Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:18, 25 August 2019

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Repeated restoration of NFCC violations

Coldcreation (talk · contribs · count)
Modernist (talk · contribs · count)

Nonfree content enforcement has been a contentious matter for years, generating many heated discussions. Discussions involving the visual arts have been especially contentious, even when the underlying issues are relatively straightforward. Last year, JJMC89 initiated an extensive set of FFD discussions centered on 1) the use of nonfree images in galleries or otherwise without significant sourced critical commentary; 2) enforcement of the minimal use principle (. Of the roughly 40 FFDs involved, all but one were closed as delete or as remove inappropriate nonfree uses (the last was no consensus), closed mainly by Jo-Jo Eumerus and DeltaQuad. Typical closer's comments included "the blanket "keep" arguments are much too perfunctory to override the NFCC concerns. It is not enough that an image satisfy fair use criteria to stay here; it also needs to comply with the much stricter non-free use policy". See Misplaced Pages:Files_for_discussion/2018_June_18 generally, and see Misplaced Pages:Files_for_discussion/2018_June_18#File:Kline_no2.jpg for a particularly extensive exposition. The basic issues were solidly settled.

Neverthless, two of the editors involved in the dispute refuse to accept the outcome. User:Modernist and User:Coldcreation, continue to contest the removal of nonfree images from galleries or from articles without any pertinent substantive sourced commentary, making exactly the same arguments rejected last year or no argument at all. See the recent history of Sculpture, Modern sculpture, and Cubist sculpture. Frankly, this is no longer a good faith dispute. This is simply an effort tp prevent enforcement of a policy the editors disagree with, by drawing out and obstructing the process and making the editing environment unpleasant. Coldcreation has also violated WP:ROLLBACK by using rollback in a content dispute . Modernist's advocacy is so indiscriminate and uncriticsl that he actually opposes removal of nonfree images from Commons.

The issue is not whether "art needs to be seen", as it is often phrased. The issue is whether art needs to be seen in every article where it is mentioned or alluded to, and NFCC policy answers that question in the negative.

Therefore, I propose that Modernist and Coldcreation be placed on 1RR restriction with regarding to restoring nonfree images to articles, and that if they do restore such an image, they be required to provide a substantive justification for their action on the article talk page. In addition, Coldcreation should at least be warned that any further misuse of rollback will result in the loss of that right. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Those images are important images by enormously important artists. The Henri Matisse in particular which dates from more than one hundred years ago as well as the other sculptures belong in the articles that this editor has erroneously removed. They are covered by important Fair Use Rationale's and they enhance the meaning of the articles in which they appear. They all are important enough to not only remain in the articles but they need to be seen to clearly depict the subject of those articles. The complaining editor initially removed three valid images from Modern sculpture claimimg that they could not be used in a gallery because they were not in the public domain and were therefore improperly placed in galleries; in actual fact however - those images were not in the galleries; but were used properly as thumbnails with fair use rationales and I properly placed them back into the article. This editor is very damaging to the visual arts and should be banned from the visual arts articles that he clearly both misunderstands and seems to despise. For years he has attempted to delete valuable images of works of art. He seems to be incapable of adding positive information to this project. He has ripped visual arts articles apart for years. This is clearly a danger to the project and its credibility as an encyclopedia...Modernist (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I would point out that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has 94,590 edits, 82% of which are to articles, but that the average size of his edits is -172.8 bytes. That's negative 172.8 bytes. (I don't believe I've ever come across an editor whose average edit size is negative.) That figure strongly indicates that HW's primary activity is not adding material to the encyclopedia, it's deleting material from the encyclopedia. While there is certainly material which should be deleted from the encyclopedia, such as BLP violations, it is very, very unusual to find an editor whose modus operandi is so thoroughly based on deletion that they have a negative average edit size. Such behavior would surely all but guarantee that they would get into many disputes with other editors -- the ones who added ther material he deletes, for instance -- which could, perhaps, explain why HW feels that he has been "Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006."On the other hand, HW has uploaded 344 files (353-13 deleted), and created 80 non-redirect pages, but he has also nominated 392 articles and miscellany for deletion, so it still seems that deletion is his metier. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: My average edit size is -86.5. Perhaps it's different for admins, especially those involved in deletion and BLP issues, but I wouldn't say it's uncommon.-- Jezebel's Ponyo 19:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Huh! I'd never come across it before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away. — Saint-Exupéry, Wind, Sand and Stars EEng 03:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I have had numerous problems in the past trying to get the Visual Arts project to understand the problem of galleries and NFCC on pages like History of painting, which has excessive images (not only non-free but also free) for a summary style article. All the schools/periods of painting have their own articles, and often multiple sub-articles within those, and there, a small number of images are reasonable for examples. But Modernist has been extremely assertive that these images can't be removed, that "art must be seen", which makes no sense for NFCC. I have tried to explain that they can still cover visual arts, just not with all the images in one massive article while still meeting NFCC, but these editors do not want to heed the policy of WP. Mind you, past discussions have not engaged in any immediate disruptive behavior, but this attitude about NFC adherance has been there for a long time. --Masem (t) 04:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

This is basically polite disruption, as far as I can tell. Forcing well-meaning editors to jump through hoops and obtain consensus for obvious outcomes, especially when the two editors have such demonstrably daft interpretations of copyright policy, it's just a waste of everyone's time. I think it would do well to simply forbid Coldcreation and Modernist from, at the very least, ever reverting the removal of a non-free image from an article. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Clearly, these files should not have been removed. Rather, the user should have discussed at the respective Talk pages, as he/she was asked to do several times (diffs 1 and 2). A CN tag would have been sufficient where needed, or if critical commentary was absent or insufficient, it could have been mentioned and readily added. The mass deletion of fair use images, all of which are adequately covered by fair use rationales, constitute a form of blanking vandalism, per WP:VANDTYPES. It is fortunate that the Visual Arts editors are attentive enough to spot unconstructive removal of content—most of the time—before it gets out of hand. Coldcreation (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps its a problem with the indicated FFDs but we do not have anything called "Fair use rationales". They are non-free rationales which is a stronger stance on the use of copyrighted work than US fair use defense would allow , per the WMF's desire to be a free work. And no, knowing from past discussions on various art pages, discussing on the talk page goes nowhere because the visual art project aggressive defends the use of so many images with the blanket "art must be seen" argument, which goes nowhere. FFD is the proper place to discuss extraneous non-free use of images, and calling their removal "vandalism" when the FFD closed against that is absolutely wrong and shows no understanding of policy - not only NFC but how XFDs are to be handled. --Masem (t) 05:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright policy is understood by all involved here. Where needed, it is constructive to add critical commentary and citations, rather than remove visual media. Talk pages are the best place to point out potential shortcomings. Coldcreation (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Neither you or Modernist have demonstrated you understand Misplaced Pages's NFCC criteria. Even a brief look at the FFD discussion linked above shows that. If you did understand it, the only conclusion is that you disagree with it, and are being deliberately disruptive in order to prevent it's enforcement. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, where policy is lacking (i.e., when non-free images are in galleries, without commentary or citation), it is preferable to modify and conform, than to delete. Coldcreation (talk) 07:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no lack in policy as has been explained to you repeatedly. Your refusal to listen indicates you need to be banned from adding or removing any images, or any NFCC discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Based on just what you've posted here in this thread, it's clear that you don't understand the copyright policy. NFCC makes it plainly clear that it is the burden of those seeking to retain non-free content to demonstrate that the requirements of the policy are satisfied. If you think it is appropriate to revert removals of non-free content without providing substantive explanation on the talk page yourself, and if you think that policing non-free content is vandalism, it would appear we have a CIR issue on our hands rather than simply a refusal to follow policy. NFCC will be enforced by blocking if necessary. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly. When non-free visual art images do not conform to policy, it is preferable to modify, e.g., by adding critical commentary and citations—and thus conform to policy—than to remove the images. Coldcreation (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly

You're not expressing yourself clearly NOW. You've made an assertion: so, why? --Calton | Talk 09:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• You've been arguing over this for well over half a decade, at least. The assertion that one should add critical commentary rings rather hollow when looking at Modern sculpture#Minimalism, which contains no prose at all, just images. There are discussions on the talk page going back to 2013. But none of the proponents of adding critical commentary apparently actually have when push comes to shove. Should you be judged by your words? Or by your lack of putting them into practice over years? In 2009, this sort of thing was characterized as paying lip service to content policy. Uncle G (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• It's certainly possible, in a limited number of situations, to make a non-free image conform to NFCC, by adding critical commentary about that image. But you're not doing that. At Sculpture and elsewhere, you're edit warring to insert multiple non-free images in galleries where the images often aren't even mentioned in the text . Even when they are mentioned, something like "examples of this type of sculpture are X, Y and Z" are not critical commentary. That's simple violation of NFCC, and that simply isn't happening. Black Kite (talk) 10:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Good points. At this time however, I am not at my personal computer. That will be changing shortly. In the mean time, rather than removing images, only to be replaced later with citations and critical analysis, it would be preferable to leave these long-standing visual arts articles with the low resolution images intact. Misplaced Pages users will benefit from actually seeing the artworks about which the articles are written. Finally, the editor who deleted all of the images under scrutiny, could very well have started adding some analysis and/or citations, or at the very least, could have discussed doing so at respective Talk pages, avoiding as such entering into an uncalled for edit war with experts in the visual arts and art historians here at Misplaced Pages. Coldcreation (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

You don't seem to grasp how severely copyright violations are supposed to be dealt with. The onus is 100% on the person who argues for inclusion of non-free content to demonstrate compliance with the NFCC. Editors are not only permitted but encouraged to remove copyright violations on site. There is no requirement that an editor attempt to add new content to the article to solve the problem. I will gladly block any art expert or historian who thinks that our copyright policies are optional. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

How much critical analysis are you going to be putting into the summary-level articles like History of painting? Not much, because of the very definition of "summary style". There is no problem for purposes of a summary style like the ones shown here to have one example of a specific school or regional or era-specific work, such as Proto-Cubism or an artist's page have several non-free example that then can be discussed in depth with the critical commentary. It is understood that a history-spanning article like History of painting will have many free images available but will suddenly have problems with non-frees for more 20th century works and beyond, and NFC is not deaf to minimal allowance to balance the visual layout, as long as the free are appropriately balanced too; I am sure there are specific non-free paintings that are critically shown to be prime example of certain schools/eras/etc. But you cannot justify massive numbers of galleries on non-frees on these summary style articles in any fashion, and if you are looking for visual balance, reducing how many frees are show at the top levels of the summary-style hierarchy. --Masem (t) 19:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

it would be preferable to leave these long-standing visual arts articles with the low resolution images intact. No, it wouldn't, and indeed it would be a very bad idea, because they violate NFCC which is a policy and is therefore not optional. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

It is important that images be found in articles on visual art. A solution might be to place "critical commentary" in the captions of images. An example of this would be the 4 images of artwork found at the article Kay Sage. WP:NFCCP states under the heading "Contextual significance" that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." These should not be images included willy-nilly where they don't "increase readers' understanding of the article topic". But when writing about the many styles and sub-styles in visual art I think it is important to provide examples. Based on words alone a reader can't visualize a style of art. Bus stop (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

That's actually the problem - there are many (free) images in these articles already, so except in very exceptional circumstances - i.e. where an important style of work does not have any free images - should we be including them, and even then they still need to comply with the other tenets of NFCC. Black Kite (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

And the problem is not at the very bottom of the summary style articles - the specific artists or schools -but at the top level, where far too many examples are being given when we're supposed to be giving a high level summary of the field. Again, one example per major area in a summary style could be reasonably justified by NFCC, but not multiple and multiple galleries. --Masem (t) 19:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Masem—I don't think there is a distinction between "summary style" articles and articles that delve into the styles as may be found in "summary style" articles. Our aim should be educating readers on widely-held general concepts. A number of images appropriate to the subject addressed by the article should be used—if they are "contextually significant". Bus stop (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Black Kite—images are not as interchangeable as you are implying. These are elusive concepts. A poor image is going to do a poor job of illustrating a style. Bus stop (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

A summary style article, like History of painting, is there to help organize the topic for the reader (here, of all types of painting), and providing links to more detailed articles or in many cases here, additional summary style articles with further details in linked articles. It should not be the case that the reader knows everything about the topic of painting after reading that article, but has enough context to know where to go to find out more if they weren't sure. When you get to the detailed articles like on specific painters or schools, that's where you can tell the reader the nitty-gritty details, and that's where multiple non-free supported by critical commentary would be reasonable. But not at the level of providing the overview and outline. A few NFCC images to go along with free iamges are fine at the highest levels to give quick visual identification of the various schools, but there is no need to teach the reader everything about what each school/regional area has to offer, and thus no need for excessive non-free images such as those in galleries (as is currently the case). If you were writing an history of painting book, you would not load up the the introductory chapter that outlines the books contents with all those images; same thing here. --Masem (t) 19:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The only difference between the "levels" of articles you are referring to is the level of knowledge readers already have when reading these articles. There is an appropriate number of images relative to any given article. It would be pointless to arbitrarily rein in the number of images appropriate to what you are calling a "summary level article". Bus stop (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The appropriate number of non-free images is always 'the minimal amount necessary'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Bus stop (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

What Masem seems to be arguing is that in overview articles it is more difficult to claim "contextual significance". A work of art that is appropriate for inclusion in an article on a specific style of art may also be appropriate for inclusion in an overview article. This might be the case if a work is considered a quintessential example within both articles. The image of The Persistence of Memory may be found to have "contextual significance" in an article specifically about Surrealism and also in an overview article on the History of painting. I am wrong in both cases. I see that the image of the painting called "The Persistence of Memory" is found in neither of those articles. But it is the principle that I am trying to illustrate by an example. Bus stop (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I never said you can't duplicate the use of a significant image. Persistence of Memory is the type of work I would expect on at least 3 articles - the painting itself, on Dali's page, and at least one page about surrealism. I can also seeing it used as the "Example" image of surealism on a list of types of painting styles in summary style. But in that case, that should be the only example of surrealism, not two images, not a gallery of images as is being done now. --Masem (t) 03:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

It is important to visually exemplify those artistic movements correctly and quite often several images are necessary; in order to demonstrate clarity and complexity. In surrealism for example an image of a painting by Dali is not enough to demonstrate the visual complexity and history of that important movement....Modernist (talk) 11:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

And again, that's not what's been said. On "Surrealism" I can reasonably expect a few non-free examples from a variety of artists to explore the breadth of the school of art - but not multiple from the same article or from the same sub-school; if the artist is important, they will have their own standalone article that can support multiple non-frees, or if a sub-school is important, there too. But going up the summary-style ladder, from Surrealism to History of Painting, you don't need multiple images of surrealism art to illustrate where the school of surrealism fits into the history of painting, which is not an article about art appreciation. If every art image was free, this might not be a problem, but you have a situation that that 10% of images that are non-free are going to dictate how you should be using images through the series of works. Remember, in genera en.wiki should not be hosting large galleries of images - free or otherwise. That's better suited to Commons and that's where you can lay out pages and pages of examples using the free images there. But en.wiki and non-free just is requiring more limitations to meet the free-content goal of the WMF. --Masem (t) 13:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Masem—you are referring to points on the history of art as if they corresponded to points in the relationships between gigabytes, megabytes, and kilobytes with a neat and rational relationship between major schools, sub-schools, and sub-sub-schools. The reality is not that neat and rational. We should be reflecting reliable sources rather than imposing our preconceptions on sources with the resulting arbitrary restrictions on what images can be included in art history articles. Bus stop (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

In a top-level summary style article, they better be treated as points of reference to help readers. I can tell you that reading though History of painting, which is written to establish the when and where of each school/type of style, and not a critical review or comparison of any style, could be understood without any images (free or otherwise), whereas getting to Surrealism or Dali, I would need more visual aids. Obviously a small number of images help for visual appeal on History of painting, but key is that they are not required. This is critical to restricting the number of non-frees on these top-level summary articles. We have a responsibility to the Foundation to take steps to reduce non-free where inappropriately used. --Masem (t) 14:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

We aren't talking about "visual appeal" at all. You misunderstand the topic of discussion. The images are not there to be pretty. If you or Hullaballoo Wolfowitz disagree about the necessity of an image of art in an article on art then you should be presenting that argument on the Talk page of that article rather than peremptorily removing images. A key question will be "contextual significance" as that is what policy calls for. You aren't giving people a chance to respond to your challenges and now the issue is being considered in the inappropriate forum of WP:AN/I.

