially in WP's voice, would be contrary to what this encyclopaedia is about. Please do not mis-represent my views - it's things like that which have made these constant ongoing RfCs so toxic. My view is that Singer is most notable (WP:DUE) for running a vulture fund - and there are indeed countless sources (WP:RS) which confirm this and thus this fact should be made clear in the lede. Claiming that mentioning his company in an article equates to WP calling someone a vulture is nonsense and not a new arguement - this is the same line those same editors took over and over again in these discussions to no avail. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note that I specify the issue at hand is with regard to using the pejorative with regard to the single living person in the lead. A number of sources have branded him a "vulture capitalist" as distinct from his role at EMC, which has been called a vulture fund.. The two catenated uses of the pejorative are different here - ne is with regard to how some have categorized the fund, the other as a personal pejorative in the lead about the person. Do you see that distinction? Especially when the single sentence uses the term "vulture" twice? Collect (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You also failed to mention 2 more editors who had been in favour of using the term vulture fund in the lede but refused to partake in this particular discussion since they have made it clear that there have already been to many. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Again - the word "vulture" is used twice now in a single sentence in the lead - once with regard to opinions held about the fund (for which the prior RfC found the use of the opinion as opinion about the fund was allowable), and the second, the problematic one, with regard to the use of a pejorative about a living person in the lead of the BLP. Collect (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I am the creator of the most recent RfC. Frankly SegataSanshiro1 forced this RfC to happen in the first place by refusing to engage in talk page discussion on the vulture point. I would like to request that anyone participating in this discussion carefully read Misplaced Pages:Status quo stonewalling, and then refer directly to each of SegataSanshiro1's actions leading up to this RfC, and his actions in this one as well. Whatever SegataSanshiro may personally believe, a slur in a lead is Always A Very Big Deal, and not something to be brushed under the rug. As WP:Biographies of living people says, "we must get it right." It seems clear to me that several parties want to freeze an ongoing discussion at a point they find satisfying. Yvarta (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I have been involved in these ongoing discussions for quite some time now. As I've stated before, using a pejorative to describe an individual on a BLP is unacceptable, especially in the lead. That being said, the previous RfC was closed once discussion went stale. There were ample opportunities and there was more than enough time to provide arguments. Once users agreed upon a version, which limited use of the term "vulture", the user who closed the RfC made the edits in question but was reverted and the term was included an additional three times.

SegataSanshiro1's antics on Singer's page has gotten out of control and his motive on the page is clear. Now that consensus on the newest RfC is shifting highly in favor of removing the slur from the lead, SegataSanshiro1 is grasping at straws to get the previous RfC reviewed. If SegataSanshiro1 had an issue with how the previous RfC was closed, why didn't he follow through with an secondary discussion after this one went stagnant? After realizing consensus is shifting, not in his favor, he wants to call this new productive RfC "disruptive". Also, after the last RfC was closed, an admin came in and suggested a new RfC so do not throw out WP:FORUMSHOPPING accusations. Meatsgains (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Meatsgains, consensus is not shifting as you cannot establish consensus in a discussion which half of the editors can't even take seriously. You have been at the heart of this whole drama. Every time there was an RfC or discussion and consensus was established to use the term, you actively went about making against-consensus edits and other highly disruptive behaviour (which myself and other editors have called you out on time and time again) such as misrepresenting the results of other discussions, claiming sources weren't reliable when they were and even making up terminology like "distressed securities funds" to avoid using actual terminology. You are the only editor who has been involved in every single one of these discussions - very possessive behaviour all in all and along with the other things, you should have been sanctioned and barred from editing on that page.

Still, you continue to misrepresent what happened. There were five editors (myself included) who have said that this RfC is daft. If that were not the case, I wouldn't have opened this discussion on the noticeboard. I'm not going to let you make me lose it again, so please stop referring to me - I want absolutely nothing to do with you, and I know I shouldn't be addressing editors directly, but I really want to make that absolutely clear. Something hypothetical you might want to think about though:

After you've rolled the dice so many times trying to prevent WP:RS from an article and failed miserably, let's say that now after 8 or so attempts at getting your way you finally do. How seriously do you think other editors would take that consensus? Would they simply carry on doing as they wished to the page regardless as you have? Would they simply call another RfC in three months time and pretend the others never happened as you have? I very much doubt I'll stick around after this because I'm sick of this page, but I have a feeling you will, and if you do and you carry on acting as you have, you will be doing this for years. Please don't answer me. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I have weighed in on this on multiple occasions and will do my best to promptly summarize my opinion on the topic. The original dispute over the use of the term vulture has been over the derogatory nature of the term on vulture fund’s page. Subsequent discussions have taken place regarding the general use of the term, however the scope of the debate later concentrated on the term’s use in a BLP, specifically Paul Singer’s page. Some editors, whom I will not name, act as if they wp:own the article and have done everything in their power to keep vulture fund and vulture capitalist in the article. Some users have actually made the argument that "vulture" is not derogatory whatsoever (one even argued that it should be taken as a compliment. No reasonable and neutral arbitrator could disagree with the fact that “vulture fund” is a slur, invented by people who are deeply opposed to their entirely legal investments. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Collect, it's quite understandable that a number of editors are very much on edge considering this has been discussed to death and the conduct of a couple of editors in particular. I think what Nomoskedasticity meant by that remark is that you were making edits about something which was being discussed... Were you not one of those supporting an RfC after all?

From my own personal perspective, I think mentioning his main business area is running a culture fund, then including other references to him specifically in some sort of criticism section would be ideal. That and removing references to philanthropy from the lede as per WP:UNDUE. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: first of all I wish to state my astonishment at not being pinged when I was directly involved with one of the RfCs called into question. SegataSanshiro1's guerilla antics are indeed widespread and grave. I do not care about user behaviour at this stage, however, merely the state of Singer's biography. Said RfC was indeed improperly closed by myself, after which I requested admin intervention to reopen it (or closed by an uninvolved user - note I did so per WP:BOLD and because a determination was indeed agreed upon). This request was speedily rejected by KrakatoaKatie together with its corresponding ANI post, so I think it's safe to assume there is no interest in rekindling old fires. Attempts at mediation about this issue also failed. Regarding consensus, I counted at least 7 new voices in the current discussion, all offering interesting new insights (DGG, Collect, Elinruby, FuriouslySerene, Snow_Rise, Chris Hallquist, and Yvarta); there is strong indication at least some parties are willing to compromise. Some are under the impression consensus is a simple vote tally. I call into question this vehement ownership of the Paul Singer article. Every time any editor makes a serious attempt at a copy edit (no matter how minor), a concerted effort by the same bunch of editors reverses all possible changes. Just look at the edit history. Serious and pragmatic comments aimed at stemming this dreadlock are conveniently brushed aside, such as DGG's - "It's appropriate to use it in the article, since there is good sourcing, but it is not appropriate to use it in the lede. Ledes should be relatively neutral". If civil discussion cannot come about and admin action is required, so be it, but it does set a sad precedent. We had originally copy edited the lede back in October, trimming the use of "vulture" down to a single mention. This was of course then reverted maniacally even though discussion had concluded in that precise path. I don't see why a reasonable review of each instance of the word's use cannot take place. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Focus, this wasn't intended to be "guerilla antics" - we had actually discussed a re-close prior to this and you were involved, together with a number of other editors who I did not ping since I figured they would not want to be dragged into this again - I take it you're a page watcher anyway and I mentioned this discussion on the talk page. I also never had a problem with you being WP:BOLD and closing the discussion (in fact if I recall correctly, me and other editors were all for it), what myself and other editors had a problem with was the closing remarks, in particular "the RfC question was not unequivocally answered" when in reality it had, for the nth time that it is appropriate to use this particular word in this particular article - that's beyond discussion at this point. To this day, I agree with the path of compromise we embarked on, what I did not agree with was the sheer amount of forums this was taken to and the manner in which the discussion was closed. To be honest, that close made me question your good faith and took away any desire on my part to be collaborative.

The issue with these discussions is that they're never clear, we're never discussing on a point by point basis since one or two editors (should be fairly obvious who) take these discussions as an attempt to remove all mention of the terminology, digging in their heels until we're back in 2014 again discussing whether we should censor it entirely (again, always the same editors). All the while, creating serious NPOV issues by removing statements backed up by RS and adding in things which are UNDUE in an attempt to whitewash. If that stops, then I'm sure normal discussion could ensue and general anger levels could be drastically reduced along with the tedium. I have already said that I'm of the opinion that "vulture capitalist" should be discussed, but that's hardly going to happen if we still have editors claiming a vulture fund is not a thing, and the very presence of the term (what Singer is most notable for, if I may add) equates to Misplaced Pages calling a living person a vulture. That's not new, that's not productive and you're as aware of that as I am. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• It was a middle of the road close. . There is a distinction between someone being personally a vulture, which implies that he acts in that manner in all his activities or is of that personality type, and running a fund that shares some similar characteristics and goes by the common name of vulture fund. We cannot avoid using the full term, because even those sources that endorse the profession use it as a matter of course. But we can try to avodi personalizing things that don't need personalizing, especially things that some people are likely to consider highly negative. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

And to the point - any BLP which stresses the use of "vulture" seventeen times is likely to be perceivable as making a point in itself. I just do not understand the concept that name-calling is something Misplaced Pages should actively pursue, and that editors who even remove a single use from the lead are somehow evil here. Argh. Collect (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't appear 17 times. I only see 6 mentions in the article itself and one of them was actually about an antisemitic cartoon - the rest are mentions in references. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

That's INCREDIBLY misleading. Most of those are references, hence more reason to include it. Of the 6 ACTUAL uses, none of them are in WP's voice. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@SegataSanshiro1: You keep claiming that "Singer is most notable for" his "vulture fund". This is your own opinion. Do a google news search and tell us how many pages you have to dig through before coming across a page that uses the slur? This is a false assumption, which you have consistently done throughout this dispute. Meatsgains (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Stop pinging me. This isn't my own opinion and vulture fund is not a slur, it's the name of a type of fund that buys debt at discount prices and attempts to sue for 100% payment. As much as you pretend it isn't, you should remember this since you were involved in multiple discussions where you pretended that there was consensus that it was a slur when there wasn't - you were called out on it multiple times: . You also made a no-consensus page move from vulture fund to "distressed securities fund" despite there being no sources to validate such naming and in clear violation of WP:COMMONNAME - you should also remember this since there were two discussions, both on the talk page and at WP:W2W which undid that rather stealthy move and established rather firmly that vulture funds are indeed a thing and that is indeed what they are called, while Singer's EMC is one of the most prolific. Why have you consistently misrepresented information and lied to other editors? There's plenty more examples where you have been called out on doing this, want me to give more? Meatsgains, you are the only editor (along with Comatmebro, actually) who has been involved in every discussion to do with Singer, vulture funds and Elliott Management Corporation and consistently used some very dodgy tactics to get your way, ranging from ignoring consensus and making edits regardless to protecting all these pages like a hawk (or vulture, more appropriately?) and claiming sources aren't reliable based on your own opinions. I'm still shocked you're still around and you haven't been sanctioned. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

