Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

  • Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • If you encounter a threat of violence, suicide, etc., click here.
  • If you're just plain confused, ask at the Teahouse.
  • To report persistent vandalism or spamming, click here.
  • To challenge deletion, click here.
  • To request page protection, click here.
  • To report edit warring, click here.
  • To report suspected sockpuppetry, click here.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user on this page:
  • Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here.

Closed discussions should not usually be 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.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

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

Noticeboard archives

Repeated restoration of NFCC violations[edit]

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 ([[WP:NFCC|NFCC#3, WMF Resolution #3); and implementation of WP:UUI#6 (avoiding duplicate uses of nonfree images). Modernist responded by initiating what quickly became a heated discussion at the Visual Arts Project ("Under Attack". Many of the central issues were addressed here [1]. 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 Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2018_June_18 generally, and see Wikipedia: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 [2] [3]. Modernist's advocacy is so indiscriminate and uncriticsl that he actually opposes removal of nonfree images from Commons. [4] [5] [6]

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 [7] 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. [8] 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, [9] 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 Ponyobons mots 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 Wikipedia'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 [10]. 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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 "[y]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)
  • 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)

(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. Wikipedia:Wikipedia 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[edit]

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 Wikipedia 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:

This wasn't limited to one editor as target:

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

Yesterday this one pops up:

  • 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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/wiki/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)

Vandalism-halting needed[edit]

This moronic racist requires some attention. Lepricavark (talk) 04:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this Lepricavark. Something is awry here - until today Raja Kaiya Vacha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) editing seems normal but they have clearly reached WP:NOTHERE levels at the moment. It is possible that the account has been compromised. Lots of today's edits and summaries need rev/del. MarnetteD|Talk 04:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I did go ahead and notify them of this thread even though they hardly deserve it. MarnetteD|Talk 04:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Indef this WP:NOTHERE nonsense. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Per Rules of Acquisition number 285 No good deed goes unpunished as I can tell by all the pings I am receiving. This troll seems to have hit the sweet spot when all admins are away. As soon as one returns a block of RKV would be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 04:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
There's a tool that lists admins who have made an edit within the past few minutes, but I forget where it is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the block NinjaRobotPirate. There is still a batch of rev/del that needs the attention of someone who has the time. MarnetteD|Talk 05:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
There were a lot of copyright violations and some racist/obscene edit summaries. I think I got them all, but there are some vulgar edit summaries still unhidden that probably don't qualify for revision deletion. It probably wouldn't be very controversial to revdelete them, too, if someone wanted to. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: FYI, I've deleted them under RD3: I have low tolerance for people who try to splash their bigotry over the encyclopedia. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

To find active admins try, the block (or deletion or protection) logs: block log. The tool for active editors might be toollabs:apersonbot/recently-active. Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. In all my years of editing, I don't believe I've ever previously had a user vandalize a page immediately after I edited it (except for when I'm vandal-fighting). And of all pages, it would be Raúl Martín Sandoval, a page that had been edited three times all year before yesterday. I definitely did a double triple quadruple take. Lepricavark (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
You don't have an evil twin do you? Nosebagbear (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
No, I don't believe I do. Lepricavark (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
On the contrary! Lepricavark's evil twin (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Gadzooks! Michepman (talk) 05:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Examples like these tell us that we need to add more admins from other time zones for a round the clock mopping. --DBigXray 06:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • User:DBigXRay - Sadly, efforts to recruit a more geographically diverse set of admins have been frustrated by lack of community support. Just today, an RFA for an Australian admin with almost 10 years of high quality experience was narrowly rejected by the community. See here. While I understand and respect the rationale behind the opposition, it does mean that it'll be that much harder to find people outside of the predominant time zones who can do the hard work of adminning while the rest of us are asleep... Michepman (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

PAs, tendentious editing by advocacy editor[edit]

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:

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. Atsme Talk 📧 05:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

May I also point to the last ANI in which I mediated a dispute involving NomoPBS [11], 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 Edits Ho Cap'n! 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(talk) 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 Wikipedia: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 [12]; 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)[edit]

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 [perceived] 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 [against me]. Two declined: [13] [14]. 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 [15] (who Atsme mentions in her ANI complaint, but omits mentioning she twice solicited him) and Gareth Griffith-Jones [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] (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 [21], C's explanations about content [22], A starts with the "you're PAing me" [23], Pile-on by (probably canvassed) editor M [24], C's remarks about content and objection to accusations [25].

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

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 [46] 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 [link] 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 Wikipedia, 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 [47]. A search of Talk and User Talk namespace for the words "Atsme aspersion" [48] brings up 273 instances. Then I read dozens of them. Same patterns.

My username change was prompted by the bullying. This [49] 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 [50], me telling her to stop harassing me [51], me putting a standard warning template on her Talk page [52], and Atsme declaring she was going to ANI [53]. 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 [54], 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 Wikipedia. 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 [55]) 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 Wikipedia 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 Edits Ho Cap'n! 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[edit]

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(talk) 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 Wikipedia, 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 Edits Ho Cap'n!
@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 Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:57, 16 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 Wikipedia: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! AquatasteBlack Paw.svgtalkBlack Paw.svg 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. Atsme 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 Wikipedia! AquatasteBlack Paw.svgtalkBlack Paw.svg 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:Bite 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 Edits Ho Cap'n! 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: [56]. 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 [57] [58]. 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. Atsme Talk 📧 23:41, 21 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)

Name-removing disruptive user from St. Petersburg[edit]

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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:
Extended content

Russian original: Фёдор Ипполи́тович Щербатско́й (Щербатский) (19 сентября[2] 1866, Кельце, Царство Польское — 18 марта 1942, Боровое, Акмолинская область, Казахская ССР) — русский и советский востоковед (буддолог, индолог и тибетолог), академик Российской академии наук (1918). Один из основателей русской школы буддологии. Перевёл и издал ряд памятников санскритской и тибетской литературы. Почётный член научных обществ Великобритании, Германии, Франции.

Google Translate rendition of original: Fedor Ippolitovich Shcherbatsky (Shcherbatsky) (September 19, 1866, Kielce, Kingdom of Poland - March 18, 1942, Borovoye, Akmola Oblast, Kazakh SSR) - Russian and Soviet orientalist (Buddhist, Indologist and Tibetologist), academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences (1918). He translated and published a number of monuments of Sanskrit and Tibetan literature. Honorary member of the scientific societies of Great Britain, Germany, France.

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.: [59] or [60]. 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 Wikipedia 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:
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:
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)

User:Wiki Facts fixer[edit]

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 [61] 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 Wikipedia. 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 23:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

It is literally stated on Wikipedia 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 (talkcontribs) 23:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

What personal attack?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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. [62] 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: [63][64], and see this edit summary "Ethnicity determines a person not his birthplace". [65] 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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' [66], 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)

Proposal: Topic ban on nationality/ethnicity/citizenship[edit]

I propose a topic ban on nationality/ethnicity/citizenship. That way we can see if Wiki Facts fixer is able to constructively contribute to Wikipedia. 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)

Argument about article content which isn't directly related to the TBAN discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

http://www.fiba.basketball/downloads/v3_expe/agen/docs/3-ELIGIBILITY-NATIONAL-STATUS-of-%20PLAYERS.pdf

Here is evidence to what I have been saying it says: “In order to play for the national team of a country, a player must hold the legal nationality of that country, and have fulfilled also the conditions of eligibility according to the FIBA Internal Regulations.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talkcontribs) 02:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The following sentence states "Any player with two legal nationalities or more, by birth or by naturalisation, may choose at any age the national team for which he wishes to play". Which is why even WP:OR wouldn't entitle someone to assert that a person didn't hold a nationality other than that of the team for which they played. Not that it matters, since interpreting FIBA rules to determine nationality is WP:OR, and contrary to policy. Find a source (complying with (WP:RS) that explicitly states that the specific person being discussed no longer holds a nationality before removing it. 86.143.227.147 (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

So there is no justification for me to be blocked, only they should be for harassing me and vandalising my sourced fixes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talkcontribs) 02:28, 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 Bori! 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. Cullen328 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. [67] (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 (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Argument about article content which isn't directly related to the TBAN discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

No this is called consistency Bobby Dixon’s name was spelt incorrectly so I edited it to “Ali Muhammed” from “Ali Muhammad” And the reason I removed German-born is due to consistency. You never see “x born” in players so I chose to keep this consistent. For example, we do not write Brazilian born for Diego Costa or German born for Cenk Tosun etc etc. So why is it necessary information to write “German-born Turkish” if it is not consistently used in every single player. So as you can see 86.143.227. there is zero agenda, and those of the past have completely changed as you can see in my modern edits I have only edited based on national team allegiance as I have been suggested to in the past however I am now being reported for doing how I have been advised in the past. However, 86.143.227. I do recall you insulting me and implying I am uneducated, so why has this had no admin response.

Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 19:51, 19 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)
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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Bori! 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 [68], 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 [ErrorFixor] was because I lost my password to this account [Wiki Facts fixer]", and "I had completely forgot about this account [Wiki Facts fixer] because look how old it is [it was created on 31 May 2017], but then I came across this and I recognise the account" [and apparently remembered the password]. 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). creffpublic 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)

Tag teaming in removing reliable sources[edit]

User:Mhhossein and User:Saff V. are Tag teaming in removing reliable sources from Hafte tir bombing. Here is some context where Mhhossein tried to get the page protected after their last revert. It comes across as collaborative WP:TENDENTIOUS editing in order to render a particular group responsible of this bombing, when sources mention other suspects as well. Ypatch (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

JJMC89 has now full-protected the article for one month. This thread can probably be closed unless that was not the best solution. The article could use some extra eyes in terms of the discussion. Softlavender (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Ypatch: Next time, instead of making bizarre accusations, try to collaborate with other editors correctly, without edit warring. Repeatedly saying the same thing without elaborating on your comment is not certainly what you had to do; I raised serious doubts over the reliability of the source and you just say it's reliable without carrying the burden of proving the verfiability. Those things aside, I would like to know how you suddenly jumped into the article! --Mhhossein talk 15:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I created a disscusion and have tried to give my reasons(here and here) to explain why it does not suit to mentioned that material into lead but you response Whether you agree with the sources or not,... and did revert!Saff V. (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
The OP kept on reverting us in a fighting manner and now there's an explanatory comment shedding light on the disputed source saying how dubious it is. I think a Boomerang should fly here. --Mhhossein talk 13:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Just to remind everyone that the community authorized general sanctions on post-1978 Iranian politics (I closed the AN thread two days ago).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Ymblanter: thanks for reminding. Can I have the link to that discussion? --Mhhossein talk 13:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, sure: AN discussion--Ymblanter (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Ymblanter: A good effort; but how could you reach a decision without asking the involved editors to comment? Seems odd to me, to be frank. --Mhhossein talk 14:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
The discussion was open long enough, consensus was obvious (though I would like to see greater participation), I was not involved in it in any way, and I closed it. You are the first person complaining so far.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Ymblanter: Being open long enough is not a suitable excuse for those who demand wide participation, notably by involved users. I'll keep on my discussion on the remedy's talk page. --Mhhossein talk 11:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
If the discussion has been long open and the participation decay, it is. Having said that, you are obviously welcome to raise relevant points at the talk page and to generally help shaping the sanction.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
WP:ASPERSIONS by Mhhossein: [69] [70]. Ypatch (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Kosmosi[edit]

Kosmosi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Not sure where the correct venue for this is but I thought I'd try ANI. Kosmosi's user page reads If you're here to dispute my edits of trans people's articles regarding birth names - get the fuck over it. Trannies don't get special privileges over anyone else. All other people who change their name or go by a different name have their birth-names listed (e.g. Debbie Harry, Miley Cyrus). So, get off Tumblr and stop trying to censor Wikipedia.

If it's not obvious what my concern is, "tranny" is a disgusting and degrading slur and it's a gross violation of BLP (which applies on all pages on the site), particularly as it's directed specifically at the trans woman Kim Petras, at whose article Kosmosi has been slowly edit warring (1, 2, 3, 4) with some edit summaries so egregious that they were revision deleted by Geniac. As a user who clearly has no interest in improving the biographies of trans people, I propose that Kosmosi be topic banned from the topic "Transgender people", broadly construed, which would necessitate in particular the blanking or deletion of their userpage. — Bilorv (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

That I would call simply unacceptable - they can express their viewers about deadnaming without resorting to insults if they want, but with the insults, that needs to be removed. Agree there is basis for a topic ban. --Masem (t) 13:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I've marked their userpage for speedy deletion as an attack page. TheAwesomeHwyh 15:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose topic ban; support indefinite block. If this user hated black people as much as he hates gender-nonconforming people, the word he'd use instead is the N-bomb, which would instantly get him indefinitely blocked. That's not a soft little insult used by uneducated people who don't really mean any harm. It's a hate term against a minority that lives under constant threat. Using it, especially since User:Kosmosi is also blatantly violating BLP by deadnaming, comes with an implicit threat behind it, exactly the same as a white person calling a black person a you-know-what. It looks like the offending userpage text has been completely nuked but if you saw it before, imagine reading the same thing except it said the N-word. Would you be here politely asking for consensus on a topic ban as relates to black people but asking the responding admin not to impose an indefinite block just in case the racist asshole manages to contribute better at a different topic? 107.195.20.170 (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Block user — this sounds like a case of WP:No Nazis, though Kosmosi has a history of constructive edits unrelated to transgender up to this point. As such, I am unsure if the block should be temporary or indefinite, but in the former case an (indefinite) topic ban is warranted. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 19:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi. I do not see the problem with the word "tranny" especially as I am trans myself - my user page is not an "attack" page, it was not created to attack anyone. Anyway afaik this whole drama is becasue i put Kim Petras's birthname there. I do not see the problem with that, it is a biography and most other trans people have their birth names there too. I also do not like that I am being compared to a racist here. I am not a racist nor would I ever use such a word Kosmosi (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    Regardless of whether you are trans, use of a bigoted slur directed at others is not acceptable. The issue is your language and attitudes such as If you're here to dispute my edits [...] get the fuck over it, not your edits themselves—though it is worth noting that "other articles do this" is a fallacious argument and there is no policy requirement to deadname anybody; rather, it's something determined on a case-by-case basis through discussion based on depth of coverage in reliable sources. Discussion is impossible with someone that shows such an aggressive attitude. — Bilorv (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indef block - Identifying as part of a group is not carte blanche to collectively demean them.--WaltCip (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocking now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose topic ban and indef, but support warning : Wow! Let's wait a minute! A simple warning would have sufficed. Are we jumping to block editors too soon nowadays? In good faith, I believe that Kosmosi is a member of the trans community. It is very common for people in minorities to take back names historically used by others as insult against them - a sort of devaluing the word/name which members of that community use against themselves and other members of the community without anyone taking offence. Both Black and LGBT communities have taken back historical slur words used against them and I do not believe for one moment that Kosmosi used that word as a negative insult against a community he is a member of. In fact, these kinds of reclaiming the word is very common among such communities. Further, this discussion was only a day old before @The Blade of the Northern Lights: took it upon himself to indef another editor without waiting for the discussion to generate momentum. Are you being hasty with your use of the Admin tools The Blade of the Northern Lights? What I see here are people going on emotions, and to equate the editor with a Nazi/racist is uncalled for and a personal attack. In my opinion, I think The Blade of the Northern Lights should undo his hasty indef block and allow this discussion to run. Unless, I'm going blind, I cannot see any other block for this editor other than this one which tells me it is their first ever block. Indefing an editor on their first block especially an editor who has been making good contributions is harsh and shows poor judgement and misuse of the Admin tools. We can not afford to have trigger happy Admins who block editors because they can rather than what is good for the community. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
    Wikipedia isn't the place for that. And I'm fairly sure your true complaint is with me, hence your following me to this unrelated situation. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Duh! Don't flatter yourself. I didn't follow you. Another discussion brought me here. Please do not make false claims against me. I am however eager to know why you have indefed this editor on their first ever block when a simple warning would have sufficed? The discussion had not even been more than a day old before you took it upon yourself to indef this editor who has been making good contributions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Block is fine. Past a certain level of toxicity we don't need to do warnings; just show them the door. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This could have been solved without any deletion or blocking. The offending part of the user talk page can be — and was — blanked, the edit summaries suppressed, and the user asked to stop calling people names and rudely telling them to "get the fuck over it". I think that xe almost certainly would have. The editor made a foray of four edits into a topic area xe hadn't edited in before, and was completely tone deaf about resolving conflicts there and acceptable levels of civility. I strongly suspect that that is not going to continue after this. Moreover, given the length and variation in Special:Contributions/Kosmosi xe clearly is here to contribute to an encyclopaedia, and questions like Special:Diff/911666713 seem silly. See the contributions history for what articles outwith the topic area this person has already been editing for five years, from Home theater PC through French Wikipedia to GNU Chess. Uncle G (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
My real concern here was over the user page rant, which seemed to show a level of...deep misunderstanding and toxicity. I'm trans too, and would aghast if anyone ever used the t-slur, let alone would I use it! Combined with a "get the @$%* over it," the rant seemed the attitude of a troll to be honest. However, Kosmosi's unblock request gives me increased confidence, and I think giving them some WP:ROPE is the right course. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 08:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
As the blocking admin, if anyone is willing to unblock I trust your judgment. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Long-term financial vandalism at selected pages[edit]

A Mammootty fanboy is repeatedly exaggerating the budget of Mamangam (2019 film) and reducing the budget of his professional rival Mohanlal's Marakkar: Arabikadalinte Simham, disregarding sources. This is the nth time this guy is fudging the budget, even after multiple range blocks. IPs are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 (and probably more). Because of a single guy, both pages were page protected. Sometimes also damaging other pages by reducing the box office numbers of Mohanlal films and exaggerating Mammootty films, a terrible version of that can be seen in the 10th and 11th IPs. Another trick of this guy for reducing the budget of Marakkar is exaggerating it first to a HUGE number beyond expecting and then reducing it in the next edit to a desired low figure like he was correcting it. Probably unaware that there is a page history and people can see (or is he simply shameless?). 2405:204:D181:541B:74EF:35A9:336:B485 (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Waste edits by 156.57.214.222[edit]

The IP started their career from scrabble in template arguments (such as removal of linefeeds between them) and removal of wiki comments. Now the IP has a keen interest in <br />: [71] [72]. Even for an account, such as bot, I wouldn’t tolerate edits whole only sense are such changes due to pollution of recent changes.

Let’s propose to 156.57.214.222 to either stop generating bot-like trash or register an account—at very least—for edits of that kind. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

This user roams all over 156.57..0/16. He was previously 156.57.233.227 (talk · contribs), and before that 156.57.195.165 (talk · contribs), and before that, 156.57.202.51 (talk · contribs). I'm sure it goes back further. Appears to be acting in good faith, probably half their edits are the most minor of improvements with the other half completely pointless, plus occasional mistakes. Problem is that like with the current IP, this user never responds to other users, never uses talk pages, never leaves edit summaries, never seems to adjust his behavior in response to warnings. I'm leaving this unnecessarily long comment basically to make a little record, if nothing else. Oh, I also blocked him. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Fraudulent Links and Wikipedia page protection[edit]

I am the webmaster of the official website (www.legendarydavidallancoe.com) and manage the social media pages for David Allan Coe. The websites and social media pages listed on David's Wikipedia page are incorrect and a member of Wikipedia continues to revert to the incorrect links. The links that are shown below are incorrect and are owned and operated by someone using David's name and copywritten material for their own gain. We would appreciate any help in protecting this page from these fraudulent links being posted in the future. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rydin4life (talkcontribs) 17:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Rydin4life First, if you are employed by Mr. Coe, you must comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies. Second, if you bring up other users, you are required to notify them of this discussion(see top of this page for instructions). Instead of coming here, you should discuss your concerns on the article talk page with the other editors involved. 331dot (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Rydin4life: I don't think anything here needs handled at AN/I. I think the correct place to handle this is the talk page of the article. That said, I am going to take a look at the links—both the ones Rydin4life suggested and the ones that 184.21.40.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been adding—and see if there are any obvious issues with WP:EL. I will also add the article to my watch list, and I am willing to protect this page if it because necessary because of edit warring over the links. —C.Fred (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I've started looking as well. davidallancoe.com is an attack site, as is the twitter account @davidallancoeCD. I've removed them. ST47 (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Not helpful
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have no idea what rights User:Rydin4life loses as a result of their obvious conflict of interest but I can't imagine it's so many that User:FlightTime's behavior is in compliance with policy. To the contrary, FlightTime hasn't performed a single worthy edit in this. The boilerplate warning that probably got this discussion started in the first place, automated restorations of extremely sketchy sources that he obviously didn't even look at, several reverts of good-faith edits without using edit summaries. Are conflicted editors owed literally nothing at all? 107.195.20.170 (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
The situation is being addressed and Rydin4life has been told what they can do. A COI doesn't mean that someone with one cannot contribute at all, but it does mean they need to take care in doing so. 331dot (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Fred. I appologize for the confusion. I manage the website for David and the list of sites (including davidallancoe.com and the twitter account @davidallancoeCD) are indeed fraudulent sites used to sell bootleg merchandise. We are just trying to help clean things up and prevent people from using David's name to their advantage. I am not familiar with Wikipedia and am trying to learn, so I do appreciate the help and your willingness to help me learn the proper channels here!50.201.179.1 (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Remember to log in before you post, so that your posts are properly attributed to your account. 331dot (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on the talk page to try to determine what external links, if any, to include. Let's discuss the content there, and we can probably close this AN/I thread. ST47 (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I have also referred the original poster to WP:VRT, who may be able to help, particularly with issues related to registration of the website and proving "official" status. But I think we're done at AN/I. —C.Fred (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Vulgar personal attacks on my talk page by Anonywiki[edit]

User:Anonywiki has been blocked indef per the discussion here. User:OrgoneBox was warned. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anonywiki (talk · contribs) has a long history of blocks for edit warring, personal attacks and disruption. His talk page is littered with warnings for same. For a few days now we've been engaged in a dispute at Chad (slang) over what he deems to be incorrectly sourced material. Initially he tried to change it to something else using an unreliable source, which was reveted by MarnetteD [73]. From then on it's been nothing but disruption from this user. Attempts to discuss on the talk page went nowhere. I even provided the specific quote that covers the information he keeps deleting, but he continues to edit war. He also demanded on the talk page of another editor who tried to help that they "mind their own business in the future" [74]. Now today, he has posted ad hominem personal attacks on my talk page [75]. First, he doesn't understand that user generated wikis aren't reliable sources and second, he exhibits a years-long pattern of inappropriate behavior. You could use either WP:COMPETENCE or WP:NOTHERE as a rationale for an indef block, but in any case, the attacks on my talk page are unacceptable. OrgoneBox (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Immediately following Anonywiki's PA, they posted this ludicrous and childish policy suggestion. They're complaining that other editors are immature, but Anonywiki seems to be too immature to even consider that they could be wrong. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 20:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Pinging Bbb23 who dealt with the AN3 report a few days ago. IMO, blocks are warranted for both parties: OrgoneBox for WP:EW and Anonywiki for WP:EW & WP:NPA EvergreenFir (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I am available to answer any questions about this. According to me OrgoneBox is a liar, a chronic, pathological liar who is doing nothing but starting trouble and is lying to you here. Anonywiki (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@Anonywiki: Completely uninvolved here, but from the outside looking in, you look to be way in the wrong. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 20:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I can go through his points one by one if it's that's appropriate, will that help clarify matters either way? Anonywiki (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Attention: From the looks of his history, he does this every time he gets into trouble... suddenly wants to be very helpful and respond to points and discuss. This isn't about content, it's about behavior: his. I will no longer address this person directly. Casting aspersions and making personal attacks not only on my talk but now here as well is not going to be tolerated by me and should not by anyone else. OrgoneBox (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Wow. I don't think Anonywiki is here to be collaborative, and this pretty much seals the deal as far as I am concerned. I'm going to put that page on my watchlist now.--Jorm (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indef block for Anonywiki: CaptainEek's link above to a suggestion made by Anonywiki goes so strongly against our pillars (3, 4) and WP:BATTLEGROUND that it shows they are not here to (collaboratively) build an encyclopedia. Anonywiki also violated WP:NPA on OrgoneBox's talk page and their edit history seems to almost entirely consist of disruptive edit warring and aggressive confrontations. With such a lengthy block log and no sign even after twelve years on the site of understanding why edits such as this or this (note that the latter is on a mainspace page and they reverted to reinstate it) are inappropriate, I see an indef block as necessary.
    Oppose block of OrgoneBox, though they should be seriously warned that edit warring of the same frequency at Chad (slang) (regardless of whether they cross 3RR) is not acceptable. — Bilorv (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Indeff now, not later. The diff Jorm posted cannot be tolerated. John from Idegon (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support block of Anonywiki per WP:NPA among others. MarnetteD|Talk 21:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Don't I get a chance to respond to his points? Almost nothing of what he said is true, he is lying to you. It is all attack, twist and escalate everything with him.
I have been helping to collaboratively build an encyclopedia for years with hardly any incidents. Anonywiki (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
He provoked me which I can show clearly. Anonywiki (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Being provoked is no excuse for making personal attacks. —C.Fred (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
You're right it's not. But I hope it could be taken as a mitigating factor. 21:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Indeff Anonywiki pronto based on my above edit, as well as the absurd response to this ANI by Anony. In terms of OrgoneBox, I do not think a block is warranted, although I think a nicely worded note on edit warring would be good (so as not to WP:BITE). Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 21:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Yup, drop the hammer asap. The above response indicates WP:CIR, and to me screams this might be why. Mercy is sometimes dropping the axe faster. John from Idegon (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
What is "absurd" about my response? I looked for guidelines and couldn't find any. I asked if you wanted to hear me rebutt his points one by one and got no response. Anonywiki (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@Anonywiki: WP:NPA is an established guideline. The only explanation we are concerned about at this point is either why you thought an edit like this one was even remotely acceptable or what assurances you can provide that there will be zero such edits from you in the future. —C.Fred (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I have blocked Anonywiki for the attacks, and will be wording a warning to OrgoneBox. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Edit conflicted with 331 - I would've supported the block as per CIR & BATTLEGROUND. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 22:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Complaint about Dan56[edit]

How am I supposed to respond to this? This guy reverted about 10 of my edits without little or no explanation, and in some cases the wrong reason. He put an edit warring template on my page after writing the following on a Talk page:

"It's too late to make nice; he has completely turned me off with his incessant, myopic bloviating, anal rigidity and condescending, hypocritical remarks from the get-go, all of which I suspect are products of his obsession with removing a superficial project banner (that seems incredibly precious to him) and have blinded him from comprehending the basics of guidelines and policy-based arguments; one simply should not argue in the manner he has; it is unreadable and off-putting. I'm glad I'm not alone anymore to be driven crazy by his behavior, but I have no more patience for him on this matter."
Vmavanti (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

He tells me to stop being stubborn (that's rich) and gives me a link to an article about narcissistic personality disorder. A normal day on Wikipedia, right? Not quite. I've never done that.
Vmavanti (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Diffs, please. Beyond My Ken (talk)
Aja Talk page
Vmavanti (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
No you only accused him of suffering the psychological symptom "projection". Pot calls kettle black....film at 11. This is a content dispute that frankly you are not handling well. John from Idegon (talk) 01:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Trouts to both editors. Vmavanti, your determined opposition to keeping the Wikiproject Jazz template on Aja (album) is, in my opinion, dogmatic and purist in the extreme. My gosh, jazz saxophone great Wayne Shorter played a solo on that album, many other jazz musicians contributed, jazz critics reviewed it and critics in general commented in depth on the jazz influences. Dan56, please be aware that you are simply not allowed to rant and rave at length with personal attacks against an editor that you are in a content dispute with. That's a policy violation. You know that various forms of dispute resolution are available, since you mentioned them yourself. So, knock it off, both of you, because if this ugly pattern of behavior continues, one or both of you may end up blocked. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm here to get work done. Most of these jazz articles are an embarrassment, and in a world of 7.5 billion people, two of us are doing most of the work, and my partner has gone AWOL since the recent dustup over the yearlong suspension of an editor. He isn't sure he wants to continue to edit. Who can blame him? People have worked aggressively and irrationally against us. God forbid one be presumptuous enough to know something about a topic. Wikipedia has a real opportunity to use our knowledge, effort, integrity, and persistence. Please work with us rather than against us. At the very least, don't insult us and make false accusations. I reject the "you are both wrong" escape route. I backed up my arguments, and that person who is an incompetent editor refused to address my points, choosing instead to change the subject, remain hostile, and insult me repeatedly. You don't start a conversation of any kind by calling someone a puritan. Cullen, I respect you and appreciate your opinion, but purity has nothing to do with this matter, and "purist in the extreme" is an exaggeration bordering on insult. Why doesn't someone question whether I know what I am talking about? Becker and Fagen always denied being a jazz band. Would a phone call from Donald Fagen persuade anyone? I'm not sure it would. No one has given me a good reason to perpetuate the fraud Steely Dan is a jazz band or why Aja should be included in Wikiproject Jazz when there is already plenty to do—on real jazz albums. This debate is about knowing the subject, making decisions, and getting work done. The Wikiproject Jazz cleanup listing, which I work on every day, has a ten year backlog of over 4000 articles. If we included every "jazzy" jazz tinged, jazz related, jazz connected album, song, person, dance, venue, restaurant, bar, festival, afflatus around the world throughout history, nothing would ever get done. Nothing. One has to ask who is here to write an encyclopedia and who is here for other reasons.
Vmavanti (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I was wrong. It's an eleven year backlog. I've been trying to get it down to ten against great opposition. Cullen, I was trying to remove the album from Wikiproject Jazz, not keep it in. Yes, I know you mistyped. Thanks for the quick response. I will move on.
Vmavanti (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
So you think an album with a Wayne Shorter solo and many reliable secondary sources describing it as part of jazz, broadly defined, should be removed from Wikiproject Jazz? Like I said, dogmatic and purist. As for a phone call from Donald Fagen, well that would be an unpublished primary source, wouldn't it? Don't you know that summarizing published reliable independent secondary sources is the backbone of the encylopedia? And that what Fagen thinks about jazz is worthy of a summarizing sentence, but should not override critical commentary published in reliable sources? These are policy matters. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Aja as jazz - Oh, right, we don't do content here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@Cullen328:, I apologize for losing my patience and being baited into comments that were off-topic. @Vmavanti:, I apologize things could not turn out how you wanted them to, and hope you have a good day. Truly. Dan56 (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Non-RS repeatedly spammed into Scientology articles[edit]