Here we have Hullaballoo Wolfowitz removing images with no prior discussion on the article Talk page corresponding to that removal. Do the 3 removed images, by Henri Matisse, George Segal, and Mark di Suvero satisfy requirements for "contextual significance"? That is a question most appropriately discussed on that article's Talk page. Instead Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is removing those 3 images without any discussion and reporting good faith editors at WP:AN/I. I think Hullaballoo Wolfowitz should not be blaming others for their failure to engage in dialogue over the contested images. Bus stop (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Images which fail to satisfy NFCC are removed until such time as a valid rationale is provided for their inclusion. They are not subject to 'discussion is required prior to removing them'. As you well know, because this has been explained to you multiple times. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• A point. Editors on one side of this issue have cited "fair use" and have properly been corrected, in that the issue is not about whether the images are allowable under fair use regimes, but whether they are allowable under Misplaced Pages's NFC rules. On the other side, "copyright violations" are being referred to, and this is often equally incorrect. Any use of images which is allowable under normal fair use rules is not a copyright violation, although it may be a violation of Misplaced Pages's NFC rules, which are stricter than fair use. Both sides appear to be using terminology which utilizes the gap between fair use and NFC to score points against the other. This should stop, and all argumentation should be on the basis of WP:NFC alone, unless there is an actual copyright violation with the use of an image which would not be allowable under fair use. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Hullaballoo Wolfowitz—policy permits non-free imagery when accompanied by "contextual significance". Why do you think these articles are being written? They are addressing the history of art. This is not a subject area not worthy of being addressed on Misplaced Pages. It is a legitimate subject area and it is entirely dependent on seeing art. In a classroom setting, art history is invariably taught in the presence of images. The instructor provides verbal commentary while presenting projected images for the class to view. This familiarizes the student with artworks generally accepted as noteworthy over a period of time. Is there some reason that we should fall short in taking on that task? Can you tell us some reason that Misplaced Pages should be able to function in the absence of images when presenting the same material as may be presented in a classroom setting? Bus stop (talk) 13:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Because NFC is a stronger stance on use of non-free material than the average fair use allowance that many schools operate under. --Masem (t) 13:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• As you know we are creating as accurate and as self explanatory articles about modern, contemporary and recent art history as possible. Imagery is required and we are doing our best to work within the parameters that public domain and copyright allows; sometimes the edges becomes blurry; sometimes fair use makes the most sense. As you've heard me say many times art needs to be seen; initially 12 years ago the foundation made exception to the use of images of works of art by encouraging fair use...Modernist (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Just a reminder, again, that it's not only public domain and copyright law in which you must maneuver, but also Misplaced Pages's NFC policy, which is more stringent than copyright law (unnecessarily so, in my opinion, but there it is). Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• "Fair use" is not an option on en.wiki because it is overridden by Non-free. Yes, maybe 12 years ago, there was statements that established the use of copyrighted images under fair use, but with the resolution in 2008, we do not talk fair use anymore, but non-free content policy and minimize its use. Imagery on some articles in the visual arts is not required; just because you are talking about art does not mean art needs to be displayed. --Masem (t) 00:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Imagery on some articles in the visual arts is not required; just because you are talking about art does not mean art needs to be displayed." How do you figure? It seems counterintuitive to me. Bus stop (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• No images are needed to discuss the history of painting, like where it originated, how it evolved, and modern evolution. Images help to display some milestones in that history, but are not required to understand the history. You don't need images to talk about surrealism having started in the 1920s and in Europe, as part of the overall historical picture of painting. Now when you start getting into discussing a specific school of art, or an artist, now you might find the need to show images to show what elements actually are considered part of surrealism - something that should not be covered at the history level. --Masem (t) 03:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• I disagree. Any book on the history of art, any essay, any magazine article, anything at all will contain visual material, it's simply unavoidable - some things as just much harder to describe than they are to show. It would be kind of like trying to describe arithmetic without using numbers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• That explanation makes sense when and if image captions or article text explain how the image relates to the text. NFCC requires an explanation of why this particular non-free image illustrates a point in the text better than free alternatives, and that is not achieved when not only does the FUR lack any meaningful substance, but also the article never makes reference to the image. It's just decoration at that point. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• But they aren't "decorative". Aurora (sculpture) is being removed from Modern sculpture. No amount of words can substitute for the image. The image is as educational as its textual counterpart. A reader should be familiar with the image. In the absence of reader familiarity with the image, it is hard to see that any amount of words can have much meaning. But Hullaballoo Wolfowitz isn't using the article Talk page. There is no meeting of the minds of editors. Dialogue is removed from the equation. That battleground mentality is what brings this to AN/I. This is the deliberate creation of an impasse. It is avoidable. Editors should be working together to fulfill Misplaced Pages's educational purpose. There can be no doubt that the image of Aurora (sculpture) is educational in the context of a Modern sculpture article. The editors writing the Modern sculpture article are trying to comply with the requirements for non-free imagery. And I don't see where they are not compliant with those requirements. If Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is of the opinion that an image of a very prominent example of modern sculpture does not belong in an article on Modern sculpture then the constructive thing to do is to raise that concern on that article's Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• There is zero discussion of the Aurora sculpture on the Modern sculpture page. Even the Aurora page shows no sign of notability of the work, much less its importance to the topic of modern sculpture, much less of why a non-free image of it is needed on the page of modern sculpture when several free examples of abstract sculptures exist. There need to be sourced commentary about the sculpture to use any non-free, and I am seeing none of that in the Modern Sculpture article, the Aurora article or the Mark di Suvero article. This is the problem across much of the visual arts project and they have failed to comply numerous times with NFCC; such images might be fine in fair use, but that is 100% failing non-free. We cannot consider the use education just to show what it is and not have any discussion of its importance to the area of modern sculptures or art in general. Non-free does not all these types of decorative uses. Hullaballoo tried to resolve matters with the FFDs that they put up, and clearly editors like Modernist were aware of these but failed to take steps to resolve when Hullaballoo removed them , so there's very little sympathy here. NFC one of our strongest policies, perhaps just a notch behind BLP, of how far it needs to be enforced. --Masem (t) 13:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Excuse me? the article Modern Sculpture needs imagery - try using WP:UCS. Regarding Mark di Suvero, his work needs to be seen in order to be understood.......there are tons and tons and tons of modern sculptures......some figurative, some welded, some molded, some conceptualized, some abstract, some tiny, some enormous, some political, some apolitical and even some that are under water....one or two images doesn't illustrate important art and many more images are needed; the few images in the article now are probably enough for the reader to see the range; but many works are not included. These articles should be respected and left alone...Modernist (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • work needs to be seen in order to be understood does not have any applicability for non-free images on en.wiki, period. You need commentary to say why those images are important enough to be seen, not that they just exist and you want the reader to take it in themselves. --Masem (t) 00:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Masem, what would help would be a specific edit - advocating - commentary needed here - rather than deletion...That would indicate and might even mean that the visual arts project and the NFC project can begin to work together, the idea is to build articles not tear them down...Modernist (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Masem—from where are you deriving that "You need commentary to say why those images are important enough to be seen"? I am aware of WP:NFCCP allowing non-free images when the images have "contextual significance". The wording used is "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Bus stop (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
        • If no context is provided in the article or even the image caption, there is no contextual significance. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
          • That's not true. In the context of the article the image has significance, if we are talking about this sculpture by this artist in this article. Why remove the image? And why remove the image with no prior conversation at Talk:Modern sculpture? Bus stop (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
            • The article only mentions Aurora to say that it is an example, among many others, some of which are available under free licenses. There is literally no context provided on that page that even hints at which Aurora would hold any special significance to the subject, or help the reader understand the topic in a way that is not satisfied by any of the available free images. The FUR for this use is simply asinine, "1. This is a historically significant work that could not be conveyed in words. 2. Inclusion is for information, education, and analysis only. 3. Its inclusion in the article(s) adds significantly to the article(s) because it shows a major type of work produced by this artist. 4. The image is a low resolution copy of the original work and would be unlikely to impact sales of prints or be usable as a desktop backdrop. 5. It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value." That's just meaningless boilerplate, assertions so vague you would have no idea which file they were actually referring to. As for why not engage in prior conversation at the talk page, because policy does not require it. The burden of proof lays entirely with the editor(s) who wishes to include non-free content. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
              • We already have an article on Aurora (sculpture). I think that is a plus. Internal links are generally considered to be a good thing unless they are excessive. We already have an article on Mark di Suvero, the person who made the sculpture. It is made in 1992-1993. We don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Modern sculpture would include the years 1992-1993. Of course our choice has context. I would argue that context is "significant". This is because it is an example of modern sculpture. And it is a notable example. Our project hosts articles on both di Suvero and their sculpture. This is a non-issue. There should be no reason for removing that image from that article, much less doing so without prior dialogue. In the future Hullaballoo Wolfowitz should be required to discuss first before removing. That is what collaborative editing is. Bus stop (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
                • The article on Aurora gives no reason why this particular piece of art is significant to have its own article. There's factual data (who made it, when it was installed, where it was installed, etc.) but nothing that meets the GNG. I would expect , at minimum, some type of art criticism (positive or negative) to be able to support that, and if it that important a piece of art, some sourced criticism discussing that. We don't need to source "the sky is blue" because that's an objective statement, but that absolutely does not apply to "this is an important piece of art." That's only the start of the problem at Aurora - without any of that in Modern sculpture, the image use outright fails NFCC. You simply cannot say "This is an important work of art" without any sources as to justify the image. And this has been pointed out repeated to the visual arts projects and they have refused to take steps to reduce NFCC use, meaning that others will had to do it for them to conform those articles to the requirements of NFCC. --Masem (t) 16:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
                  • Masem—as you know you can nominate Aurora (sculpture) for deletion. You say "That's only the start of the problem at Aurora - without any of that in Modern sculpture, the image use outright fails NFCC." If the article exists, it does not fail NFCC. WP:NFCCP states, under the heading "Contextual significance", that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The image of Aurora (sculpture) has contextual significance in the article Modern sculpture. Additionally they are pointlessly removing other images. How does it make any sense to remove the image of The Back Series by Henri Matisse? Bus stop (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
                    • NFCC#8 which you are quoting requires the presence of critical commentary to understand why the picture is relevant on Modern sculpture, otherwise, its just another picture of a sculpture. There is zero mention of Aurora in the body of that article, and the lack of significant sourcing from the main Aurora article suggests that there might not be any. You need reliable sources that says to some extent "Aurora is a critical example of modern sculpture", otherwise its use is unallowable on that page per NFCC#8, because if that's not discussion, its omission is not going to be detrimental to the reader's understanding because there's nothign in the article talking about it. And NFCC is very clear you don't just use another picture because we strive for minimizing non-free, per NFCC#3a. If you have not provided those sources and the article is silent on the NFC work, then the removals being done are 100% in line with NFC policy. --Masem (t) 00:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
                      • Masem is entirely correct here. It's also important to note that the use rationales for this image (except for the article on the sculpture itself) are invalid on their face(s). The rationale for modern sculpture claims, for example, the image meets NFCC requirements "because it shows a major type of work produced by this artist". Even if we put aside the point that last year's FFD discussions established/recognized the consensus that generic, cookie-cutter rationales like this don't meet NFCC requirements, it's still clear that the image is replaceable because free images of other sculptures by the same artist are available for use. We have an established consensus that, as general rule, the claimed rationale for using the image like this is invalid. We have a specific violation of the replaceability standard. Both WP:NFCCE and established practice dictate that the image is subject to summary removal from the article(s) involved. In these circumstances, no individual discussion is called for before removal. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Masem—it seems that you are coming up with novel interpretations of policy. From where are you deriving that "ou need commentary to say why those images are important enough to be seen"? WP:NFCCP#8 states, under the heading "Contextual significance", that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." If you want to delete the article Aurora (sculpture) then I think you would still have to explain why Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is removing The Back Series by Henri Matisse. Bus stop (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• That is not a novel stance, that is how we evaluation NFCC#8 with some limited exceptions (outlined at WP:NFCI). If there is no sourced critical commentary about the work - not just basics like who made it, where it is located, etc, but instead how it is interpreted or its themes, how it is influenced others or impacted the world - then omission of the image of the work of art does not harm the readers' understanding of that. This is doubly true on articles like Modern sculpture because there is zero mention by name of the work of art in the body of the article (excluding captions), so just showing a random non-free image with no seemingly apparent relevance to the text is absolutely unallowed by NFCC#8. HW's removal of the Back series is similarly in line - not one mention of the name of the series in the body. And keep in mind - you as a WP editor simply cannot make the claim that these works are critically important and/or influencial to modern sculpture -you need sourcing for that, which at least for Aurora I've not been able to find.
• As for the Aurora page, it barely meets the GNG, but that's "barely". I have not done a proper BEFORE search (meaning AFDing would be extremely pointy) and there's at least two sources (one I just added) that at least comment on the work. So no, I won't be AFDing that, and because its a proper standalone article, the image of Aurora is fine there per NFCI. There's the barest minimum of critical commentary about the structure to allow that. But I would forewarn that if another editor went through, did a thorough BEFORE search, and found no further sourcing except what is there already, deletion is definitely a possible outcome. --Masem (t) 16:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Masem—as you know you can nominate Aurora (sculpture) for deletion. You are claiming that for a non-free image of an artwork to be considered for use in an article in the visual arts we would need to show "how it is interpreted or its themes". Not according to policy. You are making that up. It is not found in policy. You are claiming that a prerequisite for the inclusion of non-free images would be an explanation of "how it is influenced others or impacted the world". But policy says nothing of the sort. WP:NFCCP#8 states, under the heading "Contextual significance", that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." If you are going to nominate Aurora (sculpture) for deletion then please do so for the sake of this discussion. But you can't argue that a sculpture on which we have an article such as The Back Series by Henri Matisse should be removed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. The requisites of WP:NFCCP are satisfied because in the context of an article such as Modern sculpture the image of "The Back Series", on which we have an article, has "significance". Please tell me why it wouldn't have significance in that context. It was made within the time period covered by the article "Modern sculpture". Are you going to argue that we have an article on a sculpture that is non-notable? Bus stop (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Please stop repeating the policy you have been quoting every reply. We know what it is and it is making this conversation worse.
• Second, just because the artwork is notable like the Back Series and thus has both a standalone article and a non-free image of the work, does not mean reusing that image elsewhere is acceptable. NFCC#3a requires minimizing non-free use, that includes repeated uses of images. So each article using an image has to show the significance of that image to the article in question (that's why we require separate rationales that are supposed to be different for each use). The image of Aurora may be okay on the page that actually is about that piece, but if you cannot tell me why the work is significant to the overall field of Modern sculpture by way of sourced critical commentary which is necessary to convey understanding of its importance, then the image is unallowable on that page. Just existing as an editor-chosen example of modern sculpture does not work for us at all, particularly as there are other free images of modern sculpture in countries with freedom of panorama that can be used instead as representative examples. This is all about minimizing non-free use and removing uses that fail the basic requirements of NFCC#8. HW is exactly in the right for that image's removal from Modern sculpture for that purpose. --Masem (t) 17:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• "if you cannot tell me why the work is significant to the overall field of Modern sculpture by way of sourced critical commentary which is necessary to convey understanding of its importance, then the image is unallowable on that page". Nothing like that is found in policy. WP:NFCCP, which you would prefer I not repeat, allows for the use of non-free images in the presence of "contextual significance". In an overview article, such as "modern sculpture", there is as much "contextual significance" for the non-free image as there is in the article on that sculpture by itself. Bus stop (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• NFCC#8 has two tests, and the second test about omission being harmful to the reader's understanding is the point here. Just showing an image of some art without any context beyond "this is an example of this type of art", when there are plenty of free examples of the same type of art, means the image can be removed without harming the reader's understanding. How do you make sure that omission would become harmful? You may sure there is significant discussion of that piece of art in the article that the image is being used in. That significant discussion cannot come from editors; that has to come from secondary sources that discuss the influence/importance/etc. of the work to some degree to make it relevant to the article in question. That means for these modern sculpture images, it should be established that these are works that are key examples of modern sculpture. Without any of that discussion, NFCC#8 is not met (since the art image can be removed or replaced with a free image without impacting the readers' undertanding of modern sculpture. Not that we don't spell out "critical commentary" in NFCC#8 because there are exceptional cases where this is not required, as outlined at WP:NFCI, but in all cases, this is expected. --Masem (t) 19:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• "NFCC#8 has two tests, and the second test about omission being harmful to the reader's understanding is the point here." Omission of images is harmful to readers' understanding in articles on visual art such as the article "Modern sculpture". "That means for these modern sculpture images, it should be established that these are works that are key examples of modern sculpture. Without any of that discussion, NFCC#8 is not met (since the art image can be removed or replaced with a free image without impacting the readers' undertanding of modern sculpture." Which free image? You and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz are only tearing down the article. There is no dialogue. There are no alternatives suggested. An article on "Modern sculpture" relies on images. You would write a pretty poor article on "Modern sculpture" if it could not contain any images. Yet Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is constantly raiding the article. It is an unacceptable situation when one editor is so uncooperative and so consistently incorrect in their interpretation of policy. Masem—you should not be making up nonexistent policy in order to make it more difficult to write about art. Bus stop (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• The omission does not harm the article on Modern sculpture because there is no discussion or context for that specifici piece of art in the article. There is discussion of what modern sculpture is, so if there were no possible free images for that, we'd allow a few non-free images. But fortutnately, you have plenty of free images like File:Henry Moore Double Oval.jpg in use that clearly meet the idea of modern sculpture that do illustrate the concept properly, and infinitely more free images could be made (eg: a UK photographer could take a shot of Auroa and licensing that to PD/CC to make it a free image due to how FOP works). So to include any non-free (per NFCC#1), that rationale needs to meet a pretty high level of inclusion, such as a modern sculpture that is widely recognized as the pinnacle or principle example of the form, and that it is impossible for a free version of that sculpture to be made. Cannot jsut be any random example as the case with Aurora or the Backs, this has to be a well-sourced example. And no, HW is not required to replace removed non-free with free here : you have sufficient examples that a few less images makes the article barren. And no, HW has to have no dialog given that those in the visual art projects that continue to include non-frees willy-nilly just stand on "art has to be seen" use, which shows no attempt at meeting long-standing policy. Goes back to the main point of this thread: editors like Modernist and Coldcreation show no interest in complying with NFCC, so there's no reason HW has to "respect" the process since NFC is a core policy. --Masem (t) 19:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• What are you talking about, Masem, when you say they "do illustrate the concept properly"? Correct me if I misunderstand you but are you saying that File:Henry Moore Double Oval.jpg properly illustrates the "concept", whatever that might mean, of File:Aurora Mark di Suvero.jpg? Please clarify. Bus stop (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• I am clearly talking about illustrating the concept of "modern sculpture", not the Aurora sculpture.--Masem (t) 21:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Masem—wouldn't the concept of "modern sculpture" be better illustrated by multiple examples that are different from one another? You say "And no, HW has to have no dialog given that those in the visual art projects that continue to include non-frees willy-nilly just stand on "art has to be seen" use, which shows no attempt at meeting long-standing policy." I see you are having difficulty in understanding that "art has to be seen". Art education involves familiarization with those works of art considered by so-called connoisseurs as being significant. The text is not more important than the images in Modern sculpture. The included images are serving the purpose of familiarizing the reader with those examples that are considered noteworthy or significant. Bus stop (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• There's numerous multiple FREE images of various styles already on Modern sculpture. You do not need any that are non-free for that. And there is not one iota of text between all these articldes that identifies Aurora or the Backs as works "considered noteworthy or significant" in modern sculpture. If you had that, that would make this a different discussion. And again, I stress that you cannot say that in wikivoice without a source to back that up as that otherwise is original research. If they are as important as you say they are, it should be easy as pie to find those sources. But no effort has been made, so removal is the right action. And we are not here to be an art appreciation site. We can teach art history and the types of schools, but we're not here to tell readers how to appreciate art as it is highly subjective. The best we can do is identify why some pieces of art are considered significant by including sourced discussion from experts in the field. Which is not happening at all at this point. --Masem (t) 22:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

"There's numerous multiple FREE images of various styles already on Modern sculpture." Art tends not to be replaceable with other art. Put another way, works of art tend to not be interchangeable with one another. We are not simply trying to find examples of "Modern sculpture". We are trying to find images of examples that express the range of modern sculpture. When you remove the image of Aurora (sculpture) you have to replace it with something because it represents a unique outpost in modern sculpture. Artists tend to carve out unique outposts for their work. You won't find another artist making Mobile (sculpture)s other than Alexander Calder. OK, some other artists may make something similar, but probably distinct. Connoisseurs provide examples of outposts of art. I think it is mistaken to say, as you are arguing, that these are the best-of-the best or superlative examples of something. That is a mistaken notion. Art is unlike baseball in this regard. There are no rules but individuality tends to rank high in values. You simply can't omit Mark di Suvero from sculpture any more than you could omit Chuck Close from painting or Marina Abramović from performance art. Contrary to your exhortation for "critical commentary" it is almost better not to have critical commentary. It is mostly hot air anyway. And policy is not requiring "critical commentary". Policy is clear: it requires "contextual significance". Bus stop (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The Foundation resolution doesn't care about art having this type of individuality that you are claiming. In the purposes of Modern sculpture, the Aurora picture is easily replaced by other free images that are serving the same education purposes as to showing what are example of modern sculpture ("Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose." as in the Resolution). If the example is critical - either the work in question or the artist, then that needs to be explained in the text to justify the use of the non-free image. And here's the other half of the problem with these articles is that right now there is zero sourced text to explain why we should care for de Suvero's art. (The line in Modern sculpture only says, effectively, de Suvero's does some large-scale sculpture, but gives zero weight to how important he is.) If that artist or that work is truly that important, finding sources from the art world should be easy. But that onus is on those wanting to keep the NFC to properly meet the Resolution and NFCC policy. The bulk of this article lacks sources meaning it also fails WP:NOR (you may think critical commentay is hot air, but this policy requires that you have it for this type of material in prose in the first place), and because its also naming indvividuals, WP:BLP. Write an article that explains why we should highlight specific examples of art that are non-free, and then we can talk appropriate inclusion of non-free images, but without any of that sourcing or text any use of NFC fails several policies and guidelines. --Masem (t) 22:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

"And we are not here to be an art appreciation site. We can teach art history and the types of schools, but we're not here to tell readers how to appreciate art as it is highly subjective." You are arguing that this be an "art appreciation site". I am arguing that the article "Modern sculpture" be an art education article. You are arguing that we should "tell readers how to appreciate art". I am arguing that we should familiarize readers with art deemed important by influential art critics. Bus stop (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

"art deemed important by influential art critics" Where are the sources for this????? This is a fundamental issue here. You can't hand wave as say "trust us". Source these statements, but until you can, you can't use non-free on these articles. --Masem (t) 00:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hilton Kramer, an influential art critic, writes about Mark di Suvero. Bus stop (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

FINALLY you have provided a source that should be present in Modern sculpture. That said, that article - written in 1976 - supports the potential use of an "For Lady Mady", "Victor's Lament", or "Homage to the Viet Cong" (all three commented on it detail, as well as establishing di Suvero), but definitely not "Aurora" (since that was in 1992). But that is exactly the type of source that needs to be present to support non-free. And that sourcing that has to be in the article first before the non-free can be added. If that was all there, and HW was removing an image of one of those structures, then there may be something to warn HW about. But that's just not the case here; its on the visual art project to get the sourcing in first. --Masem (t) 00:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem is you are seeking contrivances. "How do you make sure that omission would become harmful? You may sure there is significant discussion of that piece of art in the article that the image is being used in." You are being non-discriminating. I'm actually opposed to adding hot air to articles on art. If something is worth adding, it should be added, if it is not worth adding, it should not be added. Bus stop (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

You may consider that "hot air" but that is secondary sourcing which is required to avoid NOR as well as potential BLP violations. And that's before we get to the NFC issue. Content that makes these claims that these artists or art pieces are important without this type of sourcing can and will be deleted for failing core policies. --Masem (t) 01:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Masem—do you really think WP:OR and WP:BLP are applicable here? Or are you overstating your case? You haven't explained how those policies are applicable. We have articles on Henri Matisse, Mark di Suvero, and George Segal (artist). Non-free images of work made by those artists are being removed from Modern sculpture. How does WP:OR and WP:BLP have bearing on whether or not the removal of those images is justified? Bus stop (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

It is OR (and for those artists still alive, BLP) to assert that they should be discussed in Modern sculpture without any sourcing to explain why they belong in an article about modern sculpture. Great, they have individual articles. Bring some of the sources that make the assertions that these are artists well known for their modern sculpture to show that is the case. Obviously you can't bring every possible artist in modern sculpture into that article, so you need to pick the most important examples, and that requires exception sourcing that shows them as leading artists in that field. Otherwise, editors are engaging in what appears to be original research (and BLP Violations where applicable) to make decisions on which artists to include. There's minimal sourcing on the Modern sculpture article of this type, so that absoluitely had to be fixed to remove the OR before you can support NFC. NFC is not a right, it a priveledge, and the article you are trying to use it in must have the necessary context to support NFC use. The NFC will continue to be removed by HW or others (per WP:3RRNO) until the article has the right context to support it. You're handwaving and not actually trying to make the improvements that we've guided you to many many times. --Masem (t) 16:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Aren't you misapplying policy? Of the 3 persons that we have been discussing only di Suvero is still alive. But I'm not seeing how the inclusion in Modern sculpture of File:Aurora Mark di Suvero.jpg by di Suvero is a WP:BLP violation. Bus stop (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I said "where BLP applies" knowing that some of these artists are probably dead, but BLP still applies in at least one case here. You are in violation of NOR (and in di Suvero's case, BLP) by adding their names to Modern sculpture without sources that identifies them as leading artists in this area. Without sources about the artists or any specific work, there's no sourced discussion of the artist/work that a non-free image can significant improve their understanding of, and omission of the image will not harm the reader's understand per NFCC#8. Per NFCC#3a, it is not like Modern sculpture needs additional non-free images since there are numerous free examples spanning a wide range of styles. We simply do not claim "art must be seen", we need evidence via sourcing that the art is something signifciant to be seen, otherwise the image is decoration and can be removed freely without discussion. --Masem (t) 13:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Whatever "respect" for the process may mean, it's more than fair to say that a few users who disregard the consistent outcomes of repeated extensive discussions are showing less "respect" than editors trying to implement those outcomes. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see you using the article Talk page. Why is that? You are arguing with two experienced editors. Are you showing "respect for the process"? Wouldn't dialogue be more conducive to a meeting of the minds? Bus stop (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Removal of images that fail NFC does not require discussion, its not a consensus-driven process. --Masem (t) 13:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• If last year's run of forty-odd FFDs and repeated discussions on boards like this haven't shown you that consensus and policy are well-established and contrary to your position, the minds are never going to meet. There's no need to repeat time-consuming discussions every time a well-established principle/policy/practice is enforced. Insisting on it inow s just being disruptive and obstructive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

(ec) *Masem is generally quite correct here; I would quibble only as to how "exceptional" the circumstances are when nonfree images do not require critical commentary, since we have many, many nonfree "identifying images" used in, for example, articles about deceased persons. But that is not important for this discussion. What is important to keep in mind is key language from the WMF resolution underpinning our nonfree use policy: "to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. Bus stop's approach has exceptionally broad limits, if it has any at all. There is no piece of sculpture that cannot be used to illustrate an article about sculpture. There is no limit to the number of nonfree images which may illustrate such an article. We should also keep in mind that WP:GALLERY, which is policy, declares that even free images ordinarily should not be displayed in galleries unless "captioned to explain their relevance to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery". When combined with the requirements of WP:RS, it is evident that this vague and expansive interpretation of "contextual significance" cannot substitute for or displace the general need for sourced critical commentary. I'd also suggest that Bus stop quite sorely needs to review those dozens of FFD discussions I cite in my opening post before characterizing any other editor as "consistently incorrect". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

"When combined with the requirements of WP:RS, it is evident that this vague and expansive interpretation of 'contextual significance' cannot substitute for or displace the general need for sourced critical commentary." Please show me this in policy. Please quote policy. Bus stop (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Its established in the WMF Resolution. Non-free may only be used to complement free media and be used in appropriate context. That, for use, translates to having contextual significance to use the image - that that image is something that is discussed at length in the article it is used on. Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches also explains (not policy, but an accepted standard of using NFC) what is expected to meet each NFCC, and NFCC#8 there is again as requiring some contextual significance to the article where the image is to be used. --Masem (t) 21:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Tony May and persistent criticism and belittling of other editors on British railways

• Tony May (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This has gone on for some months and shows no sign of decreasing, with new outbreaks in recent days. Tony May (talk · contribs) is a self-proclaimed expert on British railways, photography and Misplaced Pages editing. I have no intention of challenging this. Other editors do not reach his standards and he is never slow to remind us of this. His comments thus are dismissive of other editors' work and personally insulting. A number of editors have suffered from this.

Around January, there was substantial disagreement with Moylesy98 (talk · contribs) over use of their photographs in articles. There was considerable debate over this and a broad agreement in the UK Railways project that Moylesy's edits were an issue, but also that Tony's comments were far too personalised. This went on for months, with no improvement:

• User talk:Moylesy98#It's not a good idea
• Talk:LMS Jubilee Class 5690 Leander#Photographs (May)

This wasn't limited to one editor as target:

• WT:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_45#Continual criticisms by Tony May (May, O Still Small Voice of Clam)

After some peace over the Summer, we're now back at a different article:

• WT:WikiProject UK_Railways#Use of fan art diagrams to illustrate liveries already illustrated with photographs
• WP:Village pump (policy)#Use of fan art in articles
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_45#Livery_diagrams This actually goes as far back as April

Yesterday this one pops up:

• User talk:Railfan23#You need to undo your ill-advised moves·

• Well, I thought it had been peaceful over the Summer, evidently not: "don't use that crap photo", "You really don't understand the point of consensus (see the talk page), or indeed that the inadequate Hest Bank image replaced (presumably by anon) a much better image."

British Rail Class 390 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This isn't targetted to any single editor, so I'm not going to go into the diffs, but they're there in the links. The common theme here is Tony May. He seems unable to critique any content without it turning into sniping at the editor themself. We might excuse a few of these (they're not great, it happens) but this seems to be a pervasive theme with Tony and there are few edits with anything but.

• "- that unfortunately is not a productive comment, but given your history, it's not unexpected. You might want to have a look at Misplaced Pages:Introduction - especially the bit where it says "if you don't want your work critiqued and mercilessly edited by others, don't contribute." Do you have anything relevant to add to this discussion?"
• " Firstly I don't need to make you look like a "shit photographer" - you're managing that all by yourself on Flickr."
• "inclusion of poor quality fan art"
• " I think it's best first to have a really long hard think about what you're doing and be knowledgeable about the subject. "

I think we need a strong warning here, and an indication that sanctions will follow unless this stops immediately. Or perhaps something stronger. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Andy Dingley's reading of the situation here. As I said to Tony May a week ago, Your "the only person who's opinion matters is mine and when everyone else disagrees then everyone else is wrong" attitude is fundamentally incompatible with multiple core values of Misplaced Pages, and if you're not willing to change your approach then eventually people will decide to stop giving you second chances; the fact that you're still able to edit Misplaced Pages at all is a result of people extending a huge amount of WP:AGF towards you in the hope that you'll stop fucking about, not the fact that anyone supports you. Misplaced Pages thrives on having people with a broad range of interests and with a broad range of views, but people who aren't willing or able to appreciate the fact that other people will sometimes disagree with them aren't welcome here.; the fact of the User talk:Railfan23#You need to undo your ill-advised moves· thread linked above strongly indicates that Tony May appears unable or unwilling to separate "I think I'm correct" from "I think everyone else is an idiot". (Note that I know or care very little about steam trains and have no idea whether or not Tony May is correct in this particular case; but whether he's correct does not matter if he's not willing to discuss things.) I don't want to see Tony May blocked—he clearly thinks he's being helpful—but he needs it driven home to him that he's not irreplacable and that if he genuinely refuses to follow our rules we don't want him no matter what positives he brings. ‑ Iridescent 13:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I was certainly surprised by Tony May's post n my talk page. It was rude and a very hostile way to start interacting with another editor. If it was a one-off, it would be excusable, but as part of a broader pattern of interactions, it is worrying. Railfan23 (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Tony May raises a valid point but they are too dogmatic about it. Photography more appropriately conveys valid information than "artist-created" imagery. I am distancing myself from the term "fan art" used in this thread. The likelihood of an image being original research is greater when a human, by hand, makes a drawing, than it is when a camera snaps an image. This is not 100% true all the time but I think it is a general principle and I think it is the principle Tony May is invoking. Availability of images is a factor and different types of images—mechanically-produced by a camera, and hand-rendered by other techniques—can supplement each other in an article. Tony May's point should be understood but Tony May should not insist that only photographically-produced images are acceptable. Diagrams are commonly used throughout the project. They can be said to be artist-created but they serve very well at conveying information. Bus stop (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The information they contain needs to be verifiable though. Fan art, meanwhile, is a not a derogatory term. Some fan art is absolutely brilliant. Almond Plate (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The only point I disagree with in Andy's post is the start date. It's not a 2019 thing, this user page proves that the attitude has been present since 2012. - X201 (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Checking your links I noticed that in most cases other users sniped at Tony first. While Tony occasionally also gives compliments (and photography advice), these other users seem more focused on getting their way. I do agree that Tony should phrase his edit summaries differently, but there is room for improvement for everybody involved. Almond Plate (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The term "Fan art" is irrelevant to this discussion. Imagery resulting from from highly mechanized processes produces highly rational imagery. A camera doesn't care if it is set up in front of a boring object or an interesting object. A human-rendered image is more likely to show signs of having been influenced by subjective factors. The use of photographic equipment bypasses subjective factors to result in what I am calling rational images. It is hard to call rational images original research. Handmade imagery is more vulnerable to charges of original research. On the other hand, handmade images can be free of extraneous information. Therefore judgement has to be exercised. Bus stop (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Fan art" is doubly insulting, when it's used in this context. No way round it. It describes the editor, not as an 'illustrator' or 'editor', taking their role here seriously, but as merely a 'fan'. A passive follower of railways (and by context, a trivialised subject), with no sense of agency or skill. Secondly it lumps these in with fan art, a niche that's by and large seen as utterly pointless and largely unskilled.

Valid criticisms here would be "The colours are wrong" (professionally my day job is to colour match some of these and I get endless trouble from it) or "That logo version never appeared with that colour set" or similar things. But I've heard none of those: the criticisms aren't even objective, they're purely subjective IDONTLIKEIT. At least for photos, Tony often had an underlying reason. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

We all have different backgrounds. As someone who uses fan art a lot, I have the utmost respect for the people that create it. The criticism here was that it was of poor quality. Almond Plate (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that the criticism was unsubstantiated. An editor can't just say "low quality" and walk away as if he has made an argument. Same with "looks amateurish" or a lot of other things Tony has said. It's about as convincing as someone saying "he's notable" as their entire keep !vote at AFD. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to raise what he said on my talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:WestRail642fan#Illustrating_Articles and he is effecting telling to stay away from wikipedia Don't be afraid to be creative (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow. I presume that's related to Talk:British_Rail_Class_370#Do_we_really_need_the_MS_paint_diagram?? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Yep Andy, and the issue he raised on the 370 was because his sources only showed the APT running with 9 coaches when all fact and sources on the article itself point to and confirm 14 coaches, which my diagram shows Don't be afraid to be creative (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

...Over train photos. I read the discussion and what screams out at me is the obsessiveness of the argument about why that diagram can't work. Stuff about it not having the right number of cats. I think it would be in Tony May's benefit to recognize that the average reader of an article with that diagram would not care in the slightest if the number of same-looking train cars is not 100% accurate. This feels like an argument one would be having on a wiki specifically for train enthusiasts, not a general information encyclopedia. Tony, calm down please. 2001:4898:80E8:8:4A8C:90EF:7D89:7E37 (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Tony is giving you well-meant advice. Your artwork can't stay here unless it gets sourced, which seems unlikely at the moment. It will be appreciated much more elsewhere. I would suggest DeviantArt though rather than Flickr. DeviantArt has a whole community of artists working on train liveries. Almond Plate (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I do actually post them to deviantART is well, but they are primarily meant for use here Don't be afraid to be creative (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Almond Plate there is no substantive difference between a diagram of a train based on photos and an encyclopaedia article based on published news/papers/magazines/etc. Both are easily checkable, but will not be 100% a replication of the details. For instance a news article might say "Joe Bloggs lived at 10 Borough Road, Islington", whereas we might write "Joe Bloggs lived in London", but we can look at the source and say "yes, that statement is justified". Similarly we can look at a photo of the train and say "yes, that looks about right". Maybe we need to look at 100 photos to accept every bit of the diagram, but it can be checked. The point of the diagram is to summarise the livery in a more easily-digestible format. Similarly Large Hadron Collider summarises a huge number of scientific articles and papers into something more easily interpretable. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

No, Tony is obnoxiously expressing his personal opinion that consistently fails to achieve consensus. You can compare the diagrams to the actual photos of real trains to satisfy yourself if you must. There is certainly an argument that source links should be provided, or the image information page should link to a true photograph of an equivalent car, but I honestly have no idea what you or Tony would consider a "source" for this. The purpose of technical drawings is to simplify complex items into key details for focus and comparison, and these do it very well. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• So, no comment from @Tony May:. What's next? Any proposals for formalised action? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Someguy1221 makes a valid point that "technical drawings is to simplify complex items into key details". But Tony May is making the equally valid point that user-created imagery is inherently original research. We overlook this when the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. In a diagram the simplification is so advantageous that we disregard the fact that it is one user's rendering of that which is depicted. I think Tony May is demanding higher standards of verisimilitude for the depicted rail transport stock. I don't know if they have a valid point about that or not, but I believe that the principle on which their argument rests is entirely valid—however they will have to accept consensus which considers these user-created images to be adequate for inclusion in the relevant articles. Bus stop (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• But this thread is not about the quality of the contributions, it's about Tony's responses to them.

We have had a (pretty reasonable) series of threads on how to select the "best" photographs of those available. We haven't had anything similar on images such as this – maybe we should. But when the response to anyone is couched in the sort of terms that Tony keeps using, any sort of collaborative project breaks down (Tony has driven multiple editors away from this work already). That needs to stop. We can talk about the quality issues later, but we have to talk about them, not just harangue and belittle others. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd say no action at this time beyond a general reminder to play nice. You were right to bring this to ANI though, and may in fact have prevented escalation. Almond Plate (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. I think Andy brought it here for escalation, instead of following normal dispute resolution within the project. He's done that to me, too. Dicklyon (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• So @Tony May: is editing again, but still ignoring this thread. He's also back to edit-warring over images Talk:British Rail D0260. Any suggestions? (as I'm a bit too INVOLVED here). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  He does seem a bit rude about how he presses his point, but not to the level of needing admin intervention. Why don't you formulate a neutral RFC question about the so-called "fan art" items and document the community consensus instead of just bickering? Dicklyon (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Well as you're much less involved than I am, how about you formulating it? (a serious suggestion, BTW).

My AGF was stretched thin by his behaviour towards Moylesy, but when I realised that our resident photographic expert hadn't uploaded a single one of his own photographs, it snapped altogether. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'll give it a try, at the project talk page. Can you send me pointers to the most relevant article examples, livery galleries, or whatever? And a list of involved editors to notify? Mind if I find the caps in "Livery Details" while I'm at it? Dicklyon (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I've been away for a few days so missed most of this WP:DRAMA. I'm disappointed by Andy's actions, but I don't want to take an antagonistic approach towards them. I'm saddened by his antagonsitic approach, which is far too WP:DRAMA. I'm not angry. I don't upload my own photos, there are reasons for that which I don't want to discuss publicly, but I have uploaded many good photos from flickr to Wikimedia Commons. I would be prepared to discuss photographs using appropriate technical terms if anyone wants to test my knowledge and WP:COMPETENCE. That is all I have to say here. There has been some good discussion at WP:VP(P) - and then there is this. Tony May (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Antagonistic? I'm not the one telling people, "Firstly I don't need to make you look like a "shit photographer" - you're managing that all by yourself on Flickr." Andy Dingley (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

If either of you is inclined to do something productive instead of playing in the mud here, please help complete what I started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#(draft)_RFC_on_the_use_on_livery_art_and_other_editor-constructed_diagrams_in_articles. Dicklyon (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Welp, FWIW, there's a WP:BLPN post languishing that could use some eyes.-- Dlohcierekim 18:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

RFC on the underlying questions is now open at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#RFC_on_the_use_on_livery_art_and_other_editor-constructed_diagrams_in_articles. Some eyes from outside the project might be useful. Dicklyon (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Note that a new thread is now at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#Main_photo_question Andy Dingley (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

(content below relocated as irrelevant to the proposal Andy Dingley (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC))

• Elsewhere, editors are discussing points I have raised like adults. And there is this.
• Hampering my ability to edit the articles I mostly edit is largely pointless
• In order to select images that are good I need to make value judgements about images. Most people are not photographers, and don't understand how to take useful photos, I understand this.
• I have raised the sockpuppet point individually with Andy on his talk page, - I consider it a minor side issue - and await his input.
• I have made many good contributions, which include sorting out image choice on many articles, ironically which Andy admits he mostly agrees with.
• I admit that I accidentally may have insinuated that another editor (who's now got banned) was a "shit photographer" - after trying to deal patiently with this editor, his WP:VANITY, and lack of skill with a camera. Note this comment was made after he had suggested that I had personally attacked him and called him a "shit photographer" - which at that stage I had not. I should have phrased this more politely. If I have got frustrated with any other editors, at previous points, I regret this.

Again, I'm not angry, just trying to improve articles and clarify policy where clarification seems needed. Tony May (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Please don't keep moving this to below the proposal. If you want to oppose all, just say that.

But this is clearly the threaded discussion which belongs here, and which you haven't previously replied to.

You have made many excellent edits to mainspace and have selected many images for good reasons, and for reasons which you have helped to codify, for which we thank you. But you can't keep making personal sleights on other editors like this, and which you still keep doing. If other editors think that needs a formal restriction to avoid it, then that's what's likely to happen. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I usually try to avoid this page like the plague, but something about this caught my interest. Tony May, you know, I am a shitty photographer. Just not my specialty. Rarely if only by accident would any of my pictures ever win me some award for artistic achievement. My talent has always been in writing, or so I'm told. I've had a great deal of experience in writing non-fiction, and that is what I try to bring to the table. My photographic endeavors are purely to give a visual aid to the reader, to help explain what the text is talking about, and that is often where some real imagination comes in handy. A picture really is worth a thousand words, and can really help clarify what the text is talking about. However, a crappy picture that is informative is worth a thousand beautiful, artsy pictures that don't show squat of what the text means.

Art is very subjective, One person's art may be another's eyesore. What is far more important in a non-fiction realm like this is objectivity. None of my pictures are really that good, yet they can be found in everything from books to scientific studies to magazines to blogs, so they must be serving some greater purpose.

What particularly caught my eye was the notion that editor-drawn images are somehow inferior to photographs, which I think is particularly wrong. There are many, many instances of very good drawings and graphs created by editors, which often cannot be photographed. (Let's face it, no camera has ever been made that can match what the eye sees, and even that has its limitations.) Some drawings definitely need sourcing, such as this. Others can give the reader a very good visual of processes or internal structures that are hard if not impossible to photograph, based on a plethora of sources and their non-free illustrations already found in the articles, such as this or this. Some users may create their own graphs using the same NIST traceable instruments used by reliable sources, such as this one. Others might come along and take the same readings using their own crude instruments, like this, then combine the two, both adding a little color to the image and verifying the results, such as this. Last but not least, people may create images out of their own imagination, based upon records or other forms of data, like this and other useful pictures created by this artist.

Lastly, and I mean this to help, your arguments are full of many logical fallacies, not the least of which is argument from authority. You may have some good reasons for picking a certain image over another (for example, lede images are often subjected to much greater artistic scrutiny that images in the body), but you're going about it in the wrong way. Both I and people like Andy here tend to be very straight-forward --often to the point of being blunt-- but there are much better and more friendly ways to tell someone their work is not up to par rather than "you suck". And in some cases, such as this edit, the crappier image is much more informative than the higher quality one. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

• In the light of Tony choosing to ignore this thread, I don't think there's much likelihood of agreement with him over anything. It has been suggested that this thread might act as "a general reminder to play nice." What we've actually seen instead is:

• Edit-warring at Lion to remove an infobox image (stemming from an edit in March )
• sockpuppeting allegations against @Bow1s53:
• As always, he keeps throwing around terms like "fundamentally dishonest" and "we can now get rid of this particularly bad photo". Clearly this ANI thread has had zero influence.

So, proposal time:

1. TBAN from editing the subject of image links in mainspace
2. 1RR from the above
3. TBAN from discussing choice of image or image quality in any space
4. TBAN from disparaging comments to other editors or their edits, re: image choice or images uploaded here or at Commons, or even to other sites, such as Flickr, where these uploads are identifiably those of WP editors.

• I would support 1,2,4 but not yet 3 at this time (although I feel I might come to regret that). 4 ought to be implicit on all editors anyway, but clearly it needs to be spelled out. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• I would support 1 and 4 - Even with 1RR I feel he would be disruptive. Jeni 15:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose all. This proposal is unjustly one-sided and based on an assumption of bad faith. What I see is editwarring by Andy Dingley (while clearly wrong), and various uncivil comments by Andy on Talk:British Rail D0260. This I find very disappointing. Users are allowed to comment on the quality of a photo, too, and to ask how a dormant editor suddenly arrived in the middle of a discussion to side with Andy is not entirely illogical. Just in case: Andy, please be aware that imposing 1RR on an opponent in a content dispute doesn't mean that you are free to win all arguments by reverting twice. Almond Plate (talk) 22:07, 22 August

• Oppose. I think the phrase "shit photographer" should not upset us overly. In a dispute clear ommunication is important. I'm not in favor of incivility but I'm also not in favor curtailing clear communication. Bus stop (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

1. Editors will not add images to British railway articles, specifically models, livery diagrams and other images not depicting the topic of the article (i.e. the real train), or keep them, unless there is a clear consensus to do so. Almond Plate (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Almond Plate (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose clearly a ridiculous suggestion. One step away from suggesting that editors don't edit the pages at all! Jeni 00:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

PAs, tendentious editing by advocacy editor

I tried to avoid coming here knowing our admins are in short supply, but Nomopbs has been overly disruptive with no signs of improving without admin intervention. To make matters worse, he projects his bad behavior onto others, casts aspersions, fills article TPs with his screeds, doesn't quite understand our core content policies or what constitutes a RS. I'm usually among the first willing to mentor and help new editors, but this one is beyond my ability. Despite being relatively new to WP, he is not a newcomer to the dramah boards - all related to the same topic area:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive307#Dogsbite.org_dispute 02-25-19 re: Dogsbite.org
• 04-02-19 re: Fatal dog attacks in the United States - never his fault - projects his bad behavior onto others;

I've exercised patience for a little over a month now - he does show potential less the tendentious editing which has caused good editors to leave the topic area, myself included, and I was in the middle of a GA review when he burst onto the scene and disrupted the process. There has been some concern raised over his behavior per WP:NOTADVOCACY partly due to his user name (which he has since changed) and his intense focus on keeping modern purebred bulldog types juxtaposed and/or associated with crossbred fighting dogs (pit bull types) as the following diffs will demonstrate:

• 06-13-19 GAC nom, Talk:Staffordshire_Bull_Terrier/GA1 07-08-19 FunkMonk accepted the GAC
• 07-09-19 first sign of advocacy; focus on Breed-specific legislation
• 07-09-19 performed edit without discussion during GA review & removed informative material
• 07-09-19 I left some of his changes per his initial suggestion, but added back important information he removed
• 07-09-19 first signs of his aggressive behavior
• 07-09-19 casting aspersions and BATTLEGROUND behavior
• 07-09-19 POV pushing, coatrack (omission of important info) and false accusations in edit summary - projecting his bad behavior onto others
• 07-10-19 Cullen issues general warning
• 07-10-19 Nomopbs replies to Cullen that he never heard of a GA review
• 07-10-19 Cullen advises him to stop being aggressive and confrontational toward his fellow editors
• 07-11-19 See my response to him above this diff - he continues projecting his behavior onto me, making fallacious allegations despite Cullen's warning
• 07-24-19 more POV pushing
• 07-26-19 denigrates official breed registries
• 07-26-19 after making false accusations against me, claims "y'all keep coaxing me back"
• 07-27-19 accused me and Gareth Griffith-Jones of tag-teaming
• 07-28-19 instructs reviewer to leave him out of it after causing disruption
• 08-02-19 advocacy adding "has often been included in breed bans that target pit bull type dogs"
• 08-06-19 advocacy prodding Dempsey (dog) - about notable dog wrongfully accused
• 08-06-19 advocacy altering info about Dempsey in Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
• 08-06-19 advocacy projecting - calls my work a "hatchet job" Bulldog breeds
• 08-08-19 advocacy POV pushing fictitious "rare breed" citing unreliable sources
• 08-08-19 projects his bad behavior, casts aspersions
• 08-09-19 my first warning to him after reading his aspersions
• 08-09-19 WP:HOUNDING my edits
• 08-15-19 another editor noticed his name. Nomopbs casts more aspersions against me.
• 08-13-19 it was a sincere question, yet Nomopbs falsely accused me of hounding
• 08-15-19 Nomopbs changes user name
• 08-15-19 posts a warning on my TP, casts aspersions

Sorry for adding so many diffs but I needed to demonstrate his patterned behavior. _Talk 📧 05:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

May I also point to the last ANI in which I mediated a dispute involving NomoPBS , where NomPBS showed a rather battleground mentality and refused to see their own mistakes. I also at the time questioned whether NomoPBS maybe had a COI with dogs, considering their username. I think a topic-ban on dog and dog related articles is in order, as it is clear that NomoPBS's emotions surrounding dogs run too high to collaborate. That or an outright indeff. Captain Eek ⚓ 08:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: User Nomopbs, or Normal Op, their new username now, has previously cast aspersions and attacked another longtime WP editor, PearlSt82, has disrupted a solid GAN, and is now attacking yet another long term editor. All attempts to reason with this individual result in long, tenditious attacks or at best, tl;dr argumentation that goes nowhere. There is also some evidence of meatpupperty or sockpuppetry involving another relatively new account that edits dog articles, and there has been at least one other inquiry about sockpuppetry involving yet another account. There was an set anon IPs making extensive edits on the bulldog breeds article right before this user created their account, and Dwanyewest also has made a comment that "I won't interfere otherwise I will be accused by the likes of User:Nomopbs of vandalizing the article." Editors who engage in this sort of single-purpose editing, with near-immediate drama, need to be restricted in some manner. I would suggest a 30-day block from dog articles, broadly construed, and see if they settle down. Their response below pretty much establishes the case against them. Montanabw 21:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Unfounded accusation of sock-meat-puppetry with no evidence, Montanabw. I'm assuming you're referring to Aquataste. You should have first applied for Misplaced Pages:CheckUser before making that allegation. My account was created on 2018-11-02; Aquataste created his/hers on 2018-12-01. There were only three IP address edits to Bulldog breeds anywhere near that time, specifically 2018-10-29 thru 2018-11-03 ; one was minor, two were jibberish. Not even the use of the "Interaction Timeline" tool finds any signs of puppetries. Hell, I was delighted I got an "Ataboy!" from Aquataste; the only pat on the back I've gotten (besides my real life friends; none of whom are wikieditors). So I don't know what sort of evidence you think exists. Go ahead and request that Checkuser investigation. The other inquiry resulted in the findings of a wifi connection shared by two neighbors, which has since been resolved so it shouldn't come up again. — Normal Op (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• From my last email to you, "You appear to have been on T's wifi but since the majority of edits were yours, it looks the other way around. If the dogbite.org deletion discussion was underway right now, you would most likely be blocked for meatpuppetry. Consider that you have been warned not to get into that kind of situation again. I would also not recommend that you use his wifi again. Another checkuser would possibly block. I don't have the full picture yet but I don't think that going to ANI right now would be a good idea. If you do and someone asks about my post on your talk page then you should let them know that you have been warned by me in email."

• I'm posting for transparency's sake and because my findings weren't reported accurately.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Response from the accused, Normal Op (f/k/a Nomopbs)

Introduction: This all started as an ordinary CONTENT issue. Atsme has been whitewashing dog topic articles, removing content, and promoting the writing of a policy that would CENSOR certain content. Her reaction to ordinary editing against her wishes has been to start fighting against other editors and accusing them of personally attacking her (when all they were doing was editing content), followed by canvassing other editors to join in the attack of her opponents. Atsme has a long history of reacting with hostility to edits against her wishes, which have resulted in topic banning her more than once. Apparently, I am her latest target. In an effort to skew opinion in her favor, her ANI write-up is full of loaded language and the summaries next to her diffs do NOT represent what is found in the diffs, all while painting herself as an innocent victim with the patience of Job.

Venue and time frame of interactions: Started with the Staffordshire Bull Terrier article in early July 2019, paused for a week or so, then moved to the bulldog breeds area for about two weeks (August).

Canvassing: I have discovered four instances where Atsme solicited non-involved editors to join into her fight . Two declined: . Two jumped in, piled on, scolded me, but did NOT get further involved in the discussion or editing of content of the article, including Cullen328 (who Atsme mentions in her ANI complaint, but omits mentioning she twice solicited him) and Gareth Griffith-Jones (who was the "tag team" mentioned; and they were emailing each other).

My behavior: My reactions have been normal based on the rapid escalation of Atsme's exclusionary don't-participate orders — being told to discuss-don't-edit, followed by 'your discussions are unwelcome', then 'go away, we're in the middle of a GA', 'you're attacking me', 'don't even talk to me', 'you're going to get topic banned', 'I'm done here'. Goaded into reaction, my attempts to explain my edits or my viewpoint were met with cries of "aspersions", "gaslighting" and "personal attacks", followed by Atsme soliciting other editors to "pile on" me. Any attempt to document, provide evidence of, or catalog specific actions by Atsme engendered more accusations of personally attacking her. The only action which worked was me 'going away'. This describes WP:BULLYING behavior.

Bullying a second editor: During the Staffordshire Bull Terrier GA marathon in July, Atsme attacked editor Cavalryman in the same manner, and they went through the same process (don't edit, discuss, your explanations are personal attacks, go away) until he retreated and stopped participating. This also describes a WP:BULLYING pattern. Best diffs (July 17-18): Atsme accuses Cavalryman , C's explanations about content , A starts with the "you're PAing me" , Pile-on by (probably canvassed) editor M , C's remarks about content and objection to accusations .

WikiBullying: Using the guidelines from WikiBullying the policy to research Atsme's actions, I provide the following evidence of recent conduct:

• Asserting ownership
• POV Railroading
• False accusations
• Misrepresentation/civility
• Making "no-edit" orders contrary to policy
• Threats/harassment (to cause a chilling effect in other editors)

After discovering Atsme's pugnacious conduct in mid-July, I have tried extra hard to stick to content matters only but, despite that, Atsme continues to pick fights on Talk pages, insult and harass, and recruit non-involved editors to her cause.

Previous conduct leading to bans: Atsme was topic-banned from Antifa or some American Politics subjects, not once, but twice. The announcement specifically mentions the SAME behavior as Atsme has shown in the dog breed topics leading to this ANI. That admin wrote: "Despite your commitments to "LETITGO", when someone actually suggested that you "drop the stick" you accuse them of "gaslighting" you. In fact it looks like you've accused at least 4 people of gaslighting you in the past couple of days. You take offense when others accuse you of CIVILPOV pushing, but you're quite liberal in doling out your own accusations of POV pushing. And your behavior at and in the following subsection and RfC is a good example of the overbearing approach that was a part of the rationale for the original ban, and that you promised to discontinue." (Underline emphasis is my own.)

Further research led me to discover Atsme's pattern of accusations occurs all over Misplaced Pages, not just in my small world of dog topics nor limited to Antifa/AmPol. At first I thought it odd to see that more than half Atsme's 27K edits occured on User Talk and Talk pages, and there are three times as many Talk edits as main space edits . A search of Talk and User Talk namespace for the words "Atsme aspersion" brings up 273 instances. Then I read dozens of them. Same patterns.

My username change was prompted by the bullying. This was the second time someone misinterpretted my old Nomopbs username as 'NOMOrePitBullS', and used that to allege spurious hidden intentions behind my edits. They alleged actions/edits which I wasn't involved in, accused me of violating WP:ADVOCACY, and didn't provide any evidence. The username change request does not yet appear in the archived logs, but the reason I gave was "I've been insulted twice based on a wrongly guessed meaning of the letters of my username and want to avoid future incidents. Therefore I'd like to switch from "nomop" to "normal op". I can skip the B.S. (Double-entendre fully meant!)" My old username was coined to represent "Normal operating procedure bull shit" and harkened back to the days when I worked in a ridiculously policy-heavy organization. My new username is "Normal Op".

This ANI: Atsme followed the username mix-up by insulting me , me telling her to stop harassing me , me putting a standard warning template on her Talk page , and Atsme declaring she was going to ANI . This morning I discovered this ANI.

My actual intentions were to stop the whitewashing on the Staffordshire Bull Terrier page in July (a viewpoint shared by editor Cavalryman, whom I had not previously encountered) and in August to stop Atsme's destruction, removal, and censorship of material. Atsme's announcement of her intentions starts here , and continued with comments on other Talk pages. Atsme filed three AfDs for dog breed topics, so there's comments on the AfDs and all three Talk pages. Atsme went on a tear removing content and announcing her proposal to exclude all mention of 'non-recognized dog breeds' from the entirety of Misplaced Pages. My actions to block the destruction, and instead upgrade articles, has been met with more contentiousness from Atsme, culminating in this ANI today.

Advocacy? I'm not sure why someone allegedly interested in "No more pit bulls" would be trying to save material about bulldog breeds, or spend an entire week (as I did 8/8/2019-8/13/2019 ) researching and upgrading articles about them and rooting out citations and photos. The accusation is ludicrous and isn't borne out in fact by my edits, my pattern of edits, nor my Talk page discussions about content. (Nor has anyone provided any diffs indicating such a bent.) But don't take my word for it: check my edits in the edit histories of Bulldog breeds, Alano Español, Continental bulldog, French Bulldog, Ca de Bou, Catahoula bulldog, and Louisiana Catahoula Leopard dog.

My Conclusion: This ANI is the latest action in Atsme's bullying pattern against me. Atsme has a lot more years of experience in Misplaced Pages than I have, and has been involved in far more disputes. Her diffs do not support the commentary she posted beside each of them, nor the accusations she is making against me. It's a complicated, messy topic with hundreds of interactions. I hope anyone reading this is able to follow along and separate the fact from the fiction.

— Normal Op (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

You don't get to write the conclusion. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: (aka Guy) And you don't get to edit my comments. My write-up, my introduction, my presentation, MY conclusion. Don't ever again strike out or alter anything in my text. — Normal Op (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh I do. This is the admin noticeboard. I also get to block you if I want. But I am still reviewing the diffs. Guy (Help!) 00:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Totally a wall of text, but they can come up with their own conclusion without this. Buffs (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

That sure is a WALL of text. Captain Eek ⚓ 21:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I categorically reject any suggestion that I have ever been bullied by Atsme in any way. Cavalryman (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

To avoid confusion, I am creating a discussion section, now that we have long sections by both the complainant and the respondent. I've pretty much said my piece here, but it is a common courtesy to ping various people mentioned so that they may speak on their own behalf, so I shall do so. Thus, alerting Cullen328, Cavalryman, and Gareth_Griffith-Jones. I suggest future and further discussion by other editors take place here. Montanabw 21:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I might be biased as I was the target of an ANI previously filed by Nomopbs (mentioned above), but after the discussion was archived without closer, I attempted to resolve the content dispute on Fatal dog attacks in the United States by requesting a third opinion. When the discussion wasn't going their way and consensus was against them, they responded with incivility, and appeared to put a ragequit type message on their userpage. When their version of the page - a bulleted list of primary studies, was removed by consensus, they put their own POV fork back up at Fatal dog attacks, which still reads in inappropriate bullet point form, using primary studies not secondary. I'm highly skeptical of their rationale for their namechange, as its hard to believe it means anything but "No more pitbulls". A few days ago, it was discovered that they were using multiple accounts on the same IP address at the dogsbite.org AFD discussion - these two events combined strikes me as being highly WP:GAMEy. I don't know if an indef is the answer, as they have branched out correcting minor typos across the project, but their problematic areas in the dog article area are certainly persisting after several months. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yeah, the former username is pretty transparently short for No more pitbulls. Regardless of how you feel about the dogs commonly called pitbulls, it's pretty clear Normal OP is somewhere between WP:RGW and WP:NOTHERE. The content area of pitbulls is itself a definite place to watch, as there is a great deal of polarization between both sides of the debate. I don't think Normal OP is acting so much in bad faith as perhaps a sincerely held belief that there is pro-pitbull bias on Misplaced Pages, and while that's definitely something to be wary of, it's clear that Normal OP's approach is not constructive and needs to change in some way. Thus, I think a topic ban from dangerous dogs generally, from pitbulls specifically, or from legislation and litigation involving dogs and dog safety would be appropriate. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 22:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Don't forget Aquataste. — Normal Op (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

What does this have to do with them? Captain Eek ⚓

@CaptainEek: Montanabw mentioned Aquataste, then tagged everyone else except Aquataste. Just following the convention Montanabw laid out. — Normal Op (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, fair, my bad. Captain Eek ⚓ 23:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I thought it was a toothpaste. EEng 02:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• This appears to be a case of a WP:SPA on a mission. My strong initial impression is that a topic ban is warranted. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: This whole conversation is happening because Atsme's deletion request for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bulldog breeds is not going very well for him, so now he is trying to get Nomopbs account deleted. The person that is being aggressive and uncivil is Atsme, not Nomopbs. Atsme is a deletionist and Nomopbs is doing a good job editing and trying to save the article! Aquatastetalk 11:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Your comment is a PA per WP:Casting aspersions, and as an ArbCom remedy, may well be under the purview of AE. Your comments are very unkind, hurtful and untrue. I am more of an inclusionist and have invested most of my time at AfD working to rescue and improve articles. When I nominate an article for AfD, you can rest assured there are valid reasons. I posted a warning on your TP and requested that you strike your aspersions and the ill-will you have shown toward me. _Talk 📧 13:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, posted three deletion of article requests in the same day and the consensus for each is not going his way, certainly does not make Atsme an inclusionist but rather a deletionist! One, Two, Three. At this point, I would recommend that the Admins consider giving Atsme a time-out at Misplaced Pages! Aquatastetalk 13:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Aquataste, can you confirm you are not IQ125? The topic overlap (chess, bulldogs, dog fighting/blood sports and Canadian topics) and article overlap (Olde Boston Bulldogge and List of books and documentaries by or about Bobby Fischer to name two) between the pair of you is truely extraordinary. Cavalryman (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC).

Dunno what their response would have been, but I can confirm the two accounts. Thanks, Cavalryman.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow, so you perma-banned Aquataste's account. Calling out the big guns to attack anyone who supports me or opposes y'all. Nice play. And that even works as a warning shot over the bow to any would-be uninvolved editor who might venture to look at this ANI. Double score! No one would dare set foot inside this witch hunt now lest they be next. I must admire the gamesmanship, if not the players. Enjoy your cliques. I think I'll go mow the lawn. Yard work, though dirty and sweaty, is infinitely more pleasant. — Normal Op (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Nice rant. But since I'm sure you're aware the rules on sock puppetry are very strict, your conspiracy theory about that block isn't going to go anywhere. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

JzG (Guy) blocked Normal Op for 31 hours for personal attacks or harassment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• IBAN each other Normal Op has some valid points. Normal editing doesn't cease when under review for GA or FA. Likewise, Several of Atsme's deletions/actions are definitely in bad faith/unnecessarily hostile terrain. This very much feels like Atsme's actions are indeed retaliation. Normal Op also seems to be spending some time goading and needling. Normal Op, when done with your block, I would request that you refrain from further walls of text. IBAN would seem to be appropriate here. Buffs (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
• Topic ban for Normal Op on dog and dog related articles. Captain Eek ⚓ 01:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• Topic ban for Normal Op from anything related to dogs. I came across Fatal dog attacks in the United States when it looked like this: . Normal Op had recently added that bullet-pointed list and summary of studies to the article, which was not appropriate content for the article (aside from the MOS violations, half of the studies were explicitly about non-fatal dog attacks), so I removed it. Their responses on the talk page showed battleground behavior and assumption of bad faith . Judging by other diffs presented, the previous ANI case, and this user's responses on this page, apparently that is typical of this user. They are here to promote their agenda. Maybe they could do good editing outside of the topic of dogs, but they certainly cannot within it. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• T-ban - much too close to the topic. _Talk 📧 23:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding - the disruption by Normal OP continues with his screeds and now an embarrasing long list of unreliable sources at the Catahoula bulldog DRV. It is absolutely appalling. Sources like Doggie Designer, American Canine Association beware, fraud alert, all over the internet - "The problem today is that there are numerous pseudo-registries such as the American Canine Association (ACA), National Pet Registry (NPR), American Pet Registry (APR), or Continental Kennel Club (CKCI) and all will give you a certificate stating that your dog is “registered”. But within the purebred dog fancy, they are seen as counterfeit. The Great Book of Bulldogs, Bull Terrier and Molosser: Part I Bulldogs & Bull Terrier - a self-published book by hobbyists, and various other internet crap like Dog Breed Info, and on and on. If something isn't done to stop this madness, I'm concerned there will be a major walk-out of good seasoned editors at the Dog Project. It really is a sad state of affairs. _Talk 📧 04:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Topic ban for Normal Op. They can always ask for it to be rescinded later if they can demonstrate they know how to play nice elsewhere first.--MONGO (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Question I see there are accusations of hounding, but has there been any biting of the newbies? EEng 18:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• I'm in favour of at least some sort of boomerang for Atsme. I came here from this deletion review: . After one of the articles Atsme nominated resulted in four straight keep !votes, Atsme stripped all of the citations from the article, making it appear completely unsourced, on grounds they were unreliable - however, it's for the voters at AfD to determine the reliability of sources in the article for WP:GNG purposes, and removing all of the citations made it appear as if no sources for the article existed. I'm pretty active in AfD and DRV and I don't remember anyone doing this before and it comes across as very tendentious. The optics here as if Atsme is trying to "win" as opposed to improve the encyclopaedia, as RoySmith mentioned here: . I haven't reviewed the rest of Normal Ops' conduct here and will be reserving judgment, but I haven't seen any problems with their conduct during my review of the AfD/DRV. SportingFlyer T·C 22:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree with SportingFlyer, spot-on (above) assessment. I came here after seeing the same troubling Deletion Review and accompanying AfD where Atsme was the nominator. I have been in AfDs where the nominator behaved in such a manner (deleting sources to support their nomination) and I always consider it bad faith. Lightburst (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I was accused by that admin, and I responded accordingly. He is the one who suggested the DRV. In the event you haven't noticed, a disruptive sock that was participating at a high level of disruption at the dog articles and here was recently indef blocked. The editor subject of this ANI - the one who was being defended by that sock - was also blocked for PAs and disruption. You are now casting aspersions against me for no valid reason. I hope editors will take a closer look at that AfD and the sources cited. I'm of the mind that WP:CIR is at issue here if you believe the cited sources are RS for establishing notability. We should not be using puppy mill sites, individually owned & maintained websites by pet lovers and privately owned kennels, marketing sites by dog product companies, promotional sites for health tips, fake registries with anecdotal reports and unverifiable information about the history of a so-called "rare breed" that is nothing more than a profit center. If they were true breeds, they would have already been included in the long-established, reputable breed registries - the ones that date back to the 1800s. I encourage you to continue drawing attention to the problem sources as it will only serve to reinforce my position - maybe even help me recruit knowlegable editors who can help clean-up the mess, and better serve our purpose in building a quality encyclopedia. _Talk 📧 00:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I will not go through all of the references with you here, but it shows your COI that you would nominate the article, substantially degrade the article, and then when you still could not achieve the desired result of deletion, you appealed at Deletion Review (It was a strong keep at AfD. One of those sources was the CBC News and some others were books. It is notable per RS and the AfD was closed as it should have been despite your efforts to strip the article of all references. The labradoodle is not accepted either, but it is notable...and it has a WP article. Lightburst (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@EEng: - we need a type of WP:Tarage's Law for dog articles - call it The Labradoodle Law - In any sufficiently long Misplaced Pages discussion about a non-notable dog breed the topic customarily changes to the labradoodle." _Talk 📧 01:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm boycotting this thread because no one laughed at my earlier joke about HOUNDing and BITEy behavior. EEng 02:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

LOl. If any consolation I got it now. And spit out my tequila. Lightburst (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Given the behavior of Atsme at DRV (generally lots of WP:IDHT) and the stripping of sources (including ones where the publisher is pretty clearly reliable) followed by a nomination for deletion, I think some kind of boomerang is appropriate. No opinion Nomopbs other than Atsme's fairly bullheaded behavior at AfD and DRV makes me wary of their use of AN. Note: I've been dealing with them at DRV and am not neutral on the issue. Hobit (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I hope an admin does something about the bad faith editors who have been WP:Casting aspersions (PAs) against me, beginning with the proposer of the boomerang and those supporting it. None of what they've said is true, or supported by diffs. There is a serious lack of respect for the feelings of others, and that needs to change. _Talk 📧 04:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Name-removing disruptive user from St. Petersburg

Maybe this is common knowledge already, but a user on various dynamic IPs that geolocate to St. Petersburg has been systematically removing names from a large number of biography articles, despite numerous warnings and reverts. The name is removed from the beginning of sentences, often in the "Early life" section, typically changing for example "Anderson was born in..." to simply "Was born in...", leaving a grammatically incorrect sentence fragment with no subject. Names are also removed from photo captions. They don't seem to do anything else but this.

There have been many warnings for vandalism and disruption: User talk:178.70.168.215, User talk:91.122.184.163, User talk:178.70.36.51, etc., that have been ignored. I haven't found any blocks, but they rarely make more than a few edits from one IP.

Recent IPs include: Special:Contributions/178.70.30.163 (today), Special:Contributions/92.100.80.238, Special:Contributions/92.101.206.160, Special:Contributions/78.37.161.147, Special:Contributions/178.66.212.9, and many others. The edits go back at least to 2018, and possibly as far as 2016 or earlier: Special:Contributions/178.70.46.116.

I've been searching for insource:"early life was born" or insource:"biography was born", etc., and reverting those, but it doesn't catch them all. I've found many of the older edits have not been cleaned up in the past. Not sure what else can be done, blocks or rangeblocks I guess aren't feasible. Maybe some kind of edit filter or tag to help flag them could be implemented? --IamNotU (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I would try asking at Misplaced Pages:Edit filter/Requested. It sounds like an edit filter that caught the change from " was born" to "Was born" would work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

But that wouldn't catch similar edits like this. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Is there a chance that the user's simply not familiar with our style? The Russian Misplaced Pages uses a very different style for biographies that's not pure prose; I picked a random Russian philosopher and ended up at Fyodor Shcherbatskoy, whose Russian article begins as follows:

Also, Russian is a Pro-drop language, in which one generally doesn't include a pronoun that's implied by the verb. (That article gives an example of good Russian sentences — six words, "I see him. He is coming.", are needed to translate the Russian "Вижу. Идёт.") In such a case, "Was born in X." would make sense when we're talking about a specific individual who's the subject of the article, if you're unintentionally importing your own language's grammar/syntax/etc. into English. So maybe this person's just trying to follow ru:wp style without understanding that we don't write that way. Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I see such edits on my watchlist pretty regularly. Typically they are made by users whose native language is Russian and who have limited command in English. Note also that in Russian encyclopedias it is pretty common to drop the subject (for example, an article on XXX would say Born in YYY year, not XXX was born in YYY year), and machine translation (which is still unfortunately often used, would provide exactly this.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

It's true that missing pronouns are a common mistake made by Russian speakers writing in English. But this is clearly one person on Rostelecom in St. Petersburg, who has obsessively, robotically, made the same idiosyncratic name-removing edit to probably hundreds of biography articles, for years, and it seems to be the only edit they ever make. It's often very indiscriminate, e.g.: or . There have been many final warnings for disruption and vandalism, but they can't be reached. One warning said: "Stop doing this. If you don't understand why your edits are being undone then you are not competent to edit in English. If you do,understand, then this is vandalism.", which I think sums it up. Whatever is going on in their mind, from malicious to clueless, is not so important - the relentless edits are harmful and disruptive. If they had an account, a stable IP, or a narrow IP range, they would have been blocked long ago for disruption, failure to communicate, and "not here".

Since neither talking nor blocking seem possible, I wondered if there was some more effective alternative to be able to prevent, flag, or search for the unhelpful edits. The normal search can find many, but it's rather limited. It seems like something that would lend itself to an automated approach, since the edits have a distinctive pattern, but I don't know that much about what's possible in that way. I can look into requesting an edit filter. --IamNotU (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Just wondering... if whoever does this is Russian, could providing a Russian translation of the warnings help them understand? Diamond Blizzard talk 17:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I've left warnings on the talk page of this morning's IP, saying "Хватит удалять имена из биографий! Stop removing names from biographies!". I would think that if they're able to navigate English Misplaced Pages well enough to make these edits, they'd be capable of putting the warnings into Google Translate themselves, but I suppose it's worth a try. I've also changed the section title here from "vandal" to "disruptive user", since it's possible they believe they're helping.

I've been doing some more cleanup, and it looks like there are actually possibilities for blocks on these ranges for the most recent edits: Special:Contributions/78.37.160.0/20 and Special:Contributions/92.100.80.0/20; those seem to contain all their edits out of the /16 ranges, and almost exclusively theirs since January. The other ranges I've found them in are these, not sure yet if there might be narrower ranges within them:

• Special:Contributions/91.122.0.0/16
• Special:Contributions/92.100.0.0/16
• Special:Contributions/92.101.0.0/16
• Special:Contributions/178.66.0.0/16
• Special:Contributions/178.67.0.0/16
• Special:Contributions/178.70.0.0/16

There really are hundreds of these same edits, and it's continuing on a daily basis. It also looks like they might sometimes make small edits to articles about cartoons, e.g. Special:Contributions/178.70.28.51, though so far I can't tell for sure if it's the same person. --IamNotU (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I can start us off with range blocks on the /20s. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

After skimming through the /16s listed above, the IP ranges where I see this editor active are:

• Special:Contributions/91.122.96.0/20 (last obvious subject-removal edit in April 2019)
• Special:Contributions/91.122.176.0/20 (July 2019)
• Special:Contributions/92.101.192.0/20 (August 2019)
• Special:Contributions/92.101.224.0/20 (August 2019)
• Special:Contributions/178.66.64.0/20 (June 2019)
• Special:Contributions/178.67.128.0/20 (July 2019)
• Special:Contributions/178.70.16.0/20 (August 2019)
• Special:Contributions/178.70.32.0/20 (July 2019)
• Special:Contributions/178.70.64.0/20 (June 2019)
• Special:Contributions/178.70.160.0/20 (July 2019)
• Special:Contributions/178.70.208.0/20 (February 2019)

Assuming, of course, that the ISP breaks things down into /20s, which seems entirely possible. I range blocked a few more that have been active recently and have very little apparent collateral damage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the blocks, and for pointing out the sub-ranges, that should make cleaning it up easier! --IamNotU (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, today they're back on Special:Contributions/178.67.181.183, so I guess, Special:Contributions/178.67.176.0/20? There were also some edits there in May. --IamNotU (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the IP a few days, which might be enough. Given of the lack of disruption on other IPs from that range, I have to wonder if maybe I was wrong. I guess we'll see, but I really hope it's not randomly spread throughout /16s and /17s. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

They were back today, from Special:Contributions/178.70.160.0/20 again. It looks like their IP changes once (and only once) a day, so no point in blocking individual ones I guess. Each day they can jump between any of the seven /16s (or not). But within those, I don't think it's totally random. I've only found them on one or two /20s in each, except for the last one 178.70.*, there are several. For example though, there's another very prolific IP who does Indian film related edits in the same /16s, but I don't think I've seen them on the same /20. But I could be seeing patterns that aren't really there... --IamNotU (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Wiki Facts fixer

User:Wiki Facts fixer has a long history of changing the nationalities of sports players to reflect his very narrow view of who is allowed to be an American or European. A few examples: on Sinan Gümüş, on Bobby Dixon and on Mesut Özil. He clearly believes is it not possible for people from certain countries to be nationals of America, Germany etc. These edits are constantly reverted and his talk page is a long list of complaints about this specific behavior. I came across him today making a similar edit to Ekpe Udoh where he changed the long-standing description of Udoh from American to Nigerian. I sourced Udoh being American to a New York Times article but User:Wiki Facts fixer continues to revert me with unsourced or poorly sourced changes. There is a long exchange on my talk page about this. As far as I can tell this user is pushing a particular and narrow view of nationality through unsourced edits and original research (see the edit summary of his latest revert). See also this edit to Orkun Kökçü and this unsourced change to Nigeria national basketball team. Note the personal attack in that last edit summary. I don't believe we need this nationalist agenda-pusher on Misplaced Pages. Railfan23 (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

What nationalist agenda, I sourced all my content relevant to Udoh and Orkun Kökçü, it is IN the article of Kökçü that he has CHOSEN Turkey do he is considered TURKISH like Udoh is in the Nigerian National team so he is NIGERIAN...YOU are the one pushing an agenda!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talk • contribs) 23:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC) Tell me what I did wrong with Ali Muhammed ?? I CORRECTED the spelling of his name! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talk • contribs) 23:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC) You say you sourced Udoh but with an OLD article, my article was from FIBA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talk • contribs) 23:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

It is literally stated on Misplaced Pages if they PLAY for a NATIONAL TEAM they are considered that NATIONALITY look at Fenerbahçe basketball roster “players may have a SECOND nationality”!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talk • contribs) 23:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

What personal attack?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talk • contribs) 23:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

"Railfan23 are you insane?" is a very clear personal attack. Please read: WP:NPA. Railfan23 (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

FIBA is poorly sourced? Give me a break, it is the official international basketball association liken Fifa for football! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talk • contribs) 23:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, Railfan23 has continuously threatened me to be blocked or reported etc when my edits to Kökçü and Udoh are correct and sourced, isn’t threatening me a personal attack? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talk • contribs) 23:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Facts fixer, you need to understand that nationality/citizenship is a legal status. It does not change merely because someone plays a sport for another country. 86.143.227.147 (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

See also these edits to the Moussaka article. Wiki Facts fixer is clearly here to push an agenda. 86.143.227.147 (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Further evidence of POV-pushing: , and see this edit summary "Ethnicity determines a person not his birthplace". 86.143.227.147 (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Wiki Facts fixer has now violated WP:3RR on Ekpe Udoh. Could we get an admin intervention, please? Railfan23 (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

What is your intention, explain what I have done to you for you to have an agenda to get me banned, you are the one vandalising his page not me! You have threatened me but I don’t report you but your agenda is against me more than what I’ve done. I have done nothing wrong and it is a straight fact that the nationality is in line with the national team choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talk • contribs) 01:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

You are evidently stalking me because you are finding obscure things from the past, one tiny yet factual edit on mussaka and you complain, to even find that you have stalked me as it is irrelevant to sport and it is long ago and it is true that the dish comes from Turkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talk • contribs) 01:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

You are reporting me because of the Ekpe Udoh edit, all the past edits are irrelevant

I have sourced all my edits on Ekpe Udoh’s page and finally they are factual - he plays for Nigeria. So you should be arguing about Udoh NOT about past things from MANY MONTHS ago — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talk • contribs) 01:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

And what I said is NOT a personal attack but both of you two THREATENING me IS a personal attack!

Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Pointing out that almost your entire editing history seems to revolve around making POV-pushing edits regarding the nationality of sports players is not a personal attack. Pointing out that you have been repeatedly told to stop is not a personal attack. And pointing out that nationality isn't determined by who you play a sport for (or by ethnicity for that matter) isn't a personal attack. As for your edit to the Moussaka article, how exactly did you determine the 'facts' that enabled you to decide that the photo was of Turkish Mussaka rather then Greek Moussaka? Are you seriously suggesting you can determine the 'nationality' of a dish served all around the eastern Mediterranean from a photograph? The person who uploaded the photo labelled it as 'food from Greece' , and I see no reason to assume otherwise. Regardless of where the dish originated, if the uploader says this example is Greek, why should we doubt it? 86.143.227.147 (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• I've filed an SPI based on some correlations between a few editors. Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki Facts fixer Frood 05:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban on nationality/ethnicity/citizenship

I propose a topic ban on nationality/ethnicity/citizenship. That way we can see if Wiki Facts fixer is able to constructively contribute to Misplaced Pages. If his edits even outside of that parameter are likewise disruptive, then he will probably end up blocked. Softlavender (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support That's a good proposal, thank you User:Softlavender. Railfan23 (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support, concur that the proposal would be a good way to see if the editor can contribute usefully outside of the contentious area. Considering that the editor can't seem to drop the stick (as seen above) and that the username plus behavior strongly suggest something like WP:RGW or POV-pushing, I'm not optimistic, but let's give them some rope. creffett (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support, though I don't expect much notice to be taken of an IP. For what its worth, I think it might be more productive if rather than topic-banning Wiki Facts fixer, he/she were instead blocked until such time as evidence could be provided that they have read WP:OR and WP:RS, and that they understand the necessity to comply with such policies. I suspect a topic ban will only move the problem elsewhere. 86.143.227.147 (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support - per nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• I wouldn;t object to an indef block as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

It is completely unjust to block me, however if you block me, then 86.143.227. should also be blocked as he attacked me. All my edits to Ekpe Udoh have sufficient evidence as you can see Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC) My username now suggests things about my alleged intentions. This is crazy all I have done is source an edit to Ekpe Udoh but my username suggests something else....wow Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support an indef-block in addition to a topic-ban based on the above. It's clear Wiki Facts fixer cares more about victory than debate or collaboration. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 18:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support Topic ban and wouldn't object to a block per Jéské--Jorm (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban This editor's failure to acknowledge the deep concerns about their conduct makes an indefinite block likely unless they correct course quickly. Cullen Let's discuss it 18:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban. I was going to stay out of this, but it's quite clear that they don't get it. Even with this discussion open, they continue making the same edits that brought them here. Frood 01:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose (for now) I have had significant interaction with Wiki Facts fixer (see "May 2019" at their Talk page, Sinan_Gümüş at their Talk page, and Tolgay Arslan discussion at my Talk page; more at different articles) and as I see it, they have been inappropriately temperamental but I see reason to assume good faith for now. At Tolgay Arslan, after being repeatedly told they needed to source a change, they tried: edit history at the article. At WP:FOOTY we assume that someone who plays for a country must hold that nationality (as well) (pinging involved FOOTY editors: @DerDFB:, @Jaellee:, @Oblow14:) and Wiki Facts Fixer was told so multiple times (examples: Revert at Kerem Demirbay, edit history at Suat Serdar, Ferdi_Kadioğlu discussion at WFf's Talk page, I'm sure there are more). I assume Wiki Facts fixer must have been surprised to receive so much opposition at Ekpe Udoh where they argued based on the player's national team allegiance. Some edits, such as those as Moussaka I find very problematic. But I am in favour of not topic-banning the user but to warn them to not show WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour and to start sourcing their changes, and giving them a recommendation to stay away from this contentious topic. Robby.is.on (talk) 07:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

"At WP:FOOTY we assume that someone who plays for a country must hold that nationality (as well)". WP:RS,WP:OR and WP:BLP apply, regardless of what WP:FOOTY says. And Wiki Facts fixer wasn't just adding a new (dual) nationality, he was attempting to erase any link to a previous nationality. See e.g. the mess he has made of the Bobby Dixon article, and the way he removed 'German-born' from the Hakan Çalhanoğlu article. These aren't just evidence of being 'inappropriately temperamental', but of having an agenda. (I'm same person as 86.143.227.147 above, with dynamic IP) 86.134.76.164 (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban, and indefinite block. Jayjg 18:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Note: I would encourage anyone reading this section to read this back-and-forth with Jayjg. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 00:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Classic WP:IDHT behvior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's not helpful to them in the least. It shows me that not only do they still not understand (I hope), but also don't want to. I do think at this point a tban is necessary if they want to avoid an indef block. We all should drop the stick because it seems they just want to argue. Nothing more is going to come out of this. Frood 20:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, he's also been trying to debate me; I've told him in no uncertain terms I am not interested and he persists in trying to press me. I'm just going to revert off anything else he adds to my talk page as a waste of time and tell him not to contact me if he does it again. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 21:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The reason I left a message on talk pages is to see your reasonings specifically to come to a more detailed understanding. What’s the point in this at all if nobody wants to speak with me about it, it just seems like nobody cares and just want me off the site rather than peacefully communicating together to come to a better understanding and go from there. The main reason why I want this is because throughout my time on Misplaced Pages all other pages have the same edit which I added to these players and I have always been told by other users that I must edit in this way back when I used to get in trouble for disruptively editing pages many months ago when I didn’t have a good enough understanding of what is the norm on Misplaced Pages. So this is the reason I want to talk, not to start an argument but to have discussion over what I have always been told to do - it’s only fair if both sides a thoroughly heard. Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I urge you all to put yourself in my shoes - yes I used to disruptively edit but that’s because I had no idea how this website worked - then users told me that if I keep changing nationalities to something other than their national team allegiance I will be banned/reported and that I MUST edit nationalities in terms of who they play for. I then do this (like I did on Ekpe Udoh’s page) and another set of users tell me I will be reported and banned. But this is exactly what I was told to do by the other users. no matter what I do both sides tell me I am wrong and I will be banned. Can you see how confusing this is for me and how it is so difficult to understand. I have no clue what to do, if I edit how I have been originally advised you will try to ban me, if I edit how you guys tell me to then they will try to ban me. It is very confusing and doesn’t make sense because of this. Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Then provide evidence. A link showing exactly where you were told that you must "edit nationalities in terms of who they play for". Something we can verify. 86.134.76.164 (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think he will, because he's been doing this before anyone has ever meaningfully interacted with him. The only way his claim works is if he's a sock account of someone else. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 04:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

That link you provided is exactly what I said I used to do. Cluelessly edit out of line with who they are playing with, but as you can see all got reverted back to their national teams. Look at my talk page and reverts look how many people have said they are playing for “x national team”.Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• NOTE: Based on the results of the SPI , and the fact that the editor has apparently done this nonsense via other accounts, and the fact that he seems only to be here to troll and disrupt, I now also Support an indefinite block -- that is, a WP:CBAN -- for this editor. Softlavender (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I have said that the ErrorFixor was an account I used when I lost my password to this account. Also if you look at the dates, you can see it is very old and back at the time when I was disruptively editing before I understood how this worked. Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The user denied having a second account at first at their talk page. I can't find where the user disclosed their previous account. --MrClog (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I just explained to you at the investigation page why I denied it Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, he says "The reason I made that account was because I lost my password to this account ", and "I had completely forgot about this account because look how old it is , but then I came across this and I recognise the account" . He also said that he thought he had disclosed the second account "but when looking it seems it didn’t go through or I just have a false memory of it."I think what we're getting from Wiki Facts fixer is very fast tap dancing which amounts to a bunch of fabulations. I now support an indef block (CBAN) with the topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support indef ban as WP:CBAN per Softlavender. --MrClog (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support ban but also strongly indef block as per WP:CNH Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose CBAN I'm not seeing behavior that rises to CBAN levels, and I'm willing to forgive someone for forgetting about an account which only made a half-dozen edits. I disagree with Softlavender's characterization of the user as "only here to troll and disrupt," there are clearly IDHT issues here but this does not strike me as trolling or intentional disruption, just significant misunderstandings as well as stubbornness on the definition of nationality. I believe a TBAN is sufficient to deal with the problem (as I !voted above). _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose CBAN: I agree with Creffett. I don't think he's been disruptive enough to warrant a site ban, but certainly a TBAN. I'd like to see him be able to contribute constructively. If the disruption continues, maybe. But for now, probably not. Frood 18:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Really?

• "Do you have a second account?"
• "No I do not have a second account."
• "What about this account which edits like you and has a similar name?"
• "Oh yeah, I made that account because I forgot the password to this account."
• "Why did you deny having a second accout?"
• "I forgot about it."
• "Did you disclose your second account?"
• I thought I did, but I must have misremembered."

And you guys still have AGF left? Socks and disruptive editors aren't required to be good at socking or disruption or dissembling about socking or disruption, all it takes to give them the heave-ho is socking and disruption. You want maybe they should take some lessons at socking and disruption and come back and be more disruptive before we shut the door on him? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Can't speak for Frood, but I do indeed have AGF left, because that's not socking. Maybe I'm naive, maybe I'm less jaded, but all I see is failure to disclose a previous account, which is certainly a suspicious act but nowhere near enough of a problem to call for a CBAN. The editor's previous account was not the subject of any adverse actions (warnings, blocks, bans, etc.) and did not operate at the same time as the current account, so there is no socking or evasion here. Like I said above, the editor is more than a little stubborn, but I only see disruptive editing in the area that we're discussing TBANning them (and they appear to have stopped editing in that area for the time being, which is also a point in their favor). _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 12:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Yep, that pretty much sums up what I was thinking. The full conversation with Jayjg definitely shows that they don't get it, but I do think we should give them some rope. This would be a pretty easy tban to comply with, so if they hang themselves with it, that's on them. Frood 19:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: at least be fair here, I used that account like 4/5 months ago and I made like 5/6 edits on that account. How is that going to come straight to my mind. I forgot about the account. Furthermore I am sure I went to disclose it however like I said I’m either misremembering or my internet went down - sometimes it takes a while on here for my edits to come through - that’s the only other way it could’ve happened. I never even used that account since I got my password back for this account. I originally thought I was accused about using two accounts now. Then I opened that page and I saw that account and I remembered it (I had already said I’m not using a second account before I saw that account) I completely forgot about it. Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• User talk:Jayjg#Your support for my ban is illuminating. I did my best to help, but... Jayjg 16:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban (and would not be opposed to indef block) per the big pile of IDIDNTHEARTHAT demonstrated in Jayjg's link. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, are you supporting a total site ban or just a topic ban and/or indef block? I only ask because of the and would not be opposed to indef block part. Frood 18:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, clarified. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Are we being trolled?

I see that despite the multiple posts on Wiki Facts fixer's talk page on the requirement for edits to cite sources, and despite the long discussion here on the same subject, Wiki Facts fixer has just created an entirely unsourced biography of Tarık Biberovic (basketball). One which states that "Tarık Biberovic was born in Zenica,Bosnia to Turkish parents. He was granted Turkish citizenship due to his blood relation to Turkey. He has chosen to play for the Turkish national team". And for good measure states in the infobox that his nationality is 'French'. At this point, I can see no reason to assume anything other than complete and utter incompetence combined with a total incapacity to countenance the possibility that he might ever be wrong about anything, or deliberate trolling. And I'd go with the latter. 86.134.76.164 (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I have already explained the situation, on three separate help pages as each time I have tried to add my sources it says “error edit not saved” instead of trying to find any form of evidence against me, I am trying to make an edit I would appreciate the help if anybody here knows how to fix this error message. Also who is French? Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see where you saw “French” basically I copied and pasted the Nando De Colo’s page and edited it to suit Tarık Biberovic. I only just realised it didn’t edit out “French” apologies. - I did this so all the set out would be correct and all I would need to change was the information (save me some time and it would look the same) Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Further evidence of either monumental cluelessness or trolling can be seen at User_talk:Wiki_Facts_fixer#Proposed_deletion_of_Tarık_Biberovic. where Wiki Facts fixer responded to a perfectly reasonable request for a source for the statement in the Biberovic biography of the article subject having 'Turkish parents' by accusing me of 'bias', along with irrelevance about me not being able to read Turkish. Irrelevant, since no source in any language was being provided. 86.134.76.164 (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I can’t believe this, I have literally been on a HELP PAGE to sort this issue out, why are you trying to gain every support against me for having an error however everyone else is respecting it, please just leave me alone or put something else on my talk page instead of spamming the same thing I can’t bring you something if there’s an error in my system Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you seriously asking people to believe that someone capable of creating an entire correctly-formatted (if unsourced) table containing full details for the Turkish national basketball team roster is incapable of posting a bare URL on a talk page? The source clearly does not exist except in your imagination. 86.134.76.164 (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

yes because ALL DAY I have been trying to sort this issue, we were even discussing this on my talk page and on a help page before you turned up. I get a long pause when I click publish and following this the exact message I get for my sourcing and link posting is “error edit not saved”. How many times do I need to tell you this??? Just leave me alone I don’t need to tell you 20 times. You don’t care about improving the site you want to rally against me. It’s so evident, I ask you to find out what’s wrong the the Fenerbahçe page and you say “I’m not wasting my time” if you cared about sourcing and the site being prefect you would go check, however when we look at your contributions they are all about me and my edits straight after I do them. You must be sat there refreshing my page. You care more about me than site improvements “I’m not wasting my time” literally proves this.. Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Facts fixer (talk) and if you look at the Turkish national team page, I needed help to fix that page aswell I didn’t do it correctly fully. I literally have only just started creating pages and making edits the size of the Turkish NT. I’m brand new to these types of edits the Turkish NT was my first one Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

What is the name of the website where you found the information that Biberovic's parents were Turkish? 86.134.76.164 (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

find it yourself, all day you’ve spammed me and told me I’m wrong when you can’t read Turkish, find the website yourself why should I “waste my time” when it’s not on Biberovic’s page anymore. You’ll only find a way to tell me I’m wrong like you have been all day for multiple things. If you respected me today instead of aggressive behaviour “i suggest you find it quickly” then I would get you it,but since you can evidently can read Turkish from how you’ve reacted today, then you are capable of finding it yourself Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

No, I am not going to waste any further time looking for imaginary sources. You have repeatedly claimed to have one, but refuse to provide even the slightest evidence that it exists. It quite clearly doesn't. And nothing you have done deserves 'respect'. For that, you need to show honesty, and a willingness to cooperate with others along with a willingness to edit according to Misplaced Pages policies. Instead you do nothing but come up with endless pathetic excuses, and complaints about being picked on. Well yes, you are being picked on, quite rightly. Because you fail to respect Misplaced Pages contributors, Misplaced Pages readers, and the people you insist on labelling by nationality despite having no evidence at all to justify it. Why should anyone 'respect' that? If you want respect, do something to earn it. 86.134.76.164 (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

LOL just block, CIR, and blatant troll. Neil S. Walker (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Firstly just get off my talk page. I’m almost certain you are a Sockpuppet no account no edits except for going at me there’s no way anybody would do that. All I have done today is make a page which was missing, but you spam me all day about information which no longer exists on that page! The page has even be accepted and verified. There isn’t any other editor on here speaking to me like I am worthless and like I’m a bad person, everybody who has disagreed with me have spoke to me respectfully. You don’t care for this website you care about fighting me, go do some useful edits. I made a page that was missing, at this rate I would vote myself out of here an entire day of being spammed and constant notifications is a JOKE!!! How dare you say I can’t cooperate when all day you’ve been the one attacking and harassing me, get off my talk page. You talk about policies, Misplaced Pages says when people have made errors on their page when they’re new to it to not use it against them and to assist them something to have NOT been doing! You don’t even edit anything how are you not bored refreshing my page for these last few days waiting for me to do something else - look at the state of your contribution section! Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I’m now a troll for CREATING A MISSING PAGE THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE. USERS EVEN ACCEPTED THIS PAGE. Honestly if spamming my account is what this takes then just block me, my first ever page creation and this is how I am treated honestly why should even bother with an account, you may aswell ban me anything I do is challenged and I’m sick of the spam. I might just deactivate my own account, I’m sick of being spammed when it’s my first attempt at creating a page Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

No. Creating a needed article isn't trolling. Doing exactly what you have been told not to do, repeatedly, by multiple contributors, certainly looks like trolling though. You were told, multiple times, that when you state someone's nationality in an article, you need a source. You created an article, stating that Biberovic's parents were Turkish, and provided no source, despite repeatedly claiming to have one. From your recent post on your talk page, it is apparent that at no time have you ever had such a source Instead, you have based the edit on exactly the original research that you have been repeatedly told isn't acceptable on Misplaced Pages. That isn't 'cooperation', it is either trolling, or a sheer inability to understand a simple requirement. So yes, I suggest you 'deactivate' your account, and take your obsession with imposing Turkish nationality on people based on the flimsiest of evidence elsewhere. 86.134.76.164 (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I have already sourced his Turkish nationality and it has been accepted what an earth are you on about.... Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

how was your Saturday was it enjoyable refreshing my page? Or should I ask how was your week you’re a Sockpuppet, sat there all week refreshing my page. Enjoy yourself, watch some TV, who am I to you. I was supposed to be enjoying my Saturday with my family however I’ve had my entire day being spammed by you with constant notifications, every single person assisted me and nobody acted like this, that point was removed long ago and his Turkish nationality is sourced....100% you are a Sockpuppet Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

My obsession with Turkish nationality??? This whole page is relevant to UDOH and his NIGERIAN/AMERICAN nationality. But you stalk me so much you harass my first page and claim I’m obsessed. Since Tolgay Arslan find me any inaccurate Turkish nationality, Toglay Arslan was my first proper edit. Sockpuppet....Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Anyone reading this train-wreck should note that the Tarık_Biberovic article cites only two sources for anything. One of the sources cited states that he is of Turkish nationality, while the other says 'BIH' - which is the conventional abbreviation for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Perhaps he has taken Turkish nationality. Or perhaps he has the nationality one might expect from his place of birth. Perhaps he has dual nationality. Without properly-sourced clarification, the article shouldn't say one way or another. Though I doubt that Wiki Facts fixer would be happy with that, given his obsession with imposing Turkish nationality on the flimsiest of evidence. 86.134.76.164 (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed

I have read the above thread, and looked over WikiFactChecker's contributions, as well as the SPI. There is much concerning content there. I am not going to render any decision as to whether there is community support for a ban (either total or topic), nor will I close the above discussion in case the community wants to come to a consensus. Rather, I have chosen to unilaterally indef WFC for this edit. It did occur several months ago, but it is the type of edit (actually several edits, and a revert or two) that should be tolerated exactly zero times. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Note that 20 minutes after Wiki Fact Fixer was indefed, a new account User:Cold Mustard was created and started editing Tarık Biberovic to put back some of Wiki Fact Fixer's edits. I've created a Sockpuppet investigation for this case, but it seems very likely to me that this is the same user. Railfan23 (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Non-RS repeatedly spammed into Scientology articles

User:AndroidCat, a 15-year veteran of Misplaced Pages, first observed that a non-reliable source had been added to multiple articles by Iamsnag12 (talk · contribs): Timeline of Scientology, Clear (Scientology), Dianetics, and L. Ron Hubbard. As a result of AndroidCat's comments, the unreliable source was removed pending consensus for its inclusion. Iamsnag12 promptly readded the source right back in to the articles without discussion. . Feoffer (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I see that NinjaRobotPilot has given this editor a notice of discretionary sanctions regarding Scientology. That's a good first step. There was a major blowup regarding pro-Scientology propaganda editing on Misplaced Pages over ten years ago. Church of Scientology editing on Misplaced Pages covers that particular controversy. This needs to be nipped in the bud. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinging NinjaRobotPirate since I botched the earlier ping. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

They're currently edit warring on Clear (Scientology). I agree with Cullen- we can't afford to relive that fiasco. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Eek, nevermind! I misread the difs there. Sorry! TheAwesomeHwyh 05:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but what nonreliable sources were posted? I had listed newspaper articles as well as citations to a paper which gave the images of the actual transcript and letters from Cox himself. If you're saying CESNUR is nonreliable due to bias (which has not been proven just alleged) then how do you justify the obviously anti-Scientology materials as any more reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamsnag12 (talk • contribs) 10:54, August 20, 2019 (UTC)

AndroidCat has asserted non-RS on CENSUR, contact them or the RS messageboard for details on how they reached that conclusion or to build a consensus. Feoffer (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Iamsnag12: I'm going to ask the same question here that I asked on Iamsnag12's userpage: "What is your relationship with Scientology? Are you a Scientologist?" I should also add that this MUST be disclosed. TheAwesomeHwyh 00:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, so the biases come out and yet I am told that I am not warned in other posts. I am at all not surprised. I am curious are all people required to disclose their religion and/or beliefs for other pages? Why is Scientology singled out? Anyway, no I am not a member of the Church of Scientology, but even if I were one, how is that at all relevant? Was anything I posted incorrect? Please let's discuss the actual facts posted, otherwise you are now pivoting from the stance of questioning my sources (which you've not been able to find anything wrong with) to questioning me. Iamsnag12 (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

In this case whether or not you are a practicing Scientologist is VERY relevant. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 20:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Iamsnag12, you "forgot" to answer the question. What's your relationship with scientology? 00:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Better question: are you a practicing Scientologist? TheAwesomeHwyh 01:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

How did I forget to answer the question? I wrote "I am not a member of the Church of Scientology". No, I am not a practicing Scientologist. I'm still waiting on an answer about reasons for reverting my content since the goalposts are being shifted from the content now to me. If you have an issue with my content then discuss it, otherwise I am being singled out for no good reason. Iamsnag12 (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Coltsfan

Coltsfan (talk · contribs) repeatedly reverts my edits for no reason at all, especially the ones at the articles Cheka and Massacre at Huế, and the "Communist terrorism" category, even worse, the user is now accusing me of vandalism, bias, and disruptive editing, when he is the only one actually doing this. -- 179.180.135.174 (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

"No reason at all", yet Coltsfan left you a detailed reason of exactly why on your talk page. Captain Eek ⚓ 03:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Except that my edits weren't biased, the Cheka article is already in the "State-sponsored terrorism" and "Terrorism tactics" categories, and the Massacre at Huế, as a massacre perpertrated by Communists, is an obvious example of Communist terrorism, the Đắk Sơn massacre article is in the category, so why shouldn't the Huế Massacre be? Also, the My Lai Massacre is at the "Anti-communist terrorism" category, I also didn't remove right-wing references from articles involving Fascism, all I did was remove the "Right-wing politics" category from the category on Anti-communist terrorism, as it implied that it was all right-wingers who did this, but at the same time I didn't remove the "Far-right politics" category from it, that argument would have merit if I did this while adding "Left-wing politics" to the "Communist terrorism" category, but I didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.180.135.174 (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I note you also ignored the large orange box at the top of the edit page that says "you must notify the user you report on their talk page". I have done that for you. Captain Eek ⚓ 03:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.180.135.174 (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The reason most categories were removed was based on technicalities, based on the rules (like WP:SUBCAT), and it was thoroughly explained here. But to the pressing subject of bias editing, through multiple IPs, this guy tried to add "left wing" categories in articles of massacres committed by armies that, though belong to communist countries or had communist leaders, were not carried out based on communist ideology (or at least the article themselves don't draw this conclusion, thus WP:OR). Or tried to insert the category of "left wing terrorism" in government agencies of Cold War era countries, all the while removing right wing mentions to notorialy fascist governments (like the portuguese Estado Novo, etc). Don't need an expert to see that if it looks like disruptive/bias editing, swims like disruptive/bias editing, and quacks like disruptive/bias editing, then it probably is disruptive/bias editing with a political agenda behind it. Coltsfan (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I only attempted to add one category, and on the article of the Huế Massacre, it is mentioned how Viet Cong intelligence officers compiled lists of "cruel tyrants and reactionary elements", which included South Vietnamese soldiers, political party members, religious leaders, American civilians, etc, so it's hard to argue that it wasn't Communist terrorism, lastly I only inserted the "Communist terrorism" category in the Cheka article, and not only did the Cheka commit extremely brutal terroristic acts (no different than CIA paramilitary groups during the Cold War), but it also was dissolved in 1922, way before the Cold War, and lastly, when did I attempt to remove right-wing mentions to Fascist regimes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.180.135.174 (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The massacre at Hue does not qualify as political terrorism, again, at least is not what the sources say. It was a massacre, committed by communist against its enemies. As far as the sources say, it didn't had the purpose of inflicting "terror" or pushing an agenda or defending a point of view through violence or any other definition of "terorrism". Thus for, the category that you placed is not correct. This was explained to you, but you chose to ignore (WP:POINTy). And again, Cheka was a government agency, and, again, government agencies can engage in political terrorism, but the definition is much less browned, as for the point i was trying to make that the Gestapo and Cold War intelligence agencies also engaged in state terrorism but there is no "right wing terrorism" there because, just like here, it wouldn't be adequate. And your other IPs even engaged in extensive discussions to remove "right wing references" or right wing group from fascists articles, even reaching the point of removing content that was backed by RS. The intent here is clear, to engage in WP:POINT. Coltsfan (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The sources on the article mention clearly that political party leaders (obviously of Anti-communist parties) and also religious leaders (Communism is opposed to religion) were targeted, and there wasn't any explanations or anything about this anyway, the massacre wasn't even mentioned by you, and to frame it as a "massacre, committed by communists against its enemies", is rather odd, the same thing can be said about many cases of terrorism, and there are many stances of state-sponsored terrorism or state terrorism in the "Anti-communist terrorism" category, but relatively few in the "Communist terrorism" one, and when did I engage in extensive discussions to remove Right-Wing references from Fascist articles? Please, prove it, or otherwise it did not happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.180.135.174 (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

If a killer is a christian/muslim/jew and he kills an atheist because he considers them "their enemy", is that "religious terrorism"? Not necessarily. Not if the sources don't call it as such, at least. The definition of terrorism (and also WP:V, perhaps most importantly) are clear on that. As for the "right wing stuff", for one exemple, here, as an attempt to sugar-coat something, through sources said otherwise. Editing in one bias way, ignoring warnings, refusing dialogue, and asserting your own view on the articles, ignoring RS and other rules, that shows a clear WP:POINT on your part. That much is obvious. Coltsfan (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

If a Christian or a Muslim commit a massacre against Atheists or vice-versa because of their religion (or lack of), then yes, it would be religious terrorism, how is this an argument? And that didn't have anything to do with removing right-wing references from Fascist regimes, it all had to do with a dispute over whether the Estado Novo was Fascist or not (which ultimately ended in no consensus being reached, so the status quo was kept), in no moment did I attempt to remove right-wing references from it or any other regime, in other words, you're now making false claims, which is very telling to be honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.180.107.156 (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not. Not every massacre is "terrorism". there is a difference between "i don't like you so i'm going to kill you" to "i'm trying to say something and infusing terror through violent acts will achieve this goal". The RS is king in this subject, and those are not on your side, at least not in the articles you tried to change. And the diff speaks for itself. You tried to remove referenced content. Or are we bending reality now? apparently you didn't refrain from that. We can argue semantics all you want, but the WP:DUCK is very obvious. Coltsfan (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Ngokevin rapid fire promotional campaign in progress

• Ngokevin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This account is two days old with 30 edits. At least 29 of the 30 edits are to publicize a particular presidential candidate, and the 30th is a sort of covering edit for one of the 29. Most have been reverted. For example, at the PowerPoint article they inserted that this candidate said they would use PowerPoint at the state of the union address if elected.

They are also clearly an experienced Misplaced Pages editor operating in a rapid-fire highly organized and clever fashion. Which raises other concerns. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

This is not out of the ordinary for Yang supporters; see eg this video. Definitely a SPA at the moment but offer guidance and AGF? Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

They've gotten the necessary guidance: "Stop!" If they continue, block as SPA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure. This is not just an SPA (which we don't block for as such) but a NOTHERE issue. Right now they're not continuing, but people are watching. Bishonen | talk 05:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC).

They are obviously an experienced editor editing under a 2 day-old account. I guess a lot of things could happen next including another brand new account. North8000 (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, North8000, but those edits are so unusual that if another brand new account starts making similar ones, it'll be a really obvious duck. Bishonen | talk 15:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC).

Yes, and the people at the articles were catching some of the edits. Most likely one of those would look at the account's edit history. North8000 (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Could this be a AndInFirstPlace (talk · contribs) sock? —A little blue Bori v^_^v 20:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

SPA and WP:NOTHERE for 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests related article

• 65.60.163.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• XXn00b21Xx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 2019 Yuen Long attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• POV pushing edit alone (adding suspect and personal opinion etc) from the ip:
  • Special:Diff/907296674
  • Special:Diff/907456413
  • Special:Diff/908500836
  • Special:Diff/908826462
  • Special:Diff/909571253
  • Special:Diff/910456136
• SPA edits by XXn00b21Xx
  • Special:Diff/907348869

Sorry to raise the issue here. I tried to AGF to explain to the ip that wikipedia is a tertiary source , but it seem the ip fails to understand WP:OR, WP:V and may be synthesis of source for over 2 months.

For example, see his edit in 2019 Yuen Long attack and Talk:2019 Yuen Long attack, they (he/she) keep trying to act as a meatsock to adding triad wording into the infobox, which is an accusation to the suspect (See Special:Diff/908826462), which clearly WP:BLP related issue and violation. Instead of get to the point, they tried to justify themselves by saying This is a clear example of coordinated political violence, as reported by numerous reputable media outlets, which clearly in the reliable sources are reporting accusations and opinions of academician and politician, which totally not WP:DUE to include in infobox.

While in 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests, they insist there is a need to add Junius Ho into the infobox, with the following reason in talk: Okay, bottom line is that Junius Ho is a relatively powerful and influential public political figure, holding political office, and a staunch supporter of certain pro-establishment positions. He is very outspoken, makes frequent inflammatory statements which receive media attention and circulate widely, and folks of various positions also strongly react to and are encouraged by his perspectives., which clearly his own analysis of source and making their own conclusion that Junius Ho is the leader that merit to add to infobox. As well as refuse to provide the real citation to explicitly state "Junius Ho is a leader of pro-government/pro-extradition bill politician " or other similar wording. To be fair, the ip is just defending that POV, but not the initial editor who add it to the infobox. User:Hoising, an active editor in zh-wiki (and may be en-wiki) did it instead. (Special:Diff/907378181)

There are other POV pushing attempt from the ip for the article, also without any real citation to justify , such as Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests#Adding section for Predominant Slogans, which clearly the thread starter and the ip failed to grasp the idea of WP:V. Such as the ip replied Reporting about the culture of an historical event is not propaganda, it is documenting history!, but this response without really responding how many external source are there to justify the inclusion of other minor slogans of the rally/protest/demonstration.

So, base on the edit record, is it due to warrant a topic ban or just temp block for the ip?

Lastly, the registered account made similar edit. Just file as may be other new user have the same POV, or logout edit account. But the account is stale. Matthew hk (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• There are 5 citations, including quality newspapers" for the "Spiritual Leader"and the statement above is invalid.hoising (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

It never a WP:DUE condition when only tabloid newspaper call Ho as "Spiritual Leader", "Godfather" or some sort. Those citation in Chinese, some of them does not even mean that, most of them merely implied that Ho had a connection to the suspected triad gang in 2019 Yuen Long attack. It certainly a POV pushing to put him in infobox. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

For the so-called citation as a leader of triad, i had move to Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests# Rfc on including Junius Ho in the infobox of this article which use Template:Infobox civil conflict under sub-section "Discussion" for anyone interested to read it and make conclusion it is supporting the statement/claim or not . Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, just to point out, at that time the Chinese wikipedia page on the topic included similar mentions of the triad. So why not POV pushing considered there too? (For reference, see brief discussion here: User_talk:65.60.163.223#August_2019) Thanks. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Members above said that South China Morning Post is a tabloid. I feel a deep regret. The exact word on the papers is 'Hero'. Also, if you believe 'Hero of Triads' is a proper title, you can use it. Thanks. hoising (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Hoising: You are literally shown you are POV pushing to synthesises the source to call Ho as as "spiritual leader of triad gang" when Ho was just made a serious political scandal of contacting triad in the mid of the attack. Matthew hk (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, feel free to cite the exact SCMP article that the journalist called Ho is a "hero of triad" instead of reporting Ho's opinion on the white mob action. Matthew hk (talk) 12:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Please note that difference between Triads' Hero and Hero of Triads is a grammar issue, and is not about the fact.- hoising (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your confirmation that SCMP had described Mr Ho as Triads' Hero. - hoising (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

1) Okay, hello everyone. So, in regards to the 2019 Yuen Long attack article ... edits were made to the infobox and reverted and then we had a very thorough conversation on the talk page, here:

Talk:2019 Yuen Long attack § Infobox and suspects

I had never tried to repeatedly over time edit the infobox or engage in an edit war ... we had a long discussion about the particulars, and I now understand the rules about how sensitive the infobox content is due to living persons and their reputations being involved. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 06:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

2) In regards to a proposal for adding information about some of the protest slogans: I was not the one who first proposed this, but only agreed with it (as have a few others as well). We currently have a section on the Adapted songs ... so it's not a far stretch to also have information about some of the slogans, especially given some media have reported on this topic. There was a "Popular culture" section on the article but it was deleted, so I proposed that this info go to a new main article about the art and music and creative aspects of the protests, similar to the page about Art of the Umbrella Movement ... my proposal for this was recently "archived" on the talk page. Anyhow, few others were interested in starting such a page and so it never happened, as I was not going to push that forward on my own. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 07:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

3) Okay, lastly, in regards to some of the edit diffs linked above: Yes, I had updated the title of a section in the article from "2019 Yuen Long violence" to "Yuen Long pro-Beijing attacks" ... this did not seem contentious at the time. The original sub-section title seemed vague and lacking specificity ... like, "who was harmed? who was doing the harm?" etc. So I thought it should be more clear and understandable to the reader, not to mention actually accurate based on media reports of suspected pro-Beijing organized crime elements that were allegedly involved. 65.60.163.223 (talk)

Regarding this did not seem contentious at the time — oh? I actually seem to recall you edit warring against multiple editors to retain that change of yours. El_C 07:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

There was no discussion on the specific topic and no consensus reached at that time ... 65.60.163.223 (talk) 07:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

4) And finally: the editor who started this thread mentioned a handful of edits (and talk page conversations) that they disagreed with, but what about all of the many, many, many, productive and constructive edits that I have been making over the course of several months? I am not here to vandalise or engage in edit wars etc. etc. ... sure, I am interested in the topic and enjoy contributing, but that's about it and that's where it stands from my perspective. Thanks. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@65.60.163.223: For "terrorist attack" in case you don't know at that time, 2019 Yuen Long attack was removed from List of terrorist incidents in July 2019 and a bold move backed by Talk:2019 Yuen Long attack#"Terrorist Attack"? already taken. The thread did not discuss the wording in lede or infobox, but by common sense it had a consensus it is not due to use the "terrorist attack" wording anywhere but "Reaction" section. Matthew hk (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

My point is, i keep telling wikipedia content on article namespace required to be based on secondary source. We can have a brief opinion on those source are reliable or able to use or not (so WP:RSN existed), but not synthesise them as well as pure personal opinion that did not backed by another citation at all. Matthew hk (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. : ) I am still trying to wrap my mind around some of the nuances and complexities of Wikipedian culture. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Suspicious Edits

New user MasterAju (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made 87 edits in three days. Some have been reverted as disruptive/vandalism. Other seems like they might be OK. This could be just an inexperienced new user (warnings on talk page have not been answered, but they have not been there that long either). Some edits seem pointless such as this and this which may indicate the user is trying to obtain autoconfirmed status and may be a sock. The first edit to their user page added a infobox... MB 00:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I've opened an SPI against the above user here, based on similar style and edit areas. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

This user made an infobox and accidentally added his original name (Harshal Khawse; which incidentally is similar to FlyingHarshk) and later edited it to MasterAju. Most edits are pointless date changes or quick edits on the first few lines of the page. - GreaterPonce665 (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Jack90s15 and WP:CIR

Jack90s15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an user with voluminous edits to various World War II topics. He registered in September 2018, and has been blocked three times for disruptive editing and socking. But the biggest issue is WP:CIR. For instance, he has been asked to properly add signatures several times since October 2018 (1, 2, 3, 4), yet as recently as this month in a thread about Jack90s15 biting newbies, he again failed to properly add a signature. He currently has four "preceding unsigned comment was left by Jack90s15" templates on his talkpage alone.

Additionally, he has been asked to stop reverting himself in the past. Yet as of today, he made almost 150 consecutive edits in Myth of the clean Wehrmacht, which included several instances of edit-warring with himself. Just look at that page history. Many of his edit summaries are incompherensible, such as this: on page 9/ On the basis of biological conditions, it can be assumed that, statistically speaking, about every tenth sexual intercourse results in a swan. On the talk page, Jack90s15 stated that the mistake happened because he was using Google translate. No wonder there are difficulties understanding his edit summaries and talk page messages.

More seriously, he has been falsifying sourced information in the past: He just changed numbers that had a citation without changing the source. I brought this up on Jack's talk page. In that thread, Nick-D had an apt comment: Jack90s15, this is getting ridiculous. This talk page is a long-running series of messages asking you to stop messing up articles. To be blunt, you are not competent to be editing in the fields you are editing. The same patterns keep repeating themselves. Exactly what WP:CIR is about. This was in March, and the same issues mentioned above keep happening. It is a massive time sink to keep scrutinizing such voluminous edits, so I think some administrative action is needed.--Pudeo (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. This user assisted with the recent GAN of Myth of the clean Wehrmacht and was a net positive. While there were a lot of edits recently on that article there wasn't any vandalism and the reader wouldn't have noticed anything at all. Szzuk (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• While I found Jack90s15's early editing to be problematic for a range of reasons, what I've seen of their recent editing has been consistently good. This has included some very sensible edits to the very high profile World War II article, as well as other articles on sensitive topics. As they have responded positively to earlier comments about their editing, I'm not seeing any reason for this to have been brought here. Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • He literally just reverted himself 41 times in a 24 hours span in Myth of the clean Wehrmacht. I suppose that technically does not break the 3RR, but it's still making a mess. He still doesn't understand Misplaced Pages formatting. Seems like a WP:HTD option to say he's a net-positive. --Pudeo (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
    • What are you hoping to achieve by attacking me? Nick-D (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• At the very least, Jack90s15 needs to stop changing reliably sourced information and recognise that sources can differ on details, and that we compare and contrast the sources when that occurs, not just go with the source we prefer. He also needs to work out how to type four tildes, he's been here long enough. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Hello @Pudeo: @Szzuk: @Peacemaker67: @Nick-D: I hope you all are having a great Day or night wherever you are!. I will address the concerns that have been made, I was not falsifying those edits at the time they where based off of sources and 1 was a mistake. For the Hitler page I added the source to page where I got the number.Jack90s15 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• For the Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin for the edit with the colonies that was an honest mistake, the other one was when the page was being built up with @C.J. Griffin: @Paul Siebert: @Woogie10w: and for that we all worked together to make sure the sources were Correct.Jack90s15 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• for the Soviets In World War II at the time I hyper linked it to where the number came from I should have added the source to.Jack90s15 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• for all my older edits I was not making numbers out of Thin air they were all based off of a source and one was a honest mistake.Jack90s15 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• I have been Continuously removing Vandalism from Misplaced Pages and undoing edits of people trying to blank pages, and fighting Sock puppets in no way am I trying to falsifying any information on wikipedia. I have Gotten many thanks from people who have seen me fight people who have been doing that @Everedux: @LightandDark2000: @Path slopu: @Chetsford: @S0091: @Favonian: @MPS1992:.Jack90s15 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• I have had recent disagreements with users @Kierzek: @Obenritter: and I did talk to them to see what could be done and I was Given a handful of good advice that I am going to do.Jack90s15 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• For myth of the clean Wehrmacht page I was just trying to get to last picture not to go into the other section Jack90s15 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• I apologize to everyone for my older edits coming off as me trying to make things up Jack90s15 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Another example of this user's incompetence or carelessness occurred a week ago when he moved another user's talk page from User talk:PlanespotterA320 into mainspace as PlanespotterA320. He said that his adopter was teaching him how to move a page. If he has an adopter, I would hope that the adopter would keep a careful eye on what the user is doing. - David Biddulph (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• User @PlanespotterA320: is my adopter they were showing me how to move a page that is why I did that I was seeing if I had the process down. It was a honest mistake when trying to lean something new @David Biddulph: Jack90s15 (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: I tried explaining to him how to move something from his sandbox to the mainspace. Clearly he did not understand. I think it would be best that from now on he avoid page moving, (perhaps sticking to drafting in a sandbox and then asking for the text to be added once it's finished)?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• @PlanespotterA320: @David Biddulph: that sounds like a plan I do understand the concept right now. But I would be more then happy to Stick to that till the community as confidence in me doing thatJack90s15 (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock Request

Hi,

We're getting a hoard of IPs making extremely similar edits to The Fighter and the Kid. I've put in a RFPP (now handled), but I was wondering whether someone skilled with rangeblocks could take a look and see if there's anything they can do on their side to make sure the editor side of the issue is handled.

History link

IPs:

1. 82.39.250.181
2. 2600:100C:B021:6287:7934:57C5:BBC3:B830
3. 192.197.178.2
4. 170.232.227.220
5. 2602:306:CFD1:6310:6C6E:1F09:E951:49E7

Cheers, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Unfortunately those IPs are all off on their own — they don't form any ranges, and they're all over the map — US, Canada, the UK. The article has now been semiprotected for a week, so I hope they get bored. Bishonen | talk 21:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC).

Misleading sentences and removal of needed templates

This IP user is obviously Misplaced Pages:Nothere to contribute constructively. The user uses weasel words ("some") to mislead readers and don't seem to be interested in arguing in the talk page.. Reverts the POV templates as well. The Yazidis page has already been vandalized a lot in the last couple of months and lost its protection status yesterday. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not how it is. I added sourced information and you just deleted it. and you accused me of POV push and OR without reading the sources. Best wishes 91.236.142.212 (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• 91.236.142.212, I agree with you that there are no weasel words and OR. I've noted that you have properly referenced the added material. You have also already reverted 3 times on that page. Please read WP:3RR. So please slow down. One more revert, irrespective of who is right or wrong, and you will get blocked. I will advise both of you that this is a content dispute and can't be handled here. This should be handled on the talk page of the article. Open up a new section and editors can discuss the added material and the references used. Follow WP:DR for resolving the dispute. Thanks, Lourdes 09:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Lourdes: Using the opinion of one person and generalize it to "some" is very troublesome (and is OR since the article does not indicate in any way that the opinion is generally held). If that sentence is going to stay, It needs . --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

It's obvious that you did not read the sources properly. It's not just an individual but "some" (just like the source says) "Some are glad the Kurds have gone and see an opportunity for increased autonomy now that they are under federal control following the offensive by Iraq’s security forces last October." (So, Some Yazidis are happy that the Kurds have left the Yazidi territory of Sinjar and they do not want to be a part of Kurdistan.) and also "Like OTHERS, Abu Sardar complained that the Kurds forced him to vote in the Kurdish referendum, accusations the KRG denies." 91.236.142.212 (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The wording is only half of my problem here. Let's discuss the second half: Out of the hundreds of scholars out there (including the more recent ones), what makes George Walter Prothero's opinion unique and why is he squeezed into the introduction? Also, Some Yazidis are happy that the Kurds have left the Yazidi territory of Sinjar and they do not want to be a part of Kurdistan indicates that others are unhappy that Kurds left Yazidi territory and want to be part of Kurdistan. Or am I missing something? Again, why is this relevant and squeezed into the introduction? --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Persuading the user to use the talkpage to seek consensus doesn't work and their reckless edits at Yazidis have already disorganized the article a lot. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

As I said earlier, not every piece of information should be included in the introduction of an article. There are certain sections for this. Especially on this topic where the origin is disputed. Since yesterday, you are deliberately operate an Editwar and removing sourced information and accuse me of POV push. You had reported me here because I had removed two templates. And as the admin had already recognized there were no weasel words and OR and everything was properly sourced. I think you are simply for personal purposes not satisfied with the information and deliberately misrepresent things. Best wishes 91.236.142.212 (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment: As someone who has not read the article in question, this seems like it's mostly a content dispute. I feel like the only real thing here is that 91.236.142.212 is apparently refusing to interact on the talk page. So, maybe focus on that? 91.236.142.212, why aren't you saying any of this on the talk page? Loki (talk) 03:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks from BrownHairedGirl

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

BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) Created a page 1970s Foo with the only content as 1970. I do new pages patrol and I nominated for Speedy deletion. Which resulted in this thread. BHG when she speedy deleted the page added the edit summary 'Promptly deleting because its existence is causing great trauma to User:WilliamJE: see Special:diff/912288032#Speedy deletion nomination of 1970s in Foo)'. I asked her twice to remove this personal attack but she has refused to do so. BHG has a history of making personal attacks against me....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• @WilliamJE: If the comment was in an edit-summary, how could it be removed?How in any case is that really a personal attack? It reads, perhaps, as if they are expressing a wholesome regard for your equilibrium. ——SerialNumber54129 14:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• Sigh. William and everyone else would have a better day if William tried to be happy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  What does what you think my equilibrium is have to do with anything? This is the behavior of an administrator around here who SHOULD KNOW BETTER....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  BHG, excessive sarcasm and unctuousness can come across as extremely uncivil and can be extremely frustrating for the recipient (hell, I'm frustrated just reading it). Continued doubling down on telling someone to just "be happy" is totally uncalled for, and is only going to inflame matters rather than defuse them. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  Indeed, that is even listed here, for good cause: It is making people upset if they feel that their concerns are ridiculed.Lurking shadow (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  (ec) Deacon, a wee bit of judgement by W before robotically adding a CSD tag to a recently-created test page would have saved lottsa drama and un-needed edits. William a history of sustainedly missing the point, and it's wearing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• Administrative action is not going to come out of this thread, as we are not going to revdel or suppress that log entry. Some notes:
  *Admins need to create test pages from time to time, and are expected to clean up after themselves.
  *The obviousness of the test is debatable, the use of "Foo" as a metasyntactic variable is not necessarily obvious.
  *Nominating an editing test for speedy deletion is expected, using Twinkle is normal, and getting a CSD notice from Twinkle is also normal.
  *BrownHairedGirl "please stop wasting time with splatting speedy notices around" was snarky and not helping things, but WilliamJE the deletion log entry has not risen to the level of violating Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks.
  I suggest you 2 drop the sticks and go back to the good things you do. — xaosflux 15:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Xaosflux is right on the money here. I don't see the log entry rising to the level of a PA. I don't think the tone that BHG took there, or here was helpful. And, indeed - "Foo" is usually indicative of an obvious test. I probably would have given it a lot longer than a half hour, and maybe sent a polite message inquiring about it before CSD'ing. To be fair however, I don't think I have ever tested code in mainspace in that fashion. We should probably be using userspace for that - which I'd suspect would have avoided this entire situation. SQL 15:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @SQL, I was testing some subst code to use with AWB. I had tried it userspace, at User:BrownHairedGirl/1970s in Foo. (That page was still live at the time of the CSD tagging).

However, I was getting odd results, which I suspected might on a remote chance be namespace related, so I tried a mainspace page 1970s in Foo. My attempt to subst {{#invoke:String|replace|source={{#invoke:String|match|{{BASEPAGENAME}}|%d%d%d0s|match=1|nomatch=}}|pattern=0s$|replace=0|count=1|plain=false}} didn't work there either. Note that's the content of the oage; WJE evidently didn't check the source or edit summary before rushing to CSD, but eiher would have been a sign that it was a test. so I changed tack and eventually devised {{subst:Str left|{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|3}}. When that worked, I didn't save the test page, but took it to AWB and used Category:1920s in Albania to test it. That worked, so I set up about getting AWB running with the right settings, and left the test page open in a tab to clean up later if I didn't need it again. I didn't see any point in deleting it only to possibly re-create it, and was annoyed that it's usability was now impeded by being cluttered up with a bulky CSD tag.

So there was plenty of clue that it was a test page, and WJE would have known about the userspace equivalent since he explained that he had checked my contribs, and the two were listed adjacent in my contribs.

WJE means very well, but goes about these tasks robotically without much discernment, and seems to have little grasp of how disruptive that can be, and little ability to learn when a problem arises. WJE would do much better to ask more questions and be slower to leap to conclusions, as well as slower to take offence when he discovers yet again that his inattention has inadvertently annoyed another editor. Unfortunately, I have had many such encounters with WJE, an it nearly always goes down a similar path of WJE's incomprehension being matched by his indignation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• BHG. Watch out for the "Barnstar of Edsum Excellence" I will be awarding you in the near future. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• I wouldn't have automatically associated "Foo" with "Test" - I generally think that test pages should say so. BHG's actions do not rise near to the level of a personal attack. I also think they, and their tone, were not particularly helpful Nosebagbear (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Much the same as escalating to ANI without attempting a talk page discussion, I agree  :) ——SerialNumber54129 16:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• • If it isn't a personal attack, then what is the purpose of what she wrote?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Venting frustration. Please do yourself a favor and drop the stick! Favonian (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

BHG has a long history of belittling me or accusing me of doing something I didn't do. Again, what is the purpose of what she wrote?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Answered below, but while I was going to go on a bit of a rant about sarcasm and its value in relieving tension, the pain medication for my broken orbital bone is wearing off and I don't feel like typing anything that long, so instead, I'll just quote one of my favorite movies and say, "Lighten up, Francis." rdfox 76 (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

William, that comment in my edit summary was because you had a long track record of CFD nominations which omitted the fact that multiple merge targets are needed, and because you had neither learned from all the times that was pointed out to you, nor even amended that nomination when the problem was identified.

We all make mistakes, and we all learn as we go. But do please try to learn from your errors, rather than yelling "zOMG! Personal attack!" when another editor complains that you have made the same error yet again, and then harbouring a grudge for three years. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Grudge? You're not when you make a wrong allegation or make comment here?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I stand by that comment. And your trawl through our interactions over many years in the hope that you may find some comment of mine which was mistaken is an exercise which eloquently reinforces my point about your grudges.

Have you been spending time searching through the output of the user interaction tool, or do you maintain some sort of list of grudge diffs? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• (ec) To log that I went out of my way to satisfy your misplaced sense of urgency which derived from your clicking before asking a question or looking at the context. "Hey BHG is that page a test or what?" would have saved mountains of drama.

AGF questions are good. Please ask them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

COI and multiple accounts

• ShauneenBeukes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SBeukes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rtsclement (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aspen Pharmacare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

ShauneenBeukes is a name match for a marketing manager at Aspen Pharmacare. The account was blocked for spamming and unblocked per a COI commitment. Rtsclement appeared shortly afterwards, and is a WP:SPA. A new account SBeukes was registered in Feb 2019. No COI declaration was made. This performed mainspace edits to the Aspen article. At this case I am inclined to banninate. What do others think? These are all stale for CU of course, so it's WP:DUCK. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Pretty clear violation of the first user's COI agreement, though I'm not sure if this really counts as socking since the first account is two years stale. Odds are they forgot about their first account and made a new one, and who knows, they might have forgotten about the COI talk in that time too. In the name of WP:AGF I'd be inclined to give the new account this one chance to answer the COI warning (maybe it would help to also point out the previous account), and drop the banhammer if they don't acknowledge it or continue editing. That said, the second account is half a year stale, so I don't expect any further action. creffett (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• The quacks are so loud that they hurt. The sole purpose of all of hem is promoting this one company, and none of them has edited any other topic. So ban them and be done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• I don't understand why you're interested in this now. Two of the users last edited in 2017, and the other about six months ago. I personally wouldn't block anyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Because I fouind the article while reviewing self-published sources, and noticed that it was largely spam. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Suspicious?

• Diamond145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TD-Linux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 62.11.73.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• AV1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The AV1 was bloated out with promotional text citing PR as "sources" (the ref. names even included PR in many cases). I cleaned this up and pruned back to something that isn't obviously written by their advertising agency and a curious thing happened: Diamond145, who hasn't ten previous edits and hasn't edited since March 2016, came along and reverted. I undid this and up popped 62.11.73.23 and then immediately TD-Linux, who has 11 previous edits, none tot his article, ad last edited in May. This either has to be off-wiki solicitation or sockpuppetry. Guy (Help!) 20:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I saw it mentioned on Twitter. So technically off-wiki solicitation. TD-Linux (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest discussing the sources on the talk page first, and then, if there's a consensus to use any of them, expanding the article. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 20:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

OK. I have a COI which is why I've previously stayed out of the article. I'll comment on the talk page to see if it's still possible for me to contribute. TD-Linux (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I suspect Diamond145 does as well. It wouild be good if the article didn't read like an advert, for a start, but Diamond145 just reverted again. Guy (Help!) 20:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

No, I self-reverted out of an abundance of caution. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 21:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

User:SashiRolls and WP:ASPERSIONS

@SashiRolls: has implied that I am somehow responsible for a personal attack that appeared on their talk page earlier today, and I am "punishing" them for edits elsewhere. Since it's a fairly serious accusation, I think it makes sense to go ahead and bring it here to let admins take a look.

I've previously asked SashiRolls to refrain from casting similar aspersions on other editors, and they've apparently got a "No personal comments" sanction from Awilley already. So, at a minimum, maybe someone should reiterate that WP:AGF probably precludes insinuating that other editors are conspiring to attack or punish them for their editing. Nblund 21:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Let me be crystal clear: I do not think that you wrote on my talk page. You were busy elsewhere. I am annoyed that I'm being harassed. If you have no sympathy about people being harassed, that's OK. Please don't add to it by starting pointless WP:ANI threads.

I apologize for letting the aggressivity of the tone at Talk:Tulsi Gabbard get under my skin. I am logging out. 🌿 SashiRolls 21:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

So Sashi receives a personal attack that had to be rev deleted and somehow it makes sense for you to bring them to this noticeboard? This should be closed. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Dubious comments from Sashi that could have been read a couple of ways; they were however understandably annoyed, and have now clarified what they meant and apologised. Agree with Mr Ernie that this should be closed. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Why would they tell me they "didn't appreciate" it on my user page despite the fact that it had nothing to do with me? And then to ask me whether they were being punished for editing elsewhere? SashiRolls clarified that they don't believe I personally edited their talk page, but they've clearly got it in their heads that they are being targeted with some kind of coordinated harassment. And they reference it constantly in a way that seems to imply that everyone who disagrees with them is engaged in a conspiracy. They didn't actually apologize for anything in particular other than for being angry (which isn't something to apologize for) and they blamed it on an "aggressive tone" from unspecified others. Nblund 22:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I feel I ought to apologise to you, Nblund, for having given the impression that I didn't take your concerns seriously. I don't know the history and background here, I just read the diff you posted, which I agree was worded in such a way as to imply that you might have had something to do with it. Sashi responded above saying that they accepted you had nothing to do with it, noted that they had allowed the comments to get under their skin, and (as I read it) apologised for responding in the way that they did. Personally, I think that's a sufficient response for this particular event; if there is a history of other stuff that I'm not aware of, then obviously my opinion is poorly informed and should be discounted. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

In fairness to Nblund, it should be noted that and somehow it makes sense for you to bring them to this noticeboard? was unfair and inappropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I should elaborate a little on what I think is the core issue: Sashi is trying to comply with the letter of the "No personal comments" sanction but still fundamentally believes that editors are conspiring to disrupt AP32. So the editing takes the form of various iterations of "I'm not saying you're a paid sock, but..." This comment, for instance, makes a round-about insinuation about paid editing, while also including a comment about being "an ABD student not writing their dissertation" - which is a reference (the third such reference 1 2) to the sole piece of personal information I've placed on my user page.

Regardless of whether it is intentional, the fundamental problem is that Sashi seems to filter lots of stuff through the lens of an off-wiki conspiracy involving the DNC...or something along those lines. That viewpoint colors their interactions with other editors, and so they do stuff like attribute a bit of vandalism to a coordinated punishment, or immediately raise questions about off-wiki coordination this (see last line) as soon as a new editor disagrees with them. If Sashi feels they're being mischaracterized here, I'm open to hearing it, but the statement "I don't think you wrote on my talk page" is not really a repudiation of the insinuation that I'm involved of some broader harassment campaign. Nblund 23:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Here is a rough chronology of events:

1. I was insulted twice by an SPA who was later blocked for 48 hours for two egregious personal attacks.
2. I mentioned the insult which took place at exactly the moment I had an edit-conflict (with you) trying to slow down your deletions at Tulsi Gabbard, a page where certain issues have been rehashed over and over and over. I provided a link to the insult.
3. You didn't say anything about the attack, which struck me as strange, because putting myself in your shoes I would have said something along the lines of "Geez, that's lame!" (and meant it) before moving on to cordial discussion about any issues.
4. As I tried to explain why I did not agree with your deletion, the assumptions of bad faith started piling up:
   1. The reason above seems transparently non-neutral. I suspect the reason this article has so much WP:CRUFT is because editors have done exactly this "if I can't remove it, I'll just add more crap to balance it out" in the past.
   2. Her links to him obviously go far beyond that, so it's really misleading to portray the debate that way. here you have to know the context a bit, the gist of which is that there is an article which claims Gabbard is a Hindu nationalist because she has Indian-American donors & Nblund wants to remove text about Gabbard's withdrawal from the 2018 World Hindu Congress in Chicago because there was too much Indian partisan politicking going on (in other words evidence directly contrary to the article's thesis). Though I didn't add this bit, I do think it should stay in the article.
   3. Obviously we can't just copy-paste her entire stump speech here... just after you posted here, included just to give an idea of your style
   4. Forcing readers to bust out the corkboard and yarn to track down Pepe Silvia is not really going to improve the encyclopedia. one of your two final comments last night, about which it is worth noting that the end result of the discussion was a concise presentation of encyclopedic material, which had been neglected up to that point:

Your cutting campaign on TG started with your first edit Saturday morning, which led me to think it might be related to your last edit Friday night (which had been to the page I was working on then, which xtools shows was your first ever edit to HRC's BLP (§))

I'm human. Seeing all the killing and raping and profiteering evil in the world I have a dimmer view of human nature than is always & everywhere compatible with the assumption of good faith en.wp asks us to aspire to, that is to say, even when people are following us around the encyclopedia, popping up on pages they've never edited before to make weird insinuations about someone apparently known as Pepe Silvia. I'm sorry that I'm imperfect in that way.

If I am permitted to speak frankly, it was your lack of any sign of compassion concerning my being called a "fascist scumbag moron" that probably was the strongest factor motivating my reaction (the link had not been revdelled when I shared it with you).

I apologize for my limitations and hope I have not hurt your feelings. 🌿 SashiRolls 04:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Non-RS again being inserted into Scientology-related articles

In behavior discussed four daya ago in an above thread, Iansnap12 (talk · contribs) added non-RS sources concerning Hubbard's literary agent Forrest Ackerman. This user has again added Ackerkman-related material, now citing an online auction as a RS. Feoffer (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

It's Iamsnag12 (talk · contribs), not Iansnap12 (talk · contribs). TheAwesomeHwyh 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

You also forgot to notify them of this discussion, which I have done for you. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I can give another source beyond the auction if that's the only issue, but given that the auction actually has images of the diploma, that seems pretty conclusive does it not? Iamsnag12 (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Look- I'm not entirely comfortable editing in this area so I'm just going to stop now. I'm not going to make any comments relating to this unless it's really needed. Peace, TheAwesomeHwyh 02:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Likewise leaving to the admins for cleanup, but seems to violate WP:RS and WP:NOR; second incident in less than a week. Feoffer (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Remember that Scientology as a topic area is under discretionary sanctions. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 03:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 Brazil wildfires

There's an IP in 2019 Brazil Wildfires talk page that insists that Misplaced Pages is promoting racism and that there's an "1th world campaign against Brazil and it's people". Is clearly an behavioral issue and I think that is necessary an third party help to calm him and maybe is necessary to close this topic in a way to avoid anything that he could say that could be harmful to himself. What do you think? Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

He doesn't seems to be doing anything in the article itself, but I think that is necessary an ADM help. Erick Soares3 (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Personal attack

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

Hello dear Admins. I edited the article Yazidis and had added sourced information to the article. Then the User:Ahmedo Semsurî has requested the page for protection and he calls me a „Kurdish nationalist“. But I am not a nationalist. Best wishes 91.236.142.212 (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I was referring to the other Ip (unless that’s you as well). --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• I suspect the reporting IP might be a sock, given just how many times new users and IP's have reported Ahmedo to this board, despite the fact that Ahmedo's edits have been in the right. Looking at Ahmedo's edits, I think their reason for reverting was legit. Was asking for protection necessary? Maybe not, but it would have been up to an admin to decide anyway. Captain Eek ⚓ 01:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Chronic disruptive editing

Anthony22 regularly makes numerous stylistic and 'grammatical' edits to pages to negative effect. There are editors who, from time to time, examine his edits. When this is done, his edits are most often reverted. Individual 'diffs' aren't the best tool to see his behavior. The 100 most recent edits of the O.J. Simpson murder case are illustrative. Anthony22 made numerous, rapid, stylistic edits to the page. This is too many edits in too little time to be a careful reading and improvement. It's compulsive behavior—very unproductive compulsive behavior. Please notice that NEDOCHAN took the time to revert many of them. Next, please refer to this conversation about Anthony22 on NEDOCHAN's Talk page: it's an example of how Anthony22's compulsive editing wastes other editors' time. Finally, please examine Anthony22's editing history. This behavior has been going on for years. He uses up useful editors' time, and Wikpedia's 'oxygen.' IMO, this needs to stop. Tapered (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

For clarity we are talking about these 43 edits in a row (and one revert from another editor). Someguy1221 (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Someguy1221:My bad. Can I remove this section? Tapered (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Occupation of Poland (1939-1945)

The IP editor User:68.50.40.47 is removing sourced material from this article without a consensus to do so. The material has been discussed on the talk page, with some interest in altering or rewriting it in some way (see this), but there was definitely no consensus to remove it. I notified that IP on both my and their talk page that they need a consensus to remove sourced material. But they went ahead and removed it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Usually we have an escalating set of warnings we give new editors, rather than jumping straight to final warning and AN/I. Try that instead, and maybe elicit some talk along the way? Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards