Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

• Wikipevi.acc (talk · contribs)

It brings me great pain to report a user for

Any user who visits User talk:Wikipevi.acc will see that, despite warnings and pleas for communication,^[1][2] they have continued a pattern of moving clearly unfinished articles into mainspace (Special:Log/Wikipevi.acc says it all). The thing that went to far was the move that just happened from draftspace to a nonexistent article's talk page.[3] This is the second time they've done this.

It'd help if I was a bit more confident with being a pagemover and NPP reviewer. This user did put out a request for help.^[4] I have no clue why they self-reverted that immediately.

I don't know what to do for this user. They keep unintentionally breaking things and don't seem to be learning nor displaying curiosity by asking questions about things. They just keep creating the same poorly written articles that keep getting deleted. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Nom is right - if the user can engage we might be able to do something about it, preferably an all-round consensus approach and some teaching, less preferably a TBAN. But we need @Wikipevi.acc: to be willing to talk. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Back in April I tried to get him(her?) to engage and talk about what they were doing, because they clearly were struggling. However they haven't been particularly responsive, with a total of 12 talk space contributions. ~

problem solving 15:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

They thanked me for the AN/I notice... –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Uncle G: nope, i will not call anyone a vandaliser or maker of disruptive edits, but if someone make edits that are not considered laws by any source or logic and other editors i will just ask other more experienced editors to look into that and just to check the history of a given page, i won't call him vandaliser i will just tell them that there are recent edits that needs to be looked up. (As it has worked with a recent page), i have no quarmls or dispute with anyone this is a free site, but edits need to be truevand accurate. Thats it. Cheers!!AdamPrideTN (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to know whether you can be trusted anymore. You continuously promise to not bother me and not talk badly about me or at me, which by looking at the history those don't last long. As you said that you yet again contradicted yourself but then going to attack me again, give a snide comment about my edits not being "true and accurate". I believe AdamPrideTN doesn't have the ability to learn to be WP:CIVIL and that he may be WP:NOTHERE. Moneyspender (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Moneyspender: WP:NOTHERE, really dude, pffff, after a year of more than 4000 edits, and updating pages on daily bases, pffff. Ok. Will u just let it go please, i apologised and answered ok. Thx. Bye!!! AdamPrideTN (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have the community decide what should be done. Rule breaking should not come without a consequence especially since you have had multiple warnings. Moneyspender (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The community thinks that both of you should indent properly, and start using grown-up language, for starters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 00:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the above comment, which Moneyspender unilaterally removed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it wasn't contributing anything to the conversation and as it was unsigned and it was a new user who had just made their account a few days ago, that it may have been a test edit or something but ok. Moneyspender (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You know Drmies (who made the post you removed) isn't a new user, right? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sparring between Moneyspender and AdamPrideTN has been in my orbit recently, since Moneyspender had edited on LGBT rights in Singapore, and I watch recent edits Singapore related pages through Index of Singapore-related articles. Moneyspender, the edits you did on LGBT rights in Singapore is similar across other LGBT pages, i.e. LGBT rights in Tunisia. I warned you on the edits in Singapore's page and I quote in verbatim:

I do not dispute that there maybe laws that can be applied on LGBT. However, in my view these are opinions as they are not backed by facts which shows that these laws as been applied on the community. Were there cases published that utilised these laws on the community? If so, cite them. I am not a legal professional, and I am assuming that you aren't as well (without an explicit otherwise from you) at the moment. We don't interpret the laws here. Wikipedia is not for original research content. I cannot emphasize any more, cite your sources.

- on Moneyspender's talk page.

It is clear that you didn't take this message to heart given that Kwamikagami has also recently replied in his revision comments on your unsourced edits on LGBT rights in Tunisia.

AdamPrideTN may be in the wrong for using the words he used, but you aren't in the clear as well. The words you use to convey your intent in revision comments here and elsewhere, and everywhere else seems to indicate that you are adopt a hostile posture or assuming bad faith in other editors. Please don't carry on thinking that you are right in your edits and your language that you use here. Rightfully, any editors here could have already reported you for edit warring and persistently introducing unsourced claims or facts into multiple articles, and maybe assuming bad faith in other editors. robertsky (talk) 05:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AdamPrideTN: I think the problem may be that you don't know what the words "vandal" and "vandalize" mean here on WP. They have specific, in-house meanings. A vandal is not someone who makes POV edits, even if they purposefully misinterpret their sources. (Of course, how do we know they did it on purpose? Perhaps they really understand the sources to mean what they write?) A vandal is someone who blanks the LGBT rights in Tunisia article and replaces it with "Tunisians are fags!!!". User Moneyspender is not a vandal. He has not vandalized the article. You don't need to stop debating him. You can continue to engage with him. But you do need to stop calling him a "vandal", or say that he's "vandalizing" an article, either to his face or on someone else's page. You need to stop saying he has an agenda, or is trying to destroy the article, or anything else about his purpose or his motives. Discuss what he writes, and only what he writes. "His edit is wrong because ... it is not supported by his source, it is OR, it is contradicted by another source," etc. Not "Moneyspender is bad", but "Moneyspender's edit is bad". Okay? I know it gets frustrating -- I have the same problem myself -- but casting aspersions on Moneyspender will not make people sympathetic to you, only sympathetic to Moneyspender.