User:AndroidCat, a 15-year veteran of Wikipedia, 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. [76][77][78][79]. 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 Wikipedia over ten years ago. Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia covers that particular controversy. This needs to be nipped in the bud. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Pinging NinjaRobotPirate since I botched the earlier ping. Cullen328 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 (talkcontribs) 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)

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)

User Farah.moonfairy[edit]

The user has 640 edits total, all to articles, 599 to List of sex symbols.
Continuing to use poor sources (bookmyshow.com, jaynestars.com, The Sun, Daily Mail, Metro, therichest.com, ...) for BLP information despite many warnings. --Ronz (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Continuing - edit warring - Metro Daily Mail Daily Express --Ronz (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Continuing - edit warring - bookmyshow.com --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
The User:Farah.moonfairy has never posted to a talk page or responded to the sourcing complaints, for instance this one. If they continue to edit without replying here a block seems necessary. Claiming that somebody is a sex symbol without finding a proper source is a BLP issue, even if most people wouldn't actually mind. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive edits[edit]

Keannueric18 (talk · contribs) has been making a series of edits to multiple articles such as adding "resume_date = 2020" to building infoboxes. There is no such parameter, and I don't really even understand the edit summary, normally something like "I will restarting soon in 2020". I have reverted some of these, and he has just put them back. There are three warnings on his talk page from this month, and many more older ones. He has never edited the page, so seems to be ignoring them. I don't know if this is actual vandalism or some other kind of pure confusion. MB 01:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Probably hoaxing? This user's most recent edits are mainly adding unsourced start dates to proposed megatall skyscrapers, including buildings whose construction is likely to require materials that don't exist yet. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 03:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
It's still continuing, so I've indefinitely blocked Keannueric18 pending an explanation of the edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
What's the best way to clean this all up? I don't want to do this many manually. MB 04:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Twinkle, probably, though I guess it could fall under WP:ROLLBACKUSE #5. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I rolled them back; all the ones that were current at least. Dicklyon (talk) 05:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I reverted five more that had other (more recent) changes. I went back through the July edits where they were making similar changes to airport articles. There are similar suspicious edit summaries earlier in the year that still could contain more of this. MB 13:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Coltsfan[edit]

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 Edits Ho Cap'n! 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 Edits Ho Cap'n! 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)

John A. Palmer (Lawyer)[edit]

The User:John Doe Texas has been blocked 24 hours. An AfD of John A. Palmer (lawyer) is still open and in progress. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

John Doe Texas (talk · contribs) Keeps removing the AFD template from this article. I have issued him escalating warnings on his talk page....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

He also blanked the AFD discussion here. Greyjoy talk 11:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I've made a report at AIV, as the user has surpassed the final warning for disruptive editing. —MelbourneStartalk 12:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Texas has taken the AFD template down 15 times. What would a Level 14 warning be? I think we're well past 'A Gold Star and Purple Jellybean' level....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Next time, don't edit war. Come and ask for help. It does not matter if the notice is absent for a few minutes. There is a 'bot that puts it back, for starters. I for one relieve people of their editing privileges usually for the expected length of the AFD discussion in such cases. The discussion gets to happen without them. Uncle G (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Editor who still hasn't learned about copyright, NPOV, original research and reliable sources[edit]

User:Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. has been here almost 11 years with 3000 edits but is still struggling with our basic principles.

NPOV - they removed some text last month calling it editorializing but here they added to another article "that arose to fight for justice against the genocidal Mongols". Here is a diff for a series of edits made by this editor including the bit I've quoted.[80] Which leads me to sources - if you read that diff you'll see that the two paragraphs that are sourced are sourced to a YouTube video[81] from a group calls "Kasaysayan Hunters"[82] who are seeking the "true history of the Filipino people" and suggest that platinum was mined by ancestors of the Filipinos 3000 years before it was mined in the west - that and the megacity they mention on their FB are both fringe.

In various articles they are adding this text[83] " In relation to that, a population survey conducted by German ethnograper Fedor Jagor concluded that 1/3rd of Luzon which holds half of the Philippines' population had varying degrees of Spanish and Latin American ancestry.[1] When statistical patterns in that survey conducted in the 1800s is applied to modern census data from 2015, when about 1/3rd of Luzon's people which is 16.5% of the whole Philippine population, would yield a population of at least 16.7805 Million Filipinos who have Spanish or Latin American descent mainly in Luzon, this is already discounting the Latin American and Spanish descent in Mindanao and the Visayas which also were colonized by Latinos and Spaniards. The proposed dissemination of Spanish genes among 16.5% of the total Philippine population as abstracted from Fedor Jagor's survey is near the 13.33% frequency of Hispanic Y-DNA among Filipino males presented by the company, "Applied Biosytems"."

I already submitted to your demands.
If you look at the latest version in that article. I myself removed the superimposition of that 1870 census data (which recorded race) to the modern ::census which doesn't. I myself recognized that information afterwards as synthesis and by your nudging I am morally bound to remove my own work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Filipinos&type=revision&diff=911026044&oldid=910969165
Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a combination of poor sources and original research. There's nothing wrong with using Fedor Jagor for historical information but its use here is clearly original research (as an aside, the whole section on genetics in Filipinos looks like it could use work).

A similar edit in a different article is here:

"During the initial stage of the Spanish colonization of the Philippines which were around the 1600s, about 16,500 soldiers levied from Peru and Mexico were sent together with 600 Spanish officers to fight wars, settle, colonize and build cities and Presidios in the Philippines.[2] These 16,500 Peruvians and Mexicans supplemented the Native Malay Population which then reached 667,612 people.[3] This large initial group of Latin American soldier-settler founders had spread their genes among the sparesly populated Philippines.[4] This resulted into a massive spread of Latin American admixture among Filipinos as evidenced by a large number of Filipinos possessing Native American ancestry.[5] A Y-DNA compilation organized by the Genetic Company "Applied Biosystems" found that 13.33% of the Filipino Male Population had Y-DNA of Latin American and Spanish origins, thus it can conclude that up to 7.162 Million (Male) Filipinos have direct patrilineal descent from populations then originating from Spain, Mexico or Peru.[6] Furthermore, according to a survey conducted by German ethnologist Fedor Jagor of the population of Luzon island (Which holds half the citizens of the Philippines) 1/3rd of the people possess varying degrees of Spanish and Latin American ancestry.[7] When transferring this variable according to modern population scales, this would mean that there are at least 16.7805 Million people (Mainly from Luzon) possessing partial Mexican and Spanish descent in the Philippines by the 2015 Census. However Luzon in the north is not the only area with a concentration of Latin American descendants, Zambaonga in Mindanao island at the south, speak Chavacano, a Creole Language based on Mexican-Spanish with some Peruvian vocabulary. The province has a population of 1.2 Million people, thus increasing the total Filipino population which posess varying degrees of Latin American and Spanish ancestry to about 17.9805 Million."

If you look at the latest version, you would find that I even submitted to your demands and removed several sections of my work which you considered original research.
Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted his addition of similar text at a couple of other articles but they've reinstated their edits. [84] and [85]

Yes, I have reinstated my edits but you also didn't say how I used even more genetic studies proving my point and I even listened to you by partially removing the contents which you considered original research.
Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Here [86] he has used unreliable sources, [87] which is based on user submissions and [88] which is a personal blog. I note that User:Stricnina gave him what seems a very clear warning and explanation about suitable sources and original research a few weeks ago at User talk:Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.#About your contributions that do not follow the WP:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research guidelines

I'm sure I could find other examples but I've already spent too long on researching this. One other I just found when using the interaction analyse, this from 2016 where he inserted text which was not in the source (which I was able to download from JSTOR)[89].

How was I suppose to know about this? Sometimes, and in this particular case, I just edit wikipedia according to some suggestions and citations my friends give me and since I don't have the dollars necessary to have JSTOR account. (I earn in pesos). I have no capability to verify content beyond a paywall.
Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


