The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Concerning the IRC & stuff. I hope editors don't start viewing Administraotrs as legit & illegit. Such a schism would be destructive for Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think the concerns brought forth by Giano are anything to worry about. Chillum 16:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm keeping my fingers crossed. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm having a problem with a disruptive editor who insists on adding unsourced names to the list. User:Ethelh claims that there is no 'rule' that the names have to be sourced and that for me to insist on all names being accompanied by a reference I have to get a 'consensus'. After all the work I don't want to see unsourced names going back on the list so could you make it clear to this editor that everyone on the list has to be accompanied by a reference please. It would be much appreciated. Betty Logan (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will take the time to look into it either tonight or tomorrow night and offer my point of view to all involved parties. Chillum 02:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have given my 2 cents. Chillum 18:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chillum--I tried to respond to your points on the talk page of Betty Logan, where you had made them, but consistent with her other revisions to her talk page deleted my responses -- while leaving your comments in. While this of course is within her rights, it does serve one might conjecture to confuse one's reading of the discussion of the issues on her talk page. I've repeated my comments below, so at least you will get to see them.

---

Tx. A few points. First of all, I believe that in our conversation here Smiley589 (talk • contribs) is a sockpuppet of Betty Logan. Would you be able to verify that, or let me know how we can have that checked? I've asked her, and she hasn't responded. If you look at Smiley589's edit history, and the nature of her comment, I think you'll see why I suspect this.

Second, the material in question was not likely to be challenged. As was pointed out before, this was not a list of fat actors, or anything of that nature, which is what the "likely to be challeneged" language is aimed at. Nor was the material itself challenged -- in fact, it was only the form of the citation, not the material itself that was likely to be challenged.

As to inline citations, you left out the NB footnote to that sentence, which in relevant part states: "When content in Wikipedia requires direct substantiation, the established convention is to provide an inline citation to the supporting references. The rationale is that this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references. Alternative conventions exist, and are acceptable if they provide clear and precise attribution for the article's assertions, but inline citations are considered 'best practice' under this rationale." The citation form that I used was acceptable and provided the same information -- with a click of the keyboard -- that an inline citation provided.

Also, nobody suggested using Wikipedia as a source. What was suggested was the use of reference (by inline citation of the subject) to Wikipedia articles that in turn have proper acceptable citations of the subject matter in question.

Finally, there are tons of featured lists on Wikipedia that do not have inline citations for each entry on the list. If someone starts deleting the lists on those entries, as Betty did not only here but in the past with other editors (from the above conversations ... though Betty has deleted some of the "evidence" above), I would expect a hue and cry, followed -- if the behavior continued -- by administrative action. See, e.g., List of American Idol finalists, List of Megadeth band members, List of Manchester United F.C. players, List of Harry Potter cast members, List of popes (graphical), List of Korean War Medal of Honor recipients, List of current Canadian senators, Aston Villa F.C. statistics and records, and Dischord Records discography.--Ethelh (talk) 04:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I cannot check for sock puppeting, you need WP:RFCU for that. I don't think it is a sock puppet and even if it was the same person as Betty that one edit is in no way a violation of our sock puppet policy. I suspect it is just someone warning Betty of your canvassing.

Linking to an article that has a citation is not enough. The list article itself needs that citation. The reason you can't just link to an article with a citation is that there is no guarantee the article will contain the same information or citation tomorrow. By linking to the article only and not providing a citation directly you are in effect using a non-stable Wikipedia page as a reference, it could be anything tomorrow.

You say the material is not likely to be challenged, but it was challenged. The "form of the citation" is not enough and that was challenged. If we only cited a fact in one article and then just linked to that for all other pages we would not be able to find half of our citations. The whole point is verifiability.

Betty is correct to remove uncited material. Once cited it can be returned. A short article that is reliably referenced is of far more worth than a long one with dubious content. The last thing we want to do is give incorrect information.