If you keep calling Moneyspender names (and calling him a "vandal" or saying he's "vandalizing" is calling him names), then you will be blocked. Then Moneyspender will be free to edit the articles as he sees fit, without you being able to intervene. Think of that the next time you get frustrated. — kwami (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/actually I didn't thanks for pointing that out. Next time he should just remember to sign his comments. robertsky I did take it to heart and the changes were sourced. It was determined that the sources were not seen as good enough or clear enough to be used in these particular articles. So now I'm leaving them be. And as for the tone of my post everyone has a breaking point, I think you would eventually lose your cool if you had someone badmouthing you after repeated claiming he would stop. But yes I could have been more tasteful with wording. Duly noted. Thanks for the advice. Moneyspender (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_in_Jamaica&oldid=910055275 See the description of the edit he made "(Again the page was perfectly fine before u vandalise it with wrong info. Stop doing that please mr. Moneyspender)." Any chance of someone taking action now. This is the 6th? or 7th? time (Ive lost track) he's promised and not stopped harassing, doing personal attacks and assuming bad faith. I am now proposing a block but you decide the length you think fits. I'm one trying to reason or talk to him he's obvious not listening to me or anyone else. Moneyspender (talk) 09:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before you decide here is one more example of his personal attacks on me, now it seems like he is also wp:Hounding, following me into page I go into. Moneyspender (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this "latest example", Adam hasn't edited that page in a week. He also edited that page before you did. Literally, your first edit to that page was after an edit Adam made. Regardless of whether Adam's edit summary was appropriate, the inaccuracies in your complaint raise serious questions regarding

WP:CIR. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@Kwamikagami: @Mendaliv: @Robertsky: @Drmies: @Someguy1221: Thank you all and i see, i am listening and i understand all that and i see, a mistake and confusion on my part took place and i'm sorry for it. I Will make this mistake ever again.

@Moneyspender: for the last time i am sincercerly sorry for what seems was a personal attack from me and using words like vadal vandalise, its true at first i was frustrated and wrong, i am listening and see that i confused notions and hurt u by it, sorry fir the bad faith, for making u feel bad or hurting ur feelings, i am sorry and i promise this will never ever happen again, and as promised i will never address u or mention ur name ever again. Sorry. Bye!!!AdamPrideTN (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) My competency is fine I never had it was the most recent one just that it was an addito=nal (abeit older) example of his typical behaviors. Now that's been cleared up. How can we trust your promises you haven't been one for following or keeping to them before AdamPrideTN. What if you break your promise again? There is no such things as infinite chances here. The way you go back and forth makes it seem more like you only temporarily apologize because others are getting on your case and less like you're actually sorry. I can assume good faith and hope that's not what I'm seeing, but your past makes it harder and harder. Moneyspender (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Moneyspender:, u are right, a mistake happened before many times, i acknowledge that, and promise will not make that mistake ever again, nor for him nor anyone else,

@Moneyspender: again, really sorry!AdamPrideTN (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 2A01:4C8:839:F476:7567:4680:BFE4:92C2 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2A01:4C8:839:F476:C10B:9790:61AD:B7B2 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1015#Potentially_WP:CIR_editor_editing_sports_related_pages - this user is making very similar (problematic) edits to similar article; which leads me to believe this is block evasion... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added another IP with similar editing pattern. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Special:Contributions/2A01:4C8:839:F476::/64 for two weeks for evasion of the block of User:NG Wilkinson. That was the account named in the previous ANI of 8 August:

• NG Wilkinson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

The /64 guy shares NG Wilkinson's pattern of "Mobile edit, Mobile app edit, iOS app edit" in his edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• 5.142.197.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 5.142.228.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 95.52.16.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 95.52.18.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 95.54.185.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 95.54.188.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 178.68.118.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 178.68.113.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 178.68.127.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I had thought this was a humdrum case of undisclosed paid editing, but there's something odd going on, and

If anyone has thoughts about what this editor/these editors might be up to, I'd like to know. XOR'easter (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like you forgot to warn some of the IP's, so I've done that for you. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• This is probably an example of ill-advised paid editing. The IPs are acting oddly but that may be a hamfisted attempt to appear as something other than an SPA. It's quite possible that their command of English might not be the best, so they may not fully understand what they're doing.
  talk) 19:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Back in the days of Project:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive185#Hidden page game these were sandbox fairies, although sandbox fairies did not do corporate promotion as well. Here are some accounts that they intersect. Uncle G (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • TastySpam (talk · contribs)
  • Kayvon2008 (talk · contribs)

Thanks for the comments, all. My most plausible guess was that this was a very "you get what you pay for" example of paid editing, perhaps trying to look more legitimate by racking up edits, but I'm still a bit surprised by the places they wandered into to make those edits. Some of those pages are far enough behind the scenes that casual and even not-so-casual editors don't know they exist, it seems to me. XOR'easter (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deacon Vorbis is a very valuable math editor, but I've run into him at the math ref desk a few times when he removed my comments pointing to the well established but controversial idea that infinities don;t really exist. The main issue with Deacon Vorbis' behavior is that he simply removes my comments as if it were vandalism when the commonly accepted norm is to hat a contribution, and that only if the contribution made were inappropriate for the discussion at hand. Outright vandalism must, of course, be simply removed.

This is the diff for his latest revert. His edit summary is totally misleading. First note that Deacon Vorbis' expertise in mathematics does not give him the right to be the judge and jury of what is legitimate math and what is not. He has dismissed people like Doron Zeilberger as kooks and cranks because of their work on ultrafinitism, he is allowed to hold that opinion and write on the ref desk why it's all wrong. But he goes too far when he doesn't allow other editors to point to the (ultra)finitist arguments of why infinite quantities are ambiguous and everything can in principle always be re-interpreted in finitistic terms. One can argue whether such an argument is pertinent in a certain math desk topic, an impertinent discussion may be hatted but not simply outright removed. But in this case the topic was about infinities and a hierarchy of ever larger infinities.

And before we get into a discussion here about the fringe nature of e.g. Doron Zeilberger's opinions, let me point to Formalism (philosophy of mathematics), which is pretty much what I based my comment on. Specifically from this source: "The guiding idea behind formalism is that mathematics is not a body of propositions representing an abstract sector of reality but is much more akin to a game, bringing with it no more commitment to an ontology of objects or properties than ludo or chess."

Count Iblis (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to go make dinner and can't respond to this in detail. The short version is that Count Iblis is

WP:NOTHERE and at the very least should be topic banned from the math ref desk; I'll have a better answer and get some diffs and such when I get back. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

You have been warned at the 3RR board before because of your removals of my comments. If it's true that I'm

WP:NOTHERE. You're not allowed to be the judge and jury, and this thread is about you behaving like that. Count Iblis (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note that people have raised

WP:NOTHERE before against me, let me point out that I edit this site more often than Wikipedia, and I'm extremely busy with research work in mathematical physics. As one can see my reputation on contributing to mathematics is quite good, although it's mostly outside of Wikipedia. Here on Wikipedia I make infrequent large contributions e.g. I wrote the entire Gaussian quadrature#General formula for the weights section from scratch. Count Iblis (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I forgot to mention that I notified Deacon Vorbis and that I'm not asking for any sanctions against Deacon Vorbis. The point of this thread is to remind him that he cannot simply remove contributions on the ref desk that are not to his taste. Count Iblis (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edit in question, I don't see a problem. The reference desk is not a place to

WP:FRINGE theories. I'd say that claiming infinity isn't real is pretty fringe, and I support DV's removal. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

It's not fringe in the sense commonly used in science, the way I invoked my argument is totally standard in mathematics. The argument made is not fringe, it's a well known and accepted argument, it's just that most mathematicians still favor an ontology involving infinities. Count Iblis (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Response. I've struck my claim of NOTHERE and promise to get diffs, because after eating, I just don't feel like I really care enough. What I'll say, though, is that as far as I can tell, Count Iblis has some sort of personal philosophical issues with math that involves infinite sets. This is a fringe view and fairly unusual, but whatever. However, he's had a habit of jumping in to math ref desk questions that are at best only extremely tenuously related to this to promote this view either directly or indirectly. This isn't an appropriate use of the ref desk. It would be like someone trying to talk about cold fusion at the science desk every time someone brought up a question about renewable energy. In all fairness, he's provided useful responses there, too, and I have absolutely no problem in that regard. But problematic use of the ref desk is problematic. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except that finitism in mathematics cannot be compared to cold fusion in physics. A more appropriate comparison is perhaps a discussion on local determinism in quantum mechanics and how the violation of Bell's inequalities disproves this. Suppose that editor Hossenfelder appears there, raising the superdeterminism loophole. This is fringe only in the sense that it's not considered to be a likely possibility, it's not fringe like cold fusion. Removing the contribution from the discussion would not be appropriate, as it was not disruptive to have mentioned that possibility. But if editor Luboš Motl would edit there and encounter Hossenfelder's contribution, then it's not difficult to guess what would happen. Count Iblis (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions are FRINGE in the sense that they represent a viewpoint held by a small minority of relevant experts. Answering questions on the refdesk with fringe viewpoints is questionable to begin with, and failing to disclose that is doing the OP a disservice. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that mentioning that it's a minority POV would be good to do. But just like on the science refdesk if someone were to invoke a rather far-out idea (i.e. fringe but not in the sense of being crackpot), then I could comment on that by pointing that out, i.e. simply writer down a comment saying that this is a rather far-out idea. What I'm not allowed to do is to remove the contribution. At most I could hat the contribution if this is something that's derailing the discussion. Count Iblis (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It's unlikely that ANI regulars will have sufficient enthusiasm to examine the refdesks but Count Iblis might recall times such as when another user was topic banned. @Count Iblis: Are you sure you want people from ANI to investigate? Wikipedia is not an exercise in liberty and if Deacon Vorbis thinks some of your comments should be removed it is extremely likely that they should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Reference Desks are supported by a set of high-quality guidelines. See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines. These represent the collective wisdom of a significant number of experienced Users over a long period of time. Users who volunteer on the Reference Desks should be familiar with these Guidelines.

The current dispute between two Users should be assessed against these Guidelines. Two sections in particular seem highly relevant:

1. Content and tone
2. When removing or redacting a posting

Dolphin (t) 13:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Count Iblis has some sort of personal philosophical issues with math that involves

Whatever you think about issues 2,3, and 4, removal of the comment was not appropriate as I made a comment to not even the OP but to Meni invoking what Meni had said and simply invoked the well known formalist POV that simply says that mathematics can always be interpreted as a game played with symbols, see Formalism (philosophy of mathematics). There is nothing controversial about that, what conclusions you draw from that about the ontology of infinite sets is a different matter, of course. But given that the topic subject was precisely about the hierarchy of ever larger infinities, it was not inappropriate in this particular case. And if it needed to be mentioned that few mathematicians would take the formalist view to mean that infinite sets don't really exist, nothing would have stopped someone to mention that as well. If that discussion were to be seen to derail addressing the OP's question, then we deal with that by hatting the side discussion. Deletion is only done in extreme case like vandalism, contributions from banned users etc.

When I was a new editor here in 2004 and was too aggressive in keeping nonsense out of our climate change articles, I was not told: "Good work, 100% spot on". I was told by Admins here that however frustrating it is to keep the articles in good shape using the rules we have, it is more important to stick to the rules than to get to the correct version of the article by all means (there was no dispute that I was reverting nonsense).

Issue 3 isn't all that relevant, as it's not like I show up at the math desk every day starting discussions or posting comments advertising finitism.

Issue 4, not all that relevant, but I take the position that mathematics is not a body of propositions representing an abstract sector of reality but is much more akin to a game, bringing with it no more commitment to an ontology of objects or properties than ludo or chess. And if we take the view that we apply math also to the real world and there exist infinite quantities in the real world, then I can point to page 12 of this book, basically you only obtain the continuum we observe as a limit, you can't work with it directly when the difference between taking that limit and having it really exist would matter as it does in QFT. Count Iblis (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Count Iblis's refdesk comment was mathematically wrong and not very helpful, but not disruptive enough to warrant removal. Deacon Vorbis should have left it alone. Meni Rosenfeld's comment about matching up countable ordinals with integers had nothing to do with formalism or finitism, but rather, I think Meni Rosenfeld was referring to ordinal notations which are basically ways to label the countable ordinals (up to some maximum that depends on the notation, since the set of all countable ordinals is itself uncountable) with integers. That is a conventional topic in set theory.

  Ultrafinitism in mathematics (the disbelief in infinite cardinalities or very large finite ones) is not exactly "fringe", it's just a minority viewpoint. Edward Nelson was a noted proponent and there are some interesting Math Overflow pages about it. Joel David Hamkins is currently doing some work related to it.[17] Count Iblis is a good refdesk contributor in physics and math topics related to physics, but the topics in dispute (philosophy of math, and mathematical logic / set theory) are outside of his area imho. I'd suggest that he study those subjects some more before expostulating about them on refdesk, since his post does come across as uninformed. He might find some of the writings from Edward Nelson's Princeton homepage (it is still up) to be of interest. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about the reference desk, but encountered Deacon_Vorbis’s attempts to force own understanding of collaboration upon users several times, the last incident has been [18] [19]. May Deacon_Vorbis

Hi. In the last months an anonymous editor has been trolling the Calabria page, by pushing the same exact edit again and again in the lede sentence, stating that Calabria shares a border with Sicily (obviously not, because Sicily is an island). The first instance was on 21 June and it has been going on for months. Multiple users have dealt with this (myself, User:Vaselineeeeeeee and User:El C) and I even asked for temporary page protection which was granted for four days until yesterday. Of course today it started all over again. I don't report all the diffs because they are all basically the same. The IPs are

• 79.32.106.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 79.52.110.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 62.211.230.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.57.43.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 87.6.108.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 5.91.2.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 79.12.110.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You can see from the contribution list that their only purpose has been trolling the

My internet is wonky right now so I'm not going to try blocking ranges, but I'll note for anyone curious, that except for 5.91.2.24 these are all the same ISP. I hate that ISP. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And, just in, another one

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

• Meh, how about reinstating the edit but changing it to say Calabria is "neighbored" (rather than bordered) to the southwest by Sicily, or giving a little more detail. Calabria is separated from Sicily by the Strait of Messina which is less than 2 miles across at its narrowest point, and there have been perennial proposals (going back to the Romans) to build a Strait of Messina Bridge across the strait. Without examining the edit history my first guess would be that writing "bordered" is a minor misuse of English, maybe by a non-native speaker, rather than trolling. I'd say if you can drive a car across a bridge from country A to country B, it's most only slightly inaccurate to say that the countries border each other; and if the only thing stopping you is that the bridge is not yet built (but building it is practical and seriously proposed) then that's almost as good. So I wouldn't freak out about this. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that since there is a tunnel between France and the UK, the two countries have a land border, because I can pass between country A and country B by car? I agree with the rewording, but a (non-existent) bridge or highway is not a border. There's a

talk) 08:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

"So you are saying that since there is a tunnel between France and the UK, the two countries have a land border" No, I'm saying that statement would be slightly inaccurate-- far less inaccurate than saying that e.g. that the UK has a land border with Mongolia. The sentence in your version of the diff doesn't say anything about Sicily so the other person added some info that is basically helpful in describing the geography even though it's not quite right. I'd suggest editing their contribution to state the info more precisely, instead of reverting it. Did you try that? I think a native English speaker would not have written "south-west" with a hyphen, so that's why it came across as possible confusion about the exact connotations of the word border.

Anyway don't freak out. Someone looking at the map of the US could quite reasonably think that Illinois shares a border with Iowa, and it wouldn't have occurred to me til just now that that's an error. I'm not sure it's an error even now. But if I have it right, you get from Illinois to Iowa by crossing the Mississippi River. I also remember when you drive through the Lincoln Tunnel between NY and NJ, somewhere in the middle there is a stripe painted on the wall separating the NY from the NJ side. One could reasonably call that the border. There are similar things on some bridges as well. So you are quibbling. If someone makes a worthwhile contribution with a bug, keep the contribution and fix the bug. Don't be a low-effort reverter. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't been paying attention. The reason why I issued this notice is not the edit in itself: look at the contribution lists of the IPs that I cited. This is not how Wikipedia should work, and it constitutes disruptive behavior. I already said that I agree with a rewording, I'm not quibbling. And anyway, there is no bridge between Calabria and Sicily, therefore no border sign. There's also a discussion about it on

talk) 11:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Why have you not gone to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket with this? Uncle G (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Following Uncle G's comments, I don't see any discussion on the article's talkpage and no discussion on AA's talkpage, apart from telling them of this ANI discussion! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I wanted to get a neutral perspective on the issue and not just the opinions of cricket fans. The only place AssociateAffiliate has discussed his views is in the edit summaries of the Jimmy Kirkwood page which not really appropriate. Plus a patronising message on my talk page. Djln Djln (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• This was explained on your talk page, which, far from being patronising, actually laid out the way cricketers are categorised by the cricket project. So if you consider that patronising, then wow. In future I won't even give the decency of an explanation. So on Kirkwood. If you were to simply create an article about his cricket, he'd not meet
  WP:CRIN notability guideline. If their cricket isn't notable to warrant inclusion they aren't categorised. As mentioned, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket is the place to seek change. I'm just upholding the way the project categorises players and teams, which makes total sense. StickyWicket (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • This nonsensical rant should explain why I chose to seek a neutral opinion and not start a discussion at the cricket talk page. The statement "In future I won't even give the decency of an explanation" is not really appropriate or helpful. Just a really poor attitude. None of this nonsense above explains why an Ireland international cricketer has been removed from the [category:Irish cricketers] and [category:cricketers from Northern Ireland]. Unlike Phil Neville and Piers Morgan, Kirkwood was an international cricketer. What part of this does AssociateAffiliate not get. I totally get that every back garden cricketer shouldn't be included in cricket categories. However it is standard across other sports categories to include all players, not just internationals, if they have played at a decent competitive level. Plus not being notable in one occupation/field does not exclude an article from being placed in a category. For example none of the people in [Category:Category:Schoolteachers from Northern Ireland] or [Category:Women lawyers from Northern Ireland] is notable for being a schoolteacher or a lawyer. They are notable for being sportspeople, politicians, writers, poets etc. Should these categories be nominated for deletion. Djln Djln (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This nonsensical rant should explain why I chose to seek a neutral opinion and not start a discussion at the cricket talk page. Unfortunately, you are required to at least attempt to discuss this at the talk page. You may have a point about categorization; I don't normally dabble in those things. But at the end of the day, this is a content dispute, and this board is not the place to hash out content disputes. Please try to resolve the dispute on the talk page, and failing that, you may find the page Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to be helpful. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry, but this user is just completely irrational and unreasonable, and any attempt to reason just results personal in attacks. They are unwilling to discuss either on my talk page or the cricket project talk page. Prior to that, had they done their homework and looked at how the cricket project catogrises teams and players, they'd have realised exactly how it's done. Instead, they didn't bother to check before or even ask, just muscle in and when corrected (with a friendly explanation of how we categorise according to match status), the user reacts with ignorant rants and personal attacks. Oh and for the record, Kirkwood is not an international cricketer. His matches were minor (non first-class and he'd fail
  WP:CRIN as a standalone) and cannot be recongised as such. Though, the user in question obviously knows much more about cricket than the rest of us, having already claimed Kirkwood was a first-class cricketer. And you speak of a decent competitive level... yeah that's called first-class, List A and Twenty20 cricket - not sure what part of that you don't get. It's handed out to a select amount of teams, either by the ICC or full member boards. It's simply astonishing that, having been given examples of how it's been done for that last 15 years on CRIC, that you contiune to know best. I don't have the poor attitude, that'll be you who refuses to discuss the matter... I wonder why? StickyWicket (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I also see you have taken it upon yourself prior to this to change the protocol for cricketers without consulting the project first, such as here and have a track record of creating categories that get deleted. Maybe you should seek consensus instead of rubbing people up the wrong way? StickyWicket (talk) 09:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• AssociateAffiliates comments above are just further proof of why I started the discussion here. I have not made any personal attacks here at all. AssociateAffiliate has launched into a personal attack here against me just because I had the audacity to challenge their reasoning which contradicts every other method of categorising sportspeople. Djln Djln (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between International Cricket (first class) and International Cricket (Non first class) -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First-class cricket refers to the top levels of "red ball" cricket, such as test cricket, which doesn't have a limitation on the number of overs each side may bat (though there is usually a time limitation for the match). Non-first-class international cricket would be "white ball" formats including one-day international (ODI) and Twenty20 international (T20I) matches: limited-overs formats played at the international level. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between international first-class cricket and non-international multi-day cricket is just the status of the match. Djln doesn't get that cricket is one of the few sports that places importance on the status of matches, with a large emphasis placed on stats. This is something which not many other sports do - so CRIC's way of categorising falls completely in line with how the sport rates matches by status (both by player and team, which is reflected in all our categories). First-class cricket (ranging from 3-5 days) is sanctioned either by the ICC or a full member board. So when Kirkwood played a few multi-day matches in the 1980s, they aren't considered as full-internationals so fall under the bracket of minor matches. This is because the ECB (being a full member) didn't sanction the matches as first-class and Ireland weren't ICC members until 1993, so the ICC wouldn't have conferred any status on the matches. So the matches go under the miscellaneous bracket and are non-internationals. StickyWicket (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Djln, you haven't challenged anything. You were blissfully unaware of how CRIC categorises, otherwise you'd have noticed Category:Irish cricketers contained 534 first-class/List A/Twenty20 cricketers and Category:Players in Irish domestic cricket by team were all major teams and asked on the cricket talk page if it was appropriate to categorise players/teams that don't fall under that bracket. StickyWicket (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just say, classifying this as patronizing and this as nonsensical is simply a very bizarre take on things. It seems to me polite, civil, rational, and self-consistent. It is possible for reasonable people to disagree on the standards for inclusion in the national cricket categories, but I don't see any reason that disagreement needs to lead to this page. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lot's of editors going off on tangents here. It's not really about the differences between test and T20 etc. It about correct use of categories. The fact is Kirkwood is Irish, from Northern Ireland and played cricket for the Ireland cricket team. He more than qualifies to be placed in Category:Irish cricketers and Category:Cricketers from Northern Ireland. Wikipedia is basically denying the truth if editors believe otherwise. Change "association footballers" for cricket here and it is more obvious. There are separate categories for cricketers who played international cricket in it's various forms, just as there is in association football, rugby union etc. Why is cricket treated differently ? Categories should not have long winded explanations of who qualifies and who doesn't. It should be clear and obvious from the title. Djln Djln (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone like to take a look at the 5 day backlog on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/The_Train_Master? Cards84664 (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPI perpetually backlogged - someone will get to it eventually. —DoRD (talk)​ 11:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask for your CU back DoRD! :( Blackmane (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great! Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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,

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)[reply]

Those images are important images by enormously important artists. The Henri Matisse in particular [26] 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)[reply]

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. [27] 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, [28] so it still seems that deletion is his metier. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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 [29]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply
  ]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• "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)[reply]

• "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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

HistoryofIran (talk · contribs · count)

Plz,see my User contribution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/125.7.152.64

I wrote my opinion on the talk page but HistoryofIran did not give me any feedback and deleted my talk. Thank you.--125.7.152.64 (talk) 02:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Users are permitted to remove messages from their own user talk page. There is nothing actionable here. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 02:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What A little blue Bori said. While I'm not happy with HistoryofIran calling this vandalism [30], it's also not enough for action by itself. Also remember, if you want to discuss article content (including changes you're trying to make to the article) the article talk page is generally the best location and I note Talk:Samarkand has not been edited since May 2018! If for some reason you felt it was better to discuss article content issues on a user's talk page, but the editor doesn't seem interested, there's no reason why you can't be the one to initiate a proper discussion on the article talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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

This wasn't limited to one editor as target:

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

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

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

Yesterday this one pops up:

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

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

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

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

• "- that unfortunately is not a productive comment, but given your history, it's not unexpected. You might want to have a look at 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)[reply]

I agree 100% with Andy Dingley's reading of the situation here. As

Iridescent 13:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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.

talk) 14:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• "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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Until earlier today, Amanda Cerny was a redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2011. However, earlier today User:Tortew moved the original page to Amanda Cerny (). Tortew then created a "new" article mostly by cutting and pasting text from the Playmate list article without attribution, thereby violating licensing requirements. Another editor then asked for assistance on my talk page,

This looks to me to be a shade too complicated for a simply speedy deletion request, and since I'm not an admin I can't simply delete the license violation myself. Therefore, I'm asking that an admin delete the current Amanda Cerny page as a license violation and then move the original page back to its original location. I've copied what little salvageable text there was to Tortew's talk page and encouraged them to follow proper processes if they wish to recreate an independent article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smartse did the cleanup, I deleted Amanda Cerny () as an implausible redirect, and User:Tortew was checkuser-blocked in parallel. Thanks for raising this. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So how do I report block evasion for a range if you keep deleting the reports? The puppet is 42.190.240.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and the blocked range that is causing the socking is 2405:3800::/37 . Activity from both can be seen on Wan Kuzain, Sporting Kansas City and other association football articles. I created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2405:3800::/37, but it was deleted without discussion, explanation or further instructions. Perhaps an update to the SPI page is needed? In the meantime, a block for evasion for the anon might be worthwhile. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Report it at ANI, with the appropriate links. An SPI for a range is not very useful--almost by definition an SPI is listed under the master, so you might could invent a name, I don't know. In the meantime I blocked the IP. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will do! Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) As a note. That vandal was reported again and again. Probably the last ANI reporting: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1014#nationality vandal by a Malaysian ip is back yet again. For 42.190.240.168, probably he just changed the ISP as a kind of block evasion. Matthew hk (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karina Cynthia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user had made a lot of edits in which they added numerous unnecessary commas to articles. They also tend to make removals of blank spaces (not blank lines) which have no effect on a page's rendering. They sometimes add "that" to sentences which were already grammatically correct already, as well as other unnecessary, trivial, or ungrammatical edits. They have been warned about the comma problem before. (See [31]).

This would be a minor matter, but they also edit articles related to Israel, which made me wonder if their trivial edits were, in fact, an attempt to use those edits to game the

I would ask that an admin familiar with attempts to game 500/30 take a look at Karina Cynthia's edits to determine if this is simply an editor with a poor grasp of grammar and the use of commas (hardly a rare thing), or someone attempting to get around the DS rules. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a guideline or policy where admins can preemptively decide that someone is up to no good, before any policies or guidelines are broken? There is nothing this account can do that cannot be undone. If a policy is broken, then it should be dealt with after, not before --JOJ ^Hutton 04:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I do fear people gaming the 500/30 system, we can't convict people of future crime. If they haven't done anything wrong yet, AGF and let them be (although nothing wrong with keeping an eye on for NPOV/COI edits in the future). Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If the user is gaming the system in order to be 30/500 qualified that, in and of itself, is a sanctionable action. There's no "future crime" involved. If true (and it very well may not be), the "crime" is committed in the gaming itself, not in any possible future action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The user has made "589 edits and have edited for 43 days" so they have already got extended confirmed rights. So have they made any, other than the stuff above, problematic edits in the Arab-Israel area? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I can see. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then lets wait until they do eh? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're saying that buying a weapon illegally is fine until the weapon is used to commit a crime? (Just an analogy, I'm not equating the severity of the actions.) Is not gaming the system a sanctionable offense, or do I have that wrong? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Give it rest, BMK. I've reviewed the comma, space, and caps edits, and they look mostly OK, though sometimes "optional", and in one case I noticed added a comma into a quote where the source didn't have it. Did you engage about such things? Why the big revert? Why come here and try to drum up drama around a non-problem? Get lost. Oh, shoot, I forgot, I'm not speaking to you. Dicklyon (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That comment really wasn't worthy of you, Dicklyon. Perhaps you might consider striking the personal animosity you've carried over from another dispute? Or perhaps someone would hat that comment as being irrelevant and inappropriately personalized? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not very mature, Dicklyon. I'd also second BMK's call to strike the last portion of your comment. It's needlessly pithy and inflammatory. WaltCip (talk) 10:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for striking. On the substantive issue, I believe other editors, here and on the subject's talk page, agree with me about their misuse of commas. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with being a little suspicious of editors who seem like they may be racing to auto- or extended-confirmed. It's a common behavior for some LTAs, and we're often able to recognize them before they do anything harmful. Unless and until they actually make a controversial edit, it's probably better to just bring it up in private to people who might be in a position to know who it is. There's a lot less potential for drama that way. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure this editor is attempting to game 30/500. However, they are a massive pain in the backside in terms of adding unnecessary and often incorrect punctuation, as well as making ENGVAR violations, and have failed to respond to any attempts to engage with them on this. I have previously considered reporting them for slow-motion edit warring by returning to certain articles repeatedly to readd the same commas when they are removed by other editors (one some articles this goes back to May, when they were editing from a variety of IP addresses). I would suggest a short block to at least get them to respond to concerns being raised on their talk page about their edits. Number 57 10:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Number 57: good idea, I've blocked them for 24 hours and explained the need to communicate - and to use edit summaries as they've ignored that request also. We'll see what happens next. I told them how to ping editors also. Doug Weller talk 15:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • So that's how it rolls on Wikipedia now? Automatic block for not using edit summaries? Things sure have gotten worse over the years. We've come a long way since
      WP:BITE was a reasonably followed guideline.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • It's not biting when the user fails at communicating. Blocking to get their attention is the next logical step. El_C 21:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly so. If someone is editing disruptively over an extended period, and you can't get their attention (or they aren't noticing attempts to communicate with them), a block usually alerts them that there is a problem. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • What were they doing that was disruptive? How are you defining disruptive? Were they vandalizing articles? Were they acting uncivil? Were they breaking any of the three core content policies? What policy was broken that needed immediate attention? When did blocking someone become a nonchalant way to get someone's attention? I'm just pointing out the obvious, that Wikipedia and the people who "run it", have broken away from what made Wikipedia an exciting community to a part of. I only edit sparing now because I saw how poorly some people used their tools. I only edit and maintain a few pages now and a few years ago I even took thousands of articles off my watchlist. And this problem is bigger than a stupid block of a single account. This behavior has been a problem for years. Most of you may not notice this drastic change because you've been active and the change has happened gradually, but to me, someone who hasn't spent that much time on Wikipedia or have paid attention to the everyday drama, to me it's like night and day. So sad that it's fallen so far from grace.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • If someone continues to be non communicative after multiple attempts to engage them about their problematic editing, a block is obviously the last resort to get their attention to this, so by definition it's not at all nonchalant. The less drama, the better, is just an axiom — and as for the good ol' days reflections, I'm not sure I'm exactly following your line of thought. El_C 00:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yep. This is completely normal. User has been here for over a month with over 500 edits, has also received 7 requests on their talk page to quit it with the commas, 1 request to use edit summaries, and 1 request to stop edit warring. Ignored or didn't see all of them. Block is fine. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TheHistoryBuff101 (talk · contribs · count)

Not sure what going on here, maybe the author of the images they're changing to, maybe paid editing, fan of the photographer idk. Can someone take a look into their edits. Thanx - FlightTime (open channel) 19:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify, My first concern was changing all these infobox images without discussion, then I noticed the commonality of the filenames. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD allows people to change content without getting anyone's permission. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:BRD. It's bad form on their part not to communicate, but that's likely just newness. Try reaching out to them and drop them a conversational note rather than a dictate. Maybe explain what GA and FA articles are and suggest that perhaps seeking consensus and not being so bold over the lede image might be an appropriate route to opening communication. John from Idegon (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 08:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ignacio Anaya (AfD discussion)

There is a back-and-forth dispute here over an early

I think it's done now. But

WP:DRV should be the next step (one may make all the out of process arguments there to their heart's content) — as opposed to edit warring over the close. El_C 23:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

The close was to keep. I have reverted the close and semi-protected the AfD for one week. Although there are many !votes by legitimate editors, some of the IP's !votes were a joke. I remember one that said something like "keep but delete everything else on Wikipedia".--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Not DRV, then. Fine. Well, at any case, unless there are significant changes, I'll probably close it as speedy keep soon enough myself, unless someone else beats me to it. As it stands, I don't think it needs to run for a full week. But I'll give it at least another 24 hours. El_C 00:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any real policy rationale for not letting it run for a standard week, since most of the keeps are misinterpreting (or ignoring) BLP1E, nor do I think it qualifies for a speedy close. Please let it run the normal length of time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a massive fan of snow closes (I once wrote

WP:STEAM out of annoyance with them) but I would endorse closing this one early. Public-facing AFDs on high-pageview articles have the potential to turn into net-negative spectacles. Haukur (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Among a whole bunch of "keep"s and "speedy keeps" are 2 deletes, 2 merges (one is mine), and 1 undecided. I don't see any harm in letting it run the full course, or any particular benefit to the encyclopedia in speedy closing it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Process for its own sake has no benefits that I can see. The ratio of ~20 editors choosing to keep versus 2 who call for delete make the prospect of deleting the article highly, highly unlikely. I am closing this one early, per

WP:SNOW. El_C 03:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

This moronic racist requires some attention.

Thanks for reporting this

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)[reply

]

I did go ahead and notify them of this thread even though they hardly deserve it. MarnetteD|Talk 04:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indef this

b} 04:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Lepricavark (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

You don't have an evil twin do you? Nosebagbear (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't believe I do.

Lepricavark (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

On the contrary!

Lepricavark's evil twin (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Gadzooks! Michepman (talk) 05:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Examples like these tell us that we need to add more admins from other time zones for a round the clock mopping. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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

I've exercised patience for a little over a month now - he does show potential less the tendentious editing which has caused good editors to leave the

• 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)[reply]

May I also point to the last ANI in which I mediated a dispute involving NomoPBS [33], 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Unfounded accusation of sock-meat-puppetry with no evidence,
  Bulldog breeds anywhere near that time, specifically 2018-10-29 thru 2018-11-03 [34]; 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)[reply
  ]

• 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)[reply]

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

Introduction: This all started as an ordinary CONTENT issue. Atsme has been whitewashing dog topic articles, removing content, and promoting the writing of a policy that would

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).

).

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 [43], C's explanations about content [44], A starts with the "you're PAing me" [45], Pile-on by (probably canvassed) editor M [46], C's remarks about content and objection to accusations [47]

.

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

• Asserting ownership [48] [49] [50]
• POV Railroading [51] [52] [53]
• False accusations [54] [55] [56] [57]
• Misrepresentation/civility [58] [59] [60] [61]
• Making "no-edit" orders contrary to policy [62] [63] [64]
• Threats/harassment (to cause a chilling effect in other editors) [65] [66] [67]

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 [68] 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 [69]. A search of Talk and User Talk namespace for the words "Atsme aspersion" [70] brings up 273 instances. Then I read dozens of them. Same patterns.

My username change was prompted by the bullying. This [71] 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 [72], me telling her to stop harassing me [73], me putting a standard warning template on her Talk page [74], and Atsme declaring she was going to ANI [75]. 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 [76], 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 [77]) 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

Louisiana Catahoula Leopard dog

.