"This isn't my own opinion and vulture fund is not a slur" - Yes it is and yes it is. Also, do not dilute this discussion with attacking me. Meatsgains (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Agree that handling a vulture fund does not equate to being a vulture - that's the main flawed premise that has been holding this back. I still disagree that the close was "middle of the road", since using vulture terminology does not violate NPOV (the question raised in the RfC) since it is WP:DUE - only a tiny, tiny number of people have said that all reference to vultures should be gone from the article. The Samsung affair and other criticism (such as "vulture capitalist") needs to go in a criticism section rather than the lede - Singer has received enough criticism from multiple sources to warrant one. Vulture fund, on the other hand, should remain firmly in the lede - that's what he's known for and what a large chunk of the article is about. I know you have argued that he has other investments, but that's akin to leaving out the Iraq war in Tony Blair's page. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yet again you are wildly, amazingly off topic. There is already an RfC discussing this issue, in case you forgot, and a talk page to discuss general improvements. This discussion, SegataSanshiro, you started to determine if the RfC creations are inappropriate. As you seem to have forgotten, I would like to remind you that you reverted my lead change on the grounds that I needed to first discuss, and now you are trying to shut that very discussion down - that, or apparently force it to stagnate by repeating the same arguments while ignoring the arguments of others. As far as I am concerned, you specifically continue to stonewall and disrupt a natural consensus building process. You are either nearing either an epiphany (i.e. that this is not a battle you are trying to win), or nearing a topic ban. Yvarta (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Not me specifically. There have been five editors (including me) who have questioned the validity of this RfC. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully I haven’t given the impression I think those other four are guilty of actively stonewalling. If so, I apologize for being thoughtless and rude. Yvarta (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I am not opposed to having an administrator re-close a previous RFC if the stated consensus was incorrect (I was the one who suggested coming to AN on the Singer talk page as SegatSanshiro continues to question it), just for the sake of clarity and any subsequent discussions. I do not support closing the current RFC though. I don't see it as disruptive as opinion is clearly divided and the issue is contentious, the previous RfC was over 4 months ago and the closing and consensus is disputed, so getting new editors involved to seek consensus should be a good thing (I only joined this discussion thanks to this most recent RfC). As for my opinion about the underlying issue, I've already posted to the RfC and it may not be relevant here, but I believe that mainstream reliable sources do not refer to Singer as a "vulture." He is called a hedge fund manager by these sources. Therefore the term vulture should only be used when it is ascribed to a specific person or entity (i.e., his critics). My reading of the current RfC and previous ones is that most editors agree with that position. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I have never edited this article and am in this because the RfC bot asked me to give my opinion. The person who started the RfC however has repeatedly told me I am off-topic when I try to explain the BLP policy. As best I can tell however the person's argument is that the appellation is inappropriate because Singer is a living person, and they appear to be ready to repeat this argument indefinitely. I would also like to mention that while I personally believe that "vulture capitalist" is a specialized bit of vocabulary that is not particularly pejorative, the current wording does not use it in wikipedia's voice either, which many of the comments on this seem to assume. It says he has been called a vulture capitalist and provides no less than nine sources for the statement. I believe we should remove the weasel wording and explicitly quote one or more people. I would agree with the idea expressed at one point of balancing out concerns about due weight, assuming that is what they are, by adding other details of his business dealings. However as far as I can tell there are no such details; Singer seems to be a specialist in this type of transaction, and to have been for decades. Elinruby (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Explaining BLP policy is not off topic - however, long accusations of COI (without basis) and facts focused on Singer's details are very off topic to this particular RfC, as I've pointed out that many businessmen have similar, nigh identical press coverage concerning the "vulture" phrase. If you would like to start another RfC on a different nuance or topic, you are welcomed to. Yvarta (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Heh. The heart of my point is that Singer is a public figure and therefore under WP:PUBLICFIGURE it matters very much whether the statement is true. As for my COI concerns, well, normally we don't comment on editors but your actions do suggest one in my opinion, yes. You are very concerned, astonishingly concerned, with the PR of this billionaire, shrug. I didn't actually start with that assumption, mind; I just told you it was ok to be a paid editor if you declared yourself as such. But you say you are not, so. AGF. You *still* never ever answer any other editors questions, and dismiss them as irrelevant unless they support your desired outcome. Elinruby (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Anyone look at the nominator's (i.e. Yvarta's) edit history? Yvarta, this looks like it was not your first account. Who were you editing as prior to this account? NickCT (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to ask any questions about my experience on my talk page/email. My editing history relates to personal details of my life, and so I haven't shared that here/in the RfC. Yvarta (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - This RfC makes for a dramatic read. My perception of things, after also skimming the older RfCs linked about halfway through, is that the prior RfCs were imperfectly framed, and as a result conversations were bogged down by arguments over whether Singer himself was a vulture, not whether vulture should be a descriptor in any lead at all. The RfC certainly has broader implications than one biography, as the overall precedent on Misplaced Pages most definitely favors avoiding such descriptors in bio leads. Has anyone else been able to find a biography or corporation with an animal slur used in the intro? I tried with several creative search phrases, and have so far utterly failed. This RfC is far from perfect as well, but I do applaud its attempt to focus the issue away from Singer. Most constructive so far, in my opinion, is that the argument that excluding vulture from the lead equals censorship has been debunked several times. Leads are certainly not required to include every detail of a criticism section, and per prior arguments, any concept that could be carried across by "vulture" could also be carried across with an alternate explanation.

Note to whoever closes this RfC: However long this discussion needs to continue, I would like to note that there is obviously not a clear consensus in favor of keeping vulture in the lead, even though the reverts apparently leading to this discussion were founded entirely on the argument that prior RfCs had reached consensus. As such, I would like to note that all three of those reverts have been proven to have been without basis, even if they were done in good faith. A number of contributors, several of obvious neutrality and experience, have agreed that a slur of denigration is inappropriate in a lead when applied to a person or company, especially since both the criticism and the neologism can be fully explained with neutral and more conservative words. As such, the argument that there is a violation of the neutral tone mandated by WP:BLPSTYLE is at the very least plausible, however this consensus concludes itself. Until that time, however, the assessment that biography leads must be treated with extra delicacy is absolutely correct, and I agree with Yvarta's bold action to remove "vulture" when he/she did, just like I would have agreed with a decision to remove "rat" or "loan shark" or "pig." Basically, until something is settled, there is currently no consensus', and I believe "vulture" should be again removed until consensus is reached and the barn is built.Bbmusicman (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 06:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Self-promotion by User:Calibrador

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

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

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

• Arguing in favor of his own picture (photo C):
• Declaring that his photo C has consensus:
• Arguing with people who prefer a different picture:
• Arguing that some people's !votes (for another picture) should not count:

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

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

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

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

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

P. S. See also this May 2015 discussion at the 3RR noticeboard: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive280#User:GageSkidmore reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Warned). --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• His behavior on Anne Holton is not good. He replaces a photo on Sept 7 with a better one (okay) but edit wars all throughout yesterday, claiming consensus is needed to change from his preferred photo without responding on the talk page. WP:GAME. --NeilN 15:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Any reason we cant just rename all the files? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The other user involved is stalking my contributions and changed the photo simply to undermine (prior to my edit, they had never contributed to the article). I preferred the other photo for technical reasons, especially sharpness, not because of the title. And the titles of images is a Commons issue not a Misplaced Pages issue, an issue that is not against any rule at Commons and was used by other photographers such as David Shankbone for years. Calibrador (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

That was also proposed at the previous ANI. It would have the advantage of retaining his photos (which really are good) while eliminating the advertising aspect. We would still also need to deal with his excessive promotion of them, but a warning might suffice. --MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Have not warnings already failed to suffice? I haven't time to review all the evidence now but if I believe what you write I'm thinking a topic ban from adding or discussing the use of his images is the way to go. BethNaught (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

There was in fact a warning issued at the 3RR discussion, by User:EdJohnston: " User:GageSkidmore is warned that they may be blocked for disruptive editing if they continue the pattern of edits documented in this complaint. In particular, any warring to promote your own photos over those taken by others can be sanctioned. Continuing to revert regarding a picture where it's evident that you don't have consensus may lead to a block." He probably did violate it at the Anne Holton article, and possibly others. --MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) 1. Rename all photos. 2. Allow him unlimited contributions to Commons, like anybody else. 3. TBAN from advocating any of his own photos. This would remove his existing vote at Talk:Donald Trump, which has so far been allowed after discussion, unless we grandfathered that case. 4. Handle any disruptive editing like any other disruptive editing.
If any of his photos is in fact superior to the alternatives, other editors will find it and routine consensus-building will choose it. They won't need selling. In the end, his past behavior in this area appears self-defeating; some editors who are aware of it may tend to find reasons to oppose his photos simply because they don't like his history of fuzzy-ethics tactics. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Well he is right, if the photos are sourced from commons, naming of photos at commons is a commons issue. So realistically the only recourse here would be to remove them all from the articles they are used in. But doing that merely because they are named after the author is hardly benefiting the encyclopedia. Likewise unless there is actually a quality issue (are his pictures being replaced with higher quality ones?) using a lower quality picture just to avoid using one with his name in it is also not benefiting the encyclopedia. Limiting him to 0 reverts where he adds a photo should probably solve the issue? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

If my edit is reverted legitimately by a user not stalking my contributions, violating WP:Hounding (users like Winkelvi who follows me around from article to article), I don't have any issue with someone reverting my photo. The only time I can think of where I may have reverted was when I thought there was enough consensus, and even then it was not more than once or twice that I reverted within a span of a few days. And I was unaware of any rule of advocating for your own photo. Winkelvi has twice, or probably more, chosen to upload their own photos (not taken by them, but uploaded by them) in an attempt to replace an uncontroversial edit by me. Calibrador (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

My warning to User:GageSkidmore/User:Calibrador from May 2015 has been mentioned above by User:MelanieN. Technically, he has now engaged in the behavior I warned him against, ("warring to promote your own photos over those taken by others") since he reverted three times at Anne Holton on September 11 to restore his own photo to the article. Unless he makes a suitable assurance about this future behavior, I think a block is called for under my previous warning. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC) Withdrawing my first comment. This is indeed a pattern of edit warring by User:Calibrador, but it's not a simple question of preferring his own picture over ones taken by others. At Anne Holton he was reverting to provide a different picture from his collection, which also had the effect of providing a caption that contains his own name. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Both of the photos involved were my own. And the user reverting has been WP:Hounding my edits across many articles. Calibrador (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, "warring to promote your own photos over those taken by others" is irrelevant when he's putting in his own picture in place of his own picture. This doesn't rule out sanctions for "Warring..." or for general disruption, if they're appropriate, but check the page history before assuming that he's promoting his own picture over someone else's work. Nyttend (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend, Melanie's point was that the photo he preferred had his name in the file name and the other didn't. --NeilN 17:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

That was the only reason I could think of why he would prefer this picture File:Anne Holton by Gage Skidmore.jpg over this one File:Anne Holton DNC Hdqtrs Phoenix AZ Sept 2016.jpg, which to an amateur eye is a much better picture of her. BTW the final reversion to the second picture was done by an uninvolved third party, purely on quality grounds. --MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC) P.S. The editor who posted the second picture has explained their reasons for doing so on the talk page. Calibrador has not commented there, just reverted. --MelanieN (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

If it were any other user, I would've gladly participated in a talk discussion, but I chose to use their own words from when they reverted an uncontroversial change I'd made to an article that they objected to nearly a week after I'd made the edit, as I saw it as a double standard, and no use in discussing with someone who simply intends to disrupt because I made the edit. Calibrador (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've added photos I've taken uploaded by someone else without my name in the title in the past, and I had absolutely no issue in the case of the Holton photo. You'll notice that they reduced the image size to 200px on the Holton article, this was because it was out of focus, and something I do not necessarily worry about on Flickr where it is best to upload as many photos as possible, unless they are completely out of focus and thus unusable. My intention of reverting was because the photo I uploaded was sharp, and the user was intentionally following me around from article to article to undermine contributions, and adding their own uploaded versions. You can see a similar instance at the article Landon Liboiron, which Winkelvi had also never edited until I made an edit. They are tracking my edits to revert me, participate in discussion where I participate, and intentionally making edits in order to create conflict. Calibrador (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I was just going by the comment from Ed just above mine, "...in the behavior I warned him against...", which didn't say anything about filenames. Nyttend (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

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

• Suggestion Calibrador- please don't repeatedly (twice now) make accusations of WP:HOUNDING from other editors without providing relevant diffs as evidence- otherwise they will be seen, in all likelihood, as simply slurs. Cool photos, btw. _Muffled 17:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment about filenames - I'd encourage limiting the discussion here to the behavioral issues specific to Misplaced Pages (edit warring, COI, etc.). The renaming of images hosted on Commons would certainly need to take place on Commons rather than here. Personally, I think filenames shouldn't be used for promotion/credit, but it does not fit into one of the reasons for renaming listed at Commons:File renaming and the practice has been upheld several times. The name I've seen involved in those disputes most frequently is Shankbone, but there are also prominent examples like geograph.org.uk. Regardless, it doesn't seem useful to bother with filenames unless they're uploaded to Misplaced Pages and not Commons. — Rhododendrites \\ 18:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Who cares? He's giving a ton of nice photos to Misplaced Pages for free. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

  And that entitles him to engage in edit warring and disruption? BethNaught (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

  I don't think anybody objects to his uploading his photos to Commons for free. I'll assume "who cares" is sort of idiomatic or rhetorical, since it's clear enough who cares. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Just FYI, since Winkelvi has been mentioned multiple times but not pinged, I've left a notification on his/her userpage. — Rhododendrites \\ 18:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to point to the edit history of the article Landon Liboiron again as an example of their tracking of my edits and undoing my contribution, whether it was right or not to replace the photo. It's evidence they are looking at my edit history to go to articles where I've contributed to either contribute their own uploaded photo, revert and demand I get consensus, or participating in talk discussions where I've also been an active participant and voicing an opposing opinion. Calibrador (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Just noticed this entry in their block log as well, which seems to be from a similar issue with another user about 4 months ago. Calibrador (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

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

• I've never agreed with the naming and have made it known I disapprove of them, I recall there being a discussion somewhere (may of been AN3) where we were basically told all of these names are a Commons issue ..... I really don't know how to say this without being offensive .... Ummm most people at at Commons aren't the brightest of people .... so having a discussion about it over there would simply end up with me repeatedly smashing my face against a brick wall hence why I've not done anything about it, As I said I disagree whole heartedly with the promotional names however I know Commons won't do jack about it and I know we can't do anything here either .... So unless WMF gets involved (which would be extremely unlikely) there's nothing no one can do except allow it to continue. –Davey2010 20:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• I really don't know how to say this without being offensive .... Ummm most people at at Commons aren't the brightest of people. ← redact this nonsense and remove this comment of mine when you do. — Rhododendrites \\ 04:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• While it's only a proposed policy (and has been a proposed policy now for several years), Commons:Commons:File naming summarises well the Commons approach: in most cases, we don't object to filenames if they're descriptive and contain nothing that would be inappropriate in the description page, and these images definitely fit into the "most cases". Blatant advertising isn't permitted, but putting the uploader's username into the filename is nowhere close to blatant advertising. And finally, as Rhododendrites notes, see Commons:Commons:File renaming; removing Calibrador's name from these images wouldn't be in line with any of the permitted reasons for renaming, unless Calbirador asks for removal. Nyttend (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Worth noting that only editors see the name, unlike most spamming - unless the reader clicks thru to the file page. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • False. Search engines index the name too, and that's why he does it. —Cryptic 02:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Your comment is a bit cryptic, Cryptic. Ok, so it's easy to find all of his photos on Commons using Google, if one sets out to do so. No one sees that unless they ask to see it by doing that search, and in doing so they will discover that Gage Skidmore has donated a lot of his work to Wikimedia Commons. Why is this a problem? And how does it make my comment false? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
      • If you had to search for "Gage Skidmore", no, that wouldn't be a problem. But if you do an image search for a person whose article has one of these photos in the lede, say, Bruce Willis, the image Misplaced Pages uses will in most cases be one of the first three hits, and it'll have his name plastered all over it. Also, it'll show up with screenreaders and as alt text. Image file names are absolutely part of our outward-facing interface. —Cryptic 03:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
        • • So he's found a way to attach his name to each of his photos. How is this different from the note at the end of the caption for the current lead photo at nytimes.com: "Aaron Wynia for The New York Times"? Or the author's name on the cover of a book, for that matter? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
            • We're not nytimes.com and we're not a book. We have redlinks at Richard Nixon by Wehwalt and Jersey Act by Eric Corbett and Ealdgyth and American white ibis by Casliber, and we have clear instructions at WP:CREDITS as to where authorship of an image should be placed. Every other user agrees "that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution", right there under the editbox. —Cryptic 04:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
              • And we're not showing his name at Misplaced Pages, as I said. It appears via Google Images, as you said. Google Images is not Misplaced Pages. You cite WP:CREDITS, but it does not address this situation one way or the other. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• We are absolutely not beholden to Commons' naming policies. If we decide here that the names are inappropriate - and I sure as hell think so, and would have been reverting Calibrador right and left for months on articles popping up on my watchlist if he hadn't deceptively changed his username so I didn't think it was someone else replacing perfectly good images with his promotionally-titled photos - we can effectively delete the files locally by uploading a blank image over them and protecting it. —Cryptic 02:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

