Jump to content

Talk:Extinction symbol/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

June 2019: Edit War

There seems to be an edit war going on here between an IP and User: GoldFrog23 with COI implications. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment re repeated deletion of Talk Page material. To 150.143.118.26, please do not delete sections on this article's Talk Page. Per WP:TALKO The basic rule—with exceptions outlined below—is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission.. If you have an issue, then respond to it on the Talk Page. If there is information presented that violates WP:TALKO, then point it out and it can be addressed (I am now watching this Talk Page). If you refuse to discuss/engage and keep deleting material, your IP address may become blocked and the Talk Page will be locked. thank you. Britishfinance (talk) 09:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (restored from earlier edit by the IP 150.143.118.26 in response to my comment above)
Britishfinance, the user is posting information which is untrue and which compromises people's security. I can't go into it here, but please contact me privately.
  • 150.143.118.26 The way we resolve these things in WP is by discussion. If somebody is giving false representation on content, that can be easily fixed. In fact, having a record of a false representation is helpful to other editors who are then wary. That is how we do things, discussion, and everything recorded in that discussion. My understanding is that this is, therefore, a "content dispute" over which artist is the originator of the Extinction Symbol? (am I correct). You blanking past comments is a violation of Wikipedia's Talk Page policy and will only result in the page being locked to you.
There is no point in you repeatedly doing this – we must have a discussion.
Note, the exceptions to this are where an editor is violating other aspects of WP policy, such as WP:OUTING (I notice that a past editor is linking accounts, but I am not sure that what they are doing is OUTING - if it is, then that will get deleted and the record of the edit further deleted from WP's records (a revdel). Also, per WP:TALKO if an editor is trying to use a Talk Page for harmful posts, then these can also be deleted (and revdel'ed if needed). We handle situations like this all the time. You need to trust us and engage in the process, or you will find yourself locked out of the process. Britishfinance (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Westwood

There is no reference to the symbol either visually or in writing in the article regarding Westwood, so why is it in?

All it appears to say that that protests were happening at the same time as the show. --82.132.222.213 (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Statement from 82.132.233.213 [82.132* range]

They are not "closely related to the artist", they are the arsist by their own admission, and it has a bearing on the edits and the COI going on here.

Please allow me chip. There's no "outing" going on here as all I did was link to information that the editor 150.143.118.26/Goldfrog23 ESP has already made public here on the Wikipedia.

That information disclosed that they are the artist who created and is promoting the symbol, the owner of the website linked to, and the interviewee in the Gaurdian article, quoting a blog, that they seek to use as the primary reference.

That is a very clear WP:COI which I could only substantiate, and substantiate the use of the WP:COI tag, by offering the links that I did. How else could I have done it? Do we accept that before we move on, or will Goldfrog23 make it easier and just confirm what is obvious? Secondly, I have never been a member of Extinction Rebellion, nor have I ever been asked to leave Extinction Rebellion, as stated here [1]. This is a complete and paranoid fantasy that unless Goldfrog23 ESP can subtantiate it, should be struck out.

Therefore, what we have is two things,

Firstly, before I came along to address it, the topic page was being used as a means of promoting the artist's work by the artist. This failed WP:ADVERT, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SOAP and so on. (Accepted has now been established via the media).

Secondly, what we now have is the artist formerly known as XYLO (the editor 150.143.118.26/Goldfrog23) currently attempting to remarket them as Goldfrog ESP, or simply ESP and, again, using the Wikipedia to establish this.

In this is the real cause for their hullabaloo, and the wild and damaging accusations, that surely go as far as an attempt to discredit and personal attack contrary to WP:PERSONALATTACKS.

It is not a controversial issue for an artist to rename or remarket themselves, standard form on the Wikipedia is to include both or all and real names.

The Hastings Independent Press is actually a real world newspaper and not just a blog, and hence passes as a reliable source. Thank you. --82.132.222.213 (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

On WP we ignore statements about editors backgrounds etc.; it doesn't mean anything on WP which is anonymous; you (or 150.143.118.26) could be anybody.
What we do care about is summarising reliable independent secondary sources (per WP:RS) on topics; that is the main focus.
Several RS attribute the creator of the symbol as ESP (or Goldfrog ESP), and so we state that in the article (although we note that there is still uncertainty).
I have not read anything about XYLO in the RS, and therefore there is no mention of XYLO in the article? What XYLO tries to do outside of WP in claiming that they are ESP (or Goldfrog ESP) is irrelevant to WP, unless an RS reports on it. I could claim that I am ESP but that will also be ignored by WP (unless an RS reports on it).
The Guardian is a Tier 1 RS on WP. They are not fools and understand the issues of COI/WP:PRIMARY report (their article is not a COI issue). They have also spoken with other artists who have views on this (e.g. Charlie Waterhouse - who Quartz report as saying that he explicitly met the artist), so they are not reporting from a position of ignorance (which The Guardian do not do). Trying to degrade The Guardian's article in such a manner makes me suspicious that you have an agenda here.
I do feel that 150.143.118.26 / Goldfrog23 has a WP:COI issue regarding editing this article which I have noted above; do you also have a COI here?
For the reason of COI, I have completely re-written the article and gone through all the sources myself (and added more sources). Editors with COI are advised not to edit their WP articles directly.
Hastings Independent Press is not a Tier 1 RS on WP and is not on this list Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (I am not even sure it is an RS suitable for WP). I have no idea what Hastings is saying that conflicts with what The Guardian is saying regarding ESP – can you explain this issue precisely?
Hope that helps. Britishfinance (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