He also still hasn't learned about copyright, see User talk:Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.#Yet another copyright violation. I'll ping a couple of other editors who have posted to his talk page recently, @Wtmitchell and Rosguill: I think this editor has a serious competence problem and hasn't learned from the problems discussed on his talk page. Doug Weller talk 15:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Apologies. I meant to add that his comments on my talk page (several sections) indicate to me that he is a good faith editor struggling with our policies and guidelines. Doug Weller talk 15:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm... I admit that I may have done wrong in some instances. It may be due to the fact that I have active communication with a lot of people in Facebook you say that I cite my sources from, mainly from the University of the Philippines as well the Kasaysayan Hunters (With members from La Salle and Anteneo University too) who I am personal friends with, and their ideas seep into mine and since they're mostly avant garde in nature I am in a way violating Wikipedia's policy of using only mainstream sources. A lot of my work isn't actually original research since its been circulating among non-mainstream academics for a while now. You can ask WMitchel since he knows that I have the emails of and have correspondence with a lot of History writers and Anthropologists. So I admit that some of my works are fringe in this regard. However, if it shown to me that my edits are wrong I admit correction. You can ask Stricnina herself, I aceded to her demands and I even fast tracked the deletion process of the articles I myself made by giving "Main editor consent" to delete them. Anyway, from this point on I have recognized that Wikipedia is not a viable media to introduce new content. From now on I will just write my work for publishers who will pay me for my write-ups instead of working for free in Wikipedia, only to be mired in edit warring. At least it will save me the psychological stress of constantly having to prove my point to people who have preset presumptions. After I finish writing, making and editing some few more Wikipedia articles, I will minimize my Wikipedia use. You don't need to have me banned or blocked since I will simply leave. Thank you. May you have a happy life.
You can look at my entire 11 year history BTW and you would see that most of my edits are not Fringe, not Original Research, not Copyright Violations and are verifiable. Picking 10% of my articles which are wrong (I admit that I am wrong sometimes and even then I accept correction) while ignoring the 90% more which are correct, is totally up to you. I have no power in Wikipedia since I merely am just an old and experienced editor here, not an Administrator. That would be inconsequential soon anyway since I may quit or minimize my Wikipedia activity or go on a brief Sabbatical at least.
Regards and best wishes to you.
Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Regarding my comments on their talk page, if memory serves, we had a discussion on the talk page of a now-deleted article including several other editors. By the end of the discussion, Rene was in agreement that the central premise of the article was reliant on original research, and the article was thus deleted.
The only other comment that I would make at this time is that you can apply for a free JSTOR account using the Wikipedia library card platform. I have one myself. signed, Rosguill talk 00:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Jagor, Fëdor, et al. (1870). The Former Philippines thru Foreign Eyes
  2. ^ Stephanie Mawson, ‘Between Loyalty and Disobedience: The Limits of Spanish Domination in the Seventeenth Century Pacific’ (Univ. of Sydney M.Phil. thesis, 2014), appendix 3.
  3. ^ The Unlucky Country: The Republic of the Philippines in the 21St Century By Duncan Alexander McKenzie (Page xii)
  4. ^ Letter from Fajardo to Felipe III From Manila, August 15 1620.(From the Spanish Archives of the Indies)("The infantry does not amount to two hundred men, in three companies. If these men were that number, and Spaniards, it would not be so bad; but, although I have not seen them, because they have not yet arrived here, I am told that they are, as at other times, for the most part boys, mestizos, and mulattoes, with some Indians (Native Americans). There is no little cause for regret in the great sums that reënforcements of such men waste for, and cost, your Majesty. I cannot see what betterment there will be until your Majesty shall provide it, since I do not think, that more can be done in Nueva Spaña, although the viceroy must be endeavoring to do so, as he is ordered.")
  5. ^ "Reference Populations - Geno 2.0 Next Generation". Retrieved 21 December 2017.
  6. ^ With a sample population of 105 Filipinos, the company of Applied Biosystems, analyses the Y-DNA of the average Filipino.
  7. ^ Jagor, Fëdor, et al. (1870). The Former Philippines thru Foreign Eyes
Yes I remembered you mentioning that I should make JSTOR account in the past, but I haven't followed up on that yet, thank for reminding me! But I probably won't use that though as I intend to quit Wikipedia or take a break from it after I finish off some projects...
Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.: Placing your comments inside another user's comment as you did here is incredibly disruptive to the flow of conversation, and risks leaving it unclear who said what. Please never do that again. If you are responding to a long comment and want to make it clear which portions you are responding to, simply quote relevant portions prior to your own responses. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC) Ok I will put that in mind.
  • I checked the most recent edit by Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk · contribs) which was diff at United States. The diff interjected WP:SYNTH commentary based on a 44 page pdf by Mark A. Stoler (an historian with no article) with no page number in the reference. The user should not be editing articles of that nature and some kind of resolution is required. If the issues were found in a single topic (Philippines?) a topic ban might be best. Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I have opinions on how wrong some of that looks, especially jammed in as it was. Anyway, part of the problem is that Rene doesn't seem able to figure out what the source actually is. He cited an essay on a website, but that website was simply hosting a journal article published elsewhere: “George C. Marshall and the ‘Europe-First’ Strategy, 1939–1951: A Study in Diplomatic as well as Military History,” by Mark A. Stoler, The Journal of Military History, 79:2 (April 2015): 293-316. It ticks every box as an excellent source, but the use here looks weird. I'd have to look into it even more to form a full opinion. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I used that in conjunction with other sources (I didn't cite it in that edition of the America article because I was afraid that quoting President Manuel Quezon verbatim might violate NPO) But you can see his visible anger at America's Europe First Policy in World War 2, here, where he said his famous "Que Demonyo", speech...
https://m.ww2db.com/person_bio.php?person_id=94
Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
No sir, that is not a Synthesis. It's common knowledge. Americans abandoned the Philippines and pursued a Europe first policy. President Quezon himself was quoted in saying: “come, listen to this scoundrel! Que demonio! How typical of America to writhe in anguish at the fate of a distant cousin, Europe, while a daughter, the Philippines, is being raped in the back room!”
https://wanderingbakya.com/quezon-heritage-house/
I just didn't put my source in the statment since I'm afraid it might make Americans look bad so I wanted NPO and just stated the fact that America had a Europe first policy and abandoned the Philippines, however Mac Arthur had very scathing words against American policy as well as President Manuel Quezon.
Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
What isn't synthesis? I've no idea what edit you are referring to. And you're proving my point about your problem with determining what is a reliable source, Wandering Bakya is a blog run by "roselee" and clearly not a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 09:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC) @Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.: pinging you again as my first attempt failed. Doug Weller talk 10:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Well that blog only took that Quotation which Manuel Quezon said from this website. The International World War 2 Database...
https://m.ww2db.com/person_bio.php?person_id=94
I hope that clarifies things.
Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.: So why would you use it instead of the World War II Database (which I haven't researched). And again, what isn't synthesis? Doug Weller talk 10:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I stated in an edition of the USA article that the USA abandoned (I think I should rephrase that to "left" to become even more neutral) the Philippines to an invading Imperial Japan due to adopting a "Europe First" policy. The user Johnuniq, accused me of Synthesis WP:SYNTH to which I retorted that it was not and that General MacArthur and President Manuel Quezon themselves decried the "Europe First" policy in their interactions with Roosevelt. However, I self inhibited from quoting the full source verbatim, of that statement, that, the USA "left" the Philippines (Even though it's pretty self-evident) because I thought it was not Neutral Point of View for the USA according to the primary sources, however in the process, I was acussed of Synthesis or Original Research which I didn't do because the displeasure over Roosevelt's Europe First Policy originated with Macarthur and Quezon themselves, not me. Anyway, I hope that that elucidates this situation. Regards! After I make a few articles and edit some more I'll be quitting English Wikipedia for a while so around two or three weeks from now, I'll be wrapping up my Wikipedia activity. No need to block me in Wikipedia I'll voluntarilly take a break especially since I have a potential new job oncoming on a publishing company and I will just post my literature there without the hassle of edit warring. At least I will get paid for my write-ups instead of getting stressed over and over again, arguing with others in wikipedia with no benefit on my part since I'm doing it for free yet I still have to pay for internet and have debts in day to day life, yet people threaten to have me blocked or banned, in which case I'm saying to these people, alright you win! I will taper off from Wikipedia editing in the oncoming days. No need to have me blocked, since in a way, I will block myself. May God continue to bless you and may you grow in grace and happiness.
Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I didn't want to come to this point but 2 Editors from the United States Article has already acussed me of "Synthesis" and "Original Research" which I am sick and tired of proving that it's not and that what happened in the Philippines in relation to America during World War 2 was pretty self evident (America prioritizing the European Theatre over the Asia-Pacific Theatre and abandoning theif fellow Americans and the Filipinos to help former Imperialist Britain) and furthermore, I simply did not put my source (From President Quezon and General MacArthur) in that Wiki Article since it colored a negative light on America. If any more accusations of Synthesis or Original Research will be put on me in relation to that article edition, I will just plop in that reference, so that I am done with this. All this drama is adding more stress in my life.
Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.: I have much better things I could be doing then dealing with your edits, but as I think you are making a mess at times, and I discovered the problems, I feel I have to follow through. There are not two editors from the USA article accusing you of synthesis, I have nothing to do with that article and haven't even looked at your edit, that was User:Johnuniq What i said was obvious synthesis was your using modern genetics and a 19th century source to come to a new conclusion not in either source. After all your time here you should know that was against policy. I believe that your current text at Latin Americans[90] is extrapolating current population date from genetic research and that that is original research and have asked at WP:NORN to separate it out from this discussion and give you a chance to explain it in detail Doug Weller talk 15:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

You didn't put in the otherother study I cited from the Institute of Human Genetics and that study from National Geographic with a sample size of 80,000 Filipinos that concluded a large amount of Latin American and Spanish ancestry was present among Filipinos. I am using a Smartphone right now. So it's hard to put in the links via typing so I'll defer posting that until I get a laptop. But you know what I am talking about. Anyway most of the points I have addressed with you in a previous talk. I'll just post it here again so that the Administrators in this talk page will know...

Actually, the Open-source Y-DNA compilation done by Applied Biosystems was the one that presented the facts that 13.33% of the total male population they sampled from all across the Philippines had Spanish and Latin American Y-DNA and it just fit with the historical census data by Fedor Jagor that 1/3rd of Luzon which is about 16.5% of the Philippines had Latin American admixture. What I posted was a function of "Corelation" and "Sylogism" not "Synthesis", arriving at New data which was not present in the original sources via combinatronics like there are only two piano keys and if played by one key alone there is no melody formed but with at least two keys, you can start a musical piece. In fact for a Synthesis to form strictly speaking, in Dialectical materialism, two different schema with different qualities I.e. a Thesis and an Anti-Thesis should fuse or oppose one another to form a Synthesis. What I did was not a Sythesis in the original meaning of the word if we get into Logic or Semantics. In fact, I also put your POV in mind and I even reduced several sentences from my previous post, in fact I am willing to extend my consideration of you even more, to at least two magnitudes... Since we disagree that 16.5% of Filipinos are of Latin American descent then we either agree, on the spirit of consensus building, that 7% of the Philippine population (Since in that Open Source Y-DNA bank sampled from all across the country 13.33% of Filipino males and half of that is 7%, have sure Iberian/Latino descent from the Paternal line) or that at least 200,000 Filipino people have Latin American or Spanish descent (With indication that its from an 1870 Census) I'm already bending backwards for you in this case btw since I already cited those genetic studies from the National Geographic and the Institute of Human Genetics of California that most of 80,000 Filipinos they sampled had Iberian and/or Native American descent.
Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── All these years and I'm still not sure how to revive something recently archived. Anyway, apologies but I don't see any improvement in his recent edits. Here[91] he added/restored some text with changes and a new source. His edit:

"Udayan, an outstanding warrior of Darew became the head of a system of alliances between people from the Pangasinan lowlands and the highlands of the Cordillera Mountain Range. He was widely considered the grandfather of warrior-princess Urduja.<ref>Early Historical gold trade networks in Northwestern Luzon, as reconstructed from ethnohistorical accounts, WorldView2 satellite remote sensing and GIS predictive modelling: the Gasweling case. By Michael Armand P. Canilao</ref>

I'm guessing that his failure to identify the source is because he picked up his wording from a search that didn't show it. In any case the aource is from "The Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports"[92] and the text is not by its author but a quote from two other authors which said

"The extent of inter-settlement alliances is climaxed in the memory of Tublay informants with the reign of Deboxah, Princess Urduja, in Pangasinan. She is acknowledged as the grand daughter of Udayan, an outstanding warrior of Darew. Her death signaled continuous decline of kinship and alliance between highland and lowland settlements."

Some of the wording is too close to the original for me to be happy while most of it doesn't seem backed by the original, which in any case should have been cited.

Here[93] he's copied text without attribution to the article he copied it from, Kedatuan of Dapitan, so he's copied over a travel site used as a source and something called Villegas which can't be identified. So we know he hasn't checked his sources but what's worse is that the article is tagged as a hoax and original research. Those tags are in your face and the article should not have been used. User:Diannaa gave him a warning about copying text from one article to another in JUne.

In that article and in Ternate[94] he's used a student paper as a source.[95] - the same source is used at Manila, Tanza, Cavite and Cavite City.

If you read that Student paper, you would know that he didn't make his assertions out of thin air. He also cited previous authors too. There is nothing wrong with using student papers BTW. William Henry Scott's Student Papers which were pioneering in relation to Philippine History, during his time are now widely cited. Just check the Wikipedia section on Philippine History or the Philippines Article and you would see his student papers especially. "Sources for the Study Philippine Precolonial History", a Dissertation he defended in Ateneo de Manila, used as a standard by modern academics.
Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I missed the fact that this editor crated the Kedatuan of Dapitan with the tourist site and a source just called 'Villegas'. User:Stricnina added the tags. I also think that the use of this looks like OR as I can't find the subject of the article mentioned in the pdf I downloaded. --Doug Weller talk 13:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I took that source that the Sultan of Ternate was departed to Manila, from the article on Ternate, Indonesia. I just took that reference from there and copied it to the Manila article. I thought it was a legitimate source since it has been put there before me and no one complained about it, but now that I copied that and put it elsewhere, everyone complains. That's from a legitimate book inside the very article though, but as you know me, I am just a poor Filipino boy which barely have ends meet, working for free on Wikipedia and I have no capacity to know what's on the other side of that Paywall.
Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr., please tone it down. There is no warrant for this edit summary--if an editor's edits are problematic, they should expect to have their work scrutinized. Plus, there wasn't anything in that edit that resembles "very clear citations". (The citation is still incomplete: name of journal, page numbers, year, doi, etc. are missing.) Drmies (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
In the next edits I cited a website where that Literature was from. BTW.
Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh wow is this Wikipedia Inquisition? I challenge you all to review MY WHOLE Wikipedia citations history not just pick a few that fits your presumptions that somehow I'm a person who incapable of citing good sources. Then kindly compare the ratio of edits and citations with no complaints to ones which have, and I assure you, most of the citations and edits I have are legitimate. In all my previous editions with many people even the people I disputed with, that my primary goal is "Consensus building", as can be seen by the cloud of witnesses in my entire 11 year Wikipedia history here, if people show evidence that I did Original Research, Cited Improper Sources or Synthesis I promptly follow correction. Even Doug Weller here knows that among several occassions, I watered down my own edits several times over (despite the evidence being weighted in my favor), just so that I could build consensus with him. Yet he is dead set on putting me on Wikipedia Inquisition.Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Anyway, I need time to cool off. I'm getting pissed at my life right now. So I haven't been assuming good faith on Doug Weller and the people here. Something that I should do since they did it to me, you are all welcome to objectively review my entire Wikipedia history and kindly show me the parts where I erred and I will correct them. (A minority) As I want to end my Wikipedia life on a positive note before I quit or take maybe a short break in the following weeks.
Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Some serious CIR going on here, based on the number of replies... 167.220.2.145 (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
My mother wass a judge, research Rita Bascos Sarabia in the internet, she is even close to the Supreme Court and is a Candidate for positions there before she died, and from what I learned in real life, is that the amount of accusations that is hurled upon a person does not determined his competence, rather it is the quality of accusations. My mother as former Activist during the dark days of Martial Law and have had dozens of court cases slapped unto her, by the regime, all false (Sedition, War-crimes, Possesion of Illegal Firearms etc. etc.) by hundreds of paid stooges by the dictatorship but she didnt flinch an inch because she knew most of her work was of noble intent and her only crime is ruffling some feathers from the regime. I myself am a former monk and I have had many accusations hurled against me and my fellow clergy by the current regime (Saying that we're in league with criminals, drug addicts and etc. when we only tried to help the least, the lost and last and broke no rule except to expose alot of powerful corrupt people.) Now, I can't compare the Wikipedia community to the Marcos Regime that persecuted my mom, or the current Duterte regime that has persecuted me and my fellow men of the Cloth. Since, Wikipedia, I assume, is full of competent and good intentioned people including Doug Weler, but I just want to point out that the quanity of accusations is not an indication of the competence of a person, Jesus was accused as a Sorceror, Criminal, Drunkard and Glutton because he healed people, tried to talk to and save sinners and fought for the rights of little people against persons in authority but he was a very upright man. I'm not comparing myself to Jesus since to him my merits look like utter waste in comparison, but I just want to say number of accusation does not equal validity of accusations. Anyway, I just wound up poor and used up because I had previous vows of poverty which my religious superiors released me from upon my exit from the monastic life. I need to take a break from Wikipedia anyway. I have worked for free my whole damn life, worked for free saving drug addicts, criminals and prostitutes, devoted so much of my time and effort and money to make Wikipedia better in all 11 years of my stay here (When most people didn't complain about most of my edits except for some minor hiccups), worked for free while helping alot of people pass their Thesises. Etc. etc. And quite frankly it's EMOTIONALLY DRAINING working for free for a decade here, and no one appreciates you and everyone hates because you always take the the underdog side. I have created a hellova alot of articles and alot of cited of references, yet for all my efforts and time put in here, no one even gives me a simple "I love you" or "I appreciate your efforts" even when I became the top Contributor to the Philippines article or the Philippine History Article or the Iloilo Article, or the articles on the Rajahnate of Butuan etc. etc. When people are showered awards and attention for running some bot-program to fix a spelling error. Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC) I am categorically stating it here, righ now. "I AM DONE". Expect me to taper off English Wikipedia in the coming weeks. I wish you all the best of luck and happy life and I will pray for your constant sucess and happiness. I am tired of being everyone's punching bag. Good Night! Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC) Please don't put this rant of my frustrations against Doug Weler. He's only doing his job, weeding out potential vandals. And maybe it's really high time for me to quit Wikipedia. And maybe it's my fault for listening to so many suggestions and ideas that I should be more critical minded instead of trusting. Please forgive him, he's an Administrator and it is his duty to weed out the bad. It's ok if you just continue to accuse me, I don't mind being the cast the bad guy as long as it's for the greater good.Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a court of law and I stopped reading. The above block of text should be enough for anyone to recognize that this is a CIR issue. 167.220.2.145 (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Dear Doug Weller, this discussion section has become messy as I can't follow the conversation. Some of the conversations are truncated. However, I am here as I want to communicate to you all that I'm unfortunately in the process of reviewing again (or better, debunking everything again) one of the newest articles published by Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.. The title is Conquest of Manila (1405). I can sense the exasperation you are all having when dealing with him and I want to join you all. There has to be a solution to this. I am nearing my limit here seeing all of Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.'s contributions which violate basic Wikipedia policies like "No Original Research" and sticking to the source. Stricnina (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Et Tu Strictina? Didn't we had a discussion before? I consented to the deletion of that Battle of Manila Article, becuase we determined it was original research. However, I also said that we should migrate the information that's true to a new article that is totally different to the previous one. Notice that I stated that there is no specified battle there in the new article since there is nothing of that sort mentioned there. I only stated what BERTHOLD LAUFER stated on page 259 on the source... Quote:"Some of the older Spanish authors also entertained the view that the Philippines were once subject to Chinese rule; and Father Gaubil relates in the Lettres edifiantes that Yung-lo maintained a fleet with j thirty thousand men, which sailed to Manila at various times. It was in I571 that the Spaniards and Chinese met for the first time at Mindoro, before Legazpi, the conqueror of the Philippines,undertook his expedition to Manila."
That's to prove that it's not original research (Which you already condemned me to have done before even reading the material). I have been always open to dialogue and correction. I am frankly hurt that I have agreed to you several times over and consented to have so many of my articles deleted and you took this oppurtunity to stab me in the back and join the chorus of people calling for my crucifixion... That's ok even if you violate the Wikipedia standards calling for NPO and assuming Good Faith from other users, I guess you will still consider me as some kind of "disrupter", that's ok I'm used to that, please cast the stones as if I'm not used to that already...