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That sure is a

WALL of text. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Discussion

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

• 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
  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)[reply
  ]
• 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: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/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Don't forget Aquataste. — Normal Op (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oh, fair, my bad. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This appears to be a case of a
  a mission. My strong initial impression is that a topic ban is warranted. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• 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! Aquatastetalk 11:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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! Aquatastetalk 13:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply

]

Personal attacks by IP

IP blocked 48h. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An anonymous IP account (Special:Contributions/2401:E180:8860:D3DE:61E7:731A:8680:A16E) is edit-warring personal attacks against myself and other editors into Talk:Carlos Maza. A block would seem merited here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Dealt with by User:Bbb23. Thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.[78] 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[79] from a group calls "Kasaysayan Hunters"[80] 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[81] " 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I've reverted his addition of similar text at a couple of other articles but they've reinstated their edits. [82] and [83]

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)[reply]

Here [84] he has used unreliable sources, [85] which is based on user submissions and [86] 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)[87].

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

• @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)[reply]

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC) Ok I will put that in mind.[reply]

• I checked the most recent edit by
  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)[reply
  ]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Field hockey at the 1908 Summer Olympics

A dispute has emerged at

England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales competed independently. Also at issue is which Ireland flag to use. verses . The former has never been used by Hockey Ireland or it's predecessors. Any thoughts ? I appreciate this might not be the most appropriate page to resolve this issue but nobody has responded at the relevant project talk page and Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution seems to be inactive. Djln Djln (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:3RR so expertly you should both get blocked for it anyway. 107.195.20.170 (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Ha. I was worried when I got paged to ANI. It's on my watchlist, I played at a reasonable standard for years, and get very angry with those who think the game is related to ice for goodness sake. Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an administrator available who can actually make a useful contribution and not just make unhelpful threats to block well established editors. It's not very constructive or helpful.Djln Djln (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the problem here. You went to the talk page to discuss the dispute resolution policy, which is pretty inactive. You were instead looking for the

dispute resolution noticeboard, which is where I recommend this content dispute go. That page is quite active and a good place to resolve the matter. ANI is for conduct, not content. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

2604:2000:DED1:4E00::/64 (again)

Questionable or disruptive edits have continued from this IP range since my last report here, which was not answered by an admin. That said, a rangeblock might be necessary, but I would at least like an admin to assess this.

My original report from 6 August, which still appears to be adequately descriptive, was this:

Active since 22 July, disruptive edits originating from this IP range (Special:Contributions/2604:2000:DED1:4E00::/64) have been made on articles pertaining to superheavy chemical elements, the New York City Subway, and the Hong Kong MTR. Many of these edits were either against consensus (as in the case of elements) or constitue edit warring with terse edit summaries, and they have not engaged in discussion even in response to non-template messages. So far, one page has been protected, but others have since been affected and the IP is quite dynamic. I'm not sure if this is enough to warrant a ::/64 rangeblock, but other measures have so far proven ineffective. ComplexRational (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

ComplexRational (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The August 6 ANI report is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1015#Disruptive edits from IP range 2604:2000:DED1:4E00. Based on User:ComplexRational's information and a review of the contributions from the IP range I'm blocking the /64 for two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz1972

Jazz1972 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just come off a 1-month block, set on 5th July. Virtually their first actions? Continuing the edit warring (on Cypriot intercommunal violence and List of wars involving Turkey) for which they were blocked. I think this needs to be nipped in the bud with an indef. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I indeffed as I promised I would, before I saw this thread. Acroterion (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name-removing vandal from St. Petersburg

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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's the only edit they ever make. 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 find and revert 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)[reply]

Signature forgery by User:Neverendingstory123

(non-admin closure) User indeffed by Bbb23 for vandalism-only account Nosebagbear (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

User:Neverendingstory123 has just added messages with self-accusations and (imperfectly) forged signatures to four talk pages and then removed the "unsigned..." messages from SineBot, clearly impersonating User:Elitematterman. They are also active right now. Links to diffs: [88][89][90][91] Edible Melon (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Now indeffed by Bbb23. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Bender the Bot is malfunctioning

Edit by the bot is obviously benign. IP, indeed, seems to conflate the last edit with the entire article. El_C 03:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

The Wikipedia page Jammu and Kashmir is being edited by Bender the Bit. This bot is providing fabricated information. It has very cleverly published only those informations in detail which are against Indian interests. It appears that It is handled by some Pakistan pro and anti Indian owner or handler. Kindly remove this page. Regards, Apurva K S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.50.100 (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An ethnonationalist bot — that's a first! Anyway, concerns about the bot should go to its operator first. El_C 03:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] The bot's operator, bender235, is a native speaker of German who (judging by a link on his userpage), at least in 2004, was using a Deutsche Telekom IP address: he is or was in Germany, and presumably is not a Pakistan pro. All of its recent edits that I'm seeing are things like this edit, in which a variant URL is replaced with a more standard one. This is entirely appropriate, and unless something very different is happening at the page you mention, there's nothing fabricated whatsoever. Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP: Please review Help:Page history, which explains what the information you see on the "history" tab actually means. Bender the Bot is not the author of that article, just the last account to edit it. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[another edit conflict] This edit to Jammu and Kashmir and this edit to Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) are perfectly fine. They replace links to books at books.google.co.in with links to the same books at books.google.com. This is a benefit, because ".com" is the core piece of the website, and (in my experience) Google Books doesn't allow you to view as much of a book if the URL is nationalized (e.g. "in.co" versus ".com") and you're in a different country. Nyttend (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Corvusphalanx

(non-admin closure) - Corvusphalanx indefinitely blocked by L235 for running unapproved bot scripts Nosebagbear (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

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

User with 2 edits making hundreds of automated edits via Citation bot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This appears to be the same behavior as Marianne Zimmerman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was blocked as a sock of Seraphim System (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NOTHERE for User:Jaywu2000

after unblocking

• Cantonese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jaywu2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

For context, please read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1015#Continued disruption at Cantonese, again, again.

I changed my mind on AGF. He failed to resolve editing dispute in talk page and seek "external" help via RFC, edit war noticeboard (if applicable), etc. And after his temp block was expired. He just vandalise the article , see Special:Diff/911192970. Matthew hk (talk) 07:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 07:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]