(reply from 82.132.233.213 pasted in from my talk page). Britishfinance (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The Hastings newspaper recorded the creation of the symbol in 2011 by the artist then named Xylo, as it is recorded elsewhere (try Googling "Xylo extinction symbol" if there is any doubt and let's put this nonsense to bed for once and for all).
As indeed it was on the Goldfrog ESP Flickr URL which I removed (it is in the URL again). No, I am not suggesting that is useful; yes, I am aware that would be WP:OR; I merely reference it for the sakes of background discussion here, noting that the Flickr gallery has been edited out since these matters arose.
I think we have a problem with circular sourcing given the artist is using a Guardian article to substaniate themselves, that quotes a blog (Ecohustler), that is quoting the artist publicizing themselves. Is Ecohustler even WP:RS? There would appear to be no independent verification and not everything in The Guardian meets WP:RS.
I could suggest for you to save time and energy by just asking them yourself, eg whether they are the artist and whether they were previously known as Xylo, but I think at this point it's blatantly obvious.
Therefore please replace the WP:COI tag and warn the artist off editing their own topic.
(corrected, I was still writing when you moved it) Thank you. --82.132.222.213 (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The article does not have a COI issue as I have fully re-written it and gone through all the sources individually (and added more).
I do agree with removing the flickr URL if it is for the promotion of an individual artist (let me check that).
Per above, we don't have a problem with circular souring on The Guardian as they have clearly spoken to other artists (one mentioned in the article), who (as I said earlier in the Quartz article) have met the original artist; The Guardian are not fools and are a Tier 1 RS on WP.
I make no judgment on Ecohunter but it is clearly not a blog (and again, goes to bias on your behalf), and The Guardian quote the specific Ecohunter interview (as do other RS).
I'm am not sure what you consider blatently obvious. The only facts that pass WP:V by WP:RS is that the artist is most likely ESP (or Goldfrog ERP). We have nothing on XYLO from any RS and therefore there is no mention on XYLO in this article. Britishfinance (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
What's "blatantly obvious" is that 150.143.118.26/Goldfrog23 and XYLO are all the same person, and the original promoter of the symbol, therefore that there was and remains a COI issue.
I suggest that you just ask them to clarify instead of speculate and we draw a line on all the hullabaloo. --82.132.222.213 (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • But that is now irrelevant. I have re-written this article in its entirety and have RS that attributes the creation of the Extinction Symbol to ESP / Goldfrog ESP; therefore no COI issue.
I could not care who 150.143.118.26/Goldfrog23 are except I think they have a WP:COI issue and should not edit the article directly (which I will keep an eye on from now on).
However, I believe you also have a WP:COI issue and are linked to "XYLO", which this edit demonstrates: [2] [3]. There is zero mention of "XYLO" in any quality RS that would be suitable for Wikipedia. Is this the nature of your Edit War in this article – you are trying to use Wikipedia to get "XYLO" attributed as the creator of the Extinction Symbol (and is why you are trying to pust Tripadvosor or Hastings as poor sources)? You should also not be editing this article or any other article linked to Extinction Symbol. Britishfinance (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest; artist promoting themselves [attribution to XYLO].

By their own admission, here

[4], user Goldfrog23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

appears to be the artist claiming authorship of this symbol.

From a previous editing conflict, here [5], it would appear that they were previously known as Xylo.

For example, here (dated 2014) [6], we have both the hour glass symbol AND the a golden frog symbol documented as Xylo's work.

See also, here [7] where "ESP" signs off as "Goldfrog".

See also, here “Dave explaining how the XYLO has himself hidden in the Extinction symbol”.

Therefore, on the contrary to Goldfrog's telling BorisAndDoris, that they had just "edited the Extinction symbol page to better reflect reality", what is more correct to state is how THEY want reality to be seen.