I've never contributed to Misplaced Pages with that username. The only time that there were contributions was when I renamed three files at Commons which made an edit on Misplaced Pages as part of the automatic file naming system, something that's not manual and thus unavoidable on my part. Calibrador (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Good catch @Diannaa:, he basically used that account to "abuse" his "move" rights on commons (its automated, when you change the name of an image on commons, your accounts on other wikis will make the change on every wiki where the image is used on)..he abused his rights there to change the image name of Bryan Fuller and Kiefer Sutherland to carry his byline (name) in the image name and yet he will claim here that he did not abuse his rights ...lol..--Stemoc 10:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not true; User:Gage has not moved any files since July, and had his file mover right removed on August 4. User:Calibrador does not have the file mover right, as far as I can tell. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Calibrador: arbitrary break

• If someone is looking for more insight into Winkelvi and Calibrador's interactions, I suggest you check out . You can draw your own conclusions. Calidum ¤ 20:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

This wasn't in the interaction report, but Winkelvi also took it upon himself to make a series of edits to the Gage Skidmore article in the midst of his dispute with Gage Skidmore . Calidum ¤ 22:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks like he took it upon himself to improve an article. I see nothing remotely improper there, but I tweaked it. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Winkelvi does have a habit of following people around. I think this does change the full focus of this discussion. One question that should be addresses is if there's a difference between regular photo reverts and edits and those with Winkelvi. 🔯 Sir Joseph 20:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• I just added the arbitrary break That interaction link is conclusive, and edits like this are particularly damning; I suppose I can imagine someone watching a bunch of Trump-related articles without previously editing them, but who watches wikiproject templates for talk pages? If you're long-term feuding with various people, and you're willing to be following people around to confronting them on pages you've never edited and not likely to have watched, you're being quite disruptive. Blocking for two months, since the previous one-month block didn't dissuade Winkelvi from treating Misplaced Pages like a battleground. Nyttend (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

This is really quite sad, Nyttend, you should really try to follow the drama that comes with Calibrador/Gage Skidmore, he uses wikipedia to not only promote himself but he is also in the habit of crying foul when people point out to him that he is using wikipedia to self promote himself and then he would claim those users are "hounding" him and yet he has never really been blocked for a longer term. I'll put that down to the failure of the administration system on enwiki more than anything else..playing victim has always worked for many of our incorrigible trolls on this wiki and its quite sad that they are protected. This isn't the first time this has happened, Calibrador/Gage brought me to this same board last year for the same reason and then he brought another user a few months later, both of us were telling him not to use the wiki to promote himself and not only that, he would intentionally remove another previous image and replace it with one of his own and one with his own byline (xxx by Gage Skidmore). It has been mentioned above by User:MelanieN. I haven't reported him to WP:ANI because I know that the failure of the system means that nothing would be done and it will be just a waste of time but since you have gone ahead and blocked Winkelvi who was just trying to stop Gage/Calibrador from using wikipedia to self-promote himself for 60 days, I hope you give a similar punishment to Calibrador.....It's bad enough a person is punished for trying to stop a 'crime', but to let the perpetrator walk free is even worse. Either you be balanced with your judgement or remove the block on Winkelvi. Yes Harassment is apparently a big issue on enwiki but it usually does go both ways..You cannot just block one person for it..There is something else you should know. Calibrador has another account on commons, Gage. Last month, 2 of his rights were removed due to abuse. Those rights were move rights because he would blatantly change the name of images on commons with the one carrying his byline (name) and his Licence Reviewer right, a right given to trusted Commons users who review images from flickr to ensure that those images fulfill our inclusion criteria and he used that right to 'pass' his images or images that were added by him which are not allowed. Again, i urge you to really go through everything that has been said on this ANI before coming with a decision. I do not agree with the judgement you passed on Winkelvi but its even worse that you only did it to one of the perpetrators..Last year we agreed with @Nick:'s proposal in regards to this but like the many other threads about him that have come on this board, non have ever ended with a final solution, so maybe this time we should..We cannot play this cat and mouse game, we cannot keep allowing wrong people from being blocked because the admins refuse to do whats right and we should definitely not continue to waste time with this. We block users who use the project to self promote themselves (articles/namespace), so why do we have a different rule for images?...Can we end this madness this week? there are much more pressing issues that needs to be discussed instead...--Stemoc 03:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Few people need to look at Winkelvi's block log to know of his long, exasperating, exhausting history of behavior issues. He has to inflate everything into a virtual religious crusade, doing at least as much harm as good. He is very quick to anger, seemingly unable to shake his perpetual battleground mentality despite the years of complaints about it. If I had my way he'd be banned from policing other editor behavior because he simply lacks the temperament for it. To be clear, I'm not siding with GS over WV, they are both culpable. And I doubt Nyttend is either. For some reason that baffles me, these conflicts are always treated as binary, as if only one of the parties is at fault and our job is to decide who it is. But that is almost never the case. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really defending Winkelvi, I'm aware of his Battleground attitude, I just feel that atleast the blocks should be fair..How many times has WV been brought to this board? or ANI? the difference may be that there was never any solutions/sanctions passed in regards to Calibrador even if there were strong support for it..He has been brought here on or ANI more than 5 times already and the worst (and infact ONLY) block he ever got was a 3RR (which i also got then)..Infact, quite a few people mentioned in that last ANI that if we don't come up with a solution, it will happen again, and we are here now..Its obvious now that even if we tell Calibrador to stop adding images with his name as the byline, he will completely ignore that request, just look at his commons talk page, the last time he actually "replied" to anyone regarding his images was back in July 2013 ..we are way past that as a solution, its either a sufficient block (1 month or more) and a final warning or an indefinite ban, anything else would be just a slap in the face of our own policies...--Stemoc 05:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Well you laid down a large post including (1) "This is really quite sad, Nyttend", apparently referring to the block of WV, (2) "punished for trying to stop a 'crime'", and so on. How is that "not really defending Winkelvi"? Looks like defending to me. I think the block is fair, per Nyttend's rationale and WV's history, and I don't link that to Calibrador in any way. If you're under the impression that WV's block precludes a sanction against Calibrador, or that it ends this issue, you're mistaken. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Did it sound like i was defending Winkelvi or did it it sound like i was asking Nyttend to block Calibrador too? I agree that Winkelvi deserves a block because he took it a bit too far this time, but 60 days and yet at the same time, the problematic user walks away scott-free? I do not see a justice in that, do you? Its about being fair, always two sides of a coin, we know what WV did to get his block, now lets flip the coin around and see why Calibrador should get a similar one too..Please, blocking one editor to warn another is not really a sanction is it?..This thread is about Calibrador and yet somehow for possibly the 4th time (if not more), someone else gets blocked....I see a trend here and its not something that gives you hope of a proper outcome..Personally, for now, WV should be unblocked so he can come make his case here, it was a bit silly to block him before allowing him a chance to explain himself, I think we all would like to know what led to this discussion and blocking one of (if not "THE" main) parties involved beforehand is not really a solution--Stemoc 05:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Who's walking away scot-free? The Calibrador issue remains very open and that's crystal clear. His issue is more complex so it takes longer than half a day to resolve. You seem to be reading Nyttend's action and comment like a close of this discussion. It simply is not. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Stemoc: I completely agree. Winklevi didnt even get a chance to make one reply on this thread. Also, you were not defending Winkelvi, but this thread was started for the behavior of Calibrador not Winklevi. That is a whole other issue, We should be focusing on his edits and behavior, not that of others. Doing a wrong because someone else does a wrong, doesnt make your wrong right. Chase (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe that admins can issue blocks without discussion, the discretion is theirs. Winkelvi is free to appeal the block, if he is unable to see that it's more gift than punishment and make effective use of his two months away from this madness. I say we leave that issue to him and the admin corps and drop this line of discussion. At least I've said all I'm going to about it. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

That aside, I believe the block is just and right, unless something is not done about Calibrador as well then it would be severly unfair. Chase (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Just would like to quickly note that Davey2010 and Stemoc have also tracked my contributions in the past, in one instance Davey2010 reverted me across a dozen or more articles where I'd contributed a photo including articles that did not have a photo (he then removed them) and was warned and reverted by another user, possibly an admin, but I don't recall specifically. I'm guessing that's how both of them found this discussion was from looking at my contributions to see what they could follow me around and oppose today. Calibrador (talk) 07:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

If you're persistently following someone around without very good reason (long-term, not merely reverting a big group of edits all together), you need to be shown the door, at least for a period of time, if not indefinitely: this is a project for building an encyclopedia, not for tearing down other people, and editors focused on harassing others fundamentally aren't here to build an encyclopedia. Had I somehow discovered Winkelvi's actions independently, without any input from other people, I would have been strongly inclined to block without warning; the biggest thing that would hold me back was a question of "am I seeing this rightly, or have I misunderstood somehow", and the fact that others also came to the same conclusion first, plus the fact that he'd previously been blocked for battleground behavior, removed that doubt. Also, regarding the next subsection: I'm not going to issue any sanctions against Calibrador because (1) I've checked his recent editing at Commons and haven't seen any policy violations (the only instances of people rejecting Commons policies in this discussion are people who are urging violations of the file naming policies in opposition to him), so with my Commons admin hat on, I say that nothing's wrong; and (2) I've not checked his recent editing here, or carefully read through what his opponents have said here at this discussion about his editing here. It's not a blatant case such as childish vandalism or clear POV-pushing, so would be reckless for me to issue a block or support other sanctions without careful checking. I won't support any proposals and won't oppose any proposals. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Ofcourse you won't take any actions on Calibrador, that is what i was telling Mandruss earlier because if you intended to take actions against him, you would not have blocked his only critic in Winkelvi without giving him a chance to explain himself. You decided to jump the gun instead because of your own personal assumptions of him, "Oh yeah, WV has a habit of Battleground behavior so yeah its his fault, I'll block him now"..May I ask, which account of Calibrador did you look under cause I'm pretty sure he does not use that account on commons and furthermore, @Nyttend:, as a commons admin, I'm sure have you been following the Commons: ANU board and may have noticed this last month and 2, its apparent you have not been following the recent drama on this wiki so I'm sorry to say but you are probably not the right admin to make such a decision since you are misinformed, maybe you should let another admin who is aware of the situation decide then? ..--Stemoc 12:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I tend to stay away from COM:ANU because (unlike the other COM:AN pages) it tends to be populated with drama warriors. If you are familiar with Commons policy, you will see that the big issue there was renaming files that didn't meet the renaming criteria (thus disrupting other projects, and potentially off-wiki uses) and misusing the reviewer right. As far as the issue of blocking Winkelvi: other people alleged, with some links, that he had been engaging in long-term policy violations, and after doing my own investigation, I could see that they were right. Given WP:EQUAL, I don't care who you are: if I see that you're engaging in long-term stalking, doing your best to harass someone else over a long period of time, I'll block you for an extended period of time, regardless of who you are. Nyttend (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Stemoc: you are probably not the right admin to make such a decision - As I said, WV can appeal. Appeals have to be processed by a different admin, precisely because of the potential for error. As I said, I would enjoy my involuntary wikibreak if I were in WV's place, but he is free to ask a different and uninvolved admin how he feels about it. I suggest you let that process work as it was designed, and cease your attack on an experienced and respected admin for doing a very tough, thankless, and pay-free job to the best of his ability. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Ofcourse WV can appeal, that isn't really the issue here is it? and what do you mean to 'cease my attack'? All i see is an admin who did not do his homework trying to make a decision which affects many people and not just this project but possibly commonswiki as well, its not an attack, its an observation and again, i'd be happy to stand back and see some form of solution be found but as i said in my other posts, this user has been brought to WP:AN (and WPAN/I) either by himself or by other editors many times and has NEVER faced any consequences of his actions so pardon me if I refuse to wait another 14 months to come back here to discuss the same problems again and again and basically see the same outcome, which is basically 'no action'..remember the old saying "fool me once..."? ...yeah not falling for that again... --Stemoc 15:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I see things differently. No admin is required to answer to a single over-excited, emotionally-invested editor who shows little grasp of what it is to be an admin, and I think Nyttend has already given you more explanation than you deserved. Continue your ranting all you like, but not with me. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