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Your inability to properly indent and insertion of statements WITHIN other people's comments is one of the many reasons I think you have a CIR issue, and wonder how you managed to edit Wikipedia all this time like this. 167.220.2.145 (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Also let me call attention to this. "I have agreed to you several times over and consented to have so many of my articles deleted". If you are creating multiple articles that keep being deleted... perhaps you should stop creating them and instead make drafts. 167.220.2.145 (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Four of my articles are deleted and I made hundreds more which weren't and you base your decisions on that four?
Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Conquest of Manila (1405) still has significant issues. While some of the sources cited there are usable, the conclusions drawn from them in the article are still full of original research. Not a single reliable source cited there describes a "conquest" of Manila, which directly implies a violent conflict. At most, the sources attest to the presence of a Chinese outpost on Luzon, but there's no mention of war or conflict, and the only event that happened in 1405 appears to be that China appointed a governor to the island. signed, Rosguill talk 20:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
There are peaceful conquests as well, conquest comes from the Latin "Con" meaning "with" and "quest" meaning search for, Conquest can be peaceful too as in you can buy territory, the meaning is not all violent or it's sports for example the conquest for the prize is contestation but it is not violent.
Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Also, the Jesuit Priest stated in that article, mentioned that Zheng He sent Thirty Thousand Men to Luzon (which according to Legaspi is the same to Manila). That Jesuit priest was the one who said the Thirty Thousand troops was sent to Manila. Why would someone send Thirty Thousand troops here? Are they going to play soccer? Well in my Monastery days in Bagiuo, we played soccer with the Philippine Military Academy. Maybe the soldiers just want to play a game with the locals. Lols. Love you bro. Thank you for your advice that I should register to JSTOR, but I won't need it since I would be quitting soon.
Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
See, Tht Jesuit priest was the one who said the Thirty Thousand troops was sent to Manila. Why would someone send Thirty Thousand troops there? Are they going to play soccer? is a textbook case of synthesis. Yes, it seems like a plausible inference to say that a fleet with 30,000 troops may be sent to invade somewhere. But unless the source explicitly says that a battle, conquest, or the like took place, we can't report that one did. For all we know, the fleet was there to intimidate but had explicit orders not to attack anyone. If we were having a casual conversation and you made the argument I highlighted, I'd probably agree that it could be evidence of an invasion. But Wikipedia articles demand a higher standard of verifiability than what is merely plausible. signed, Rosguill talk 21:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Well the Spanish did say that a governor was sent to Luzon to rule and he was called Ko Cha Lao according to what is cited by Otley Beyer, even if a battle did not happen (I never stated in the article that a battle happened I only spoke the bare facts that their was a conquest either peaceful or not IDK) certainly a Conquest did happen though since by definition a conquest is a change of status or posession of something from one state to another, not necessarily violent. Like when Sports teams do a conquest of a certain Cup or you do "sexual conquests" in the sense that you have many sexual partners which is not violent either. Conquest does not mean battle. Only change in status of ownership.
Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
See, Tht Jesuit priest was the one who said the Thirty Thousand troops was sent to Manila. Why would someone send Thirty Thousand troops there? Are they going to play soccer? is a textbook case of synthesis. Yes, it seems like a plausible inference to say that a fleet with 30,000 troops may be sent to invade somewhere. But unless the source explicitly says that a battle, conquest, or the like took place, we can't report that one did. For all we know, the fleet was there to intimidate but had explicit orders not to attack anyone. If we were having a casual conversation and you made the argument I highlighted, I'd probably agree that it could be evidence of an invasion. But Wikipedia articles demand a higher standard of verifiability than what is merely plausible. signed, Rosguill talk 21:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
My addition: I will kindly agree with Rosguill that the 30'000 troops may as well be there only for intimidatory purposes. I would also add that there was no mention that those troops were originally there during the 1405 tributary mission to Luzon according to the Ming Shi. As Berthold Laufer said in his 1905 book: "The "Ming shih" (chap. 323, p. I a) relates on this point that in 1405 the Emperor Yunglo sent a high officer to Luzon, who was to govern the country. The result of his visit was the embassy from Luzon' under Ko-ch'a-lao in the same year. How long Yung-lo's delegate remained on the island and of what character his jurisdiction was are not narrated[...]" In other words, the scant information we have does not permit us to know whether there was a military conquest or battle that happened during 1405.
Also, I want to add that Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.'s arguing over the semantics of conquest is absurd, judging from the fact that the added the Conquest of Manila (1405) and Conquest of Manila (1365) under the template Battle of Manila. I have yet to read what a "peaceful battle" is supposed to mean in this context.Stricnina (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok then, your argument is logical. I will remove that from the Template "Battles" since Conquest and Battle are seperate categories, as there are obviously peaceful conquests. Thank you for your contribution. However, your accusation that I was guilty of "Original Research", wasn't true in this case because I simply typed verbatim what that website said. If it wasn't mentioned in the Ming Shih but mentioned in that website it's the author's fault not mine.
Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
BTW I never stated in the article that there was a "Battle" and the word "Conquest" can also be used in non-violent scenarious, i.e."Sexual Conquests", "Sports Conquests" or "Academic Conquests". Etc. Conquest is something to be attained and at it's essence is an issue of ownership not an act of violence. I didn't make the same mistake twice and equate the article as a battle, but simply as a conquest.
I would also like to point out that the Ming Shilu mentioned the term "Govern", you cannot govern a territory unless you exercised sovereignty over it. Clearly, at that point, the Ming exercised Sovereignty over Manila (Whether a battle happened is disputed). What sure did happened is that the Jesuit priest mentioned 30,000 Chinese troops were sent to Luzon and then afterwards a high officer was dispatched there to "govern", if that is not conquest I don't know what is. (Even if a battle may not have happened, Mongols for example didn't need to battle some people since they just surrendered to them).
Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Dear Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr., the Ming Shi Lu is a primary source. Any interpretation of a primary source is left to actual historians. We are not allowed to extrapolate any meaning from any primary source as we are not historians. What "govern" means according to the primary source material is up to an actual historian, not a Wikipedia editor such as you. Please read No original research for more information. Stricnina (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Again why are you accusing me of original research? People change, they are not calcified into a certain state for an indefinite period of time. It was that website who posited that China exercised sovereign power over Manila NOT me. Let me quote Verbatim: "Some of the older Spanish authors also entertained the view that the Philippines were once subject to Chinese rule; and Father Gaubil relates in the Lettres edifiantes that Yung-lo maintained a fleet with thirty thousand men, which sailed to Manila at various times." THE RELATIONS OF THE CHINESE TO THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS (Page 259 from this site: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/philamer/ahd7618.0000.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext "I am sorry if I simply cite what I read Verbatim." Am I guilty of original research then? In fact, this even paints the Philippines in negative light. You would have wished that Filipinos (Which I am and I am very much pro Filipino) should have battled the Chinese but by your own arguments we just seem ot arrive To the conclusion that we surrrendered to them as it seems. (Very uncharacteristic of Filipinos BTW since we don't usually surrender even when we know we would lose since my own ancestors fought in losing wars all the way to the revolution) but I would not put that there since that is Synthesis. Anyway I will humbly defer to your view. There was no battle we just surrendered as stated by the bare facts.Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Dear Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr., just by pulling out the word "sovereignty" or "sovereign power" using a source that do not mention such things means that you are committing personal interpretations of source materials. That counts as original research. The word "sovereign" was only mentioned two times in the Berthold's article and outside the relevant pages, while the word "sovereignty" is absent altogether. Also why name the article "Conquest of Manila (1405)" when the sources didn't even mention the word "conquest" when describing the event? The word "conquest" only appears three times in Laufer's article, two times it refers to the Spanish conquest and the other one is about the "conquest of Terrenate". Again, no mention of "Conquest" of "Manila" during 1405. You are committing original research by applying terminologies with loaded meaning when sources did not even mention such things. We have talked about this numerous times before and I am extremely disappointed that we have to talk again regarding proper use of sources. Stricnina (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok then I am open to changing that Article name how about. Changing it to "governance" of Luzon or something which was strictly said in the sources. Anyway didn't we have this conversation before? I said that we should delete the Battle of Manila article concerning this and that I intend to migrate it to a more appropriate name. I distictly remembered me mentioning that the new article would be labelled "Incorporation of Manila" or "Conquest of Manila". To which you gave me no reply to that but you agreed with me to delete the previous article. I explicitly asked you if the new terminology was ok but that was brusheda aside. I ask you again now what would be the better terms? Thank you. I really appreciate your contributions.
Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Query Could both the plaintiff and defendant (for lack of a better term) please slow this down a bunch and be FAR more concise on the matter?
  • DW, you have some valid points, but they are being lost amidst copious verbiage. Please be more concise. While bare urls are not desired, they are also not explicitly required. DW stop your edit warring, or you'll be heading to a block; same applies with WP:HOUNDING. At this point, what you've provided here is less clear than it could have been. I recommend something like the following format which might make your points less ambiguous:
  • RBSJ, from the evidence presented here and what I can see in your history, at least some of your references are vague or are not from reliable sources. No, this isn't an inquisition, but DW has claimed your edit history is questionable and user are looking those claims to see if they are accurate. From that history, it seems you have some confusion with copyrights and attribution. Assume that anything you find is indeed copyrighted unless you can prove otherwise (that rule of thumb is much more often correct than incorrect). Likewise, if you quote or use something someone else wrote, even if not copyrighted, is their original work and they should be credited for it. I concur with Drmies that your references are lacking/circuitous/vague and should have more details than what you're providing. Likewise, Rosquill points out one of many issues of WP:SYN that you have indeed done. From your history, it seems clear that you are not making the necessary distinctions and WP:CIR applies in spades here. I support a block on RBSJ to prevent such continuation and escalating blocks as necessary to stop such edits. His editing proves he is capable of learning from such mistakes, but that knowledge needs to be more evident. Buffs (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I honestly support a temprorary block of myself since I stated from earlier that I am indeed quitting or taking a break, it depends on what happens next. I just have a question though. If I am blocked can I still interact with people here? I intend to defend some of my edits.
Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Using your break to argue with other editors would be counter-productive. I wonder whether a topic ban might be more appropriate. Deb (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't want to argue I want to build consensus, notice how in all my edits, it is me who constantly adjusts to criticism? I want to defend my edits but if I am wrong. Then I am open to adjusment.Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Please learn how to properly indent. Reading your diatribes is made even more difficult because you refuse to indent correctly. 2001:4898:80E8:8:D9AA:ABD4:5421:5856 (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
A diatribe is a personal attack tell me how I personally attacked people here when I begged for my Tormentors' forgiveness?
Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

What's all this about? Is there a proposal to WP:Block this user? If not, maybe there should be one so as to narrow the discussion. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

There has been no official proposal to block me yet and this is just an incident report. But as I am quitting or taking a break soon on my own volition. A block would be redundant. But a temporary block would be ok with me.
Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I, for one, think you should quit Wikipedia or be blocked. If you think the sources you used for Conquest of Manila (1405) support what you actually wrote, even support the title, you are indeed too incompetent to be editing Wikipedia. You are also expected to know how to indent your comments after 11 years and 3000 edits. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Wow. Just wow. Back when I was studying for my dual majors degree in Education and Philosophy. We had a class for special Education and we didn't even call people with special needs incompetent. And here I am being called an "incompetent" by an Administrator. A public servant of all people. You are supposed to exercise utmost care discretion when you are in public office. I know this, since my mother was a former Politician, so is my uncle and my Brother. I myself Have been elected into local offices not big but still enough of an experience in leadership. And never ever have I called a person incompetent even when he vexed me. Also, a conquest is not necessarily violent. Most of the Mongol Conquests were peaceful since the people just surrendered to them. Anyway, as seeing that every body hates me here and I don't even get the basic human right of being assumed innocent unless proven guilty I will cut my timeframe for leaving this emotional drain on me called Wikipedia even more, so instead of leaving 2-3 weeks from now. I will be leaving next week. Yes yes judge me on the latest articles wherein I ruffled people's feathers and patently ignore my hundreds of articles which went without a hitch or my thousands of other edits which are acceptable. Anyway, you're the boss here. Call me incompetent if you like but I don't even call kids with special needs incompetent. If you want we could discuss the legal, etymological or normative definitions of incompetent and by the mere fact that I am sane and have capacity to improve already discounts me being an incompetent. Anyway it's all moot since I will be leaving or take a break around next week. Have fun without me and please do try to overdo my top Contributor status among several wiki articles since apparently I'm "Incompetent" Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Block Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. until they can prove competence in editing, indenting, and reliable sources[edit]

  • Support as nom because this has gone on long enough. 2001:4898:80E8:8:D9AA:ABD4:5421:5856 (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support for the inability to see the SYNTH and sourcing problems raised above, and for comments such as at 00:05, 22 August 2019 where the substantive issues are ducked again. Johnuniq (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. I'll be the bad guy, because doing this via a community proposal seems to me to be just prolonging the agony, and tormenting the user needlessly. This is clearly a good-faith editor, but as regards competence, many of their remarks above are very alarming, such as this about how he goes by by Facebook and personal friends whose ideas seep into his. And "I just didn't put my source in the statment since I'm afraid it might make Americans look bad".[96] This great long incremental post,[97] [98] [99] [100] [101], as something posted on ANI, is alarming altogether; not even the hardworking IP 167.220.2.145 could face reading it all the way through. I have a lot of sympathy with Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.; it pulls at my heartstrings when he says repeatedly that he might as well quit Wikipedia. But, unfortunately, when he qualifies it as "quit or take maybe a short break in the following weeks", it depresses me further, because I actually think he does need to leave. There are too many basic problems, and too many people have wasted too much time giving advice that he doesn't profit from. As I'm always saying, the time and patience of good editors is Wikipedia's most precious resource. That resource is obviously being squandered here. I have blocked indefinitely because the user is a net negative, however well-meaning. Bishonen | talk 04:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC).

User:Ngokevin rapid fire promotional campaign in progress[edit]

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 Wikipedia 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).

Discussion re removal of "Subscription required" from sourcing[edit]

Boldly closing as per BMK - Not to be rude (Apologies for the abrupt closure) but this really isn't the best place for this conversation, Please go to VP/T or AN, nac. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 18:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@KAVEBEAR: @Amitchell125: @Nikkimaria: @Trappist the monk: @Samwalton9: Please direct me to the original discussion and decision on this. For a few months now, bots and individuals have been removing "Subscription required" from sourcing. In doing so, they have been noting a decision on this. I can't find where I saw that recently. But I do notice users of various sources available through Wikipedia Library, i.e. JSTOR, Questia, ProjectMuse, etc., are continuing to add "Subscription required". If it's removed, someone comes along later and adds it back. Whatever the policy is, can we please have it in a defined policy, and notice made to people who have access through Wikipedia Library? If it's not a set policy, then can we please stop the removal of it? As is, it's back and forth on adding it, removing it, and adding it back. — Maile (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I think, see Help:Citation Style 1#Registration or subscription required for documentation on it, though I don't know if there's a specific discussion. The thing is what changed was more a matter of what fields the templates/modules support than specific policy, and from what I can see it's for a good reason. Rather than having the generic subscription=yes, since an individual citation can have a bunch of links (url=, doi=, jstor=, chapter-url=, etc.), and each of those may be different, there are now separate "access" fields for each. So if chapter-url= requires a subscription, but url= does not, subscription= would give inadequate information, but chapter-url-access=subscription. Same if you want to link both JSTOR and a DOI, but one of them has free access and the other does not. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I raised it at some template discussion two or three months ago. Can't say I am impressed with it as an idea. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
It is not clear if Editor Maile66 is referring to the cs1|2 template parameters |subscription= and |registration= because none of the cs1|2 template nor any of their parameters are mentioned in the OP. Neither are there any links or diffs to help readers of this topic to figure that out. But, if Editor Maile66 is referring to cs1|2 template parameters |subscription= and |registration=, there was an RFC the closing summary of which says:
  • Aspect B3 (Deprecating/eliminating/supporting old and new systems): There is a clear preference to Deprecate the old system.
|subscription= and |registration= are the 'old system' which were deprecated at this edit 20 April 2019.
Trappist the monk (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk: what I am specifically referring to are bots/individuals who have removed the "Subscription required" template from sourcing on articles, where they've noted cryptic references to why. Now a GAC review re-added "Subscription required" to a sourcing on an article I created. I removed it, and the editor who had added it is confused. As I am. Is it a set policy - or is it not - to allow editors to add "Subscription required" to their sourcing? If it is not a written policy on the removal, then editors should stop removing it. If it is a set policy, it needs to be somewhere everybody can link to. Right now, it's a mini-edit war. — Maile (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
This is about Kalākaua's 1874–75 state visit to the United States? If so, why am I pinged into this conversation? Neither I nor my bot account have ever edited that article; {{subscription required}} is not a cs1|2 template (also a template and doc page that I have never edited) so why am I here?
Trappist the monk (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Is this really the proper place for this discussion? It sounds like it would be better for VPP or AN. It certainly doesn;t seem like an "incident". Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
    I agree, this isn't an incident and really doesn't require administrator attention. I move to close, especially now that a link has been provided to the RfC that deprecated the nonspecific subscription/registration parameters from CS1/CS2 templates. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Remind me again with a link. What do you see above that is a link to an RFC that answers my original inquiry? — Maile (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
See above for the RfC. If it doesn't fully answer your question, then you're encouraged to bring it up at the village pump. ANI is for incidents requiring administrators' attention. Your question doesn't describe an incident nor one that requires administrative attention. It's a request for information. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
The RFC does not answer Editor Maile66's questions because it does not apply to the {{subscription required}} and {{registration required}} templates.
Trappist the monk (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Just a quick note from the Wikipedia Library's side - we never required the use of this parameter, merely suggesting it as the then best practice. If consensus on it has changed then no arguments from us! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

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

User:ديما مهدي ابوزينة[edit]

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

This new user is adding images, often inappropriate, often with titles in Arabic script (which I cannot read at all). Comments on the talk page have been ignored, and there is no evidence that English can be used to communicate with this person. I suggest they should be blocked. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Since they have done it again without answering any messages on their talk page, I have blocked them. ST47 (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Asia country dispute page[edit]

Sorry, this is board is not a centralized discussion for content disputes. Please take advantage of your dispute resolution resources, instead. El_C 20:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi editors,

I would like to bring to light a bitter and ongoing dispute on the list of sovereign states and dependent territories page that has been far too prolonged and which I feel deserves greater attention on this forum. The problem revolves mostly around how to categorize Palestine, Israel, and Taiwan and what qualifies a polity to be considered a sovereign country. It is also important to note that I respect and welcome all viewpoints and strongly discourage ad hominem and profane attacks. The central parties to the dispute are AuH20republican and some pro Arab league editors and their sock puppets. A few years ago, a compromise was reached in which Palestine would be grouped with Taiwan Kosovo and Western Sahara as opposed to Abkhazia South Ossetia Northern Cyprus artsakh, and Somaliland, but not with the sovereign states, in which in his view Israel is more worthy of belonging to. His justification is that although a majority of the worlds countries recognize Palestine, most of the ones that do not are most economic and political western powers and that Palestine was “Rejected” (rather than failed to achieve due to the threat of a US veto) UN membership, as he believes regardless of a us veto 8 of 9 unsc members would vote in favour at any given time. The counter argument, however, is that Palestine was admitted as an observer state in 2012 with an overwhelming majority (138 members, the same amount that currently recognize Palestine), in which half of the process of in membership was completed and Palestine is technically a state under the UN charter. They also argue that 138/193 ( 71.5% ) constitutes a majority of the UN across most of Asia, the americas, and Africa, and parts of Europe and Oceania, and that it is on similar legal footing as is Israel (recognized by 163/193 (84.5%) of the UN), a 25 country difference than Palestine). In addition, they suggest that at any given time, notwithstanding the obstacle of a us veto threatened or actual, it is possible for Palestine to still acquire 9 or more votes on the UNSC if, aside 8 votes in favour, a few other friendly non permanent members are likely to vote in favour (although there was one case in 2014 that Nigeria, who was seen as likely to vote yes, changed its mind at the last minute and joined 4 other nations in abstaining, effectively leaving Palestine for dead). Personally, I see some validity in AuH20republicans arguement that Palestine can do with more western powers joining its side as does Israel with Muslim and Arab states and I respect both opinions once again. however, due in part to my country, China, having to deal with threats to its sovereignty and having been denied recognition by most western states for 3 decades after independence (1949-1979), I would say I lean more towards the latter argument. However, it would be far more refreshing to get to read the opinions of other editors, especially those frequenting the Asia countries page talk page. In addition, I invite the following editors to state their opinions on the debate;

Myasuda resnjari DocWatson42 Xindeho Aakanksha55 Haranari Barracuda41

Lo meiin (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


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

Judge1234[edit]

Judge1234 has been repeatedly making copyvios of Gordon life sciences Institute, and blanked other pages of irrelevant topics to push their possible COI. They have also been suspiciously editing articles about Kuo-Chen Chou, showing a possible conflict of interest. Nigos (t@lk Contribs) 00:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

John A. Palmer (lawyer) is a probable hoax[edit]

I speedy deleted the article (and redirect) as a hoax. El_C 06:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is related to the discussion above #John A. Palmer (Lawyer). Please see the comments of Cullen328 and myself on the AfD here on the very strong probability that the article John A Palmer is a hoax and should be speedy deleted under G3. The creator User:John Doe Texas should be indeffed, and the image in the article deleted as a hoax as well (I've already FfD'd it here). Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


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