There's much more to substantiate this connection but I have no desire to labor the point, however, I think we should err on the side of caution, between what is objective documentation and what is marketing by the artist themself as many of the references are references to the artist themselves giving interviews. --82.132.241.252 (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  • The only reliable source that we have on the origins on this symbol is from The Guardian and they attribute it to ESP here. In Wikipedia, we must go with reliable independent secondary sources. Unless you have a better source that shows this is not true, you must stop deleting this source. thanks Britishfinance (talk) 10:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Having investigated this properly, it is clear that you have been trying to get a street graffiti artist called "XYLO" (or Dave as one of the refs from "Tripadvisor" calls him), attributed as the creator of the Extinction Symbol in this article, despite the quality RS (and Extinction Rebellion themselves) saying that it was an anonymous London artist called "ESP" (or "ESP Goldfrog") (e.g. The Guardian)
You have used a range of IP accounts (82.132* range) to constantly try and delete high-quality ESP refs and replace with low-grade XYLO refs like here [8] [9] [10].
The account Goldfrog23 (and 150.143.118.26) are likely connected to the artist "ESP", and have been trying to address this issue.
You also fall-back to a position that "XYLO" is "ESP", in an attempt to share attribution between the artists, but no RS claims this?
Britishfinance (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Statement from 150.143.118.26

(repasted in from my talk page) Britishfinance (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Britishfinance, the person was indeed removed from XR, and proof can be provided of this. Their attempts to out people are a violation of privacy and Wikipedia policy, and also endangers individual's personal security, but I suspect that's their motive at this point. They appear to want to conflate other artistic projects which no longer exist, but the fact is that the artist who created the symbol is known as ESP, and always has been since the extinction symbol was created. I just noticed they've also edited the main Extinction Rebellion Wikipedia page to remove the picture of the symbol, as well as to remove the words 'Extinction Symbol' and also remove the link to it which was on there. Which is unwarranted, because Extinction Rebellion have stated on many occasions that they're using the extinction symbol. These kind of edits give you an idea of where this person is coming from and their agenda against the symbol. I feel because of this that their edits should be removed from that page too, but perhaps someone else should do it, to avoid me ending up in another edit war with them.150.143.118.26 (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

P.S...the 'Hastings Independent Press' article mentioned above appears to have relied for it's sources on an earlier incorrect version of the extinction symbol wikipedia page, which in turn relied on a couple of very old blog posts based on supposition. The 'Hastings Independent Press' made no attempt to verify their sources with the artist or Extinction Rebellion. For someone to try to say this is credible information is pretty desperate stuff. I would respectfully suggest they take a deep breath and move on with their lives, because surely there must be better things to do that to harass people who are trying to build a movement to stop the extinction crisis.150.143.118.26 (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi 150.143.118.26. As per my response to 82.132.233.213 / 82.132.213.209 above, Wikipedia has no interest in background details of editors. It carries no weight on WP, unless there is a WP:COI issue. We ask editors with a COI issue not to directly edit articles and instead raise issues on Talk Pages on articles for other editors to consider. I have a feeling that both you, and 82.132.233.213 / 82.132.213.209, could have COI issues (but for different reasons; is 82.132.233.213 / 82.132.213.209 regarding XYLO, and you regarding ESP?).
Because of this COI issue, I have fully re-written the article and gone through all the sources and am happy that the version I have is a "fair" article based on the WP:RS sources that I can see.
As I said to 82.132.233.213 / 82.132.213.209, I don't understand what their issue really is? Are they saying that ESP is not the artist (despite what several RS say), and that it is XYLO. Do they have an RS to prove that which would disprove The Guardian (and others).
Hastings is not a Tier 1 RS for Wikipedia and having looked at it – far from it. However, I don't see the article/sourve on Hastings that 82.132.233.213 / 82.132.213.209 feels is not being fairly reflected in the article. Perhaps they can show this. Britishfinance (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Answered elsewhere but try re-reading the article. Talk of "Tier 1 RS" does not even arise on the policy page.
I will write it one last time, and let's address it this time, is the editor 150.143.118.26/Goldfrog23 and XYLO the same person and the original pomoter of this symbol?
Once resolved, we can draw a line under all this distraction. --82.132.222.213 (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It is clear now that you have been exposed as trying to get "XYLO" attributed as the Extinction Symbol creator in this article, despite the RS saying that it was ESP.
You have constantly tried to delete high-quality ESP refs and replace with low-grade XYLO refs like here [11] [12].
Now you are trying to fall back to a position that XYLO is ESP, which no RS claims. Clear enough now? Britishfinance (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Gong

The Tieranatomische Theater is Berlin's oldest surviving academic teaching buildings (designed by Carl Gotthard Langhans of the Brandenburg Gate fame).

It, the Humboldt University, and Hermann von Helmholtz-Zentrum für Kulturtechnik all have their own German language Wikipedia pages, therefore I think you are stepping dangerously out of your areas of specialism to remove it or downgrade it.

Julian Oliver appears to be a fairly well awarded artist in his own right. The piece is picking up RS foreign language press.

There's a lot far less notable on the Wikipedia. --82.132.222.213 (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  • This article is not about the Tieranatomische Theater, it is about the Extinction Symbol. In the context of the Extinction Symbol, this item does not need a separate standalone section. The issue is the usage of the Symbol, and the Gong is just one notable example. Making WP:PERSONALATTACKS about my "comfort zone" is not helpful in editing. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, I can't see how the "Gong", a work by artists not notable enough to have their own WP articles, would merit its own section above more notable uses of the Extinction Symbol by artists like Banksy and Carrie Reichardt. I don't understand why you created a separate section in the article just for the "Gong" here, and ignored more notable uses? Britishfinance (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I never mention your comfort zone, but art would appear to outsides of your area of speciality. An artwork gains credibility by where and who it is shown by, and foreign language media is every bit as reliable as English. Same standards applying.
Yes, it is not a "personal attack" to question judgement calls, eg when you make edits as below or are unable to pick out references from articles such as
"This motif, originally created by street artist Xylo in 2011, is now recognised as the Extinction Rebellion symbol.".
and choose one blog over another yourself in preference to printed press. --82.132.222.213 (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • You still have not answered the COI question, are you linked to "XYLO"; this edit shows you are: [13]. There is zero mention of "XYLO" in any quality RS that would be suitable for Wikipedia. Is this the nature of your Edit War in this article – you are trying to use Wikipedia to get "XYLO" attributed as the creator of the Extinction Symbol? Britishfinance (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
A combination of contradictions in various sources accredit the work to two names, XYLO in the earliest cases and ESP in the later. The article should reflect that in some way.
Put simply, the artist used to be known as XYLO and is now known as ESP.
And is the editor 150.143.118.26/Goldfrog23.
Is that clear enough? --82.132.222.213 (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It is clear that you have been exposed as trying to get "XYLO" attributed as the Extinction Symbol creator in this article, despite the RS saying that it was ESP. You have tried to delete high-quality ESP refs and replace with low-grade XYLO refs like here [14] [15].
Now you are trying to fall back to a position that XYLO is ESP, which no RS claims. Clear enough now? Britishfinance (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Statment from 82.132.215.61

That is correct.

Just, FYI, I've not retired from this issue, I just have more work to do on it first.

BF, I'd be concerned by how deep into the denial you are will to dig your heels over this issue, even to the point of accusing me of claiming to be XYLO, and thereby attempting to claim ownership over the sumbol.

I flag up here just to amuse them [16] at how well his mischief worked.

You need a reality check (and, no, that's still not a personal attack, it's a very badly needed reality check). --82.132.215.61 (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I don't care who you are (and your range of 82.132* acconts), or whether you are, or are not, XYLO. I only care about what the RS say regarding this topic, and they don't mention XYLO (at all). The RS attribute ESP/ESP Goldfrog as the creator of the Extinction Symbol (I found a formal statement today from Extinction Rebellion on the matter and added it to the article). Your attempt to equate XYLO to ESP is a falshood. There is not a single WP-quality RS that says XYLO is ESP. That is the reality check. Britishfinance (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019 Edit Warring: artist attribution [fake attribution to XYLO]

For reference. Britishfinance (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

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

I'm semi protecting this page for a few days since there seems to be some edit warring between 150.143.118.26/Goldfrog23 and 82.132.223.204/82.132.229.55. There seems to be conflicts of interest on both sides, so we remind you of our policies on the matter. Please discuss your proposed changes on the talk page and agree for a neutral version or you may be blocked from editing. -- Luk talk 10:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Luk: Many thanks for this (I had put in a request on RPP); however, is there also a WP:OUTING issue (read all the diffs on the first post). thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
@Britishfinance: thanks for your help! (I saw this popping on AIV) -- Luk talk 10:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

My investigation into this (hope this helps too)

I have had a look through this and my observations are:

  • 82.132.241.252 has potentially attempted to WP:OUTING a WP editor Goldfrog23, who I think is also 150.143.118.26 (see first post on this TP, and the posting of an email address in a diff).
  • The creator of the "Extinction Symbol" is accepted as being unclear, however The Guardian in this article attribute it to ESP (The Guardian also link this artist to the Goldfrog WP username).
  • Attempts to "stabilise" the article and use the Guardian reference are being reverted by 82.132.241.252, and then re-reverted by 150.143.118.26/Goldfrog23.
  • Thus we have a full Edit War and a potential OUTING; I have restored the article back to the version I did after the last edit war (which has the Guardian reference).
Have I got this right? Britishfinance (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't think 82.* is outing Goldfrog23 though: their contact information has been publicly shared by Goldfrog23 on the Wiki (and the edits make it quite clear that they are closely related to the artist). -- Luk talk 10:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for that Luk. Britishfinance (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

(Update) COI clarifications

  • Just to update this, having re-written the article and interacted with the various warring IPs and editors:
  • It seems that the account range 82.132* is linked to an artist called "XYLO" and keeps inserting lower-grade RS that XYLO created the Extinction Symbol per [17] [18] [19]
  • It seems that 150.143.118.26 / Goldfrog23 is linked to an artist called "ESP" or "Goldfrog ESP"; who has stronger RS The Guardian that attributes "ESP" as the creator of the Extension Symbol
  • As a fallback, per their replies below, 82.132* is trying to assert that XYLO and ESP are the same artist (e.g. share attribution), however, no RS asserts this.
I believe an edit war between these two editors (both as IPs and new editors), on behalf of these two artists is the core of the problem.
The strong weight of RS is that ESP is the artist who created the Extinction Symbol; the Extinction Rebellion issued a clarifying statement that it is ESP a few days ago here
There is no credible WP-standard RS that mentions XYLO as the creator (outside of online blogs like this [20] inserted by 82.132* here), and completely zero RS that XYLO is ESP
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Earliest reference to XYLO

One of the earliest references to XYLO as the creator I can find is here,

EXTINCTION LOGO – USE IT FREELY, dated May 18, 2011.

Note I am using a Googlecached page for verifiability as, in addition, there seems to be some culling of earlier references going on.

We are all invited to chalk this logo wherever we like. Xylo’s website says:

“The world is currently undergoing a mass extinction event, and this symbol is intended to help raise awareness of the urgent need for change in order to address this crisis. Estimates are that somewhere between 30,000 and 140,000 species are becoming extinct every year in what scientists have named the Holocene, or Sixth Mass Extinction. This ongoing process of destruction is being caused by the impact of human activity. Within the next few decades approximately 50% of all species that now exist will have become extinct. Such a catastrophic loss of biodiversity is highly likely to cause widespread ecosystem collapse and consequently render the planet uninhabitable for humans. In order to spread the message as widely as possible, please consider drawing this symbol with chalk in any location you feel able to. Thank you.” Xylo does some really cool things on the streets of London. Bravo.

Now this has to be taken into consideration and looked into or referenced in some way without resorting to ridiculous distraction. Perhaps you could start by accepting the strong probability that there is something going on here? --82.132.245.94 (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  • This is getting desperate now, but at least it is unambiguous (as if it wasn't already), that your sole motive is to insert a fake attribution that a character called XYLO is the creator of the Extinction Symbol. Unfortunately, a cut-and-paste from XYLO's own blog is as useful as a cut-and-paste from my own blog saying that I am the creator.
It is clear from ESP's own website (which, per the article, the Extinction Rebellion link to on their website), that XYLO has nothing to do with this symbol. From your own earlier [Tripadvisor reference], XYLO (or Dave), is some local London lad fooling tourists that he is the creator of the Extinction Symbol. Unfortunately, the entity that licenses it, the Extinction Rebellion, as well as several major RS, make zero references to XYLO. Because XYLO means nothing in relation to the extinction symbol. It is a fake. Britishfinance (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Extinction Rebellion disclaimer

BF, where is the link to the disclaimer? I can only see a generic link to the domain. Remember what you have written when you write "Your attempt to equate XYLO to ESP is a falshood". It will come back to haunt your credibility. Thanks. --82.132.245.94 (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  • WP:ICANTHEARYOU is a long-standing technique of disruptive editing on Wikipedia (and can result in blocking; or article protection from editing). Anybody who reads the article and knoows how to use a computer can click on the link to get to the reference. Because I am so nice, here is a special link to Gail Bradbrook's public letter clarifying attribution XR Business: Public Correction, and at the bottom (in black and white, literally), under "DISCLAIMER" (all caps), it the link to "www.extinctionsymbol.info", which of course makes zero reference to your XYLO character, because XYLO has nothing to do with the symbol; he is only trying to fake his involvement via Wikipedia (because no other reliable RS will do it for him). Britishfinance (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, you've not updated the topic page. However, it would not meet WP:RS due to its WP:COI.
Gail's letter is not actually a"public letter clarifying attribution", it's merely a passing comment in a blog post about an entirely different issue. --82.132.230.49 (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • So Gail Bradbrook (notable enough to have her own WP article), on the main website of Extinction Rebellion (notable enough to have their own WP article), and NOT a "blog", literally titled the open letter "XR Business: Public Correction", clarified that ESP is the creator of the symbol, which they license.
As well as WP:ICANTHEARYOU, we have another term for tendentious editing on Wikipedia; it is called sealioning. Britishfinance (talk) 10:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Statement by 82.132* re attribution to XYLO

(another post from the 82.132* IP to my Talk Page, to try and get XYLO attributed as the artist who created the symbol) . Britishfinance (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, just dropped by to add a quick note (probably from yet another IP address. I don't know, I have not checked).
Luk, why on earth bother wasting your time building up a bogus case? These are all just public access, dynamic IP addresses that the tools available to use would quickly identify as different users. I was not asserting authority, just heading off BF patronising me.
BF, I read over that essay linked to from your user page. Although far broader in scope than what I wrote, I can find very little that I cannot agree with nor which contradicts what I wrote.
Where you and it gets it wrong, however, is perceiving the Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia whereas it is really just a computer war game where factoids and policies are the weapons, where the content is the battlefield, and into which real world COI seap in to battle over how reality is to be seen and which is one not by what is right, but by whoever is willing and able to invest the time and energy to defend their territories. And pretty much as futile as fighting over a drawing in the sand.
Surely by now you are conscious of this? Just take a look at pretty much any religious, political or nationalistic topic.
You're still digging your heels in and distorting reality over this. I never tried to use a Wikipedia article to "promote XYLO as the artist" who created the Extinction symbol, all I did was fill in the history that ESP "was originally known or promoted themselves as XYLO" (indeed, the symbol symbolized X-Y-L-O). There is a distinct difference between the two.
From a policy point of view, I refer back to WP:COMMONSENSE/WP:IGNORE (and why the first is not a written policy, "It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy").
Art becomes notable because of where and how it is displayed. Galleries and shows are like journals for sciences papers. Other mediums forms such as documentaries are also RS.
What you have here are numerous earlier references to the creator as XYLO. Somehow that has to be squared by the topic (and not by some ridiculous fantasy).
For example, here, it is documented as or with the notable artist Carrie Reichardt who has worked as or with XYLO on extinction symbols from a date long before the symbol became notable to the degree it is now.

Next to this piece was a collaboration in progress by Xylo (originally covered here) and Carrie Reichardt. Carrie Reichardt created all of the tiles with political and environmental messages on them. Her focus was on bees. I think this will look amazing once it's finished.

Note how XYLO also uses the Goldenfrog motif.
Now, your interpretation of the RS policy is incorrect. There is no such thing as "tier 1" references, and policy specifically states that not all content taken from such sources would meet WP:RS as, eg, it differentiates from proper reportage and lightweight opinion pieces.
As I have correctly highlighted, there is a problem relying on the sources you have, as they are part of an WP:COI echo chamber.
*A COI editor quoting a newspaper article,
*that quotes a blog,
*that is quoting the very same COI editor,
*working up their own PR.
Now know, that is a serious problem. You can kneejerk into denial and attempt to building up a defence based on manipulating policy to suit your position (see my comment re WP:BATTLEGROUND up above), but ultimately it has to be taken into consideration. I appreciate that I am in a privileged positon of actually knowning who they are, but I am not exploit that here.
I just care a little more about accuracy.
If the Wikipedia is going to end up a slave and tool to PR campaigns, which it is in certain areas, then it is doomed. --82.132.245.94 (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Don't need to repeat all the extensive replies given to this disruptive editor, with an agenda, except to say:
Posting low-grade blog references to XYLO means nothing; I could make them up about myself.
There is such a thing as Tier 1 RS (see WP:RSP for The Guardian); your references to XYLO are junk, the references to ESP/Goldfrog are not.
On one had you claim WP:COI as an artist promotion piece (even though I have re-written the article myself), but then you want to promote XYLO???
I had a good laugh that the symbol is made from X-Y-L-O (which means nothing on WP); but aren't we missing a top horizontal line? Shouldn't Dave have called himself XY-LO?
I had an even better laugh at the second last line I just care a little more about accuracy..
Your credits are almost all burnt up here. Britishfinance (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't think so and it's very bad form to edit other titles in a prejudicial manner on talk pages or elsewhere.
As stated on your talk page, no need to cross post confusingly after I asked you not to,
Firstly, if you paid closer attention you'd see that that particular Guardian reference is redundant as all it basically does is quote the Ecohustler blog and the artists own site.
Are you sure Ecohustler meets WP:RS?
Secondly, the XR site would certainly not within this context as, again, being indebted to the artists in some undisclosed manner, it would fail at WP:COI.
Unlike you both, I won't stoop to personal attacks to discredit other editors. --82.132.230.49 (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Kotte: "Criticism of" section?

OK, I check the link to the Kottke blog, here, emphasizing that it is just a blog (I can't see where the author has made it over into mainstream WP:RS sources), and what you are doing, BritishFinance, is essentially entirely contradictory to WP:NEWSORG, as flagged up above.

What you are doing in an attempt to establish credibility is using weak reference after weak reference that are all just copy and pastes of Xylo's own website.

There's no independent verification going on. No editorial imput. The sources (individuals) are either neither not notable in the field, nor independent (eg using XR's own Gail Bradbrook).

As an experienced editor you must surely know what you are doing and that this is wrong, so please stop.

I'll add it to my list of cleaning up unless you can justify it.

Reading the final paragraphs, however, if you feel strongly about its inclusion, it may be fair grounds to start a "Criticism of" section regarding the licensing of it.

Here’s the thing: I want a t-shirt with the extinction symbol on it so I can signify my support (in a small way) for climate justice. If I’m reading this correctly, I can make a t-shirt for myself but not have one made for me? Or can I have a single print-on-demand shirt made for me at cost? Making my own shirt (I’d need to buy a bunch of single-use supplies) or getting a one-off printed doesn’t seem very climate-friendly at all. I think we’re bumping up against an inconvenient truth about capitalism here: it is sometimes (or perhaps even often) the most efficient and least wasteful way to produce something because it’s actually a deeply collectivist endeavor. Is it more climate friendly for all those people to individually buy supplies and each produce their own things ... That seems far less wasteful to me than people buying one-off supplies, even on a group basis.

And so on. That bit.

Thank you. --82.132.221.72 (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment. Jason Kottke is a notable graphic designer with his own Wikipedia article, and the Extinction symbol is a piece of graphic design. In addition, if you read Jason Kottke's BLP, his blog is also individually notable, and one of the most noted blogs in the entire internet space (not just in graphic design – the entire internet space). That makes his post very suitable for inclusion in this article.
There is not enough WP:RS material, or indeed criticism, for a separate section on "criticism of licensing" at this stage. Britishfinance (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

EcoHustler

Where did we get to re EcoHustler?