@MelanieN: That's still ongoing in the parent section, if slowly. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Calibrador's attitude towards other users has definitely caused a problem. Every warning that has been given to him has been ignored and something must be done because he continues to cause animosity with others. He continues to promote his pictures as being better, simply because they are his and WP:CANVAS people to agree with him and balance the consensus in his favor, and those who do not agree with him, he engages in WP:BLUD. My personal feeling is the Winkelvi should not have been banned so soon in this discussion, especially since we have not come to some sort of resolution to Calibrador's disruptants of Misplaced Pages, creating this discussion and several others from his behavior when all of our time could be spent improving Misplaced Pages. If WInkelvi is going to have a ban, then Calibrador, the one that started the whole issue in the first place should have the same punishment, if not more rash. Chase (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked, not banned. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Thank you for correcting me. Someone said "topic-ban" earlier and my dyslexia mixed up my jargen. Chase (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Responding to CCamp2013's accusations, disregarding the fact that they have opposing opinions in many of the discussions they're referring to, the only time I can think of that I've advocated my photos over someone else's in an extensive debate is the Talk:Donald Trump discussion, which is very recent. In this instance, it's not as if I'm the only one advocating for my photos to be added, there's currently a simply majority among at least a dozen or more other users who have agreed, and a little less than that who have taken the opposing view point (just to give context for uninitiated users). In instances where I thought it was appropriate to respond, given that it is a discussion that is meant to come to a consensus among two or more opposing parties, I took the time to respond to points made by a couple of other users. From this, I don't recall any unwarranted conflict being created, but I was not aware at the time that responding to multiple people was against any sort of rule. Same with advocating for a photo you took, I'm still not aware of any rule against that. If that's a COI then I have no problem with disclosing fully my role, or not participating in said discussion in a way that causes disruption. Calibrador (talk) 07:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Calibrador: I want to point out that arguments like, "it's not as if I'm the only one advocating for my photos to be added" have little relevance to this conversation. This discussion is about your behavior and what should be done about it. If you wish to put the actions of others on here for review then please supply the edits where this is the case, otherwise, you are not helping your case. Plus, the only one that I know of that has done what you are referring to, has already been blocked for 2 months. I also want to point out that people did discuss with you about continually making comments to those who opposed your photo, but you still did it anyway. You clearly had COI and was influencing and guiding the discussion to your favor so you would get your desired outcome. You first introduced your photos here and then discussed here at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016, and then only notified certain users here, which interestingly enough all were in favor of your picture that weighed in, those same users proceeded to the Donald Trump page. You have also displayed this type of behavior for the Mike Pence photo. Here and here the editor states he is changing the photo per discussion, but i fail to see where the discussion took place, just a suggection here that it looked good according to you and User:TL565. he also made this edit in which he states "introduce based on talk and most agreeing, this is also more than a year newer, as it is from this week", but in another page states "You must obtain consensus on the talk page to change the photo, recentism does not award you consensus" here. There are countless examples I could recite, but in all of them you can see each photo had his name on the filename. This is how he is promoting his pictures, in favor of others. Chase (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

In response to the statement you quoted, I was referring only to one instance, which taken out of context looks like I'm speaking about all my contributions. I was only referring to the Trump discussion. Calibrador (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Photos named and stored at commons are a non-starter for reasons explained above. You can argue its self-promotion and google index it yadda yadda, but its not prohibited and how google displays its search results is not a concern of wikipedia.
• Unless there is actually a *quality* issue with the photos, removing good quality photos from articles because of how they are named at commons is not improving the encyclopedia. In fact I would argue its actively harming it.
• The only substantial issue I can see is that there have been instances of edit-warring over their own photos (which taking into acocunt the WV issue above have not all been entirely of Calibrador's own making) a simple 1rr restriction limited to images in articles should solve that? Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall, except maybe in a very, very rare instance edit warring (especially within 24 hours), for an article to include my photo. Most of the edits I make in regards to photos would probably be considered uncontroversial. The Anne Holton instance is an anomaly as Winkelvi was plainly obviously following me around article to article and doing the things that I listed above that I don't want to rehash. I'd also suggest that you would probably have to look out for contributions by certain users who know that there would be a 1RR and would revert me knowing that I can't revert back (for instance, users like Davey2010 or Stemoc who take issue with the file names despite it being a Commons issue, and there being no rules against it on Commons). Calibrador (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You're quite correct that on Commons, we allow files to be uploaded under a wider range of filenames, and with over 33 million media files, appending usernames to filenames is something that eases the search and location of media files. I generally upload images with my username as part of the file name.

English Misplaced Pages, is free to restrict the use of any media files from Commons, something we do with the 'Bad image list' and if community consensus here is that we will not use media files with usernames or full names as part of the filename, then you would need to respect any consensus which emerges on that basis (not that I see any consensus for that, or that serious discussion has been undertaken to establish if that consensus exists).

I would again re-iterate my original comments which MelanieN linked to in the opening comment of this page - your contributions are valuable but we (both here on English Misplaced Pages and on Commons) want to give other contributors reason to take photographs specifically for Wikimedia projects, and to upload their existing material to Commons. That means that other contributors must have a fair chance of seeing their images being used.

I would re-iterate my option for resolving this is to allow Calibrador to add images to pages which have no images freely without restriction, but where he is replacing other photographers work, he be subject to a 1RR restriction. I would also suggest that Stemoc and Davey2010 be similarly restricted in the frequency they can remove Calibrador's images so nobody has an upper-hand in this dispute. Nick (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nick: A clarification: When you say 1RR restriction, you mean 1 revert period, right? Not one revert per 24 hours, as the term is used at Discretionary Sanctions? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nick: we have already had this option last year (As linked above my MelanieN), nothing has changed since then..Infact I have not reverted any of his changes since last year on enwiki bar one as I have realise that he is "protected" by the admins on this site. He is just using Davey2010 and me as an excuse to continue "vandalising" (Sadly that is the correct term for what he is doing) by shutting out those who criticize his actions...please read the previous discussion we had on that ANI which he filed on me and compare it with his edits since then, nothing has changed, if anything, he has become worse. He is obsessed currently with Donald Trump because he has been able to "forcefully" add his images to other politician pages (from both the democratic and republican sides), all except Donald Trump where users have preferred the image taken by Michael Vadon (another photographer who releases his images freely but doesn't force its use on every article or adds his name to the byline of every image). As i said last year, for Gage its either you use his IMAGES or he will take you to WP:AN/I for "hounding" him...I have never been against him using /adding images to those articles without images but he has the habit of replacing images added by others with those belonging to him and carrying his name in the byline ( not to mention trying to rename images on Commons and add his name to the image title) and that is abuse.. Implementing the 1RR rule will not work, what he deserves is a block and a final warning, enwiki admins have been ignoring his abuse for far too long....Misplaced Pages is grateful for his contribution but if he is going to use that to blackmail or force users to do his will then by all means, we are better without him, remember, we do not need him, he needs us, he needs One of the top 10 most visited sites to "promote" himself..Yes Commons policies are stupid because they have not been updated in ions, whose fault is that really? not those trying to stop users from abusing the outdated policies we have surely...So if you want things to change, it should start here, we need to toughen our policies on what we deem as self promotion because that is exactly how he has managed to escape getting blocked for the last 7 years...I'm against the 1RR idea put forward by Nick, this would have worked a year ago when it was brought up on WP:AN/I but its far too late for that now, he would just make the changes using his IPs like he has done before..--Stemoc 11:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

There's the wall of text of accusations and bias based on non-existent policy! I was waiting for it. Calibrador (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I realised its the only way to get you out of your cave as WV has unknowingly done ..lol..now just waiting for your accusations of HOUNDing and stalking :) ..--Stemoc 11:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith and trust you didn't come upon this discussion from my contribution history. Maybe review Misplaced Pages:Get over it? Calibrador (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Stemoc: Implementing the 1RR rule will not work Why not?
You seem to be emotionally invested in this issue, and I question whether your involvement is helping much. In contrast, I had never heard of Calibrador or Gage Skidmore until a few days ago, but I think I'm adequately up to speed on the history from reading the comments made here. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

That's their way of saying they just want me blocked. Calibrador (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

If Calibrador is a human being, I don't see how he can possibly put Misplaced Pages's interest first, comparing his photo to another with complete detached objectivity. He necessarily has a completely natural bias favoring his own work, and I'm not certain he understands that. Going forward, the vast majority of Misplaced Pages editors will be unaware that Calibrador = Gage Skidmore = photographer of the photo. I could live with the suggestion in Nick's closing paragraph with the added requirement of full-disclosure edit summaries. Calibrador stated above, I have no problem with disclosing fully my role, so he shouldn't object.
Adding image of my own work
Replacing image with one of my own work, which I feel is superior because...
Calibrador, we already have policies in place to address stalking and harassment issues. One two-month block was applied for that yesterday, as you know, and two months is hardly a wrist-slap block. So how about we agree to cross that bridge if we come to it? As for I'd also suggest that you would probably have to look out for ..., I suspect it would be up to you to bring any such behavior to community attention if it happens, as no one will have the time to monitor the situation on your behalf. I would hope that you would distinguish fairly between that kind of behavior and normal content dispute, although that's often not easy when there are repeated normal content disputes with the same editor(s). As I said previously, you will probably receive some opposition resulting from the bad rep that you created for yourself by persistent and long-term disruption, refusing to play by the rules of editing process, and in my opinion that's inevitable until you have changed the rep through years of much-improved behavior. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't implying that someone should monitor the 1RR and those other users on my behalf, I was just forewarning as I thought that could easily be a potential result. Calibrador (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss, I urge you to read up on the previous discussion linked by MelanieN in the Original Post....long story short, He changed his name from GageSkidmore to Calibrador because he did not want people to figure out he was intentionally forcing his images into articles so he got his name changed to "fool wikipedians" into thinking he has no links to the photographer, yes, i used the term "fool wikipedians", its hurtful but its the truth..anyone that knew that and pointed it out was seen by him as people who were either stalking his edits or wikihounding him (his words)..If you went through his edits and linked the times where he has forced his own images onto articles by replacing previous images that were not taken by him, he called them Hounders..so basically collecting facts about his abuse made you a hounder...If that is his definition of a hounder , then yes, I'm totally a hounder and I will "hound" him until an admin decides that its about time he faced the consequences of his long running abuse of our policies and his consistent and persistent attacks on users who disagreed with his images being "forced" onto articles..Last i checked, We were here to build an encyclopedia, not the Yellow pages--Stemoc 15:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Once again assuming bad faith in regards to username, which they were previously warned about. Also, you regularly "force" your own uploads into articles, granted they are not your photos but you uploaded them. One example from just today. Calibrador (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

this seems like Déjà vu... You are deflecting again, its not 'bad faith', its 'facts'..sometimes you notice these things as days before the name change, you were called up on trying to force your own images onto articles, even on the day of your usurpation and after it (you want me to add more links?) and all because @William S. Saturn: caught you and reported you to 3RR and because you did not want your customer to find out hat you were doing, you blanked your talk page not once but twice after another editor whose images we used pointed out to you that u were self promoting your images and you very next edit was to change your name because you knew it would affect your "business" ...Are you gonna claim something else now? oh and btw, this is not hounding, its finding proof and calling you out..oh and regarding Suu Kyi, it was a 3 year old image, I found a good new one, replaced it..there is no issue with that..--Stemoc 16:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

What did you say about forcing your own uploads into articles? I couldn't hear you over the BS. Calibrador (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Calibrador: Wait, was the point of all those links to try to convince people you are forcing your photos into articles? Because that is what it did for me. In all of the instances you supplied, and ill admit I went through the first like five because i started to see it was wasting my time, Stemoc was either inserting a photo for the first time and never went to the talk page to promote his preferred picture or in one instance, was changing the photo back to the one that had been their after Winkelvi changed it. Stemoc never engaged in the kind of behavior you did, guiding the discussion, after you started the discussion, and challenged all that opposed you. He respected the decision of some one who reverted him as far as I could tell. Chase (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

* Comment: Okay, I went through the last few links and I can indeed say, it was a waste of my time and only got worse. In the last, all but the first five, he changed the photo and all were unopposed! These are completely different situations than what is going on here. Chase (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

So I should discuss any change I make, but don't discuss it too much especially with people that disagree with you. You're grossly blowing things out of proportion, it's one or two discussions, and largely based on perception. I was not aware of this "bludgeon" policy prior to its mentioning, and I haven't done anything to violate it since. I was simply responding as an active talk page participant, and I have an opposing viewpoint to yours so not surprising that you continue to harp on this. If I reverted on the article itself, it was after I thought there was at least a semblance of consensus, and I did not revert more than once or twice. Stemoc is not a nice person. While looking through their edit history, I found this edit summary:

"restore external links , dumbass removed it"