The argument that other lists exist without citations is not an argument at all. Those need to be improved, they are not an indication that it is okay. This really is a simple stylistic matter, but an important one. I hope you understand. Chillum 05:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your response, and the pointers. That is helpful.

Betty Logan Sock Puppetry? I'm not sure why you suspect that it is not a sock puppet. Once it was created, it's first (and indeed, its only edit till now) was to weigh in on my discussion with Betty and others, siding with Betty. That is classic sock puppet behavior. See Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry. It is beyond belief that someone using Wikipedia for the first time would create their account and as their first act weigh in on this discussion on Betty's talk page. And then have nothing more to do on Wikipedia in the ensuing days. Everything points to this being the work of a person who is already an experienced editor, most likely a current editor, and therefore using the account as a sock puppet. And given what it did with its one entry, the most logical person to be controlling the sock puppet is Betty.

Also, thanks for the link to what constitutes sock puppetry. I see that it says, among other things, "A sock puppet is an alternative account used for fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies.... Some uses for alternate accounts are explicitly forbidden: using an alternative account to avoid scrutiny ... distorting consensus or artificially stirring up controversy.... Misuse of an alternative account may result in being blocked from editing."

It goes on to say: "Sock puppets might be used to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint than actually exists.... This includes ... using more than one account in discussions such as deletion debates ... or on talk pages...."

If this is in fact a Betty Logan sockpuppet, my view is that she was using it deceptively to distort consensus and artifically stir up controversy.

Lists; Inline Citations. I stand by what I said before as to my different reading of the rules. And I think that the fact that there are what would appear to be dozens of featured lists that have undergone the highest level of scrutiny that articles undergo here -- and passed -- without inline citations suggests that your interpretation is not the accepted one.

As to the discussion of the fact that an article can be changed tomorrow (and the citation removed), the same could happen in the initial article. Or the cited source can be removed from the web. I don't see the stability point, given these alternative ways in which your cited evidence may disappear.

Again, the material -- the substance of the entry -- was not challenged at the end of the day. The substance was fine, and Betty could see that with a click of a key on the keyboard. The material was deleted by Betty in the final instance solely because the form of the citation was other than inline, even though as discussed above it was an acceptable form. The non-inline citation was just a verifiable as the inline citation. She knew the information was correct, but preferred to delete it entirely. That is not helpful, and it is what from her talk page (especially if you like at deleted comments) she has been doing for some months now. She refuses to use tags, where appropriate, though requested by more than one editor. She makes questionable deletions and refuses to use edit summaries in those instances, though requested by more than one editor. And she deletes perfectly good material which should not be deleted and at worst should invite a "citation requested" tag.

If you really believe that all of those lists that I indicated should have the non-inline-cited entries deleted, I encourage you to show me that you really believe it by doing so immediately. I imagine that the responses by the various people who have made those article featured articles would at the end of the day suggest that the substance of your position her is incorrect. But maybe I'm wrong -- if I am, I encourage you to improve Wikipedia by taking that action post-haste, and I will learn something.--Ethelh (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Featured does not mean "cannot be improved". If challenged, any claim in those featured articles should be deleted or cited. I prefer the later. What is more, "featured lists" really do not go through that much scrutiny. The state of many featured lists is far below what we expect. "Featured articles" undergo far more scrutiny and have a confusingly similar name.

The burden of proof is on anyone who seeks to include information. Regarding sock puppetry, I just don't see it. What would Betty gain by warning herself about your canvasing? I am sure some Wikipedian who did not want to get involved created that account to let Betty know of your actions. To be frank whoever this is was acting correctly by warning Betty that you had gone to six different people trying to get support for your point of view in the argument. We don't really allow canvassing here, see WP:CANVAS. Verifiability is one of our core policies here and it is one that can be enforced by any user. Chillum 14:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I guess we disagree. I think that all the signs of a sockpuppet are reflected in the above. Perhaps you are inclined not to see it. I also think that while I notified people that they might wish to weigh in, when those people had also faced problems with her relating to her deletions of accurate material, lack of use of tags, and lack of use of edit summaries when making questionable changes, I did not go nearly as far in characterizing her in a way that constitutes canvassing as she did in contacting you and others, as she did above.

As I said, if you really believe that all of those lists that I indicated should have the non-inline-cited entries deleted, I encourage you to show me that you really believe it by doing so immediately. I don't think you actually believe its the right course, so imagine that you won't because of the negative reaction that you anticipate ... though you will likely blame it on some other reason (lack of time or interest). But if you do in fact believe what you are saying, you will make those deletions, and I will with interest follow the ensuing discussion.--Ethelh (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will thank you to look at my full contribution history going back to 2006 instead of asking me to go about performing tasks to prove myself to you. I have done my homework Ethelh. If you don't agree with policy you can go to the policy talk pages and attempt to have them changed. Until then you should respect it when people enforce that policy.

As for you concerns regarding sock puppetry, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is over here. Chillum 21:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with the policy. I simply don't agree that yours is the common understanding of the policy. And believe further that if you do believe it is so, now that I have brought those lists to your attention you will delete the entries that you believe (as Betty believes) should be deleted from those featured lists. And believe further that you won't do it, because if you were to do so you would get the reaction I anticipate from others who read the policy the same way that I read it (and in a way contrary to the way that you read it). But perhaps you (or other editors) will prove me wrong.--Ethelh (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I suggested that you read through my contributions I thought you would take that as a hint that I have done extensive and prolonged work in removing uncited content from lists, as well as finding sources for already existing claims. It is not really your place to demand challenges from people. Policy is very clear that a) linking to another Wikipedia article is not a valid form of sourcing, and b) lists are held to the same standards as other articles. You do not have to source everything you put here, but if another person challenges it then it does need a source. You are not required to remove unsourced content, but if another does so then that is not something that can be refused unless a source is found. That is just how we roll here. Chillum 22:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I stand by my above statements, and gather that you won't prove me wrong.--Ethelh (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is what policy says, you can read it or not. I am not proving anything, however you will find policy enforced if you do not follow it. In the end those who wish to include information must cite it if challenged. Not sure what there is to prove, I suppose if you were to edit war about including an uncited claim that you would eventually get blocked, but that is a poor way of having something proven to you. Chillum 13:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I believe that if you were to delete the accurate material on the indicated lists that lack inline citations you would eventually be blocked. But we won't know, as you won't do it. I believe that you won't because you are aware that that is the case. But we won't know what the reason is, as -- aware of these "incorrect" listing which you believe warrant deletion, you will let them be and not risk approbation.--Ethelh (talk) 04:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I believe that if you had bothered to read my contribution history like I suggested that you would see that not only have I done just that many many times, but that I have received numerous barnstars and other such tokens of gratitude for it. I am particularly proud of my work at List of Romanian actors which was in a frightful state before I got there full of actors from other countries misplaced in the list. Not only have I not been blocked in the 3 years I have been editing here but I have been made an admin. If you had listened to me earlier instead of repeating your demands you would know the answers to the questions you think you will never know the reason for.

If I tell you that a challenged claim requires a citation to be included you should believe me. If you don't believe me the believe the plain wording of the policy. If you don't believe either then you are likely to be blocked if you insist on including non-cited information when it is being challenged(I am not saying that is what you have been doing, I really don't know what you have been up to). Chillum 04:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't believe that Wikipedia requires that a properly cited entry should be deleted just because it is not an inline entry, and note that you are not deleting those entries where you are now aware of them.

And I believe that you quoted WP language to me omitting, in honest error I presumed though your continued desire to ignore it does test my presumption, the relevant NB footnote.--Ethelh (talk) 05:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was not properly cited. Wikilinks are not citations. You cannot use Wikipedia as a source for a Wikipedia article, it defeats the purpose of verifiability. How can the list become better than the average article when it relies on the average article to provide its sources? Look at User:Chillum/Wikilinks_are_not_references, time and time again it has been shown that using only Wikilinks for citations leads to inaccurate and ultimately unsourced information. We do not require that reasonable claims be cited at all until someone challenges them. Once that challenge has occurred we need to cite that source. Just take a look at the state of the article before Betty started on it and you will see how flawed an article sourced only with wikilinks is.

This is a very old debate here and one that is pretty much settled years ago. Each article needs to stand for itself and provide its own sources. This is after all an encyclopedia that people are allowed to copy, articles need to be independently reliable. Claims that have been challenged require a source. Chillum 05:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm referring to the valid citations that Betty deleted, along with the accurate text, solely because they were not inline citations. But I'm repeating myself.--Ethelh (talk) 05:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I may be misunderstanding you, if you are talking about a valid citation in another article then it is only a valid citation in the article it is in, not other articles that don't have the citation. If you are saying the citation was provided in the same article using a different style of reference then that is simply a stylistic issue(we should still use inline citations even just for stylistic reasons). Perhaps if you gave a link to what Betty removed that you object to I could understand your point of view better. Chillum 15:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See, e.g., [1], [2] ... and then these, where Betty first removed the sources -- [3] and then deleted the individuals as unsourced! ... [4].--Ethelh (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see I was misunderstanding you at least to a point(sorry about that). I thought you were referring to citations in other articles being wikilinked to. There is nothing wrong with using external links as references. It is prefered to use <ref> tags but that is not required. Betty should have either left those be or simply provided <ref> tags for it. Once I am done work I will drop Betty a note about this distinction. Chillum 20:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tx.--Ethelh (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have left a polite message with Betty about this. Thank you for being patient with me. Chillum 13:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will respond to a couple of points here. Most of my reverts were due to Ethelh's insistence at not citing the information, and then stating that the individual articles contained references and that was sufficient. I disagreed with that for the main reason that from the list alone it would not be clear what was referenced and what wasn't. It's a big list, and it would quite a chore to have to go through each name to verify whether the information was correct. The Vegetarian category is sufficient for this. A list is an article in its own right and I firmly believe it should be "self contained". If the names weren't clearly referenced, it would cease to be of any use as a quick reference or indeed if someone wanted to print it out since there would be no references. Ultimately, credit to Ethelh he did add in the refs but as external links. I did remove those because I wasn't aware that external links were valid references, so I accept that was an error on my part. One of the problems though again is that if you want to print the list out the external links don't show up under the references section. It would be better if Ethelh could adopt the general method since it does create work for everyone else.

As for removing Ethel's further comments from my page I did so because the issue was closed as far as I was concerned. I allowed all Ethel's comments up to the issue being resolved - that is after I added in the 'ref' tags. Since Ethel had got the names onto the list, and they were accompanied by references then it was done and dusted as far as I was concerned. Ethelh clearly wanted to persist in debating the point, I didn't and since I wasn't going to respond any further then there was no point leaving any further comments on my page. As for the sockpuppet allegation I encourage Ethelh to follow it up. It's not my account, but as far as I can see it hasn't be used for sockpuppetry anyway, even if it is a secondary account.

I am certainly not possessive towards the list, protective maybe. The more names the better so I welcome any well cited additions and many people have added names to the list without my interference. Ultimately editing is done through consensus - Ethel got the names onto the list and I got my references so where is the problem exactly?? Betty Logan (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure there is a problem. Chillum 07:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem is with Betty deleting perfectly accurate information, known by her to be accurate, simply because she personally prefers inline citations, though the citations used were accurate. The problem is further compounded by the fact that Betty has been asked more than once not to do that, not to delete accurate material without leaving an edit summary, and to improve material rather than delete material where she knows it to be true. These requests were left by multiple editors on her talk page. Some she has deleted, but others are still there. The problem that I ran into was just the latest in a series of these unhelpful actions by Betty, and in more than one instance Betty's tone in speaking to editors was noted as being less than cordial, and rather heavy-handed (as were the indicated edits).--Ethelh (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps that was the problem, but has it continued since I mentioned it to her? Is it still an ongoing problem? Chillum 12:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only time will tell if she will ignore you, as she has ignored other editors. Thanks for your assistance.--Ethelh (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lets try to be optimistic. Thank you for this lively discussion. Chillum 19:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmmm. What do you think about the deletion of information supported by the Oxford University student paper, founded in 1920, publication 17,000 issues, on the basis that it is not a reliable source because (supposedly) "Students (sic ... though I don't see it that way) websites are not verifiable sources." Note that as with interchanges with me and others (most deleted from her talk page), she then followed her statement (which she states as fact, not her POV), with questionable reference to Wikipedia guidelelines that in fact don't support her blanket statement, as though they mandate her POV ... "See WP:RS,Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources and Wikipedia:V#Questionable_sources)" The background of the newspaper can be found at [5]. The (over)zealous deletion at [6].--Ethelh (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Student newspapers are a less than ideal source. I would say that one is up for debate, it could be seen as a reliable source but not universally. I agree a blanket statement cannot cover how Wikipedia views student newspaper in regards to being a reliable source. There has been much debate about this in the past, and it really is decided in a case by case basis as far as I can understand. I would say seek further input on the talk page in such cases. Chillum 14:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I personally would not accept a student newspaper as a source, not even a long-running one. As an additional source, perhaps, but not as the only source about a fact, especially when it concerns a person. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I find myself agreeing with my fellow admin Cavalry. It is a fine additional source, I may even go so far as to say it is an acceptable source for a non-controversial fact that nobody is challenging. Chillum 14:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, I did raise the subject at "Reliable Sources" to query the reliability of a student newspaper before deleting it for the second time. There wasn't a response so I pressed ahead with my instinct. If the general opinion had been that it was an acceptable source then I would have gone along with that. The issue has been discussed on the talk page of the article. Again, a different source was found and a satisfactory outcome was achieved within 24 hours and there was only a couple of reverts on both sides of the dispute so hardly edit warring. It seems opinion is split on the suitability of student newspapers as references, so I suppose ultimately there isn't a consensus to permit them. My view on this if something is a fact worthy of mention then there probably is a legitimate source out there. Case in point: we started off with some blog written by a fan and ended up with the actor's profile on a major broadcaster's website as a source. No-one can deny that is the better outcome.Betty Logan (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry for Ethel coming here and posting loads of crap on your talk page, Chillum. I feel like I'm responsible for it. You perform a valuable public service! Betty Logan (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would hardly call it loads of crap. As far as I am concerned this is a simple difference of opinion about the relative value of different types of sourcing and sources. I have found the discussion here to be informative and useful. If we can keep this intellectual and not allow it to get personal then we can disagree reasonably. While this disagreement about sources has indeed lead to a better sourced article, it could have been done without either side thinking the other side was being unfair. Two people can have contrary opinions without either being out of line. Chillum 20:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inre this diff, I am sorry that I did not get back to you or re-visit the conversation before it was archived, and no slight was intended. I do agree that using good faith and politely advising those with perhaps unsuitable usernames... those where there might be perceptions of COI... is an excellent way to not bite newcomers. If they are here to spam they will see that it will not be allowed. If they were not here to spam, then they would accede and then use a different username. However, spammers might just as easily see that a non-conflicted username might still allow spamming... so continued vigilance is always in order. Its a tough call one way or the other. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very good. I appreciate your point of view. Chillum 02:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xeno^talk 14:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the update, and I would like to say you have done a wonderful job handling this dispute in a neutral manner. Chillum 05:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.