Does it met WP:RS?

I had a quick look, it appears to an entirely unattributed blog. [21]

Thanks, --82.132.216.240 (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment. No, Ecohustler is not a blog. It is also good enough to be referenced by The Guardian here who don't called it a blog. Remember, The Guardian is a WP:RSP source, so in this context, their reference of Ecohustler (as per other good RS as well), means that the Ecohustler interview is important. Britishfinance (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

COI of 82.132* account re XYLO

(pasted in from my talk page) Britishfinance (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Dave Stuart isn't an "East End Lad", nor is he claiming to be the creator of the Extinction symbol. He is a professional and probably the leading expert in London Street Art scene.
Mores to the point, he knows and has corresponded with XYLO/ESP for many years.
Dave's position is, to quote him directly, he has "no desire to piss on Xylo's chips" if they want to re-market if they want to remarket themselves as ESP.
That's why I say, in order to be sure of your position, ask either of them directly in order to gain some kind of perspective on this issue.
You are going way beyond the point of reasonable in this issue and contravening numerous policies to do so. Your screaming and hectoring and repeating of ungrounded and, quite frankly, ridiculous accusation won't make some true; nor make something that is true any less true. I think you need to get a grip and regain your neutrality.
Thank you. --82.132.221.72 (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment. At least we can confirm your WP:COI here.
Your quote: You are going way beyond the point of reasonable in this issue and contravening numerous policies to do so. Your screaming and hectoring and repeating of ungrounded and, quite frankly, ridiculous accusation won't make some true; nor make something that is true any less true., is a completely unwarranted attack given (1) all the comprehensive replies I have given to all your questions here (and also on my Talk Page), and (2) which have been done in a civil manner, despite a consistent pattern of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Britishfinance (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@82.132.221.72: Looking at this page after a weekend away, I am starting to believe you are not editing in good faith and not attempting to improve the encyclopedia. You were asked to provide a reliable, secondary source that would support your claim that Xylo is the creator of the symbol. Instead, you are either nitpicking on other parts of the article or providing first account references, trying to tire other editors so they will agree with you. I understand that proper attribution of underground/street art is harder than other subjects, but Wikipedia is not supposed to lower the bar so every fringe attribution gets mentioned. The burden of proof was on you and you didn't meet it. -- Luk talk 14:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Luk, the purpose of a talk page is discuss the topic with other editors. I am astounded that are turning a blind eye to what Britishfinance is doing here, the quality of the sources they have used, the quite serious policy breaches, and so on.
I am sorry but I am going to have to take a moment to revert Britishfinance's prejudicial and provocative changing of the headings and what I wrote and, I suspect, refer his conduct elsewhere.
The page is work in progress and will remain so.
That the artist did refer to themselves as Xylo is a fact, as the Xylo.me website and others show.
That the artist is remarketing themselves (as ESP), as many artists have done, is also a fact.
Indeed, it has been proven, albeit not to a standard sufficient for inclusion on the topic page alone, by the artist themselves within this discussion. I have no researched the use and standing of archive.org on the Wikipedia but will do so now.
If you re-wind to the beginning, all I did was enter what I thought was non-controversial data - and flag up the WP:COI - before being attacked by the artist themselves for doing so in a clear case of WP:OWNERSHIP. There can be no denial of that. --82.132.216.240 (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment. For the 100th time with 82.132*, we have strong sources in this article (WP:RSP like The Guardian, and very good RS like Le Figaro, Creative Review, Dezeen, and more). None of them - not a single one - mention your XYLO. You have tried to attack every one of them, and have even deleted RS like Accuweather because they mention ESP/Goldfrog. Your XYLO sources are junk blogs, or xylo's own website. To call this prejudicial and provocative, and your other accusations against me on my talk page, shows that you are not here to improve this article; you are here to advance an agenda (e.g. that XYLO created this symbol), which no RS - again, not a single one - agrees with. You are willing to make personal attacks, hound me on my talk page, and engage in tendentious editing (esp. WP:ICANTHEARYOU). Your COI means that you should also not be editing this article. Britishfinance (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment. I just realised that you deleted the heading I made on this new section "COI of 82.132* account re XYLO", as these concerns are very serious. Such deletion of a COI concern is a violation of a Talk Page and yet another example of your disruptive editing on this article. Per above, I am going to rever the changes you have made to the article (deleting the Accuweather RS, again, because it states the artist is ESP/Goldfrog with zero mention of a XYLO). Britishfinance (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:British artists

The Category:British artists is clearly wrong. It's a category of artists, not art works. --82.132.221.72 (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment. ESP/Goldfrog is noted as a London artist (per all the references that you repeatedly ignore); it is possible that we may also merge this page as a BLP article as things develop, however, in the meantime we will categorise ESP/Goldfrog's appearance on Wikipedia by adding the British artists category here. Britishfinance (talk) 10:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment. You ignored the above comment and deleted the category; but this (and also due to the additional concern on your COI), has been reverted. Britishfinance (talk) 11:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

brut.media

I looked at the brut.media link. See above for nature of policy breach. I'll add it onto the list of cruft to be removed.

Any objections? --82.132.221.72 (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment Brut (média) is a notable French media source with its own Wikipedia article who have done a piece on the symbol, so it stays. Of course, the real issue is that the Brut (média) piece explicitly mentions "ESP Goldfrog" as the artist who created the symbol; nothing about your XYLO lad. Britishfinance (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The problem with the link offered is that it isn't "a piece" but a copy of the same wire material you have used elsewhere, eg Accuweather etc. It's just a quote of Ecohustler blog, quoting the artist's current site. --82.132.216.240 (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment No, it's Brut media's copy; making online videos is what they do. Accuweather just used Brut media's material. There is nothing to say that this is from Ecohustler (which is not a blog), it could be from the Guardian or their own research. Britishfinance (talk) 10:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Revision of off Wikipedia sources

I'm just flagging this up for anyone who comes this way and is trying to make sense of this discussion.

I've noticed that some of the earlier, original off Wikipedia sources naming Xylo as the creator have been revised in response to the discussion on this talk page. Presumably instigated by the artist/editor here.

This is revealed by comparing the Google Caches to the current revision, eg Jenikya's street art website 2014 was

"Street Art: Xylo

Street artist Xylo creates small sculptures that are pasted up onto London's walls. ",

now reads

"Street Art: Anonymous paste-up plaques

These anonymous street artists create small sculptures that are pasted up onto London's walls."

The spidercreative page that used to read

"Xylo’s website says:

“The world is currently undergoing a mass extinction event, and this symbol is intended to help raise awareness of the urgent need for change in order to address this crisis.

Xylo does some really cool things on the streets of London. Bravo." (links to Goldfrog page)

Has now been removed, although remains in various caches.

There are other cases, therefore there appears to be a concerted historical revision going on.

Thanks. --82.132.224.75 (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment The above is an example of the non-RS, promotional agenda, of 82.132*, whose various IPs have been blocked for persistent distuptive editing. Britishfinance (talk) 09:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Clarification on Reliable Sources

What WP:NEWSORG policy actually states is,

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact ... If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact.

What all of the current reference underline is facade of anonymity, merely repeat the artist's current website and the XR organization's PR, whereas the specialists in Street Art and the artist's previous identical website all refer back to when the artist called themselves XYLO.

If the artist's identity identity has not verified by a reliable source, then perhaps the article should just reflect the anonymity?

BF, the position you are taking over the early references is a little hypocritical when you are adding blog references like inspiringcity.com that would not meet WP:RS.

What makes inspiringcity.com reliable and, say, Dave Stuart, [22] [23] not?

Ditto, XR organization's website also fails WP:RS and WP:COI, therefore cannot be presented as reliable for statements of fact.

AccuWeather clearly fails WP:RS is merely a Youtube video repeating the Ecohustler blog quoted by the Guardian article and, again, the artist's own website (see "Multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article"). What it empasizes is the "clouded" nature of it origin. As does the www.hotfootdesign.co.uk reference (it is just a company website quoting the Ecohuster blog) and the kottke.org reference that, again, is just a blog.

I appreciate art is not your métier, so I include a couple of background references only as to who he is. He's a full-time expert in the field. Possibly the only one in London.

Thank you. --82.132.230.49 (talk) 05:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

If no one can come up better alternatives or substantiation for the weaker references, I'm going to start removing them and the related content, as per policy.
Your re-insert of the "fake" accusations is clearly a bad faith edit. You know the policy. You have also not come up with a substantive explanation for the 2011 xylo.me website that features both the Goldfrog and Extinction Symbols and links to precisely the same content as the official website.
I'll give it another 24 hours or so for you to provide good reason for inclusion of blogs and sites like accuweather before removing them so that I am on record as being reasonable.
I mean, seriously, they are inline with policy? And you're raising questions about the sincerity of others intentions? --82.132.221.72 (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. You clearly have a WP:COI here (as per below), and should not edit this article directly.
I am not going to explain to you for the 20th time, why a low-grade blog, and a WP:PRIMARY reference is not suitable in Wikipedia (e.g. your xylo.me website)
Accuweather is not a blog, it is a notable website with its own Wikipedia article.
You questions no longer appear as good faith edits; extraordinary time has been spent explaining references like The Guardian, Extinction Rebellion, Creative Review, Dezeen, and others – ALL of whom refer to ESP/Goldfrog, NONE of whom refer to your XYLO character. Britishfinance (talk) 10:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps you ought to read the AccuWeather Wiki page to help you decide?
The concern I am flagging up here being your willingness to distort or manipulate policies disingenuously.
You are not actually attempting to engage to improve the topic article, your efforts are focused on distorting and confusing with groundless and insulting accusations. --82.132.224.75 (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment. I have and it is an RS. My edits are to protect independent RS that are verifiable; your edits are represented by your section below #Revision of off Wikipedia sources. Britishfinance (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Extinction_symbol/Archive_1&oldid=907929851"