Stemoc was complaining about me inserting photos into articles using "force," most if not all of which were non-controversial and were not reverted, and I responded with instances where they had done the same thing. I was responding to Stemoc's accusation and pointing out their hypocrisy. Calibrador (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Calibrador: My opposing opinion has nothing to do with it, and every time you bring that up against some one, you are creating WP:Battlelike mentatily. You missed the point of my statement. In the instances you brought up about Stemoc He simply introduced his photo and if it was reverted, he left it alone. You however, introduced your photo, a couple times it was reverted, you introduced it again, then went on to ping users who i think you knew would agree with you. Then challenged all who opposed you, again creating WP:Battlelike mentality. This is complete opposite of what Stemoc did. I proposed here that you, and other users for that matter who have self owned pictures especially with their name in the filename, should only be allowed to insert the photo into an article and if its reverted, only ask the person who reverted it why its rejected and not making the discussion youself that your "superior" photo should be used and pinging other users to comment. If that question starts a discussion about which photo is better, without your involvement and harassing opposers, then wikipedia as a community can decide for themselves without biased opinion, that your photo should be used. So you put words in my mouth when you said "I should discuss any change I make, but don't discuss it too much especially with people that disagree with you." Also, how does an editor that has been on Misplaced Pages for Seven years, not know about most of their policies including WP:BLUDGEON, especially with almost 30,000 edits? Chase (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You're constantly pointing out one instance. I could find many instances where I did not revert if I was reverted. Calibrador (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to see some of those. Recent, please. --MelanieN (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

here, here, here, here, here, here, here. So one instance? Chase (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Did you see my examples? Chase (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Calibrador (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. It is clear that you don't always restore your photos if they are reverted. --MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: You do realise most of the images he does not change back are actually his own images which were either uploaded via his flick feed or cropped from his own uploads but not carrying his byline? or those added by other sources or established editors and admins and none of those were "reverts" or "undos" of his edits, they were photo replacements, as in the image were updated, not rollbacked to a previous version before his..He is still lying here..checks those links again..I urge you :)--Stemoc 01:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• I just wanted to mention that I've commenced a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Self-promotion_via_images on whether the issues raised in this discussion should be addressed in our COI guideline. Coretheapple (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • You might have just dropped a link to this discussion there. Now we'll have two parallel discussions of the same issues. We should resolve this issue before we think about changes to WP:COI, in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I think you mean the COI Noticeboard. Talk:COI is for discussion of the guideline, and I would think that a discussion of the guideline is independent of however this specific situation is resolved. COI is a behavioral guideline, not policy, and really doesn't impact very much on what is happening here. But if you think discussion there should be put on hold there until this resolves, I have no problem with that. Coretheapple (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Yeah, it's still a parallel discussion of the same closely-related issues, with the possibility of different discussions reaching different conclusions, which then have to be resolved in a third discussion. Messy messy. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
        • No, I think the underlying issue in the above multiple walls of text is pretty straightforward. But feel free to ask on the WT:COI page for a moritorium on the discussion there, as I see someone has already weighed in. Coretheapple (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Calibrador: arbitrary break 2

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

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

Proposed action: (from Nick) Allow Calibrador to add images to pages which have no images freely without restriction, but where he is replacing other photographers work, he be subject to a 1RR restriction. I would also suggest that Stemoc and Davey2010 be similarly restricted in the frequency they can remove Calibrador's images so nobody has an upper-hand in this dispute. (from Mandruss) Require full-disclosure edit summaries, such as "Adding image of my own work" or "Replacing image with one of my own work, which I feel is superior because…" (from me) Limit his discussion at the talk page to a single !vote, including commentary and disclosure, per discussion section or subsection; a ban on replying to or arguing with other discussants unless they directly addressed him; a ban on attempting to assess or claim consensus, unless it is unanimous. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I agree with everything. Chase (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I will not leave the discussion and I'm hardly a primary party involved. Discussion is an important part of Misplaced Pages. I am not overly passionate about or attached to the issue, but seeing what Calibrador is doing is wrong. So yes, I will put input into the conversation. Especially when false accusations are made. I have no biased. I just prefer one pic over another, and if the other pic gets consensus, I will respect that decision (neither picture is the best in my opinion). Chase (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

As I said, we have enough information. Although less severe than Stemoc, your comments are generating far more heat than light. I can't force you to leave, but I have made the proposal and you will leave if there is a consensus for you to do so, else be guilty of WP:DE. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

CCamp2013/Chase has agreed on his talk page not to address Calibrador directly, and I have stricken his username from my proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I cannot be arsed to reply above so I'll shove it here instead - I used to revert Gage on quite a few articles however since being told about commons etc etc I haven't bothered reverting and probably won't bother (if he's adding an image to an imageless-article then I wouldn't revert however if he'd replaced for instance a donald trump image with his own without any discussion then of course I'd smack revert, In regards to the above I agree with that idea - If he's reverted by anyone then it should be brought straight to the talkpage and IMHO the 1RR should apply to everyone the project not just me or Stemoc (Me and Stemoc aren't the only people to have reverted Gages images), And last but not least a bit unrelated but I'm simply using Gage as it's the easiest thing I can spell so not trolling them or winding them up, Anyway thanks. –Davey2010 18:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Someone brought up this issue at Misplaced Pages talk:Conflict of interest#Self-promotion_via_images. I commented that AN/I seemed to be handling the problem. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. John, do you mean AN? This discussion? I see nothing at ANI. Coretheapple (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Calibrador: Proposal

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

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

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

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

• Support. I have been watching this image-dispute saga play out over the past three months. (I personally don't get the passions over images; my own views is that the choice of image rarely makes an article much better or worse). I would like the image drama to not metastasize, and this 1RR restriction seems like the best way to do it. Neutrality 18:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

the choice of image rarely makes an article much better or worse - You've been around the wikiblock once or twice, so I'm sure you know that literally no issue is too minor to argue endlessly about. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, indeed. This one wouldn't even make it to the honorable mentions section of WP:LAME. Neutrality 18:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I kinda disagree with the 1RR being against me as especially recently I've not reverted any of Gages stuff however my past dealings with this haven't been the best and seeing as I strongly disagree with the names perhaps having 1RR is for the best .... I dunno but either way support. –Davey2010 18:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support Oppose. Something has to be done or the behavior will most likely continue. I am tired of contributing to this topic when we could be deloping the pages itself instead of agreeing to disagree who's photo is the best. I like a lot of Calibrador's photos and as a photographer myself, understand the feeling that an article featuring your photo can bring you, but don't agree with the method of integrating them into the Misplaced Pages. I also think the name of the file is an issue, not on commons, but here. It is promoting, his business, which is against Misplaced Pages policy. Which should result in all of them being renamed or removed from being used for violating Misplaced Pages's policy, not a commons. Seeing as he has TONS of images on Misplaced Pages, that is unlikely to happen. Nothing will be done about it though, so this is a great solution. (I know I have said this already). Just re-iterating that in my support, I am not also supporting the filenames. I also want to state, Many people, not just four, have been uncivil regarding this topic and had it not been for User:Mandruss and I coming to some sort of system, consensus would have never been able to be reached in regards to the Donald Trump photo. Chase (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Most of what I said I still agree with, but some clarifications were made that I no longer agree with dealing with this proposal. That is why I have amended my support to oppose and now support a proposal by the OP, MelanieN, who seems to understand the problem more than most. Chase (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I have no problem with most of what you listed, but can you better detail what 1RR means in regards to the users you listed involved with reverting me? If I am limited to 1RR and one of those users that you listed reverts me, what does that mean to me? Calibrador (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it means that if you replace an image in an article with one of your own, and that image has recently been added or replaced (within the past month) then that's your one revert. If the image has been in the article for a long time, then your first edit is a bold edit. If you follow WP:BRD, and if someone reverts your bold edit, you should discuss it on the talk page, although you could technically revert them without violating 1RR.- MrX 21:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
    • That doesn't sound right. So 1RR means he gets to add his picture to the article twice? Is that really how people are understanding this? --MelanieN (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
      • That is the traditional definition of 1RR (and I would be happy to cite an Arbcom member saying as much). Is there some reason why "his picture" should be treated any differently than "his text" when applying an editing restriction? I see no reason to treat one form of user-contributed content any differently than any other form.- MrX 22:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Support - and I find it rather disconcerting that COI is even a consideration for a number of reasons, including the terms of licensing. 15:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Calibrador: Alternative to 1RR proposal

• I !voted "oppose" above. I still oppose that proposal, but my rationale is now different. My concerns about his talk page behavior are satisfied (AGF) by his agreeing to my proposed limitations. My reason for opposing now is that I don't think we should use a "1RR" standard, as defined for Discretionary Sanctions, because that is too complicated and too subject to gaming. (We have all seen the arguments "you reverted me!" "no, you reverted me!") I would rather have a straightforward restriction something like this: "Calibrador may add his image to any article once. If it gets reverted, he may not re-add it without consensus." No gamesmanship, no difference based on the previous status of the article - i.e., previously no picture vs. long-standing picture vs. recently added picture - just that he is free to add it, but if it gets challenged, he can't be the one to re-add it, except per consensus. Of course it could be re-added by his fans, several of whom are present at this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Clarification, in case it was unclear: The proposal covers all three types of articles: articles which did not previously have a photo, articles which previously had a longstanding photo, and articles where a new photo has recently been added. These are handled differently under the 1RR standard, because of what kind of action is defined as a "revert". My proposal is much more straightforward because it treats all three types of articles the same. --MelanieN (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• • Comment @MelanieN: Your proposal mentions articles without photos, which seems counterproductive to me. Calibrador (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Clarifying, biographical articles where there are no free photos of a person. Calibrador (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The proposal states Calibrador can add photos to any article, even ones with a photo already, but just once. Chase (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
    • • I thought you agreed to not address me unless I addressed you. Calibrador (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Note the bullet demotion. Calibrador (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment To be clear, I wasn't addressing Calibrador directly, but to clarify everyone who might read the proposal and is confused like I was when first reading it, what the proposal is actually stating. I also didn't mean to add three "***" when making my first comment, so I demoted it. Chase (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
      • 'Twas clear enough to me, Chase, but maybe Calibrador doesn't know that "addressing" is not the same as "referring to". Calibrador, I was not addressing you in the preceding sentence, but I am in this one. See the diff? I hope we can dispense with any further misunderstanding in that area. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Based on their bulleting at the time of my comment, I thought that was their answer to my statement, despite it not actually answering to what I had stated. Calibrador (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
          • I suggest you let others police that agreement from now on. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
            • Can I get an answer to my actual concern? Calibrador (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
              • Calibrador, what is your concern? I thought you were just asking what is an "article with no photo". Are you asking why I am including this type of article in my restriction? Because it makes sense to me to have the same rule - namely, you can add a photo once but can't add it back if someone removes it - every time you add a picture to an article, whether or not it previously had one. Do you see a problem with that? --MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
                • Yes. If an article's subject has no free photo, and someone removes it for some reason unbeknownst to me, but should it present itself, a photo-less article is preferred? Makes no sense. Calibrador (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
                  • As an example. Last year, Davey2010 reverted my addition of photos to a whole host of articles, including ones that previously had no photo. He was warned by an admin for doing that, if I recall correctly. Calibrador (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
                    • I'm certainly open to input on this. Let's see what others say - or if this proposal is even going anywhere. --MelanieN (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
                      • I think your proposal as written looks a lot like BRD, with Calibrador's add or replace being the B. Would it be adequate to simply require strict BRD? If there is a spurious agenda revert, doesn't WP:DR cover that adequately? Anything I'm missing here? Wouldn't it be weird if the product of all this is: Follow Existing Process? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
                    • Calibrador - Not arguing but do you have any diffs of me being warned by any admin?, I honestly don't remember that and I'm intrigued now, I probably did have some sort of vendetta back then however since the AN3 report I don't think I've reverted you since. –Davey2010 13:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support: This would drastically improve the tension and conflicts that have been created by Calibrador and by default his opposition. I personally think he just needs to be banned all together especially with the evidence that was presented in the below subsection by MelanieN and the indirect answers he has given, but there seems to be little support for that so far. Chase (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Calibrador: Propose TBANs

Calibrador: Talk page restrictions

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

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

P.S. If he would voluntarily agree to accept these restrictions, I would AGF, take his word, and withdraw this as a formal proposal. --MelanieN (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree to those restrictions. Calibrador (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I withdraw this proposal. I do believe that you were unaware of essays like WP:BLUDGEON and did not realize that this kind of behavior could be seen as offensive. --MelanieN (talk) 10:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: My question is how does this affect the situation over at Talk:Donald Trump? Since Calibrador was directly involved? Chase (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

This agreement is not retroactive. Whatever he said there still stands. I assume he will abide by these restrictions from now on. --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Chase (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

GamerGate

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Gamergate draft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a proposed wholesale replacement for the GamerGate controversy article. Should it be covered by 30/500 sanctions? The risk of votestacking is pretty obvious, and it's very likely at this point that support and oppose will bring in the usual suspects split along the usual lines. Guy (Help!) 08:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Probably. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, given the problems with this topic are so pervasive that even Talk:Gamergate controversy is covered by 30/500 restrictions. Lankiveil 10:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC).

I would support that as being a logical extension of the original Arb case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. It will be an unusual case though. Will we permit all to edit Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Gamergate draft? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Good question. Allowing will be a pain, but there is a bit of wisdom in letting the socks/canvassed and the like have a place they can talk as they are going to anyway. Better there in one place than all over the wiki. I would consider either option to be acceptable, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• I've commented over there. WP:ECP does not allow its usage in cases where disruption or sockpuppetry has not occurred and where semiprotection has failed to stop it, and I don't see any evidence of that. In addition, it has never been applied in the Misplaced Pages: namespace, and I'd rather not set that precedent. I don't like 500/30 as a means to stifle discussion except as a last resort. We have never applied 500/30 to discussions about the article taking place elsewhere. I think we can trust the closing admin to weigh the arguments appropriately. The Wordsmith 14:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith: It does seem as though you're slightly outnumbered in your belief that the RfC regarding solely the Gamergate page is not a subpage of the Gamergate page. Might you be willing to enforce a decision where consensus seems to be against you, or simply stand aside that another person might? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: I have no problem with that. If consensus disagrees with me I can respect and enforce that. I still think that applying 500/30 to Misplaced Pages: space is a bad precedent to set, but I will enforce whatever the community decides. The Wordsmith 00:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The reason I supported is that that normally the RFC would be on the talk page itself, which is why I called it a natural extension. But I do understand The Wordsmith's concerns here about creep in applying the restriction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I can understand your reasons. As a compromise, what if we moved the page to Talk:Gamergate Controversy/Request for comment? Then the extendedconfirmed protection could appropriately be applied as an actual subpage and not a theoretical one, and we don't set the dangerous precedent I'm concerned about. Talk: subpages for RFCs have been done before. The Wordsmith 00:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm 100% behind that idea. That removes a lot of problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Community ban for User:Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD"

Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD" (talk · contribs) was indefintely blocked back in March, and since then has created dozens and dozens of confirmed and suspected sockpuppets, mainly to be used for edit-warring, personal attacks, harassment and threats. Based on Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD"/Archive, the user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. I think by now he's earned himself not only a block, but also a ban. For abusing the community's good faith and patience well beyond its limit, I am therefore suggesting a community ban.

• Support as the proposer. Sro23 (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support as one of the targets of said harassment. --‖ Ebyabe - Welfare State ‖ 21:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support As they have been quite the prolific sock master and this would be a de-facto ban. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support - This person is a clear detriment to the encyclopedia, its editors and users. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Might as well make it "official". Clearly clearly clearly NOTHERE and extremely disruptive. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTHERE. MarnetteD|Talk 22:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Even before the block (or the account), they were only here to make a point, as seen by their behavior on eBay. clpo13_(talk) 22:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support for wasting...I don't know...I would love to see a scholarly estimate of how much community time. TimothyJosephWood 23:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support As has been said many times above CLEARLY NOTHERE to contribute constructively to the project and has wasted a great deal of other editors' time and effort that could have been spent on more pressing matters.   Aloha27  talk  23:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support: WP:NOTHERE. —MRD2014 (talk) (contribs) 23:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support - as NOTHERE as they come. Jettison pronto. WikiPuppies _bark 23:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support as clearly NOTHERE. –Davey2010 01:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTHERE. NgYShung 05:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support: WP:NOTHERE and good riddance! Favonian (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support - per NOTHERE. Chase (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Could we please have an early close to Talk:Murder of Seth Rich#RFC: Should the WikiLeaks reward be mentioned in the article?

Thirty editors have commented, it has been four days since the last !vote, there is a two to one consensus in the responses, yet the side that is in the minority insists that after thirty days the closing admin will override the` majority on BLP grounds. Could be please have an uninvolved administrator make a ruling one way or the other on the BLP question and close the RfC? Thanks!

I will be posting a link to this section at the BLP noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon, is there a reason it needs to be closed early? SarahSV 04:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The murder of Seth Rich has become an issue in the current US election cycle, with comments by DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Hillary Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and various other politicians on both sides. There are also a lot of conspiracy theories posted about it in the usual places. Those who have been working on the page all agree to not mention the conspiracy theories, but we are also leaving out important (meaning covered in depth by multiple reliable sources) basic facts about the case. Furthermore, it looks really silly to have a reference section with citations to articles in reliable sources titled

• "WikiLeaks offers $20,000 reward for help finding Omaha native Seth Rich's killer", (Omaha World-Herald)
• "WikiLeaks offers $20,000 reward over murder of Democrat staffer Seth Rich". (The Daily Telegraph)
• "WikiLeaks offers reward for help finding DNC staffer's killer", (Washington Post)

in an article that does not mention Wikileaks. Also, we have a clear consensus at the RfC, and it isn't being followed. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: thanks for explaining. SarahSV 04:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• The above mischaracterizes what I wrote on Talk page which is for example here: "I'll be interested to see what an experienced admin does at the closing. Many of the !votes don't grapple with BLP and will probably be discounted. Decisions in WP are not made by raw tally but by reviewing policy-based arguments. But we'll see. "

Guy is kind of losing it over this issue. See this edit note and the edit made under it, and this comment and its edit note. See also the post here at AN, here. This all seems problematic with regard to the DSes on BLP and American politics. Jytdog (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Guy's description above about who reverted, is also just wrong. User:Herostratus who reverted Guy's addition of the content here (same dif provided by Guy above), actually !voted to include the content (see here). Per the edit note, Herostratus' reversion was purely on the grounds of waiting to see what happened in the RfC. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Jtdogs arguments have already been addressed by another editor on the article talk page I have nothing to add to that excellent analysis. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Jtdogs is correct, I reverted purely on procedural grounds. I hope the material i reverted ends up being included! But not until someone has said "I read the BLP rule, took a walk, read the rule again, considered precedent, considered the underlying spirit of the rule, considered our duty to be informative, considered that after all the main player here is actually dead, and so forth, and here's my ruling: _______________". Not until then.

That being said, an early close might be called for if someone wants to do it: I think the basic arguments have been laid out, and it's just going to turn contentious I think. Let's get a decision. Herostratus (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• I've glanced through this. The closing admin will have to consider the numbers, all the arguments and the policy position. I can see no reason to close it early. Better to let it run and see whether others comment. SarahSV 00:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

It has now been over a week since anyone commented on the RfC, there still exists an overwhelming consensus, and the editors who had the consensus go against them are still willing to edit war to keep the article in a state that the consensus rejected until there is an official RfC close. Again I ask, will an uninvolved administrator please evaluate the results and close the RfC? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• I went ahead and closed it, and fully expect some on both sides to be disgruntled, although I feel comfortable the close safely reflects the consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for sticking your neck out! Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Good close. I especially like the way you made it clear that the RfC was about addition of specific information and that we shouldn't try to piggyback other stuff on it. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Dennis, the problem with the article is that it isn't really about Seth Rich. His death, if it was an ordinary criminal act (and there's no reason to assume otherwise), isn't notable enough for its own article. As you can see from the first version, the only thing that justifies the article's existence is the alleged connection to the leak. Arguably that allegation belongs instead in Julian Assange, WikiLeaks or 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak.We wouldn't host an article about a living person based only on a hint of something by Assange (or anyone else), and BLP extends that protection to the recently deceased. See WP:BDP:

The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends ...

SarahSV 00:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Slim, you wrote, "As you can see from the first version...." The first version doesn't seem relevant to me. We don't say at AfD, for example, that the first version had no cited sources, so delete — we instead consider the present and potential future versions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I agree. My point is that no one would have thought to create this were it not for the conspiracy theory and the hint by Assange. Remove that, and you have a sad crime in an allegedly high-crime area. The RfC was a kind of category mistake—what was really being discussed was whether the article should exist. SarahSV 00:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• I felt the most I could do is what I did, narrow the scope of what was allowable to the strict wording of the RFC, and maybe an AFD is best to address that. One inch more on my part would have been a supervote. As to whether it should be an article at all or not, that is out of scope for that RFC. I respect your concerns and honestly have no opinion on the article itself, but I feel like I had no choice in the close and did so in a fashion that addressed the concerns as much as I could within the authority given a closer. The BLP concerns are real but I saw them and the opposition as insufficient to completely overcome the extremely strong support. Of course, I welcome an appeal at WP:AN if you feel I erred. I won't take it personal, accountability is part of the job. At this time, however, I have to stand by the original close. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  Dennis, I fully take your point about a supervote. I do think this is an error, but it's an error that lots of people are supporting, so it's tricky. Again, the question is: would the community have supported the same outcome were it a living person? I think the clear answer is no. If so, we ought not to support it for the recently deceased either. That's the policy position, and this is a core content policy, not something that local consensus can override. SarahSV 00:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  This is a catch 22. I don't know the whole story and all the details behind JA's reward and this death, so you certainly understand the ramifications better than I. In a way, that is why I can close it: I don't have opinions, so I don't have anything to inject into my close. If there is more at stake, again, I really don't take offense at a review. As for if the person was living, that isn't a strong argument because then there wouldn't be an article or the reward. That is more of an AFD argument, and a bit of a chicken and egg problem. I think I pushed the line hard in closing, almost saying "you can say one line of text only", forcing separate discussions for any other text because I could sense sincerity on the BLP side, although the addition isn't an actual statement about the person nor their character. To me (and as I understand BLP), these are slightly different shades of grey. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  Dennis, I don't have opinions or detailed knowledge either. What seems to have happened is (a) someone was killed during a mugging; (b) because that person worked for the DNC, Twitter started producing conspiracy theories about the death and the DNC email leaks; (c) Assange joined in saying: "we'll offer a reward for information, not that we're saying we know this person"; (d) someone created a WP bio. That's all I know, but looking around for RS, there doesn't seem to be more to it than that.The living-person analogy is indeed a strong argument. If someone were to create a BLP based on Twitter and Assange (obviously not about a shooting death), it would be deleted/redirected without hesitation. You're right that the RfC is more of an AfD question; that's why I called the RfC a category mistake. SarahSV 01:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Noting that Steve Quinn has started a discussion about this at User talk:MastCell#RFC close. SarahSV 21:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  Before people overwhelm that talk page - this is not a discussion about the RFC. This not the proper venue for challenging an RFC. There are proper channels and this isn't it. Right now I have decided not to pursue this, having gotten comfortable with the RFC decision. I doubt User:MastCell would appreciate having his talk page overwhelmed with a discussion that does not belong there. If anyone wants to challenge the RFC then please see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, but please discuss with the closing Admin first. Therefore, SV's statement is not correct. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  Steve, I'm not sure which of my points you're saying is not correct. This is indeed the correct place for a discussion about the RfC, although a discussion with the closing admin can take place anywhere. SarahSV 22:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  Since this is an informal discussion and not an actual challenge, this section at WP:AN is indeed the best place since it is so public. This way I don't have to answer the same question twice. Obviously I will answer reasonable questions or concerns put before me, and fortunately, everyone on every page that I've seen has been civil, even if they disagree with my conclusions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  Dennis, my question is this: how would you have approached this if Seth Rich had been badly injured—so badly that he was unable to respond to press inquiries—but had not died during the shooting?Suppose that everything else is the same (including that WikiLeaks put up an award for information about the shooting), but that the page is a BLP. It seems to me that a BLP of this kind would have gone straight to AfD and would have been deleted, because without the WikiLeaks innuendo, the subject isn't notable enough, and with the innuendo, the article is a BLP violation. SarahSV 23:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  The problem with hypothetical scenarios is they are seldom useful or verifiable. If the circumstances were different, it is easy to assume those different circumstances would have influenced the votes and the close as well. That is the key, the votes would have changed as well. I don't claim to know how, given your scenario. The same is true about whether or not it would have gone to AFD. Honestly, that possibility didn't enter my mind when I did the close.....and it shouldn't have. My job wasn't to decide the fate of the entire article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

  The point of the thought experiment is to highlight that the actual and hypothetical situations do not differ in any editorially significant way. We wouldn't allow this article to exist if it were about a living person, and the BLP policy does not distinguish between the living and recently deceased. I'm sorry, Dennis, I think this was a difficult close, and that it should have been left open for 30 days and advertised centrally to attract more comments. I also think the close should have addressed whether what was really being examined was whether the article should exist. I do take your point about the importance of avoiding a supervote, but sending it to AfD would have been one way to explore whether the article violates policy. SarahSV 01:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

  You realize that it's already been to AfD, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

  Anythingyouwant, thank you, I hadn't realized that; I haven't looked into this in any depth. I wonder how Sandstein views the argument that this is a BLP violation. SarahSV 02:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

  Sure, no problem. There was also a BLPN discussion here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• i want to pick up on what User:SlimVirgin said above about the close of the AfD. Sandstein's close didn't mention, much less nod, to BLP, but of the 16 delete !votes (including the nomination, the ones below explicitly mentioned WP:CRIME which in turn refers to WP:BLP1E, or to BLP1E itself, or WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE which is a BLP thing:
  • Volunteer Marek; Krelnick citing VM; Platypus of Doom citing VM; Geogene citing VM; Valeince citing VM and NOTNEWS arguments; Calton; Lipsquid citing VM; Steve Quinn; Four Violas also with WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE;
  • it is implicit (not explicit) in the nomination: "It should therefore be treated as just another (non-notable) murder"

• • Arguments mentioning BLP issues outside of !votes: Volunteer Marek also addressed the privacy issue with the parents asking to keep their son out of this conspiracy theorizing; here; Savenoux brought up BLP1 - their original rationale had been NOTNEWS.

i'll also that an interesting argument was made here that article is not a biography but rather is about the crime; same argument made differently here

In any case, 10 of the 16 delete !votes and some discussion focused on BLP issues; the other delete !votes focused on other arguments. I think the close should have addressed the BLP issues.

So I guess I am asking User:Sandstein to reconsider their AfD close. If that isn't appropriate (and after all this time I could see how folks would say that), input on whether or not a new AfD would be appropriate would be welcome. Jytdog (talk) 06:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP is not a determining issue at least in the deletion discussion, in my view. To the extent it even applies – per WP:BDP, it "can" apply to recently deceased persons, which is to say that it does not necessarily apply in all such cases – it appears that the issue whose mention seems to be controversial, i.e., the reward promised by the Wikileaks organization, is reliably sourced and seems therefore to meet the standards of WP:BLP. The issue of whether to mention this reward, and any associated theories, etc., is an editorial issue about which editors must find consensus by taking into account WP:BLP (if they consider it applicable), WP:V, and other content policies and guidelines. But this is certainly not a case where WP:BLP compliance mandates the deletion of the article without regard to the consensus (or lack thereof) emerging from the AfD discussion, so I did not – and still do not – consider it necessary to mention in the closure of the (first) AfD.  Sandstein  08:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, with respect to the opinions expressed in the AfD: in my reading, they were mostly concerned with notability, which is a matter of editorial judgment. This applies even where they referenced WP:BLP1E, because that rule together with WP:BIO1E basically expresses a special notability constraint for both dead and living people. The opinions mostly did not voice "genuine" BLP concerns, i.e., the need to verify content about living persons particularly thoroughly.  Sandstein  08:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

My take on the applicability of BLP in the RFC is exactly as Sandstein has stated here, although due to the differences in AFD and RFC, we had to consider different elements. Properly sourced inclusion isn't a clear cut BLP violation, thus it is an editorial decision subject to the consensus of the community and their read of BLP, and not something the closer can decide in a closing supervote. For the record, I had not read the AFD before closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

(Redacted) ----- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

You hoped we would give it more weight, but Sandstein and I independently came to a similar conclusion regarding one of the key elements in this article. We are two experienced admin who seldom cross paths, so there is no "group think" at work. This isn't the place to re-argue the RFC nor talk about BLP or GNG in general nor make points about renaming. I've answered the questions I could and I don't think anyone is going to file a formal challenge, although they are free to, keeping in mind that formal challenge can't re-argue the case and can only consider my close and whether it was a reasonable interpretation of consensus and policy. At some point, you just accept that a majority of people disagree with you. We are all on the losing side of consensus from time to time. None of us are immune, we just lick our wounds and move on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand your reaction. I said nothing about "Group think". As I understand it this has been designated as venue for discussion. I didn't say anything about anybody changing their mind. I asked some general questions preceded by necessary commentary. This has nothing to do with the majority of people disagreeing with me. All I am asking is if I have valid points. I can continue to talk about BLP and GNG because this has been designated for discussion, and because GNG and BLP have already been discussed above. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I redacted my post. I really wasn't intending to offend anybody, nor challenge any decisions. I did not think this would be interpreted that way. I think the RFC decision was an excellent decision based on the intensity of the RFC. It is in the top tier for being circumspect. I don't recall my feelings on the AfD - it seems so long ago. And I appreciate the closing Admins elaborating on their decisions. I apologize for approaching this the wrong way. Lastly, my sense is this is not the appropriate place for my question - so, I apologize for that. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem. I just wanted to show that more than one admin viewed the BLP issue in a similar light, and that we don't know each other very well, so the opinions are really very independent. I don't mind specific questions, but most have been asked. It was a heated RFC and I guess AFD. It wasn't a simple close, I spent a great deal of time on it, knowing that people really care about this subject, and I'm trying to be helpful and attentive in responding to concerns here as well. I know all too well how it feels to be on the losing side of consensus for a topic I care deeply about, I empathize. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Sandstein and User:Dennis Brown thanks for your explanations. I hear them. I am pretty confused as to where the community stands on some aspects of BLP issues these days. We just went through an arbcom case driven by people screaming BLP bloody murder over an april fool's day joke outside of mainspace about a very public figure; here we have an article in mainspace about a recently murdered nobody whose only notability is based on julian assange's slimey action of "linking" the murder victim to the DNC email leak (see the video here if you haven't - just the first one and a half minutes is all you need - the dutch TV interviewer is just incredulous and asks Assange pointblank, "are you really saying X?" ); and the parents have pleaded with folks not to drag their dead son (and them) through all this conspiracy theorizing. This is what WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:BLP1E were written for, as far as I can see.

I really don't understand where we are, as a community, on some applications of BLP. But so it goes.

And Sandstein, i took time to actually quantify the delete !votes that explicitly dealt with BLP in the AfD (which is what I asked you about; I didn't ask about the RfC). BLP-based objections were objectively the most common basis for deletion !votes. Your response above about "not a determining issue at least in the deletion discussion, in my view. " is fine, but in my view, for your close to be sustainable, it needs to actually address the most prevalent deletion rationale. Again I will ask you to amend your close. As I noted above, applications of BLP seem to be somewhat unstable now (maybe that always happens during the election season?) and an explicit addressing of the BLP issues at stake in this article would be useful. Please consider doing that. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

To underline this a bit more. Newspapers don't have a BLP policy. We do.

• Here in the entirety of what the NYT had to say about this matter: "WikiLeaks, the group that put out the D.N.C. emails publicly last month, interjected itself into the hacking case again this week when it offered a $20,000 reward for information on the shooting death last month of a former D.N.C. staff member, Seth Rich, outside his Washington home. His killing fueled speculation on the internet that he was somehow tied to the hacked emails, but the police have not given any credence to that speculation.
  The WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, has made it clear that he would like to hurt Mrs. Clinton’s bid for the White House, opposing her candidacy on policy and personal grounds. He has hinted that he has more material about the presidential campaign that he could release."

• here is the entirety of what the LA times has had to say, which is in a slide show on Assange (around slide 20 - source text is view-source:http://latimes-politics-chatter.latimes.com/politics-talk/slideshow/transparency-treachery-career-wikileaks-julian-assange/ if you just want to control-f it)

Hints of murder (right after a slide called (ahem) "Causing personal problems for nongovernmental people")

"While discussing the DNC leaks, Assange appeared to suggest that a DNC staffer named Seth Rich was murdered in connection to the leaks, potentially implicating the dead man as a source -- something Assange says his organization does not do. “There’s a 27-year-old who works for the DNC and who was shot in the back, murdered, just a few weeks ago, for unknown reasons as he was walking down the streets in Washington,” Assange said on a Dutch program, per BuzzFeed. Rich was killed walking to his apartment in what police said was an attempted robbery and Rich’s family asked Assange not “to politicize this horrible tragedy.”

So the best of mainstream media knows how to deal with this sort of BLP thing but we can't - and it is not even discussed in the close of the AfD. This is not good. Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I won't amend my AfD closure, as there is currently a second AfD going on, and anything that needs saying can be said there.  Sandstein  09:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Sandstein. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• for anybody who cares, 2nd AfD is Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Seth_Rich_(2nd_nomination) Jytdog (talk) 04:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Admin attention required

at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion#Old discussions, where there is currently a 35-day backlog. Most of these are very easy closures, and any help would be appreciated -FASTILY 00:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

35? The oldest open discussion is from June 22nd. Pretty sure that is 87 days. --Majora (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

This is at least the third time you've posted such a request here. You're welcome to ask for you bit back and help out too. —Cryptic 00:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Cryptic, thanks for the suggestion :) RL commitments leave me with so little time for Misplaced Pages, such that I am simply uncomfortable committing to any additional responsibilities. In the distant future perhaps, but definitely not anytime soon. Best, FASTILY 01:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Watchlist

I think it might be a good idea if a few more of us would add Kevin Cherkas and Draft:Kevin Cherkas to their watchlist. Agathoclea (talk) 07:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Why? If they're being repeatedly created and deleted then why not simply SALT them? GiantSnowman 07:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Because I believe in the good in people and see an outside chance that someday there might be a good article there. Anything else will be caught when the draft reappears on somebodies watchlist. It is not like are dealing with somebody intent on wasting admin time. In fact it looks like the editor in question has realized the futility of the matter. I just want to add a little failsafe. Agathoclea (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

At the top of this page it clearly states: "This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators". This isn't in that category. Lugnuts 12:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

It affects Agathoclea, an administrator. - NQ (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The reason I posted this here as I was only looking for volunteers with the ability to read deleted edits. Agathoclea (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Salt the article for a year. Leave the draft unprotected. If a good draft is created, they can request it be moved into the mainspace at WP:UNPROTECT. Easy peasy. Katie 15:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Done that now, though I feel a bit uneasy for that to be a) a little heavy handed and b) if there really is a problem - waiting 14 month does not appear the issue. Thanks all. Agathoclea (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight appointments 2016: Reminder

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

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

Copied signatures

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

How does one deal with an editor who has copied the exact layout of their signature? Please see this discussion of me confronting TedEskey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) about copying the exact format of my own signature (Their signature: Ted|Eskey. My signature: Alex|The|Whovian.), that the editor then removed after personally attacking me after my polite request. The first occurrence of TedEskey using that particular styled signature was on August 30, 2016, when they replied to a comment by me at Talk:American Horror Story: Roanoke. I, however, have had this particular signature for almost a year now – the exact dates elude me, but an example of it exists back on January 7, 2016. Does WP:SIGFORGE account for this sort of situation? Alex|The|Whovian 09:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

As can be seen, TedEskey has attempted to remove this discussion not once, but twice. That means that they are quite aware of their actions. Alex|The|Whovian 10:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

No Actually Idiot, this mean I DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH IT!!! PERIOD!!! THIS IS COMPLETELY STUPID AND A WASTE OF MY TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TedEskey

Perhaps then, you shouldn't have stolen and copied another editor's signature, and used your own sense of creativity. And see the personal attacks - this editor obviously doesn't want to discuss or accept the consequences of their actions. Alex|The|Whovian 10:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I DIDN'T STEAL YOUR SIGNATURE!!!!!! YOU KNOW WHAT MY TANK OF CARING ABOUT THIS OR YOU IS AT ZERO!!!!! I WILL NO LONGER BE ENGAGING IN A CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS WITH YOU OR ANYONE ELSE!!!! TedEskey

Such personal attacks should not be tolerated on this site. I recommend action taken against the violating user; perhaps then they'll learn to discuss issues civilly and to not steal other's original content. Alex|The|Whovian 10:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to speak directly to whoever has read through this and waste their time on this small little man's pathetic complaints. If you look back at the original conversation, the conversation was never civil from the moment that the issue was addressed to me. I was approached with sarcasm and nastiness about the issue rather then civility and that is clearly reflected in the way that he said this, "A complete coincidence, I'm sure..." Now I've gone back and read your rules for the signature theft or whatever this falls under and in it it says that giving the benefit of the doubt should be employed so as not to start a conflict. I was not given the benefit of the doubt. I felt attacked by him and so I attacked back. He never treated with any civility and so therefore should not expect to get it back. TedEskey

I gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that it was a coincidence. However, given that your first reply was an attack, I then assumed it was not a coincidence, and that you did in fact steal it from me. Alex|The|Whovian 11:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

You didn't give me anything except sarcasm and I'm ignoring you. I don't see you Hellen Keller. Back to the person who has to read all of this: I didn't steal anything on purpose. I had no idea it was his original content or whatever he claimed it to be. I'm very new to editing on Misplaced Pages and I only really edit in American Horror Story. So the bottom line is this, I'll take whatever the punishment is for this but I had no idea that I stole anything from anyone. TedEskey

Never use another editor's signature. Impersonating another editor by using his or her username or signature is forbidden. Altering the markup code of your signature to make it look substantially like another user's signature may also be considered a form of impersonation. Editing the code of your signature to link it to another editor's user page is not permitted. It is also ineffective, as the change log of the page records the IP address and (if applicable) username of all editors; as such, any impersonators can easily be caught if the signature in the diff view differs from the editor's default signature. While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents. If you encounter a user whose signature is disruptive or appears to be impersonating another account, it is appropriate to ask that user to consider changing their signature to meet the requirements of this policy. When making such a request, always be polite, and assume good faith. Do not immediately assume that the user has intentionally selected a disruptive or inappropriate signature. If you are asked to change your signature, please avoid interpreting a polite request as an attack. Since the success of Misplaced Pages is based on effective teamwork, both parties should work together to find a mutually acceptable solution. SO WE ALL CAN READ THIS! Then, go and look back at the original conversation. I was not given that good faith assumption when he snakily said a coincidence I'm sure... TedEskey

Wait. So. Get me right here. You say that you copied it directly from the AHS talk page, you've admitted that yourself, from my comment, and then (obviously) changed the links to your own talk page and saved it as your signature. And you've also read the "Never use another editor's signature" section. Thank you for admitting that you stole it. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian 11:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Whatever dude, you're a bully and I have ZERO TIME for you!! YOU WIN!!!!!! OK?????!!!! I hope this makes you happy picking on someone who has very little editing experience on Misplaced Pages, and instead of trying to help them all you're doing is tearing them down, being horrible and abusive and mean to them, and not even helping them to see what they did wrong. I thought this was supposed to be a community of editors but clearly I was wrong. This site is elitist! So I'm backing out because I'm sick of dealing with a fight about NOTHING!! Goodbye, God Bless, and I hope this makes you happy. TedEskey.

I tried that, and you violently attacked me. Up to you. Bye. Alex|The|Whovian 11:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

And for the record and I will get the last word here, I promise, no you didn't! You were sarcastic and nasty to me and I didn't steal anything from you with the intention to hurt you. You on the other hand are a bully and just want to bully me into submission well you won. I only attacked because I was being attacked if you'd addressed this properly and politely towards me I wouldn't have attacked back. You get what give my friend. TedEskey — Preceding unsigned comment added by TedEskey (talk • contribs) 11:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I did. I asked you to change it. Politely. And you rudely told me where to go. Don't play the "new editor" card when you're just going around attacking people you disagree with. Hell, you even attempted to wipe away this discussion. Also. Learn how to write your posts in one go, and sign your posts properly. Thanks! Alex|The|Whovian 11:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Ewww You're just showing what kind of trash you are by continuing to bully me! Leave me alone! The discussion is closed, you won, wanna boot stomp some more???!!! TedEskey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TedEskey (talk • contribs) 11:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Copying sig styles is not a policy violation. Period. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

OH WHAT?????????? WELL, THAT'S INTERESTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TedEskey (talk • contribs) 11:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the bully looses once again!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TedEskey (talk • contribs) 11:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Your personal attacks ARE policy violations, so you need to go chill out and put this to bed. And fix your sig to something with a link in it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Harassment of User:AFlorence

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

Hello. I make Davod Farhadi article and @Doug Weller: delete it. Article was complete and only was stub. user Aflorence Misplaced Pages:Harassment my edites. I'm complaining.--Farhad2016 (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi please see this Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets thanks Sharaky (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown:.He wasnot answered. to sharaky: شاراکی جان اینجا ویکی انگلیسی است و مسائل فارسی را به اینجا نیاورید--Farhad2016 (talk) 12:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC).

• • Maybe he was asleep. Or at church. Or busy. He isn't paid to do this, you just have to wait. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought I'd replied, ec I guess that I missed. Anyway the editor has been CU blocked. As an aside, I'm just one of 4 editors who have A7 deleted the article. Doug Weller talk 12:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:,@Bbb23:why am I block?--FarhadFarhad2016 (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• That was stupid. Blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)a

Eschweiler error message

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

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

At Eschweiler the following error message appears at the top of the page: ]. After checking the entire article twice I can't find the source for this error. Could someone please have a look, thanks noclador (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

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

PROD backlog building up

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

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

IP Range-block possible?

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

Is an IP range block warranted and feasible in this situation? Static 50.107.50.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is presently blocked, by Admin Prolog, for one week for disruptive editing.

This blocked editor is evading his block, and continuing with his disruptive edits as you read this. (A few examples: Sept 17, Sept 18, Today, Also Today)

This editor has been blocked for block evasion before, by Admin NeilN here. He has also been blocked here by Admin Drmies, here by Admin Wifione and here by Admin Bbb23. This IP editor has caused articles to be temporarily (by HJ Mitchell here and again by Drmies here) semi-protected because of disruption. The IP has also been warned and instructed by numerous editors and Admins, including Bbb23 (here), DrFleischman and James Cage (here). The primary form of disruption, since mid-2014, is to dump large (25K or more) blocks of text about legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act into numerous articles. As articles were semi-protected in response, this disruption expanded to targeting random, unrelated articles. Additional disruption includes legal threats and vandalism, posting of phone numbers in edit summaries, and personal attacks on Admins as "conspirators" and "paid censors".

99% of the dynamic IP disruption over the past few months has come from this narrow range (see sample of disruptive IPs below). Is a range block feasible, or would it snare well-meaning editors?

173.67.158.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.158.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.158.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.158.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.159.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.159.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.159.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.160.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.160.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.160.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.160.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.160.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.160.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.161.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.161.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.162.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.162.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.162.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.162.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.162.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.162.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.163.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.163.45 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.163.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.163.147 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.163.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.164.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.164.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.164.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.164.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.165.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.165.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.165.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.165.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.165.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.166.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.166.151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.166.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.166.205 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.167.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.167.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.167.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.167.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.167.211 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.168.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.168.64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.168.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.169.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.169.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.169.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.169.117 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.169.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.169.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.169.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.169.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.171.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.171.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.172.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS),

Your attention in this matter is appreciated. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

173.67.158.0/23 - Blocks 512 address but only hits 7 of the current addresses Contribs for range

173.67.160.0/20 - Blocks 4096 address but only hits 51 current addresses Contibs for range

Smaller ranges are available but youd be looking at 20+ ranges to cover them all. Amortias (T)(C) 21:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Of the 125+ uses of the 173.67.128.0/18 range (covering all of these IPs) in the last 3 months, I see only 10 of the IPs used making possibly positive contributions. Given the extensive abuse, I don't see a soft block on the range being a problem.--Jezebel's Ponyo 21:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up to my own message. I've reset the clock on the block of IP 50.107.50.51 for block evasion and soft-blocked 173.67.128.0/18 for the same one-week period.--Jezebel's Ponyo 21:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Rev/Del needed

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

The person who has been spamming someones personal info on various ref desks for the last several days returned a few minutes ago at the Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Thankfully Favonian took care of the page protection. Their edits and summaries may look like gibberish but they are using a substitution code and have linked to the article that allows people to crack it so their edits and summaries need the same R/D that has been performed in the past. Thanks for your attention in this matter. MarnetteD|Talk 21:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC of possible interest

Editors and administrators may perhaps be interested in Misplaced Pages talk:Harassment#RfC about outing and blocks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

At it again

All of the ref desks are being spammed with the personal info again. Your attention on protecting and ref/del will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 00:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Os requested on IRC. I suggest these matters be dealt with off wiki. -- The Voidwalker 00:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

A quick admin ruling needed at Donald Trump

Fractional-reserve banking

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

Hi, I have a question for you: Can anyone please explain why I am being harassed by TWO self-called "PhD" editors on this above page? My edit is sourced to WP:RS and the editors have nothing to say about it (just edit warring without any valid explanations). Thanks. 47.17.18.64 (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 47.17.18.64: I am one of the editors who reverted an edit you made. However, I am not a "self-called PhD editor," so it's unclear how you're coming up with that verbiage. You made an edit, and I reverted you -- only once. When other editors revert an edit you have made in this way, that is not "harassment." Indeed, you are engaging in a edit war, as you have repeatedly reverted other editors instead of discussing your edit on the talk page for the article. You are the person proposing the addition of the material to the article. Under the rules of Misplaced Pages, you need to persuade other editors -- not the other way around. Famspear (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• I reverted and warned. The next reinstatement should be followed by a block. For the record, invoking CENSORSHIP really is an automatic no-no, but, as I indicated in my edit summary, even an admin, with or without Ph.D., can see that the sourcing is below par and so is the writing: it begins with a referential pronoun without a clear antecedent, and it ends with weasel words. In between is Investopedia, whose status as an RS is at best unclear. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Not true at all. I did provide 2 sources linked to RS. If you don't understand then YOU should be the one asking, sir/madam.

I was reverted without ANY explanation or edit summary and yes it looks like harassment by that 2nd editor. The rest is details that do not belong to this discussion. To others watching: do not stand still and show crooks that your are alert, watching and acting. Thanks. 47.17.18.64 (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I am the second editor, and no, my one reversion of your material does not "look like harassment." You have now been reverted by at least three editors.

You would bring more WP:meatpuppets that it would not matter. It is the argument and its validity that matters the most. 47.17.18.64 (talk)

I am not sure what you mean by the use of the word "crooks," but Misplaced Pages has rules: Assume good faith, WP:AGF and no personal attacks WP:NPA. Famspear (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I mean the international bankers (not you or anyone else as far as I know).

On my talk page, the user at IP47.17.18.64 has now admitted that the source for the material in his edit is actually something he claims to have been taught in school in Switzerland. Famspear (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC) ÷

The fact that you have an advanced degree in finance and the fact that you are multi-lingual are not good enough. You have to follow the Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines. And, no, where other editors remove your Original Research, which you based on a source that did not say what you claimed, is not censorship. Again: You have to follow Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines.

No, it is not "the argument" and "its validity" that matters the most. What matters the most is following the rules, especially: WP:NOR and WP:V and WP:NPOV and WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Famspear (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, I do not agree that "following the rules" matters the most. In article space, what matters is a. content be verifiable and b. it be verifiable by way of reliable sources. See WP:RS. Sir/madam, I repeat that the reliability status of Investopedia is as yet undetermined, but you are welcome to test it out at WP:RSN--click on the link and you'll see what I mean. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Useful contributor

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

@78.26: if it makes you feel any better I thought your comments were very professional and respectful and that the only issue present is a mistake of policy. I hope everything works out becuase I agree that Diveroli would be a great asset to the project. Alicb (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words! Drmies was also kind enough to drop a note, so I think the community has done what it can. Again, thank you. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Article splitting protocol

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

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

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

• Sorry, I don't get it. First of all, in your deletion nomination, why didn't you mention what you say here, that the new article was a split? No wonder Kudpung said "default to keep" and to start a merge discussion, since he probably didn't know it was a split. Which brings me to another point: I don't see how it is a split, really. The article is created here, but if anything is taken from the article and placed in here, I can't really see it. The next edit puts meat on those bones, I think--hard to tell since the visual flag porn is so overwhelming I don't even want to look at it. But that content, as far as I can tell, did not come from the "original" article, did it? In which case there is no attribution missing, there was no split, Kudpung was right, and all this should have started not with edit warring and a deletion discussion, but with an invitation to discuss merging. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I admittedly should have made it clearer at the AfD that the new article (European Masters (snooker)) was created by splitting out content from European Open (snooker). As for the 2016 European Masters article, this isn't contested: each annual event has a dedicated article such as 2004 European Open (snooker) and 2005 Malta Cup, and this article should definitely exist. The debate is about the event series article which documents all instances of the event. This is the sequence of events:

• Creepy pasta created European Masters (snooker) by splitting out content from European Open (snooker).
• The argument contended by me and another editor at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/European Masters (snooker) was that the new article was not necessary because the snooker project does not create new articles for rebranded tournaments.
• The AfD was closed with "no consensus" defaulting to retaining European Masters (snooker).
• Following the close Creepy Pasta again removed the European Masters content from European Open (snooker).

I dispute that a default "keep" of the new article means we should delete relevant content from the European Open (snooker), because it then means that the main series article would be lacking essential information for readers who want an overview of the history of the tournament. What I don't understand is how AfD close impacts on European Open (snooker). Obviously European Masters (snooker) has won its existence by recycling content from European Open (snooker), but does that mean the content should now be removed from European Open (snooker), or does the editor still require an explicit consensus to delete the content from the older article? Betty Logan (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment Sorry I did that, I really thought it would be ok. My point is, why can't you remove the data from the European Open until it's officially confirmed maybe? It's easier after to do it than to remove all the misinfo (potentially). Creepy pasta (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment Btw, I still don't believe it's the former European Open, now potentially rebranded as you say. I can't find enough proves. That's way in the first place I simply created a new event page. Why do you want to link a European Masters event to a European Open? It would be nice to continue the lineage, but I am not sure. Creepy pasta (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

We are not debating what you believe or what I believe; that discussion has been run and resulted in "no consensus". The purpose of this discussion is to ascertian the procedural consequences of that discussion i.e. does the existence of the new article implicitly mandate the removal of the content from the original article or does there have to be an explicit consensus to remove the content from the article. Betty Logan (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The AfD was closed as 'no consensus' a) because there was no rough consensus, b) because it was the wrong venue for such a proposal for discussion anyway. The actual closure is not being challenged - if it were, the the discussion should be at WP:DELREV. So we are left with the fact that as there has been no egregious user or admin behaviour requiring admin action, ANI also is the wrong venue and is taking up valuable admin time having to review this thread. WP:DRN might be a possible solution, but again, I don't see the need for 3rd party arbitration. Thus AFAICS, the proper course is a RfC for or against merge and/or split, whatever, on the talk page of one of the affected articles, and notifying all the major contributors to those articles of the discussion. I think that would be the fairest way to approach the issue rather than gum up various noticeboards. But you would need to make a very clear, appropriate, and unambiguous RfC proposal statement, and that's something you can work together nicely to produce. However, I'm not mandating this in any way, and perhaps Drmies or someone else might have a better idea. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I have started a "split/merge" discussion at Talk:European_Open_(snooker)#RFC:_Should_the_European_Masters_entry_be_split_from_this_article_to_a_new_article.3F. Is this unambiguous enough or is there something else I can do to make it clearer? Betty Logan (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Closure at ANI too soon.

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

• Point of order: The two are inseparable. Jed Stuart this will sound harsh- sorry- but the very reason for the early closure was the '"editor exhaustion" and time-wasting' you were seen to be responsible for. So unless you are appealing against the TBAN- which you say you're not- you are in effect requesting permission to exhaust editors' patience and waste their time, etc., for another two days. That, I suggest, would be a mistake. Quite a few editors in that discussion mentioned blocks (often, indef. ones): You realise that if the discussion is reopened- consensus could change- and start running along those lines...? FYI. In fact, let me take that a little further; I could see a situation where a block is proposed purely on the principle of you having re-opened the timesink. _Muffled 08:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose reopening, and support TBAN (and I would even support an indefinite block for Jed Stuart for WP:NOTHERE). There was unanimous support for a TBAN plus several calls for an indefinite block in the AN/I-discussion when it was closed by Bishonen (after having been open for almost two days), so there's absolutely no valid reason for re-opening it. Jed Stuart was indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to electronic harassment and/or conspiracy theories after exhausting the patience of other editors by endless fringe-pushing, edit-warring and forum-shopping, and has refused to drop the stick even after the TBAN, posting several requests to lift the TBAN and/or re-opening the AN/I-discussion on Bishonen's talk page, refusing to take "no" for an answer. - Tom | Thomas.W 09:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• The right of reply had been exercised in previous ANI threads. And there is no reason for us to wait unreasonably long for you to reply when there is no possible reply that could have changed the outcome of the discussion in your favor. Replying now doesn't make much difference either, since you aren't going to be here much longer. 2607:FB90:2E02:BF29:9839:2299:DFF8:1EF9 (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support close, Support TBAN AN/ANI does not exist to allow people to "set the record straight". The boards exist to address behavioral problems which come up editing Misplaced Pages in the best way for the encyclopedia. From what I have seen it is well past time for the OP to drop the matter and move on to other subjects. If they are concerned about the community holding things agaist them/ bringing up stuff later, my impression is that people are much more likely to form a bad impression of continuing to try to "set set the record straight" than from whatever was left "unanswered" in the first place. Jbh 12:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikiwork factors for WikiProjects

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

@IndianBio: Well, just an FYI, there is WP:BOWN- but it doesn't seem particularly busy! _Muffled 11:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah so was wondering if anyone has any idea how to proceed with this? I saw that the BOWN no one actively checks or responds like this page. —IB 11:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog