Hello. I've had repeated issues with the user Walter Görlitz over a three year period and Id like things to be dealt with. As it's getting extremely tiring and has seriously hindered my ability to edit Wikipedia in peace. The latest examples are WP:Articles for deletion/13th GMA Dove Awards where he called the BEFORE I did to ascertain notability disingenuous. Also, on Bethel Music's talk page I suggested the article be split and he said I shouldn't be able to do the split because I disdain Christian. Which clearly rises to the level of harassment as defined by WP:Harassment. There's plenty of other examples out there of similar things. Like arbitrarily removing banners I've added to articles, reverting even basic edits I've done to articles that he is fine other users making, repeated edit warring, disparaging me for asking questions on official message boards multiple times, etc etc. All of it is clearly a targeted attempt to dissuade me from editing through intimidation and other tactics. Especially his comment in Bethel Music I tried to talk to him about it and asked him multiple times to leave me and my edits alone, but he's been unwilling to be reasonable and stop with the behavior. So, I'd appreciate it if someone stepped in. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can second this opinion by Adamant1. I only recently met Walter Görlitz when he began to edit war over a paragraph break. I found this to be evidence of a very combative editor; apparently, he wrote the lead of the article where I inserted the paragraph break, and he was very much against any deviation from "his" version. It baffled me to the point where I looked over his talk page, and saw a link to this discussion. I don't know anything about Adamant1's problems with Walter, but I thought I should speak up to say that he's not the only one to experience this from Walter. JimKaatFan (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One editor is not capable of edit-warring alone, and based on your description, you would have initiated it. You made a bold edit to introduce a paragraph break, and it was reverted. BRD is the generally accepted process, which means at that point you discuss, not revert again. And if you are going to make accusations about misbehaviour (OWNing and EWing in this case), you are required provide evidence supporting them otherwise you are casting aspersions. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed (and had them removed on my part) notability templates after AfDs because it has been shown that the subject is notable. I have shown you that the subject is notable by the news with Kirk Franking (essentially WP:BEFORE) but you want me to add the content. I can do that, but I'm busy responding to frivolous ANI discussions and dealing with my family.

As for the paragraph breaks, I was simply comparing other band articles of similar size. We don't need a break there, but I have given up on trying to convince you of that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

as for splitting the Bethel Music article, a simple check of your AfDs and related discussions (at EL about references used) and other locations show that you want to minimize their presence on Wikipedia. Time and time again, other editors have told you that you're wrong and yet you continue to attack this and other charismatic Christian groups. Yes, you edit in other areas, but you come back to these groups. I think the solution is to continue to ask questions about them, but not edit the articles until you can do it in a neutral way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article your mentioning isn't really one I have a problem with. Nor did I mention it here. Although, that it took me re-adding the template multiple times for you to agree to adding the sources instead of just removing the template does speak to the general problem this is about. Re, "I attack charismatic Christian groups." I asked for evidence of that and you haven't given any. I edit Christian articles in an extremely small amount relative to other topics and compared to how much you edit them. None of it rises to trying to minimize their presence and I don't know or care what articles are "charismatic." With the article your adding sources to, I repeatedly told you to improve the sourcing before removing the template and encouraged you to add in the part about Kirk Franking. I'm not sure how that's attempting to minimizing charismatic Christianity or a disdainful action. I'd love to see some evidence that is though.

Most other articles I've edited, christian or otherwise are along the same lines. Mostly I edit company articles. Including doing the same type of edits your claiming show I disdain and minimizing of Charismatic Christians. I guess I disdain companies and am trying to minimize their presence to. Either that or there's just a lot of low quality articles out there that need improving, Christian or otherwise. There's nothing nefarious about my edits or the intent behind them, all of my edits have been "basic house cleaning", and none of them excuse or justify how you've treated me. Also, it's pretty ridiculous to claim I'm trying to minimize the presence of a religious group over a few AfDs. Our problems predate the AfD's by a long time anyway and some of your actions have taken place outside of Christian topics.

A few more examples, on Bethel Church (Redding, California) I tried to re-add a removed (without discussion) criticism section. He repeatedly reverted me, but then was fine with someone else adding it back. It was clearly a personally motivated edit war and had nothing to do with just being a bad edit on my part. On this RFC about Michelin stars, he badgered me for asking the question and claimed I was lecturing/re-litigating things for having a personal opinion about it. Also, somewhere else I asked about using social media links. He went off about how I asked in the wrong board (even though didn't), accused me of waiting until he was on vacation to ask the question so he couldn't reply to it, and treated me like I was lying about there being an admin involved in the discussion (who called him out for having an attitude). Then after the admin and another person said it was better not to use social media links, he discounted them by claiming they just didn't understand my question. Plus, he said their opinions were not valid because I asked in the wrong place (which I didn't). Later, he repeatedly reverted me when I tried to improve links to social media accounts. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nor will I provide any proof of your hostility. It's evident is someone wants to dig and it's not something I want to use as evidence. I will simply make the claim and the request.

And for the RSN—and I made this clear to you yesterday and you show here that you have no faith in what I wrote—I formulated my opinion of the question before I knew who it was that wrote it and my response did not change because it was someone who has shown disdain toward me and my opinions in the past. The majority of editors were similarly incredulous that anyone would question whether Michelin stars were a source for notability. I see you hold long grudges and you'll dig into those. I just build general opinions about individuals and I won't throw specifics back at them. If you want to split that article, I will alert the project that I think someone hostile to the aims of the project is about to act and stand back to see how they approach the situation, but I simply advised you that I do not think you should touch that article because I so not think that you will approach it fairly. Prove me wrong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And as for criticism sections, would you like to reiterate my reasons for excluding them or do you want to make it seem as though I wanted it removed? No, you want to make it appear as though it was nefarious. In fact I repeatedly reminded you that Wikipedia:Criticism should be blended into existing sections of an article, and not be in a stand-alone section. I have never objected to adding criticism alone, but it gives WP:UNDUE weight to the criticism if it is in a stand-alone section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you won't, because none exists. You can't even support a simple thing like that I used AfD's to target charismatic Christians. That's the problem. You've repeatedly made unfounded claims, used them to justify your actions, and ignored WP:Harassment and other guidelines about proper behavior in the process. Then you just deny your abusive behavior when people call you out for it. That's why this exists. Whatever beef we had was like 2 years ago and I could really give a crap about you or your opinions at this point. I haven't edited any Christian articles since then, except for the few last week because I knew you'd start in again with your bias crap if I did and I didn't want to deal with it. Your the one holding the grudge by screwing with my edits and insulting me two years later. Just get over it, and leave me alone. I'm sick of saying it. It's exactly why an admin should step in and deal with you.

As far as the criticism section of Bethel Church goes, no where in your reverts did you say anything alone the lines of "weave it into the article." You just said if I had a problem with your revert to take it up on the talk page. You didn't say so on the talk page anywhere either. So, that's simply a lie. I didn't see the talk page discussion until recently anyway. It should have been your thing to discuss it on the talk page though since it was already there for years before it was removed and your the one that had the problem with it. It's on other people to do things how you want them and reverting isn't to he used to push a certain way of doing things. On the Michelin Stars thing, there where plenty of comments and the opinions where mostly split. Only one other comment that I saw, out of like twenty besides yours, had a problem with me asking. So your statement that it was the majority of editors is simply false. A lot of them thought they shouldn't Michelin Stars shouldn't automatically count for notability. Your attitude about it and everything else is the issue here, including with splitting the Bethel Music article. I have every right to ask questions or suggest things without being badgered, insulted, or slandered. All I did on the Bethel Music article was make a suggestion, that I said I didn't even want to do it myself, but you couldn't even handle that without turning into a big issues and slandering me. That's why it's WP:Harassment, and again why I posted this. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Adamant1: Please provide diffs for the claimed misconduct. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @MarkH21: There's the Bethel Music comment that I disdain Christians. Also this comment. Where he said "you're not at all neutral on them and Christians in general. You have a disdain for them. That has been evident in the way you attack them, their sources and their claims. If you were truly neutral, you wouldn't concern yourself with the articles." There is also this AfD where he called my BEFORE disingenuous. The comment on the RFC for Michelin Stars doesn't seem to have a diff because it's archived or something. I'll quote it though, hopefully that works. "You came here of your own free will. You asked a question. You received a unanimous opinion from the first three editors who responded. Now you're going to lecture us on how we're wrong?" This is the link to it. You can just search for his name to find the comment if need be. He's also repeated the same thing multiple times in this discussion. Including in his last comment "If you want to split that article, I will alert the project that I think someone hostile to the aims of the project is about to act." Hopefully those work. There's more comments out there, but I'd have to find them. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I also found this. I can't do the diff thing there either because it's also archived or something. If you look for "Musical artists and albums pages being excessively linked to Amazon or iTunes - while I was on vacation" He says negative things about me there. Including threatening me and claiming I asked in the wrong place. "this is an official warning to Adamant1, the next time you remove references from the article and tag it incorrectly as you did in the diff linked above, I will take you to 3RR for long-term edit warring. In short, wrong place to discuss this issue." Also, a quote from him claiming my question about social media links was "bait" that other users took (insinuating I was trolling for asking), which also discounted other people's opinions "Second, Ian.thomson fell for the bait and stated that we cannot use commercial site per WP:ELNO." He later used that as justification to continue edit warring me. I'm sure there's more out there. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• So you're claiming I created a "bait" that others "took"? Don't you mean that pointed something out that others agreed with? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No, what happened there was that I asked a question about using references to social media accounts, an admin (and another user) told me it was fine to get rid of them if I wanted. So better references could be added instead. So, I did (and said in my changeset that an admin told me it was OK because I knew you might flip out about it). Then you reverted me multiple times, accused me of lying that an admin had said it was OK to delete the refs, and went off in that discussion about it to the admin. Which is where you said the only reason the admin that you thought wasn't one told me it was OK to delete the references was because they took my bait (whatever that meant). Then you discounted their opinions as not valid because I asked the question in the wrong place, an internal versus external linking message board or whatever when it didn't matter, and also discounted them because supposedly I wasn't clear about what I meant in my original question. When I was and you weren't involved in the original discussion to determine that anyway. Which was also why your accusation that I was lying about talking to an admin was crap. Hopefully that clarifies it. It's yet another good example of where your bias negative opinions of my actions led you to treat me in a bad way, for something where I really didn't do anything wrong. I was just doing what the admin and other user said to. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I just looked at the discussion, and ELNO still does not apply to references and Amazon and iTunes are not social media. @WhatamIdoing: might be able to recount the discussion. That discussion goes on to show what transpired. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, that was about commercial sites. There was like 3 different places I asked similar questions at the time that you got the same massive attitude about. I'm pretty sure the details other then that are the same. I'll look through and try to find the first discussion when I have time. IMO whatever you want to say about something applying or not to that particular message board, the people who were actually involved in the discussion didn't say that was the case and they still answered my question. Otherwise, I would have been fine taking it somewhere else. They would have had the same answer where they would have responded to it in though, because policy is policy. Especially with the admin. The problem is you treating the whole thing like they just didn't know what they were doing, or like I intentionally went to the wrong place to fool people so I could get the answer I wanted. That wasn't the case. I would have done whatever they said. Even if they had of said to keep the links. I just didn't understand the policy and you where badgering me about it. So I asked for clarification. It's not on me, the medium where I asked, or them being fooled into saying to delete the links. Btw, your ping didn't seem to work. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing is that it matters how they are used to, my issue was always more with them being used in articles where they were the only or main sources, used as ref bombing or redundantly along with other better sources, and in a way to advertise. I could ultimately care less if there's a few links to in an article to cite basic facts, but that's not how they where used. In the articles that lead to me asking the question about them, like 50 of the citations in both where to Amazon and iTunes and that's pretty much all there was. In no way is that an OK way to cite things in an article. Whatever guideline there might be about it being OK cite Amazon once in a while to support a fact. Again, I have zero problem with that and it was never my issue. Although, if the article already has a better citation to a more reliable source for the same information, there's no reason not to just go with that instead. Unless your just trying to make the article seem notable through ref bombing. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I found the discussion. It's here under "Musical artists and albums pages being excessively linked to Amazon or iTunes" (Again, it was the excessive use of them that I had a problem with). To quote Ian.thomson (who was the admin) " WP:ELNO #5 says those links should not be included. Feel free to remove them again, linking to that point and leave a uw-spam warning on the usertalk of restores it. If I'm on and active, feel free to ping me when you warn them." Also the other user said "Most of these are indeed hardly ever suitable as external links, but used in the right context they can serve as primary references for certain information. It does seem a bit overdone, though." Again, it was about the amount they where being used. Ian.thomson also said "Many of the commercial citations don't verify the information they're cited for" and they also called out Kuda88 for doing it "So we have a number of articles, many of which limp by on WP:NM while otherwise failing WP:GNG, all created by a single purpose account that drastically switched topics, that all contain weak references to sites that sell products for two connected organizations. Now, I can imagine that there's a perfectly innocent explanation, especially if the user in question promises to do better with referencing in the future (maybe stop citing sources that sell the music entirely)." Which was also partly what motivated me to the whole thing with him having a COI that you brow beat me repeatedly over. You went off and edited warred me over a lot of links that didn't even contain the information they where suppose to verify. Even with the ones that did, I was still told I could removed because of how they where being cited. Btw, I brought up the over linking to sites that sell music to Kuda88 like was recommended. He didn't respond, you needlessly involved yourself with your combative confrontational crap (which just made it look like he wasn't doing anything and I was), and he's still doing it (or at least he was the last time I checked). So, thanks for that. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's because you misconstrued references as external links. You didn't understand the difference then and you don't seem to understand it now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: No I didn't. Even if I did though, they looked at the articles themselves and I'm sure they could have told the difference if it mattered. What happened to accepting what other people tell you? That must only matter when it comes to getting what you want. Why not just accept that half or more of the references in an article shouldn't be to Amazon or iTunes? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have no horse in this particular dispute, but this name rang some bells. I had an encounter with Walter Görlitz a few years ago, and he left the impression of a hostile editor who has a tendency to WP:OWN content even if consensus may be challenging his personal opinion. I had a quick look at the talk page mentioned here, saw him casting aspersions, and realized my memory must be correct. I don't think it's a coincidence that I recall him specifically for the no-true-scotsman thing. Cryptic Canadian 04:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not responding to this any further, but Adamant1 really needs to find a better tone in their noms and arguments for deleting articles; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Gospel Music Association and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Gospel Museum and Hall of Fame, where they derisively refer to the latter as merely 'a room'. My vote! that a hall of fame and organization for a well-known genre of music were notable and they need to find better sources was viciously taken apart in a way that's chilled me from commenting any further (and note that I'm hardly a hardcore Christian, I just argued that deep sourcing should be very easy to find for a Southern Gospel topic and they think that, along with simply reminding the nom that the SGMA isn't a company but a non-profit, is a 'totally trash' reason for a keep vote!.). I can see why Walter has taken issue with the OP's tone, because I never want to deal with them again myself. Again, no further comment, so don't bother with a ping, just my experience with the OP. And just looking at this summary on Bethel, it explains succinctly why it was a rare error on my part to comment on an AfD they created. Nate • (chatter) 21:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just stumbled upon this thread and thought I'd give my two cents. I had a weird experience with Walter Görlitz on the Kirk Franklin article in April 2018. I tried to add a recent image of Franklin to the infobox to replace the current one from 1999. Despite the image being creative commons, Walter reverted my edit twice and nominated it for deletion on wiki commons despite the fact the image was from this video with a creative commons license at the bottom. He then nominated it for deletion but it was closed because... it was creative commons. (I later requested the deletion of the photo because the metadata contained identifying information). A second incident was in December 2019 on the Yolanda Adams article. I tried to replace the current photo (which in my opinion is useless because you can barely identify her) with this one from September 2019, also creative commons licensed. Despite this, he reverted my edits and I just gave up at that point. I believe he violates WP:OWN a lot. These articles would have better images (in my opinion) if not for him! Heartfox (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First video is copyrighted to Emmis Communications, the owner of WBLS; definitely a copyvio (YT has that blanket disclaimer but the final ownership continues to reside with whoever produces the content, and it would have a "© 2019" tag on the station's website, no matter what). Second really doesn't look any better than the HQ 2010 shot. I'd rather have a really great PD image than a blurry video screencap any day of the week. No OWN found here at all. Nate • (chatter) 02:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, the deletion nomination was closed and the file was kept because it's not a copyright violation; WBLS tagged the video with a Creative Commons license at the bottom of the description, and yet Walter Görlitz refused to let the image be in the article. I think you misunderstand—YouTube's Creative Commons FYI states that "you retain your copyright and other creators get to reuse your work subject to the terms of the license." A screenshot of Franklin smiling in the video could not possibly be worse than that picture from 1999. I will try to add one to the article again. Heartfox (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Look through the changeset histories of many articles and the vast majority of edits will be him reverting people over little, minor none issues. He's reverted me more then a few times for doing basic edits like changing a word an article or adding a "better source needed" thing to one. When I was a new user he called me pathetic in a changeset comment and said I needed to get a life. So, he definitely has some ownership issues and a not good attitude. Which are clearly not just confined to my edits. @Mrschimpf: I apologize for my tone in the AfD. I was already pretty upset over the personal attacks etc by Walter and the whole room thing really seemed like nitpicking. As I explained later, it is actually in a room. It's extremely frustrating when people don't assume good faith on the part of the nominator when they vote. All we can do is what we can do. Clearly I shouldn't have described where the hall of fame was located. Regardless, even though I had things going on, made the grave error of describing something and there was nitpicking on your part, I still could have used a better tone. Even if your's wasn't great. So, that was my bad, really. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • After reading this comment chain, I took a closer look and it truly does seem that "revert, revert, revert, insult" is a habitual issue with him, because his block history is a mile long, all for edit warring and incivility. I was particularly taken aback by this one where he wastes his time deliberately making someone's editing experience more difficult, for a reason that is objectively wrong. He's also been brought up at ANI many times for these same problems (([1], [2], [3]). He doesn't seem like a bad editor, per se, but frankly, I'm surprised that he hasn't been hit with a 1RR yet. Cryptic Canadian 03:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think either if your edit summaries were particularly clear that the original video on Youtube was Creative Commons licenced. Maybe Walter Görlitz should have looked more carefully but the reality is despite Youtube providing the option, not that many copyright holders actually use it. I.E. A lot of time either the video wasn't uploaded by the copyright holder even if the tag is used, or they don't release it under a free licence. I mean heck, Youtube themselves generally hide the licence unless you click the show more. And of course, even when the content is released under creative commons, it's often the case that screen caps, extracts or reuploads of the whole video aren't that useful so they aren't in articles. So I don't think it's particularly surprising if editors may miss or be unaware that some Youtube content can be re-used.
    Since the file was deleted on your request, I don't know what it looked like, but if it was like File:Mariah Carey WBLS 2018 Interview 1.jpg, IMO it's not particular clear that you are stating the original Youtube video is Creative Commons. (More recent ones like File:Wendy Wiliams 2019 WBLS Interview.png are clearer due to the use of the Youtube template.)
    Remember we get a lot of people who seem to think just because they "made" a file, by making a screencap or something somehow it's entirely their own work and they get to choose the licence without regards for the copyright holder of whatever they took their content from. In other words, it's a fairly understandable mistake to make. No one is going to support sanctioned Walter Görlitz over it.
    I would suggest if you get into this confusion in the future, more communication is the key. In your edit summary, say something like "original video on Youtube was released by the copyright holder under CC-By-SA" or something. Or stop just communicating only via edit summaries and use talk pages.
    Nil Einne (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: I think your missing the point here that discussing it either doesn't help or when it does there has to be a massively uphill battle, involving insults and reverts in the meantime. It doesn't help that he routinely deletes messages on his talk page that might shed him a bad light and then continues reverting people. So realistically where else are things going to be communicated except in changeset comments? Also, it's unrealistic to use article talk pages as places to hash out personal disputes and people shouldn't have to go through a protracted process every time they want to make a basic edit just because Walter disagrees with it anyway. More so considering most of the time he just ultimately ignores people who do try to discuss things and continues his behavior, like he did with the person who messaged him about the syntax highlighting reverts. More discussion isn't the answer here. At this point it needs to be dealt with in another way, that doesn't involving repeatedly groveling on his talk page for the privilege of making rudimentary edits. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: Reverting copyvios is the correct course of action. If you think it isn't then you shouldn't be editing here. If you agree it is the correct course of action, then I don't see why you don't accept that Walter Görlitz made a minor mistake in not noticing that the video was CC licenced on Youtube, which as I've explained in detail is fairly understandable under the circumstances. I have no idea how "Reverted 1 edit by Heartfox (talk): The image is a still from a YouTube video, which is itself copyrighted (TW)" or "Reverted good faith edits by Heartfox (talk): Copyyright violation (TW)" is an insult, or at least enough of an insult to make an editor unable to talk about the issue. I also have no idea how on earth a belief that an image is copyvio is a "personal dispute". (Although more personal issues can to some extent be discussed on editor talk pages.) Frankly, I wonder if you are missing the point I was trying to make. I was only commenting on one particular aspect of what Heartfox said which I found fairly flawed. I did not comment on anything else, since I found that particular aspect flawed enough that it didn't seem worth it. I have not read your comments so of course could not be replying to them, and frankly your reply to me suggests it was the correct course of action. Nil Einne (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was only one example out of many though. He can be correct in some instances on a policy level, but still be completely in how he handle things. They aren't mutually exclusive and his problems should still dealt with even if he might get a few reverts right sometimes. I don't if he did in the particular case your talking about. Nor do I care because my problem with him isn't about one edit but a continuum of multiple issues. That said, what I was specifically responding to was the last part of your message where you said "stop just communicating only via edit summaries and use talk pages." Your use of plurals made it sound like the last sentence in your message was more a general thing that wasn't confined to that single edit. More so since that's what 99% of the comments so far have been about. If I miss interpreted your phrasing though, my bad. At least we know where your position is on this whole thing. That it's OK to revert people "because opinions" on unrelated talk pages, and that people who reply to you based on how you phrase things should piss off and go edit somewhere else, because again "opinions." I'd appreciate it if you didn't comment anymore. Your attitude isn't constructive and doesn't add anything to the discussion. There's enough negative, judgmental crap as it is and it seriously gets in the way of resolving things. Thanks for helping resolving that one dispute though (that really doesn't matter), really.  --Adamant1 (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Walter_Görlitz came to my attention as the only editor (if memory serves correctly) who reverted and argued for using Liliputing as a source at Kodi_(software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as "consensus" was forming that it was a self-published, not reliable source. The factoid being supported was not controversial, so the logic behind insisting on using the source was puzzling to me. I don't recall any other interactions, including any of the above TL;DR. I can't fault them for standing behind their position, or their "civility" during the discussions, and they eventually went along with the "consensus" in the interaction I recall. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I briefly interacted with Walter Görlitz only on one occasion. Here. His editing of subjects related to religious communities does appear problematic to me. For example, in this edit he reverted to restore content sourced to self-published materials included by a sock puppet [4]. Here he restored material which is simply not supported by the cited source. Then he did it again [5]. I have no idea if it is related to one specific subject or something more broad. My very best wishes (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds pretty par for the course with him. He reverted me a couple of times to restore sources I had removed because they didn't discuss what they where being cited for. I think reverts are just his default behavior. A lot of times he probably doesn't check the edit he is reverting before he does it. Which I think is proved by how many reverts he often does in such a short time period. The majority of his edits are reverts and most of them are done in quick succession. It's doubtful he reviews them, let alone thoroughly. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, at least in my case, he did check the source and did discuss the matter on article talk page, only to replace it by another source that ... also do not support the general statement [6], as I explained several times on talk page [7]. But again, this is probably not a big deal. My very best wishes (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: He admits to doing exactly that in another ANI thread happening right now, in response to yet another editor who is very upset with his disruptive reverts. Tellingly, he blows it off, as if this isn't a long-term, recurring issue that hasn't repeatedly gotten him blocked or hauled to ANI/AN3. I would say it's time for a 1RR. —{ CrypticCanadian } 02:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cryptic Canadian: I agree about it being time for 1RR. I noticed that he was mentioned in another ANI down below, but I haven't had to read over it. Except to see that someone was saying that he was acting above it all. If it is allowed and would be helpful perhaps you can mention this thread there and, if it hasn't been brought up yet, suggest a 1RR. It seems this discussion hasn't engaged the attention of the admins and I would like to see things dealt with. Reading through his prior ANI's it sounds like a few of the admins have already told him that if he continues abusing the revert system that would be the solution, or a block. I think 1RR would be adequate. As a side note, it's kind of ridiculous he's having issues in two ANI's at the same time. Especially for very similar things. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except the edit that the other edit was upset about was in no way disruptive. I in no way blew it off either. I engaged in constructive discussion yet none has been forthcoming from that editor. It seems you're both twisting the truth. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) IMO any proposal for action needs to be focused and with good examples illustrated by diffs if you want to have any chance of success. The thread that you both seem to be referring to seems to mostly concern another editor. While Walter Görlitz's name may have came up, it seems another poor example, as with the copyvio issue I highlighted below. In fact it's even poorer since this time, AFAICT, it's in reverse. It seems to have started when Walter Görlitz made 2 edits to an article. One was changing United States to U.S. [8], which okay you could debate whether it was a good idea or not but as a single edit, you're not likely to get far. Anyway the other edit was fixing a broken link in a ref, as the Help:Pipe trick doesn't work in them [9]. These were both reverted. The edit fixing the broken link was reinstated by Walter Görlitz which was again reverted. Finally, this was reverted (reintroducing the fix) which seems to have been settled on.

As I remarked below, I do think it would have helped if Walter Görlitz had better explained early on why they were making that change. (Their first edit did say "fix", however it sounds like Walter Görlitz is aware of the pipe trick which doesn't work in refs. So it probably should have occurred to them there's a good chance other editor isn't aware of that and had failed to notice the link is broken. So they could have said something like "this fix is needed since the pipe trick doesn't work in refs" which would have been clearer than "no, the publication edit is needed".)

But I am basically saying the same thing as I said about the copyvio issue but in reverse. Which means I see even less reason to sanction Walter Görlitz over them correcting an error reintroduced by another editor, no matter if they could have explained things better. As for the incivility, it was clearly a 2 way street.

If the claim is Walter Görlitz reverts too readily, then diffs of this should be shown. Given WP:BRD which means reverting an edit you disagree with is often not wrong, this would most likely be in the form of examples where they reverted in a way what was clearly harmful e.g. reintroducing clear errors. Or maybe if they revert minor changes when they had no good reason to revert but just because they wanted others to seek consensus. Or cases where they reverted and then refused to participate in the discussion. And you'll need enough examples to show this is a consistent problem and not just something that happens occasionally. You could try coming up with examples where they reverted and participated in the discussion but consensus was against them, but this is likely to be more difficult. (You'll probably need even more examples, and also the cases would need to be clear cut i.e. consensus was quickly against them.)

Nil Einne (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that this particular revert was justified, and that the other party has been grossly uncivil. My only intention in referencing that thread was to point out that this editor admits to reverting on impulse, which seems to adequately explain the diffs and examples already provided here by other confused editors (including myself), and which implies that it is likely to continue if left unchecked. Rest assured that I won't actively push for this, as I do understand that this place gives significant carte blanche to people who've put so much time into Wikipedia, no matter how obvious the patterns are (see: all of the support for Jytdog to be allowed back). I'm just offering my two cents as someone who's also had a negative experience with this editor in the past and who's also now baffled by the extensive history of edit warring and mindless reverting on display. —{ CrypticCanadian } 02:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Nil Einne: I provided difs of Walter making harassing comments above (that he repeated here). Along with a link to a discussion about Amazon and iTunes links where he blew off consensus and edit made disruptive reverts by putting back links to those sites that didn't even contain the information they where being cited for. There was multiple articles he did it on and I don't feel the need to dig through difs to prove it. Especially since there was the discussion that an admin was involved in.
  There are many other examples including the discussion cited by @Cryptic Canadian: where he reverted Syntax highlighting for essentially no reason and blow off the user who tried to discuss it with him. There's also the multiple complaints here and you can look through his user contributions to see that he does a large amount of reverts in an extremely quick way, that would make it impossible for him to review to make sure they are correct.
  He was told by admins multiple times and as far back as 2014 that if he continued miss-using the revert system or got a bad attitude that they would do a 1RR or block him. I don't have to provide every damn example under the sun going back 6 years for it to suddenly be warranted. Again, there are enough examples here to, but it's easy to find other ones. The miss use of reverts is also largely what lead to the harassment that instigated this complaint, because me starting the discussion about Amazon and iTunes links was caused by him reverting me repeatedly when I tried to remove links to them. Which then lead to him believing I just didn't except his reverts because I have a disdain for Christians.
  Someone who is unwilling to accept that their revert was wrong (especially after a discussion) and chalks up the original disagreement to a disdain for him or a religious group shouldn't have the right to indiscriminately use reverts. There doesn't need to be a bunch of examples to back it up. Although there are many. Again, multiple admins told him to stop that kind of behavior like 6 years ago. If he hasn't by now a 1RR is 100% warranted. Otherwise, how many times does he have to be told or continue acting that way until it is?
  Re "incivility is a 2 way street" I'd love to see examples where me or anyone else here made threats toward him, made calls for him to be banned from editing certain topics, said he was just motivated by disdain for a religious group, otherwise insulted him, or did anything even close to those things. Both I and @Cryptic Canadian: (who are the people calling for 1RR) have both went out of our way to say that the issue is with Walter's attitude and miss-use of reverts. We are both fine with him as an editor in general. In no way has anything we have said involved threats, insults, personal attacks on his motivations, or his character. Which again is how he has treated me multiple times. To insinuate otherwise is seriously victim blaming. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adamant1 This round started when you made a valid comment about splitting the Bethel Music article, I then wrote that I thought that it was a good idea but said I did not think you should do the splitting as you have shown a disdain the subject in the past. You have made multiple contentious edits to Bethel Music musicians, the history of Brian Johnson (Bethel Music singer), Amanda Lindsey Cook, both of which are on my watchlist show evidence of this— and the history of the parent church article, Bethel Church (Redding, California) does as well. I had just addressed concerns at the AfD for Gospel Music Association article, which you had just created without doing WP:BEFORE and there were others. That AfD concluded with a delete, a quick refund, and several editors in the new AfD (which you did not initiate) called you out for not doing WP:BEFORE. I was not heated in the discussion on the Bethel Music talk page, I merely voiced a concern. Your response started well, asking me to explain how you've shown disdain, you then became defensive and made attacks on me claiming I attack you (which I do not) and that talk you (which I have not). You state that you show good faith but that I do not. I attempted to respond with statements without attacking you. You followed with more defence, attacks and launched off into yet another subject (an RSN that you started because a restaurant article you nominated for deletion had a Michelin Star and you wanted to know if it was a RS—the answer was yes—and you didn't like that I entered that AfD after you alerted RSN about it where I was patrolling.) At this point, I was busy and I referred to your three-paragraph long response as self-serving, pointed out my involvement at RSN, and tried to assuage your concerns that I was not stalking you. You then deleted part of your earlier comment and continued to claim I was harassing you when all I said was that I don't think you are the right person to split the article because of the previously demonstrated disdain for Bethel Church and their musicians. I disengaged and you came here. All of that to say, no, I am not harassing you and still think have have shown a clear pattern of disdain for Bethel Church and their musicians. That's not an attack, that is an observation. If anything, you should have a topic ban at least from that church, the musicians on its recording label. I would even consider a topic ban on Christian music as appropriate, but there's much less evidence of problems there. This is not a formal proposal, however. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again Walter, what was "contentious" about those edits (especially when other people said they where OK to make) and even if they were how would it justify you harassing me three years later? Saying I'm motivated to edit articles by a disdain for Christians is not "addressing a concern." If you actually had a real concern, instead of a personal problem with me, you could have voiced it without the added useless personal slandering tone. Which I probably would have been fine with. Harassment isn't so much based on the "correctness" of the actions, it's about the targeted threatening way the person goes about them and that's how you where acting. 100% negatively calling out my motivations is attacking me. You'd say the same thing if this where reversed and I was randomly posting on secular music articles that you only edit them because as a Christian you disdain rock music or if I said I was going to report you as a hostile actor to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rock music. Seriously.

Also, if you where making observations instead of just vague accusations there'd be real evidence of me making blatantly detrimental edits, where I clearly said my reason was dislike of the subject. What you have is some questionably bad edits I made as a new user (it happens), and attempts to learn how to edit better by asking questions on noticeboards. Which doesn't rise to the level of a topic ban. Let alone prove your extremely baseless theory or warrant how you've treated me since then. It's still not completely clear the edits were wrong anyway. Not that I care if I get topic banned. Since I don't really edit Christian articles anyway and could give a crap about doing so in the future. I doubt I'd get topic band for what your saying I should be though. That said, there is more then ample evidence for you to get a 1RR and I'm 100% fine with it being a formal proposal if need be. I'd suggest a topic ban, but I feel like it would be a little to harsh. IMO only someone with a clear dislike (shell I say disdain?) or personal grudge for the other user would suggest one. Especially with zero evidence. A 1RR seems completely appropriate though since it's been suggested by other users, admins, and the miss use of reverts (plus a clearly bad attitude) was what instigated this problem in the first place. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I didn't see your third topic on the external source notice board, where WhatamIdoing gave me the run down YouTube links, because it didn't alert me about it and I was already on to different things by then. That said, it seems like you where just posting until someone gave you the answer you wanted to hear. Since it was already settled in earlier discussions. Plus, both of you left out of it that my issue was with over using those links. Not their use in the first place. I did post about it on WhatamIdoing's talk page a few days ago to see if they could clarify things. There hasn't been a response though. I can't be blamed for ignoring what other people tell me when they told me it in discussions I didn't know about and wasn't involved in. Whereas, you could have accepted the original opinions by ian.thompson and the other user that excessively linking to commercial sites isn't OK, instead of bringing it up repeatedly (and not being clear what the issue was) until you got the answer you wanted. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I was simply showing evidence of what I consider your disdain for Bethel Church and its musicians, and recent interest in other Christian topics. I'm not trying to rehash the discussion or call you out here, but you did ask me to show some examples. In short, the conversation at Bethel music was you made a suggestion, I gave a response and voiced a concern, you responded and attacked, I responded, you responded and attacked, I responded, you responded and escalated. So why is this about me voicing my concern? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. It's not evidence though. It's showing some edits I did (good or bad) as a new user and interpreting as being motivated by bad intentions. Instead of just newbie mistakes. Evidence would have to be something like me specifically saying that's why I was doing the edits. Your 100% allowed to have personal opinions, again the problem is how you voiced them repeatedly in a harassing manor. After your first message in the Bethel music discussion I said several times to leave me a message on my talk page if you had personal problem, because it was off topic, but you kept going off and repeating yourself. You've also repeatedly done the same thing here when I was pretty clear from the start of this what your opinion was. If you had of left the initial message and left it at that fine. The problem is the personal way you continued it. Along with the way you went about it originally and the threats involved. Especially considering we had past issues. Which to me, would have necessitated a need to be more strategic about things. If your first message was a simple of statement of fact that you didn't think I should split the article and then you went about your way, I probably wouldn't have escalated things. Approach does matter. There was zero reason to add the personal, slandering comments. Or your perfectly fine with making things personal, slandering other users, and you don't think harassment is a thing. That's fine to, but if that's your position all the more reason for me doing this. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie mistakes? I first noticed this with the Bethel edits in September 2017—at that point you had been on Wikipedia for three months—but continued for 18 months until the Bethel edits that started this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: Oh wow, a whole three months? I totally should have known everything at that point (sarcasm). How many edits was it when the "problems" started? And can you really blame me for continuing to make mistakes for a while after that when the only "feedback" you gave me was that I needed to get a life, to call me pathetic, criticize me for asking questions on noticeboards etc etc? I don't think you can. And I didn't continue doing the same things until now. So that's total BS that is easily disproved by looking through my edit history. What started this wasn't a Bethel "edit" either. It was a comment on a discussion page. You've been here what, 15 years? and you can't even avoid constant problems and blocks. Yet your judging me because I was still learning things after being a member for only three months. A lot of the edits you had a problem with wheren't mistakes anyway. You just reverted me because you didn't want me editing the articles. So what the hell ever dude. You didn't know what vandalism was after being a member for years, or you where lying about it. Either way, you clearly have serious issues that will only be solved through some kind disciplinary action. It's pretty clear the many slaps on the wrist you've received haven't done jack or humbled you at all. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Such as drama to see Adamant1 also has issue in wikidata....wikidata:Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#borderline not constructive edit or straight cut vandalism?. Admin have fun to review the two parties behaviour. Matthew hk (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I struck out your comment. As it's off topic, none constructive trolling. Go do it somewhere else. This discussion has nothing to do with you and it's not on me that your crap complaints didn't go anywhere. I told you in Wikidata I was done with dealing with you. So, kindly respect it and shove off. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't mean to put more wood on to this fire! But it is impressive that Walter has been blocked nearly every year since he joined [10] and even has an SPI file! If I am an honest, I am surprised that he hasn't had an extended block, all those comments above, clearly there are multiple issues. Govvy (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the nominator has caused problems elsewhere: wikidata:Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#borderline not constructive edit or straight cut vandalism? and goes to show that Adamant1 overreacts and can make foolish choices. That was the issue with the Bethel discussion here as I showed above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah totally, I guess the whole thing is a wash because I had one issue on another site with someone who was completely unreasonable and refused to explains things. Yeah right. I never claimed all my edits where 100% perfect anyway. Just that the mistakes I did make where because I was new and not from a disdain for Christians, or warrant how you've treated me. Which should be obvious. As I've said it about a hundred times now. Feel free to use the whole thing as a way to deflect from your behavior anyway though. The way you act, your many problems have zero to do with you. Yet I have one other problem and it means this whole thing is BS I'm causing. Right. Me having a problem on another site (or here) and you harassing me isn't mutually exclusive anyway. Nice try though.

BTW I wouldn't bring something you did on another site into this, because it would be a worthless deflection move and not relevant anyway. Especially if you where treated the way I was there. We clearly don't have the same standards though. That aside your point isn't relevant anyway, because there's nothing foolish or overacting about suggesting an article be split, but your response to it was 100% both. It seems like your really mixed up as to who did what here and what this complaint is about.

More on topic, I still want to know what you think would constitute harassment and how your actions don't fit into it. I've asked you several times and you still haven't answered me. It should be a pretty easy question considering how long you've been on here and how many COIs you've been involved in. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I have not seen your question about my opinion of harassment. WP:harassment is clear that it's is a pattern of repeated offensive behaviour that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always), the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing.

My behaviour does not qualify. am not following you and have simply pointed out that you have made charismatic Christians a target. Do you disagree with that assessment of your behaviour. In short, I have not hounded you, but you have edited in areas where I was already editing. I have not threatened you in any way. I have made no legal threats, posted personal information, engaged in private correspondence or attacked you on your user space or mine. In short, I have not harassed you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Yes it does qualify, because you did follow me and messaged me in an intimidating way with the intent to dissuade me to not edit articles. When you could have just as easily left me the hell alone like I asked you to and we both agreed we would do 2 years ago. There was zero reason you had to message me anywhere about anything. Especially since I asked you repeatedly to leave me alone. That you edit some related articles isn't a good excuse. Some of it wasn't on Christian articles anyway and you know it. Also, none of your actions were to encourage me to edit Wikipedia or make me look good. You kept doing it long after you had made your original point to. You wouldn't have acted the same way to a random person either. So, 100% it was targeted at me, to discourage me from editing Christian articles and to make me look bad. Also, no where does WP:harassment say it's confined to just releasing private information or any of the other things your claiming it's confined to. Let alone is it only valid if you did it in a private message. The claim that your threats etc aren't harassment because you did them in a public setting is completely ridiculous. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has devolved into just the two of you going back and forth. And considering it's over 2 weeks old, I don't think anything is going to come of this thread but further animosity. It's time to move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it wouldn't have if the admins had of actually done something about how he acted. I agree with Cryptic Canadian though that they rather not deal with extremely abusive users that have been around for a while. It's unfortunate, but sometimes it's better to keep around bullies. That's life. I had a feeling it would go that way from the start, but at least I did what I could. Back to editing articles and receiving more pointless abuse for it I guess. Such is Wikipedia. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cryptic Canadian though that they rather not deal with extremely abusive users that have been around for a while. It's unfortunate, but sometimes it's better to keep around bullies.

That's a pretty blatant personal attack. I strongly suggest you strike that out and just stop editing the page afterwards. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A number of users have been clashing with Contaldo80 for years, with the primary problem being Contaldo's disregard of the importance of consensus. I have tried to remain civil, but I grow tired of having to explain the issue to him every time he can not get his way. We have been over consensus, BRD, and every related issue more times than I care to recount. He simply refuses to abide by it.

The problem has grown so bad that Elizium23 has asked for an I-ban to be imposed against himself (!!) to prevent him from interacting with Contaldo any further. In that discussion, other editors pointed out to Contaldo that he has been editing here long enough to understand how this project works. Either he is incapable or, as I suspect, he has a chronic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. While usually separate pages, the articles where Elizium and I clash with Contaldo tend to relate to Catholicism.

As stated, this is a longstanding issue. When DrKay tried to explain to him that a consensus has formed against him in July 2018, Contaldo's response was to dismiss it based on his perception of the demographics of those on the other side. In a more recent example at Stop the Church, Contaldo tried to change language he didn't like. He was reverted with an edit summary that said "Please gain consensus for this change on talk first." Instead of doing so, he simply reinserted it. He then did it again.

It was pointed out to Contaldo in this case that not only was there a consensus to use the word he now dislikes, he in fact agreed to use it. His response to that was to delete his comment agreeing to use the word from January 2019. When I asked him to please respect the consensus, and to change the consensus before changing the language, his response was to tell me to "stop trying to hide behind 'consensus'."

He also either consistently misunderstands or deliberately misconstrues procedurs such as WP:BRD when things are not going his way. As one recent example, when he was unable to delete stable text that had been in place for months, he tried to claim that the burden was on others to include it and that he was free to delete it as he pleased.

Contaldo frequently gets emotional when other editors oppose him. My referencing a comment left about him on an administrator's noticeboard, for example, drew an accusation of trying to "humiliate and belittle" him. (I apologized and immediately explained that was not my intent.) In that noticeboard discussion he claimed that another editor discussing him off-wiki was a "violation of my personal privacy" and "is intimidating me." When a NatGertler started to push back on him, he accused that editor of "starting to feel harassed and intimidated by" Nat. The last time I reported him, in 2018, he responded by mocking me and repeatedly vandalizing my userspace. He received a warning for his aggressive editing style and pledged to make an effort to improve. Unfortunately, many of these same traits persist. I have not seen a great improvement over the long-term.

Contaldo does some good work in some articles, but his refusal to abide by WP:Consensus and WP:BRD is troubling and persistent. I should also note that my edits have, at times, been less than exemplary. As I have in the past, I sincerely apologize if my behavior has in any way has precipitated Contaldo's. Still, it is not fair to others to have to continually deal with this type of behavior. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contaldo80, indeed, if you're editing longstanding text, then the WP:ONUS is on you to reach consensus on the article talk page first. If you feel you've reached an impasse on the article talk page, please feel free to make use of dispute resolution requests. Good luck. El_C 16:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the issue here is that Slugger O'Toole appears to thinkg that NPOV means CPOV (Catholic point of view). Hence his topic ban from Knights of Columbus, and his current issue at Stop the Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I have no real opinion on Contaldo80's edits, but Slugger's are often problematic. Guy (help!) 23:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the "a NatGertler" Slugger referred to, I have to concur that Contaldo is problematic. One doesn't have to look further than the [[AN thread that Slugger pointed to. Elizium had come there requesting a one-way i-ban on himself, which is a request that I think would normally get accepted without much fuss... but Contaldo chose to weigh in for some reason, to paint himself as a victim for this. I wouldn't even have known of the thread if he had not suggested that I look at it, but when I then responded to the thread and his claims there, he has accused me of making him "feel harassed and intimidated" for being there. He is not playing well with others. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like if you would like to present evidence about Contaldo80, the diffs should be by Contaldo80. The diffs linked above are the sort I would expect to see if Contaldo80 were here making article ownership accusations (I'm not saying there's an WP:OWN problem here FWIW -- just that that's where I'd expect to see this kind of diff list). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites, Here's one longstanding example. There are many more like it. In July 2018, Contaldo added new language to the article Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality that included the phrase " desecrated the Eucharist." In October of that year, he changed it to "desecrated a Communion wafer." I objected and reverted. A discussion ensued on talk, in which I explained to Contaldo yet again the importance of consensus.

What happened next was, in a word, bizarre. Contaldo replied to me as if he was someone else, and referred to himself in the third person as if he was an uninvolved party. He then left yet another comment, this time as himself. Both the reply and the reply-to-the-reply were in the same edit. Apparently he realized what a mistake he made, and deleted the second reply. It was a poor, obvious, and sloppy attempt to manufacture a consensus.

A third editor joined the conversation and said the word Eucharist was acceptable to him. Contaldo's reply was "Thanks I agree with that. As a compromise I will leave in Eucharist too as long as I hope other editors note that this is a compromise and the view of a majority of editors." That seemed to settle matters.

Stop the Church was then spun off with content from Dissent in January of this year, more than a year after the issue had been settled. It included the word "Eucharist." On April 8th, four months later, Contaldo came in and changed the text from Eucharist to wafer once again. Again, he was reverted and I asked him to gain consensus first. This was particularly annoying because he had been an active participant (indeed, perhaps over active with his fake user comments) the first time around.

In the ensuing discussion, he denied agreeing to use the word and then said that becasue he was mistaken in that instance that no consensus had existed. He then went on to say that, because he changed his mind, the burden was on me to gain consensus for "Eucharist." He also went back and deleted his comment from January 2019, perhaps in an effort to make it look like he never said it. When I objected to this, he then accused me of "hiding behind consensus."

Another recent example can be found at History of the Catholic Church and homosexuality. In February I added a new section on HIV/AIDS with an edit summary that stated "Would be glad to have some help expanding/ refining this section." Two months later, Contaldo came in and started making a few edits. Some were fine, some I tweaked slightly, and some I objected to as UNDUE and moved them to other articles. We discussed several of them on talk, but Contaldo remained unhappy.

Contaldo's response was to then delete the entire section, which had stood for two months, with an edit summary of "BRD." Because he couldn't gain consensus for language he wantedd, he claimed that I would need to gain consensus to include any of it, even after it had already been there for two months.

I could go on and on if you like, but I hope these examples spanning over three years is sufficient. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the Church

One focus of this dispute is Stop the Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where Slugger O'Toole is remarkably insistent on piping the article host desecration as "desecration of the Eucharist" and inserting it into the lead as having at least parity with the protest itself as a source of its lasting impact, a position that doesn't appear to be supported by even the niche catholic sources he prefers. Note that in the Anglican communion, for example, "eucharist" means the entire service of communion, which is the sense conveyed in our article of that title, and many (probably most) denominations don't use the term at all. To pipe this to host desecration makes no sense to the non-catholic reader, and probably to many lay catholics - it reads as desecration of the service of mass, so the link target is confusing and the separation from the protest, which was, er, a disruption of the service of mass, also makes no sense. Slugger does not appear to permit any view other than a straight-up catholic view, hence my belief that he is mistaking CPOV for NPOV.

I understand that he is outraged by the specific act of sacrilege within this protest, but Wikipedia is not here to share the outrage of parties in a dispute, we're here to describe it in neutral terms that are understandable by the lay (in this case also in its literal meaning) reader. Slugger O'Toole's idea of compromise is to own the text, which is why he was topic-banned from Knights of Columbus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It seems to em that wherever his faith is involved, Slugger O'Toole is so vested in the content outcome that he is unable or unwilling to compromise. Guy (help!) 10:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, I have acknowledged that I'm not perfect, apologized for the times when I have fallen short, and have made an effort to improve. See, for example, my recent pledge not to edit war with you even when I thought the burden was on you to gain a new consensus, not me. Also, as pointed out to you already, my "remarkable insistence" is based upon a compromise consensus in which the only three editors involved at the time agreed to use the word. I have said over and over and over again, if a new consensus emerges not to use the word then I will abide by it. To date, I have not seen one. Also, if you review the edits of the last couple days, and particualrly the 15th, I think you will see a clear demonstration of my willingness to compromise. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the energy or the inclination to respond to all the points above. My overall concern is that there are instances of editors who are deliberately skewing articles to present a positive picture of the Roman Catholic Church. I believe Slugger O'Toole is one of those - he is insistent that terms like "desecrating the Eucharist" be used when the source talk about a "communion wafer". Because the former is more emotive. He use the term "pro-life" to describe the actions of a women's rights protest group even though the sources talk about concerns around access to abortion. To the point where every edit I make the words are changed almost immediately to something more palatable. The the extend where Slugger has followed me to articles upon which he'snot previously worked in order to change my words (and just my words). The work by Slugger on Knight of Columbus has painted that organisation as one of the greatest movements on earth. He inserts text on the history of LGBT and Catholicism that talks at length about the role of the church in providing health care facilities around the world and resists anything that might suggest that gay men didn't have a particularly nice time during the AIDS crisis. Dealing with articles that cross LGBT rights with religious practice is highly sensitive one - and I've always been careful to try and present the story on both sides so that the reader gets a rounded view of what's going on. But it is hard work and I've experienced a lot of hostility over the years. I find Slugger tries to use the rules to stop stuff they don't like (critical to the catholic church) in a way that discourages genuine and open discussion - and fails to respect that different editors may have a different perspective. I think it's worth reviewing a sample of their average edits. The issue above concerning Elizium23 remains of concern to me - Slugger used comments from this discussion to challenge me in a separate discussion on an article talk page, as a way to suggest to other editors that I had been admonished. They were wrong to do this and they had not been involved in the earlier administration board discussion. I still do not think it is acceptable for Elizium to have told me that he had been talking to his priest specifically about me and that this made him "angry". I find this intimidation. I also didn't really appreciate Nat Gertler's intervention if I'm honest - one of the reasons that wikipedia may have a problem with recruiting enough quality editors is that kind of "pack attack" where everyone decides to get stuck in. If the decision is made to censure or block me then I respect that, and hope that administrators do so with judgement. But I fear that won't resolve the deeper problem about religious bias creeping into a number of these articles and which I fear weaken the value and reputation of wikipedia - to the detriment of us all.Contaldo80 (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also hadn't realised until now that Slugger has been topic banned from The Knights of Columbus. It's not obvious from his talk page because he removed this particular piece of information. Nevertheless it kind of reflects my concerns above, and am encouraged that administrators are monitoring the issue and taking action. Thank you.Contaldo80 (talk) 04:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised you didn't appreciate my attempts to be a third voice when you were attempting to reintroduce unsourced BLP-problematic claims into an article I edit, nor my not siding with you when you attempted to demonize Elizium23 on my talk page, nor when you find me correcting you in a discussion you pointed me to, nor when I come in on this discussion after someone mentioned me. If me being involved in editing discussions on pages I edit, responding to a post on my talk page, or responding in threads that you point me to or am being discussed is "piling on", pray tell when am I allowed to be involved in Wikipedia without you consider it "piling on"? Or is it fine when I'm not pointing out your errors, your false claims, and the problems with your actions? You seem eager to find a mote in my eye here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Random unsolicited comment: I've clashed with Contaldo80 multiple times in the past and remember the previous AN/I discussion. At times, I've found him to be quite indifferent to Wikipedia regulations, including but not limited to neutral point of view, the three-revert rule, consensus, and on personal attacks. Anyone who wants to read about the numerous problems that I've had with him can read the AN/I page that Slugger O'Toole linked. Other times, particularly since the AN/I thread, I found him to be reasonable and willing to compromise and respect guidelines, and it's clear to me that he at least knows how to be civil. I'm not involved in any of these recent disputes and have not interacted with him in a while, but I would be disappointed if he has returned to old bad habits. Display name 99 (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across Talk:Rescue of the Bulgarian Jews#Requested move 17 April 2020 (RM to The Holocaust in Bulgaria) and I was confounded by some of the arguments I saw there. After some digging I've uncovered canvassing on the Bulgarian Wikipedia and some personal attacks that could merit administrator attention:

• [11] 6 March: User:Jingiby posts on the Bulgarian community portal a call to look at: Military history of Bulgaria during World War II; Rescue of the Bulgarian Jews. Contains personal attack: "this editor is definitely prejudiced
• [12] 7 March: User:Jingiby on Bulgarian Wikipedia ties User:GPinkerton to "Macedonian circles".
• [13] 6-7 March: User:Jingiby places 9(!) warning templates on User talk:GPinkerton. This warning of: "Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia" is particularly ironic given User:Jingiby's actions.
• [14] 6 March: User:StanProg responds on Bulgarian Wikipedia. StanProg then engages on the article, its talk page, and on User talk:GPinkerton: [15].
• [16] 9 March: User:Вени Марковски engages on Bulgarian Wikipedia, this after engaging on English Wikipedia article: [17], [18]. Вени Марковски engages in a personal attack on the Bulgarian Wikipedia, calling GPinkerton "abusive".
• [19] 18 April: User:Jingiby canvasses on the Bulgarian Wikipedia community page for participation in the RM. Quite possible Ilikeliljon, Петър Петров participate in the RM due to this, though they do not say so in the RM.

There may be more than this going on (other pages? DRN?), but the above is alarming by itself.--Eostrix (talk) 09:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eostrix: There is also this discussion about Bulgaria during World War II, where involved Bulgarian editors quibble about inclusion of mention of the Holocaust altogether - see the page history. There is also the edit where Jingiby tried to have a whole page on the several hundred-strong Bulgarian component of the SS deleted as a "hoax"! GPinkerton (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eostrix: Also, in answer to your question, there is also: this and I posted here "'Rescue'_of_the_Bulgarian_Jews"._Talk:Rescue_of_the_Bulgarian_Jews#Requested_move_17_April_2020. GPinkerton (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please @Eostrix:, explain what is the problem with my actions?--Ilikeliljon (talk) 09:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We've certainly had a particularly high level of tag-team POV pushing from the Bulgarian faction in the last few weeks, so I'm hardly surprised there was this kind of canvassing involved. I'm not surprised to see Jingiby at the center of it once more either. He's got a block log as long as my arm for national POV disruption, was indef-blocked between 2014 and 2017 and probably shouldn't have been allowed back after that. High time to reinstate a ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, the sheer amount of special pleading and stonewalling shown by StanProg in the section linked to above ([20]) and multiple related discussions should be enough to earn that editor a sanction too. Seriously, this many words because you don't like to see Nazi-allied Bulgaria called "Nazi-allied" in an article that discusses how Nazi-allied Bulgaria collaborated with the Nazis? Give us a break. I know the revisionist discourse that wishes to whitewash Bulgaria's fascist WWII past must be popular in some quarters in the country, but we really shouldn't be humouring it here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the source that supports the claims it written "Since Bulgaria was a German ally", while the editor added Nazi-allied Bulgaria. He added then another source for the same sentence [21] in which is written: "The government was also pro-German.". I think it's not a violation of any policy to ask the user to show me where in the source is written that, and to provide a quote from the other non-publicly available (paid) source that he added. Unfortunately, I hit the wall on both as he was quite uncooperative, later calling me "ignorant of the source material" (I said "I have read all your public sources" in the previous edit), because I don't have access to the non-public paid sources that he (possibly) has access to. A coin has two sides and unfortunately some people see only one of them. --StanProg (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above is false. I did not add that source, it was already in the article. As I pointed out, "allied with Nazi Germany" is the wording used by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of the Holocaust and as everyone knows, Bulgaria was allied to Germany and Germany was run by Nazis. Moreover, Bulgaria participated in the Holocaust, a Nazi plan. GPinkerton (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to be pinged on my talk page and I read the accusation above. I did not know what "canvassing" means in Wikipedia terms but I have found Wikipedia:Canvassing and it says (in nutshell): "When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions." I did not find big number of notifications, much less to preselected recipients anywhere. Sounds to me "canvassing" is used here trying to provoke a rubber-stamp response. --Petar Petrov (talk) 10:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For Wikipedia:Canvassing there are four points. What I found may not be "mass posting", however: posting on the Bulgarian Wikipedia is to a partisan audience, is non-transparent without a notification on English Wikipedia, and this post referring to an editor as "definitely prejudiced" is a biased message. So "scale" is OK, but this fails: "Transparency", "Audience", and "Message".--Eostrix (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"posting on the Bulgarian Wikipedia is to a partisan audience" -- very strange assumption that all editors of bgwiki are prejudiced on a particular topic. --Petar Petrov (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everybody. There is probably some misunderstandings on my side, on both sides, or maybe all the three or more. Firstly, I believe that there was a Holocaust in parts of some territories ceded to Bulgaria. These were territories occupied by the country during the war. There have also been repressions against the Jews in the country. At the same time, I think that the bulk of Bulgarian Jews were saved and for that should be a separate article, or at least a separate section. In recent days, my opinion has matured to the extent that there should be an article with a compromise name or to build two separate and because of that I have changed my vote on the corresponding discussion. Now on to the specific charges against me. Initially, I really considered GPinkerton to be part of a group that periodically registers new users and is active by provocations against Bulgarian position, especially on the Macedonian issue. So were my initial reactions on the article about the WWII. In this way I have warned several times GPinkerton. Subsequently, I became convinced that this was not the case and that I had made a mistake. Indeed, my initial impressions here were inaccurate, for which I apologize. Moreover, I became convinced that he had some good hits and a lot of knowledge on the subject, which I admit, I do not have and remained passive. However, when I later saw that GPinkerton initiated a discussion to rename the whole article about the salvation of the Bulgarian Jews directly to Holocaust in Bulgaria, I disagreed. Because of that I have informed the Bulgarian community about the case. By the way, I did not express any opinion there on what to vote for. I think this is not forbidden. I repeat my position again: I just don't think that the whole article should be called in this way, ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the Bulgarian Jews fortunately survived the Holocaust. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jingiby: The vast majority of Jews in France also survived the Holocaust. Nonetheless, we have The Holocaust in France and no-one claims a Rescue of the French Jews. Actually it's better you don't answer the question of why you think Bulgaria is exceptional and unique in this respect; just accept that it is not. GPinkerton (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you listed my comment as “abusive”. The word in Bulgarian, which i have used (злоупотребява), has several meanings, and I didn’t use “abuse” (which has quite a negative connotation). I checked Google translate, and saw that it indeed translates it as “abuse”, but a) it also has other meaning, and b) as you can see from the comments we have exchanged with the user in question on my talk page, that I treat him/her with respect, and thank him for engaging. Hope this clears the matter. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 11:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

злоупотребява has its own page on Bulgarian Wikipedia. It links to Abuse on this wiki. Moreover, the examples on that page that illustrate злоупотребява are Iago and Judas Iscariot. злоупотребява might have several meanings but I don't see these comparisons as remotely favourable; "abuse" doesn't seem quite strong enough. GPinkerton (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GPinkerton, I am terribly sorry that a word in Bulgarian that has been used in another context, is being interpreted not in the way I meant it. I could go on and explain the six different meaning of this word in Bulgarian, and point to the one I had in mind, but there's a better way than that. I am sorry, I never meant that your edits are abusive, and I hope you'd accept my apology. I also hope that we could continue to contribute in a civilized manner to the articles we both try to improve. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I knew it! Needless to say the problem editors are the "editors" I mentioned in the RM text. I find it particularly wry that I'm called "anonymous", given my user name, but even more hilarious that Jingiby (entirely lacking any sense of irony) accuses me of being connected with Macedonia with which I have no relation whatever; yet he plainly thinks of little else! Accusations by StanProg that I have a "specific agenda" and an "anti-Bulgarian" position are not backed by anything and are even more absurd; I had no position on the Holocaust in Bulgaria until I read the "Rescue of the Jews" article and found it, as has been pointed out elsewhere, a hagiography. I should not have been surprised there was backhanded collaboration going on; "rescue" approaches the status of state religion in Bulgaria. I shudder to think how the Bulgarian Wikipedia covers this topic, with these editors on hand. Needless to say, none of them has made any positive contribution to either the article on "rescue" or the "Bulgaria during WWII" page, instead using the most casuistical and tendentious "arguments" to resist well-sourced edits I made and promote instead this ridiculous "professor-colonel" Nedyalkov and his antisemitic views on how "arbeit macht frei" and the slave labour saved the Jews from the Holocaust (for a full 18 months after the supposed "rescue" "event" and until Allied tanks literally crossed the border). And of course, Bulgarian Wikipedia is highly partisan on the subject by sad fact of the generations of communist and post-communist governments (and then the Church) that aggrandized themselves with precisely this distortion in official propaganda; this official line is now cherished on a folkloric basis despite repeated denunciation by (what is left of) Bulgarian Jews, Holocaust survivors, sections of the Bulgarian press, and the world's historians as a whole. | This idiot and President of the Republic clearly believes the myth and has no qualms about propagating it earlier this year, we must forgive the Bulgarian editors for being led astray. GPinkerton (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You classified the President Rumen Radev as an idiot for believing in "a myth". How will you classify then the current President of Israel Reuven Rivlin "There is a special place of honor in Jewish history, reserved for the Bulgarian people who proved in their many that individuals have the power to change the course of history, and who helped to save the vast majority of Bulgaria’s Jews from the Nazi killing machine" [22] & the former Israeli president Shimon Peres "The saving of Bulgaria's Jews is a badge of honor for Bulgaria and that will stay with you forever[23]? Obviously they also believe in the same "myth". The so-called "repeated denunciation by (what is left of) Bulgarian Jews" is as well fake news as we can clearly see the official statement of the Organization of the Jews in Bulgaria "Shalom" [24] "During the years of WWII the Bulgarian Jews were rescued from deportation in the Nazi death camps. The rescue comes as a result of the actions of the larger part of the Bulgarian people, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and the Bulgarian non-fascist public. The Jews will be forever grateful to the Bulgarians for this act of kindness." It's pretty clear who wants to force a specific POV, who is a denier of something and who instead of helping the article to be improved and working along with the other contributors is trying to make it "in his image, in his likeness". --StanProg (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@StanProg: You are misinterpreting the words of of Rivlin. He refers to 20 or so individuals, ("the Bulgarians who ...") not Bulgaria as a whole. Neither of the Israeli presidents quoted could somehow overturn reams and reams of historiography which acknowledges the active role of Bulgaria in the Holocaust inside and outside the pre-war borders. In response to the lies immediately above this comment, I quote (again) the recent statements, as reported, of Shalom this very year on this very subject and already quoted on the Talk page:

Your resorting to political comments in public by non-historians shows how desperate your lack of sources is. GPinkerton (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also: [25], wherein these words appear: "Bulgarian Jewish organisation “Shalom” has sharply rejected a claim by Russian historian Konstantin Mogilevskiy that there was no Holocaust in Bulgaria and this was an achievement of the then-monarch Tsar Boris III and his government." GPinkerton (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed that there's no Holocaust in Bulgaria - right on the contrary I proposed the creation of The Holocaust in Bulgaria in Bulgaria.[26] I never claimed that Bulgaria did not deport the Jews from Thrace/Macedonia/Pirot - Right on the contrary I agreed that this information should be mentioned in the article (as more detailed could be added in other more related articles).[27][28]. Regarding the Labour Corps/Camps - "Shalom" are speaking of a conference report, while I added just 1 sentence from the "resume" of the this report (I don't have the whole report) that "Shalom" does not agree with. The report is an academic source (by full professor and Doctor of Sciense). Shalom opinion is relevant and could be mentioned as well. And let's stop here, because this is going offtopic. That's my last comment, unless some administrator requires clarification on some aspects of the issue. --StanProg (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As evidenced by the comment above, the editor does not even trouble to read the highly contentious (and, according to Shalom and WJC, antisemitic) documents on which he based his lacklustre position and a whole section in the article. I think this speaks for itself. GPinkerton (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GPinkerton, if I may just add some advice here, it's probably not a good idea to engage with the other editors in debate on this page. It only diverts attention away from the actual substance of the complaint. The more "squabbling" there is among involved editors, the less is the chance for any insightful (let along decisive) input from outside observers and admins. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• With the above comment by GPinkerton, I hope this whole matter could be put to a rest here, and the conversation should move to the relevant talk pages. The statement "Needless to say, none of them has made any positive contribution to either the article on "rescue" or the "Bulgaria during WWII" page..." is not supported by the facts; it's enough to see the contributions being made. While one editor may consider them "negative", that's her or her opinion, and not a fact. The other fact, that in GPinkerton's comment there's an insult to a person (the president of Bulgaria), who is not part of the conversation, also gives some idea as to why I suggested that some of the more "heated" contributors take a break. Since editing on Wikipedia is being done in my spare time, which is not that much these days, I couldn't get more active engagement in the discussion on the talk pages of the articles, which is the right place to have this conversation. Of course, without insults, innuendo, etc. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Вени Марковски: This section on this noticeboard exists because of those edits, their editors, and their stated intention. This is not a noticeboard for reporting positive contributions. The only additions made either 1.) uncritically present the revisionist myth that "forced labour saved the Jews" [arbeit macht frei], 2.) reword the article to make the Holocaust in Bulgaria seem anodyne and the "rescue" intentional while keeping inline references in place that state precisely the opposite, or 3.) outright delete sourced material (negative edits). If Rumen Radev also makes these baseless and ahistorical claims, he's contributing to the conversation. GPinkerton (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, and a long series of citations, which I do not oppose, intended to strengthen the claim Macedonians welcomed the Bulgarian occupation in 1941, added by Jingiby (of course). GPinkerton (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GPinkerton, you claim that "none of the editors" have made "any positive contributions". This is your opinion, to which you are entitled, but you are not entitled to your facts. The facts are that you have contributed to the article, as have others (including myself). What you incline is that if someone is a Bulgarian, he or she must be biased, which is not a fact. Some of the most detailed studies of the Bulgarian antisemitic legislation is being done by Bulgarians, and their books are quoted as sources. If you don't speak Bulgarian, perhaps a google translate of this article might be helpful. For the time being, though, I don't see any facts, which support your opinion that all editors are not contributing to the article in question. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Вени Марковски: At no point did I say "all editors". Read again, slower. I will take as slander your allegation that I "incline" "that if someone is a Bulgarian, he or she must be biased". GPinkerton (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GPinkerton: You say "At no point did I say "all editors". Read again, slower." But just above I have quoted what you have said earlier: "Needless to say, none of them has made any positive contribution to either the article on "rescue" or the "Bulgaria during WWII" page..." Now, we can argue about many things in the article, but I hope you won't argue that when you say "none of them" (the editors) you actually didn't mean "all", but just "some"? Because, I hope you'd agree, if you didn't want to put all of the editors in that category (of not positively contributing), you would have not said "none of them", but perhaps "some of them". I don't find this argument costructive, and I don't have time to follow every comment you make, but after this one, I don't see a reason to do so, if you can't just say you're sorry for saying that none of the editors have made any positive contribution.Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Вени Марковски: Please don't try to misrepresent my words in this way, it's pure quote-mining. What I wrote about not making positive contributions applies to the "problem editors" to which all my remarks refer. At no point did I say "all editors". GPinkerton (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• PS. I want to express some additional views. To apologize once again to User:GPinkerton for my initial treatment of him. At the end, however, he really has made a mistake above as he called the President of Bulgaria an idiot. Especially since the link to which he refers, is dead maybe. I can not open it. Regarding the Eostrix remark that when I informed the Bulgarian Wikipedia's community, so I have publicly violated the principle of transparency. I would say the following: If I had written personal messages of the editors, it would have been a lack of transparency. Perhaps I should have informed in some way the colleagues of the English-language version of what, and it was really my omission, but not a lack of transparency. As for the comments of Fut.Perf, unfortunately I am his favorite target since years. The very fact that, before I have expressed my opinion, I was condemned by him, is a clear sign of a some bias and personal attitude. I urge this administrator's introductory opinion to be disregarded. Thanks in advance. Jingiby (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jingiby: The link is fixed. GPinkerton (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes GPinkerton, I have read it now. By the way, I have seen on TV many similar statements of Bulgarian Jews and I have also read similar opinions of such people. Some of them really believe in that, they were rescued. People are really different. It is difficult to put everything and everybody under one denominator. Some of them have the same opinion as Radev. Jingiby (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Veni Markovski's (Вени Марковски) use of злоупотребява to describe GPinkerton

Let's refocus this discussion on user conduct, not content. In diff User:Вени Марковски (Veni Markovski) describes User:GPinkerton as "..., но е и факт, че анонимният редактор злоупотребява" which google-translate renders as: "..., but it is also a fact that the anonymous editor is abusive". Veni said above that "злоупотребява" has several meanings, and he did not intend "abuse". Veni did not clarify what exactly he meant. I looked "злоупотребява" up on wiktionary where it is described as an inflected indicative form of "злоупотребявам", which wiktionary describes as a perfective form of злоупотребя́ (note Bulgarian Wikipedia page) that has the following meanings:

1. (intransitive) to abuse, to misuse (to make improper use of)
2. (intransitive) to take advantage of, to exploit
3. (intransitive) to misappropriate, to defalcate

While some alternate meanings are different from "abusive", they are also personal attacks. Could Veni please explicitly clarify his statement?--Eostrix (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DRN on Bulgarian Jews

There is mention above that there was a DRN thread on this subject. It was discussed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_188#Rescue_of_the_Bulgarian_Jews and was moderated by User:Rosguill, and the editors were User:GPinkerton, User:StanProg, and User:Вени Марковски. Rosguill then closed it so that the editors could resume discussion at the article talk page, and said that any issues about source reliability should go to WP:RSN. It appears that this is now a conduct dispute. Survivors can resume discussion at the article talk page or at WP:RSN. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Robert McClenon. Agree with your comment. In tne meantime, I have continued with small edits of the article in question, as I don't have enough spare time these days, and have to choose where I should use it. Happy to continue the discussion on the article talk page, as explained in the discussion, moderated by Rosguill.Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: The DRN had to be abandoned because User:StanProg went and made a whole series of tendentious edits to the article, which I was then advised by Rosguill to revert. I consulted with Rosguill if a Request Move would be a step forward; and proposed this RM when advised that would be a positive move; Rosguill closed the DRN. The RM continues, with further special pleading by StanProg and User:Jingiby, and other editors likely to have responded to the canvassing on Bulgarian Wikipedia. GPinkerton (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The DRN was closed because: "there are several different issues that are being contested" (05:30, 16 April 2020). I did the changes one day after Rosguill said he will close the DRN (though he waited 2 days for more comments before actually closing it). The "whole series of tendentious edits" [29] that GPinkerton revered were done in the period (16:48 - 18:21, 17 April 2020‎): - 2 sources requested, one sentence changed according to the source that was already there and was not added by me plus one added by GPinkerton himself. One more sentence was made shorter - which I'm not sure if it's an improvement or not. --StanProg (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edit is especially tendentious in the change of wording to "all the 48,000 Bulgarian Jews by the pro-German government" from the earlier "about 48,000 Jews living in Bulgaria by the pro-Nazi government" - manifestly a case of denialism and special pleading in completely ignoring the ongoing dispute over content and title. GPinkerton (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This pertains to the following IP addresses which I believe are all from the same user:

• 211.192.49.151
• 61.102.135.60
• 211.48.39.89
• 121.124.86.149
• 121.124.86.186
• 211.196.75.162

The author has been previously instructed times about:

• WP:NOR, WP:Sandbox, IP hopping, and edit warring User_talk:61.102.135.60
• WP:UNSOURCED Lack of citations User_talk:121.124.86.149
• Copying text from Wikipedia without attribution User_talk:211.48.39.89

Examples of copy-pasted phrase dumped into other articles (usually in the leading paragraph) to promote Christianity and colonialism article:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boxer_Rebellion&diff=prev&oldid=946432852
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adalbert_of_Prague&diff=prev&oldid=945048244
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bruno_of_Querfurt&diff=prev&oldid=945047920
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Christians&diff=prev&oldid=945044737
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nanking_incident_of_1927&diff=prev&oldid=945041727
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Via_Francigena&diff=prev&oldid=945040520
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Martyrs&diff=prev&oldid=945036327
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martyrs_of_Japan&diff=prev&oldid=945036255
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korean_Martyrs&diff=prev&oldid=945036157

When edits in Christianity and colonialism#Korea were called into question, the author's justification predominantly consisted of theories and unsupported assertions: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChristianity_and_colonialism&type=revision&diff=950452403&oldid=948485403

Despite the fact that the Talk page disagreement was not resolved, the author continues to add content without justifying its placement in the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_and_colonialism&type=revision&diff=951890917&oldid=951469647

I reached out to the IRC help chat for advice. Upon looking into the situation, the editor in IRC instructed me to post here.

GottaShowMe (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there isn't anything that can be done to stop all of this. Some admins may try to block ranges of IPs, but this vandal will be back. 174.226.128.166 (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An argument could certainly be made for blocking 121.124.0.0/16 without losing much of value, based on the last 12 months of contributions. Gricehead (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a user who is extremely passionate about their point of view and doesn't understand Wikipedia standards such as NOR, citations, citing other Wikipedia pages, etc. I don't think the IP-hopping is intentional, but it makes the user hard to pin down and have a discussion with. Several people from different pages have reached out to the user in the past over edits. In the few actual responses I've seen, it seems the user doesn't grasp what they're doing wrong. I wonder if some kind of temporary block can be used to get the user to slow down and learn more about Wikipedia editing standards. In the meantime, perhaps Christianity and colonialism should be submitted for some kind of review? That seems to be the primary focus on this user's editing. There are whole sections that are uncited. GottaShowMe (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:61.102.135.60 is back to editing without citations and dropping links in other articles without any respect to whether they fit contextually within the article. GottaShowMe (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User @Surtsicna: has been purging the portraits of Popes en masse. By my calculations, starting from the second Pope, St Linus (1st century AD) all the way up to Gregory XII (15th century), without counting the anti-popes, all together 204 Popes have had portraits that have stood for more than a decade completely purged, with the exception of perhaps around 10 popes at most. This method has made it all but impossible to discuss these changes, since one would have to literally start 180+ talk pages. Not only have these depictions stood for more than a decade, not only are they featured in all major non-English Wikipedias, not only are they found on our on article that lists the Popes, but more importantly, these depictions are found on the official Vatican website. It does not get more official than that. We include depictions of Scottish kings. Surely, depictions of Popes that are featured on the official website of the Roman Catholic Church would be a big deal. And under no circumstances, should such purging be done without consulting anyone.

Given that this is the second time this same user has gone on this purging spree, I would recommend treating this as a case of vandalism. --172.250.146.43 (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Pope Adrian IV. ——SN54129 16:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a stunning expansion. It is now by far the most detailed biography of a medieval pope on Wikipedia. Impressive! Surtsicna (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Surtsicna, you're very knd! The problem is, MOS:IMGLOC wants images to "look in" to the text, rather than away from it: and that will certainly get pointed out at the future FAC. ——SN54129 16:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you think popes should face versus populum? EEng 20:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Servus servorum meh, EEng :) ——SN54129 11:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the papal biographies have been purged of obscure 19th century doodles which do not appear in modern academic literature and which were inserted en mass without discussion. The content of Wikipedia articles, including the choice of illustrations, should resemble the content of scholarly biographies and reference works. See MOS:LEADIMAGE and MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE for details. Surtsicna (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#RfC on non-contemporary images of popes and AN/I is a highly inappropriate forum for an uninvolved IP to be litigating a content dispute. Elizium23 (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On if the official website of the Roman Catholic Church should be a big deal in this context. Not necessarily. It's obviously not independent, and will display popes as the catholic church wants them displayed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute, about non-contemporary images of popes, came to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard two weeks ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_187#Biographies_of_Medieval_people_(mostly_popes)

I saw that it should be approached at two levels. The low-level question is whether any particular non-contemporary image is appropriate in any particular Biography of a Dead Person. The high-level question is that the guidelines in the MOS need to be clarified as to exactly when non-contemporary images of dead people are appropriate. I recommended discussion at the MOS talk page for images. I also tried to mediate the dispute, but failed it due to incivility. It appears that there is an RFC in progress concerning images of popes in particular. Non-contemporary images are also used for kings of Scotland, Christopher Columbus, and others, but an RFC concerning popes is a reasonable way to resolve the issue with regard to popes.

I have not researched the more recent course of the dispute. I would urge the editors to resume using either an RFC or some other constructive method to deal with it. I strongly disagree with the unregistered editor who calls the removal of the images vandalism. It is not vandalism. It may be disruptive editing, but not all disruptive editing is vandalism, and the unregistered editor may be right to report it, but should not Yell Vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

172.250.146.43 I want to second what Robert McClenon said above, the edits were made in a good-faith effort to further the project's purpose and so can definitionally not be vandalism. I understand this specialized usage of the word is not necessarily widely known outside the Wikipedia community, so I encourage you to review WP:VANDNOT to better understand what is and what is not considered vandalism. Now, non-trivial mass changes without a preexisting consenus are usually a bad idea, and very often disruptive, but this was already being addressed in ongoing discussions and it's unclear what prompted you to escalate to ANI right at this moment, without first waiting for those to resolve. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was also raised a couple of weeks ago at the Teahouse of all places; there seems to be some concerted forum-shopping going on here. I stand by my comments there. There are many times when it's appropriate to use a non-contemporary image of someone or something (either because no contemporary image exists, or because we want to demonstrate how perception of the subject has changed over time). However, when using an image that we know is likely to be inaccurate the onus is on those who want it included to make sure it's appropriately captioned to put it into context, so readers understand that they're seeing propaganda and not an actual illustration of the person or event depicted. Somebody removing an image that we know to be misleading is never going to be "vandalism" even by the broadest meaning of the term, let alone by Wikipedia's narrow definition. ‑ Iridescent 18:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent, there's no concerted forum-shopping going on. I brought the issue to dispute resolution and was leaning towards having a third opinion provided before dropping it after an editor weighed in on Surtscina's talk page supporting the removal of the images. I began the RfC after an editor came to the talk page criticizing their removal and because I thought that the issue was significant enough that a decision needed to be reached through consensus. I did not bring the issue to ANI or the teahouse. Two separate people did and I had no involvement in that. I wasn't even aware of the Teahouse discussion until now and didn't find out about this discussion until somebody posted about it on the RfC. So there's certainly no concerted forum-shopping. Rather, what we have is a group of editors who at various times have come across one or more of the 200-some pages that have had their lead images suddenly removed and who have launched disconcerted and independent responses at different places. It's kind of a mess, but that's what you get when you make so many changes to long-standing content with no prior discussion. Display name 99 (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• They are the conventional images by which the persons are known and recognized in traditional religious and artistic discussions and presentation and images. They 're appropriate for our articles. most people involved knows they're a convention, though this should be made clear in the captions for those who do not . Trying to change the practice insidiously one-by-one is not an appropriate way of editing Wikipedia . DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I do find it disruptive (although perhaps I am in the minority judging from responses to the ongoing RfC), but I don't see a deliberate intent to degrade the quality of the articles and agree that it should not be treated as vandalism. I expressed openess on Surtsicna's talk page to what Iridescent and DGG said about adding captions indicating that certain images are apocryphal, but editors on the other side do not seem open to it. Display name 99 (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC) SergeWoodzing suggested something similar to this as well on Surtsicna's talk page. I could agree to adding authors and years in captions for images that are likely apocyrphal. Simply removing long-standing images en masse from hundreds of articles is not how Wikipedia should be edited. Display name 99 (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with User:DGG that images that have been conventionally associated with their subject should continue to be used, although they should be labeled as to their origin. I think that the guidelines on images should be clarified to deal with this situation in cases where no contemporary representation is available but where a particular image has traditionally been used, such as for popes, some Kings of Scotland, some Kings of England, Christopher Columbus, and others. This dispute arose because there is no guideline addressing this situation. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no guideline, because quite likely there is no consensus. There's the essay WP:PORTRAIT (written by me), which some of the "pro-removal" commenters have cited in this discussion. It too describes some situations where imaginary depictions may be suitable, but the popes and kings of Scotland most certainly don't fall into that class. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the images precisely because they are not conventionally associated with their subject. They are completely alien to modern scholarship (unsurprisingly). We do have a guideline, WP:LEADIMAGE, which says that the lead image should be the type of image found in high-quality sources. Surtsicna (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth I also noticed the purge in progress, and was a little perturbed, but I wholeheartedly agree with the banishment of the near-mythical early popes' portraits. They are a particular 19th century image of ideal sanctity; they ought not to be Wikipedia's impression. The question posed though, is how contemporary is contemporary? Within a century? Within the individual's lifetime? Is the article about the person themselves or their subsequent impression on the world and echoes in culture, art, &c.? GPinkerton (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FPAS. the essay you wrote includes the section

"Conventionalized, imaginary depictions of religious figures, for example in Christian hagiographic art, can be suitable for Wikipedia even if they come from a much later cultural context, since in these cases the history of the religious veneration of the figure in question is just as much part of the topic of the article as their actual historical existence." This is exactly the category for the popes. And there's another consideration, where I must go by analogy, but it's a very close analogy for a subject I know much better--: For English medieval kings, the standard modern academic biographies include fully referenced elaborately detailed sections on the available images, with considerations of their authenticity--or, even when clearly not authentic, their their derivation. Our article on Edward I, for example, has 6 of them, but doesn't give a detailed discussion--see also https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person.php?LinkID=mp67807. There are probably similar discussions for most of the popes. DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither these nor these are conventional portrayals of the popes. They are obscure 19th-century depictions never found in modern academic biographies. That is why they should not be in the lead sections of papal biographies. Surtsicna (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) DGG: For that to be applicable to the pope images, they would first of all have to be recognizable. The point about religious hagiography is that saints have individual, conventionalized visual attributes that make their images or icons identifiable. Nobody, not even the most ardent and knowledgeable Catholic worshipper, could possibly look at this or that or that one and say: "Oh, yes, that's Anacletus, of course, and that one must be Marcellus II". They are just random bearded guys. The same is true for those late medieval galleries of king vignettes and their early-modern-era derivatives. If there is sourceable academic interest in such galleries and how one image derives from another, then that can of course be reflected in an article – but that would have to be a sourced section of text; it would still be silly to just paste any one of those images in the infobox without context and comment, or even plaster a whole list article with them. (Actually, I shouldn't be saying "it would be silly", but "it is silly", because unfortunately some people are actually doing exactly that.) But be that as it may, this belongs to the RFC, not here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, according to "Date" the file-pages you linked, those portraits are actually contemporary. Seems unlikely to me, but I'm no art expert. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're obviously not. That's just mistagged on Commons. San Paolo fuori le mura was only built around 400, so the first 30 or so pope portraits couldn't possibly have been contemporary. Moreover, the church burned down completely in the 1840s and was rebuilt and redecorated after that. What we're seeing in these pictures is evidently the mid-19th century "reconstructions". How similar they may be to whatever was there before that is anybody's guess, but everybody can see that they are stylistically thoroughly 19th century. I've found no clear sourcing on what the chronology of the gallery before that date may have been and to what extent it can be reconstructed at all, but apparently even in the pre-1840s state, everything before the 18th century had been fantasy depictions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Sorry, this is now really very much on a tangent and doesn't belong on ANI, but since this was brought up, I found there are actually some of the original (pre-19th century) fresco versions of those popes in San Paolo preserved. They look like this: [30]. Now, that's clearly a high-quality artwork, from the early original history of the church in question, i.e. possibly 5th century or thereabouts. Still nowhere near contemporary to the (1st century) figure depicted, but clearly artistically and historically a significant work. That's certainly an item that I could accept as legitimate under WP:PORTRAIT. Needless to say, it bears no similarity at all to the 19th-century doodle for the same person; the comparison only throws the latter's ridiculousness into sharper relief. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, can we close this thread now? There was clearly no "misconduct" here as the thread title still falsely claims. There's a legitimate content dispute, which is now being worked out in an RfC and seems about to be resolved in favour of the editor being complained about. So let's move on now; just a wikitrout to the admin/arb who should have known better than to make that baseless and AGF-violating personal attack of calling that editor's work "insidious" and we're done here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure this is the right place to post this, but perhaps someone can point me in the right direction if not. I’m currently blocked on my home PC by a meta-wiki IP range block. The block message is:

Your IP address is in a range that has been blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis.

The block was made by Tks4Fish (meta.wikimedia.org). The reason given is Cross-wiki abuse: Disruptive editing.

Start of block: 12:07, 20 April 2020 Expiry of block: 12:07, 20 May 2020 Your current IP address is 2600:387:5:807::82 and the blocked range is 2600:387:5:800:0:0:0:0/56

Normally I use my ISP but because of the COVID-related surge in home use, the bandwidth on that has dropped to nothing, so I’ve set up my cell-enabled iPad to function as a modem and am using that to edit from home. Evidently the cell-tower IPs are the range being blocked; I found I was able to edit for a while earlier but now I’m blocked again. I’m now VPNed to my work PC and am editing from there, which isn’t a solution long-term because of slow response time. I tried emailing the stewards, which is what the block says to do, and gave them my username; I got a reply that looks canned that says “please tell us your user name if you want to be unblocked”, and nothing since then (about 12 hours ago). Is there any other way around this than waiting for the stewards to notice my request? ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Christie (talk • contribs) 21:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I'd recommend going to their admin noticeboard. m:WM:IPBE is also something that might work. SemiHypercube 21:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC) pinged SemiHypercube 22:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; trying the noticeboard. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Local IP-block exemption would also work, while you'd still be blocked from other WMF wikis you'd be able to edit this one freely even through a global IP block. It's not an area I've dealt with previously as an admin so I'd leave it to someone else but it'd certainly be an option if you don't get a quick response on meta. ~ mazca ^talk 22:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disabled it on English Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've twice been hit by site-wide steward blocks (unable to edit even my own Talk Page), and never got any response at all from the stewards on either occasion. The first time needed off-wiki emails and experimental intervention by at least two admins over about eight hours (different timezones) to return to editing. The second time, WP:UTRS worked like a charm, and I was given temporary WP:IPBLOCKEXEMPT protection. Narky Blert (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I got an email overnight saying I'd been given global IP block exemption, so I'm safe from any future blocks. It took about 20 hours total to get it done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I recently got hit by a rangeblock at my place of employment. The stewards didn't respond until the next morning, by which time the block had expired, and declined to provide an exemption since... the block had expired. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having trouble with @Helsing90: over at the Albert II of Belgium article. He continues to delete Albert II's illegitimate child from the infobox, even though he didn't get a consensus for it back in February & now. GoodDay (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Helsing90 may need an application of the cluebat at some point (since the user's only purpose seems to be to argue over this topic), but I think this issue is currently in the "content dispute" realm rather than the "administrator action needed" realm. creffett (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative eyes would be welcomed at that article. Note: My report should've been at WP:AN. GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry GoodDay, You are republican, against the monarchy, as we can see on your profile, your goal is to denigrate it by lying! Delphine Boël is not legally her daughter, the law prescript the filiation and not the biologie. Currently, king Albert II is only the genitor of Delphine Boel. The person who write the opposite is a liar and does a defamation, WP cannot modifies filiation or disregard adoptions. Otherwise, the English (Canadian, American or British) website that you used do not translate correctly the fact Press release :

• «His Majesty King Albert II took note of the results of the DNA sample which he lent himself to at the request of the Brussels Court of Appeal. Scientific findings indicate that He is the genitor of Mrs. Delphine Boël.»
• «The request for recognition of paternity must be debated at a hearing before the Brussels Court of Appeal. This hearing will be held on June 4.»

To be the «child of», it is the law that decides and not the DNA but you do not accept it! I am adopted, my parents are those who adopted me AND NOT those who gave birth to me. It is the Belgian law! --Helsing90 (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're the problem. You've no consensus for what you're trying to do & won't accept it. You're being a disruptive SPA. -- GoodDay (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus to have, it's about the facts; you just don't speak french so you don't translate correctly. You mix "biological father" and "father", in Belgium it's very different. The earth is round, not flat, there is no consensus to have. --Helsing90 (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Helsing90, can you back up "your goal is to denigrate it by lying!" in diff? That's a serious accusation.--KasiaNL (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no intention of getting involved in the content disagreement, but I'll just offer a few reminders of things the participants need to be aware of:

1) No personal attacks please, and that includes accusations of lying.

2) Content disagreements are decided by consensus, so please try to gain one.

3) Wikipedia articles go on what reliable sources say.

4) Wikipedia is not bound by Belgian law.

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm pretty sure that ANI is not for content disputes; you can go to WP:3O or WP:DRN if you disagree. Either way, it is clear that Delphine Boël is the biological daughter of Albert II, and that their articles should clearly indicate this because it's scientific fact, unconstrained by the laws of man. However, both articles should still note that Delphine is not legally Albert's child. Said and done, both pages require RFPP. This is the second time Helsing90 has engaged in this dispute, as proven by this talkpage thread, and since the user is editing exclusively about these topics, I'd recommend a partial block from, or extended confirmed protection of, Delphine Boël and Albert II of Belgium for two months (after which the legal dispute will be solved). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is with heavy heart that I come here to request help from user:Neutralhomer. We have been having a dispute over the silliest thing, but he has become increasing unhinged, finishing with a threat to "en masse revert every article you have touched". He has threatened to come to ANI because I continue to change coordinates from (for example) 41°39′26.00″N 83°36′57.00″W to 41°39′26″N 83°36′57″W. This is in keeping with WP:CALC policy, and guidance in many other places. When I showed him that editors at his project long ago decided the issue, he plays the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT card and threatened me, "tread very lightly", ANI, and mass reversion. Please let him know that his behavior is not conducive to building the encyclopedia. Thanks, Abductive (reasoning) 04:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where does WP:CALC say to drop the decimal? (I know next to nothing about coordinates)--v/r - TP 04:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's rounding, a routine calculation. There is no carveout for coordinates. Abductive (reasoning) 04:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: There is nothing "routine" about these calculations. These are the exact (or near exact) coordinations of radio station transmitters directly from the FCC database. What Abductive what's to do is input his own coordinates he has taken from Google Maps (see the history of WYFI, November 18, 2019) and that is clear OR. Not what we do here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:57 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

I thought you were in the Air Force!? In this particular case [omit fascinating technical explanation related to how far from the equator you are] .01″ is roughly one foot. So what's with these ultraprecise values? Is someone planning a missile strike? The .00 were almost certainly simply tacked on and represent false precision. EEng 04:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a navigator.--v/r - TP 13:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nor the bombardier, I hope. EEng 16:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I'm a 3D0X4...Computer Programmer. Haven't even left the United States (except for a Wikipedia hack-a-thon).--v/r - TP 01:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Air Force has some really weird codes for job specialties. I'm a former Navy brat and my Dad was honorably discharged (after serving 14 years) with the rank of MM2, Machinist's Mate Second Class. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:32 on April 23, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

@EEng: I think the FCC gives a margin for error of like 1,000 feet or something when it comes to their coords. Sometimes I'll look for a tower and it's dead on top of a coord. Sometimes, it's half way across a road in a field somewhere. I think the FCC gives it a "eh, close enough" margin. As long as it's not in the next county. :D - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:52 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Abductive has a habit of mismatching discussions, how they happen. This is one of them. This discussion is about Abductive's continued need to put the geocoords in radio station articles to the coords he finds on Google Earth. This is NOT how we do this. We use FCC documents. Numerous editors have told him this.

So today, April 22 of all days, he comes to me with an discussion from 2010 and tries to say that Dravecky, Closeapple, and I somehow came to an agreement that his way was how we were going to do things 10 years prior to him showing up.

Now, as most of you know, tomorrow, April 23 is when Dravecky left us 4 years ago. We at Wikipedia, we on this rock, are lesser for it every day. I miss talking science, talking radio, talking TV, just talking with Ed. He wasn't just someone I worked with, he was my friend.

So, for Abductive to bring up the name of Dravecky in his warped attempt to get his way, to change Wiki history, to change Wiki policy, is just disgusting and is a disservice to everything good about Dravecky. Yeah, I lost my temper, but all the good faith went out there along time ago for him and his "heavy heart". He can play the victim, fine. But he can do it away from the good name of Dravecky. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:32 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

I have no idea who the other editors are. The real question is, why do you care so much between 26.00 and 26? The articles you are exerting WP:OWNERSHIP over are the only ones like this on Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 04:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The abuse continues. Abductive (reasoning) 04:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dravecky was an editor and admin on this project, mostly radio and TV stations, sci-fi too, from June 7, 2007 (with his first edit, fittingly of Starfleet International) until his last on April 23, 2016, the day he passed away. That's all you need to know.

He taught me that the FCC Database is the end all, be all database, it is a highly notable reliable source and none other is more reliable. When it says 26.00, you put 26.00. If it says 25.65, you put 25.65. Because a Federal Government Database is the end all, be all and in radio and television, the FCC is the top. That's not OWNership, that's what I was taught by an editor who knew exactly what he was doing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:45 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Dude, you literally just said above that the FCC is erroneous: "Sometimes I'll look for a tower and it's dead on top of a coord. Sometimes, it's half way across a road in a field somewhere. I think the FCC gives it a "eh, close enough" margin." Why then do we believe that it is so precise? Abductive (reasoning) 04:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's the FCC and it's a source. Plus, 8 times out of 10, it's dead on top of the coord anymore. :) We still don't do original research regardless if a tower is in the woods 500 feet from where it should be. That could be a station lying to the FCC (it happens more often than you think). You don't get to pick and choose what policies you want to follow. OR is a biggie, everyone follows it. What you see on Google Maps, doesn't matter squat. FCC is golden. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:01 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

It's a primary source and clearly incorrect in some cases. But that doesn't matter to rounding what they say to remove superfluous zeroes. Abductive (reasoning) 05:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive: Where is it incorrect and who says to remove superfluous zeroes and round? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:58 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

You said above that the FCC gives a margin for error of like 1,000 feet or something. In light of that, giving decimal seconds (which translates to +/- 1 foot) is absurd. EEng 13:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: Please, you're gonna have to explain decimal seconds and their "translation" into feet, I don't understand it. :( I was force-passed in Math 11 because I just didn't "get" adding decimals. Anyway, I said I think the FCC gives a margin for error. I pulled a number out of the air (among other places). The towers I looked at could have been mis-coorded by the station (again, it happens more-often than you think) and it was off because of that. I don't believe there is an official on the books margain for error at the FCC, just when you look at the towers, it seems that way. That could be the NAD27 to NAD83 coords, everything going to GPS now (along with NAD83). I don't know. It was my belief there was. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:15 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Without going into a long song and dance, if you move from 41°39′26.00″ to 41°39′26.01″ you've only moved one foot (roughly); moving to 41°39′26.02″ is another foot away, etc. [31] So two questions arise.

First, even if a coordinate like 41°39′26.00″ is exactly right, what real purpose does it serve to give something so precise i.e. precise to +/- 1 foot? If you leave the .00 off i.e. just say 41°39′26″, you're giving the location to +/- 100 feet, and isn't that good enough?

But second (and more important), all those .00s are almost certainly not correct. It's like if a computerized list of people's heights listed 67.00 inches, 72.00 inches, 69.00 inches, 70.00 inches. Would you conclude that these four people were really measured to the nearest hundredth of an inch and that -- just by chance -- every one of them, when measured, all happened to have heights which are an exact, precise, whole number of inches, with no hundredths? Or would you conclude that the stupid computer just added the .00 because of the way it's programmed? Obviously the latter, and that's why including the .00 in these coordinates makes no sense. They're a computer artifact, not real data -- in technical terms false precision. I hope this helps. EEng 16:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense. Where were you when I was in 11th grade? :) I think the purpose has been to quote the source exactly as it is written to avoid OR and V/RS issues. Now, let me give you an example of where the issue lies there. Take WINC-FM for instance, currently showing the transmitter coords as 38°57′21.0″N 78°1′28.0″W. Well, according to the FCC database, that was correct...under NAD27. Under NAD83, their coords are now 38°57'21.30"N 78°1'26.90"W. That's far more exact. Instead of putting WINC-FM's tower somewhere in the woods, maybe near a cell tower. It has it dead next to it's actual tower. Most, if not all, pages, need to be updated to NAD83. That would make this entire discussion completely moot. That's a LOT of radio stations and typically it's Mlaffs, myself, and a few dedicated others doing the gnome-ish work around here. We would need help, a bot maybe. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:15 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

When I was 17 years old, (decades before GPS) because he wasn't into latitude and longitude and maps, my boss had me fill those co-ordinates out for FCC applications for repeater type radio transmitters. Whatever I wrote on the form became the official FCC coordinate listing for the transmitter.  :-) North8000 (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I only responded to your abuse. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:47 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

• I just looked up "recalcitrant". adjective: having an obstinately uncooperative attitude toward authority or discipline. noun: a person with an obstinately uncooperative attitude. I'll take that as a compliment. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:04 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Wow has it really been four years already... :/

This seems like something that could be resolved by getting a couple other people involved in the dispute. Just to try to drill down to the specific issue: FCC vs. Google Maps. AFAIK we allow use of Google Maps to produce coords for articles on basically every other subject, so I guess it's probably considered a fine source for that? I think it's pretty standard to not even include a source, since it can be verified by clicking on the coords and seeing the subject? The how-to at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates doesn't include adding a citation and I don't see anything about citing where you got it at Wikipedia:Obtaining geographic coordinates (maybe I've missed it). Putting aside the other issues here for a moment, I'm struggling to see why we would need to rely on the FCC specifically for radio towers, if they're sometimes imprecise, when we have other data available? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Abductive: You've not demonstrated that there was a previous consensus for your view and WP:CALC is so generic that it's a mile long stretch to argue that it requires your viewpoint. You two need to go get a third opinion. Quit bickering and leave each other alone. And quit the mass changes until an actual consensus is developed. Start a formal request for comment if neccessary.--v/r - TP 13:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Warning: @Neutralhomer: I'm considering blocking you for a decent chunk of time for returning to the battlefield behavior that led to all your previous blocks (and which resulted in a block this past January). I thought we'd turned the corner on this; it is not acceptable to resume that. I very strongly suggest that you stop editing for a few days to regain perspective. Several of your comments above, and in diffs presented by Abductive, are beyond the pale. I have no opinion on the underlying content dispute; for all I know, you're right. That can be determined when you've regained perspective. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, yes, TParis's suggestion that both stop with any mass changes until a clear consensus is formed is spot on too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Floquenbeam: I'm man enough to admit that I might have over-reacted...but I miss my friend. You know I found out on my birthday in 2016? So to have Abductive come up with a discussion that him and I took part in a little over 24 hours before he passed away 4 years ago, it really struck a nerve. I believe that was what it was meant to do. I fell for that.

Moving on, anyway, I have never used anything other than FCC documents to make changes to radio station (and other media) pages. That's just how I was taught. Plus, since that is our primary source, it is the Federal Government, it's always been considered something that's been allowed to exist as a unicorn (for lack of a better word, I just woke up) within CALC, within other rules because anything else could be considered OR when viewed beside the FCC source.

Generally, I don't make masses changes to radio station pages when it comes to their coords (ie: changing just the last couple numbers, rounding). I only change them when they have been updated (the FCC is doing that in their en masse update to NAD83 (and so there isn't towers 500 feet from where their coords are), when a tower has been moved (see WNOR), and when I'm updating a page (doing a page refresh, it's rare anymore). I don't mess with coords. I just don't do it. As I said above, I use what is on the FCC website, I take that as gospel, and that's it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:05 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

• Just a comment here. I can see Neutralhomer's point. We report on what others say. What should be the coordinates of a tower is what the FCC says they are. Their databases are used for navigation by many commercial, government and private interests. For radio transmitters, it's what we should use. In other fields, yes, tenths and hundredths of seconds are completely superfluous and should be rounded. If your a matter of tenths of a second away from whatever you are locating, you are there. However, if you are 75 miles away from one transmitter you are triangulating off of and 100 miles from the other, those rounding errors multiply geometrically and now the location you've triangulated for yourself is off by thousands of feet. John from Idegon (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other point: for most locations we give coordinates the worst end result is they are wrong. Radio towers are frequently used for navigation (air land and sea). Incorrect location information on them could be life or death information. John from Idegon (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Because a pilot might check Wikipedia to navigate while flying IFR? Seriously? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Levivich, on our airport pages, the layout and runway images all?? say, that they are not for navigation or pilot usage. When a pilot starts a flight, they check the NOTAM's and any information they need for the flight. They don't check Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Those NOTAMs Sir Joseph mentioned are based off FCC coordinates. They aren't always correct. Even FAA coordinates for radio/television towers are based off the FCC database. Those coords come from the broadcasters themselves. Here's an example of a station broadcasting from where they shouldn't be and getting busted for it back in 2018. So, while the FCC is almost always correct, it does rely on broadcasters in an almost honor system. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:51 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

    If you're navigating based on a set of coordinates you imported from Wikipedia, you richly deserve the controlled flight into terrain that will probably follow. Choess (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, perhaps, but given wiki’s powers of citogenesis, it might be soon possible for someone to have that sort of error made for them. Better, always, to be right than consistent if it is a choice that has to be made. Qwirkle (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, I would counsel sprinkling in intentional errors here and there, and advertise that we do so, as a way of convincing people not to fly their planes off our data. EEng 15:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I read Wikipedia while high, but I never use it to navigate. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Did it ever occur to any of you that there is a need to navigate things other than aircraft? I've found my way out of rugged territory on foot using radio triangulation, and a radio and compass were the only nav tools I ever used crossing Lake Michigan. John from Idegon (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The underlying content dispute here would probably best be addressed at some other forum, perhaps WT:WPRS though there may be a better one that I'm missing. I will add briefly that WP:PRIMARY sources are allowed as long as they are used only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. I will also add that rounding is covered by WP:CALC. Ultimately the choice of what degree of precision to display is an editorial one, and there is room for good-faith disagreement among well meaning people on that question. If there are concerns over the reliability of sources in context, that would probably be best addressed at WP:RSN. Finally, going forward remember to comment on content, not the contributor. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Popping in to add my two cents, just because I was name-checked earlier on. Is it worth going to the mattresses over whether or not transmitter co-ordinates should go down to the feet if the co-ordinate ends in "00"? Of course it's not, and this didn't need to escalate like that. Am I, personally, especially fussed if the "00" isn't included in a co-ordinate? No, not really, I guess – I'm just trying to stay alive right now. But would it be easier if there were consistency from radio station article to radio station article and they all used full NAD83 co-ordinates, including any "00"? Of course, because we can verify those co-ordinates with the FCC database, which is our gold standard in reliable sources for this information.

All that said, I'm not sure that I'd interpret WP:CALC as the policy to back up an edit to remove a "00" if I were asked to step in as an uninvolved admin, but okay. But more importantly, I don't see how removing the "00" adds value to the project and if WP:WHYWOULDYOUBOTHERDOINGTHATJUSTBECAUSEYOUCAN doesn't exist as a guideline, it probably should. I haven't reviewed the edits that kicked this off, Abductive, but if the only edit being made in those cases is the removal of the "00", and it's not just ancillary to other additive edits that you're making to the article, I just don't see the point. Again, I don't know if that's the case. Mlaffs (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been fixing other stuff, mostly removing the type "city" and making the coordinates appear both inline and title. This is my Wikignoming. People should appreciate other people's efforts to make the encyclopedia better. Abductive (reasoning) 03:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive: What do you mean you've been removing the type "city"? You shouldn't be removing the "city" field from any page, period. That is standard in all Template:Infobox radio station infoboxes. Please explain.

A radio station transmitter is not a city, it is a landmark in the coordinate parameter markup. I got this from your own Wikiproject talk page. You have ignored other people on that talk page for years. Abductive (reasoning) 20:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive: The city field in Template:Infobox radio station infoboxes is for the city or community of license. It has nothing to do with the actual location of the station's transmitter. Once again, this is dictated by the FCC license, per the FCC database, and not some information you pulled from Google Maps. Also, please link to this discussion.

Not the city field within the infobox, the type:city parameter within the coordinates template. That parameter (which may not even do anything anymore) tells the map what sort of object it is looking at. Others are "edu" for a school, "isle" for an island, etc. City means zoom out a lot, landmark means zoom in a lot. Abductive (reasoning) 00:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, would you like to deal with the above behavior from Abductive...or should I start my own ANI thread? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:16 on April 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

I don't understand what you don't understand about this: deal with content disputes using the steps outlined at WP:DR. Admins don't solve content disputes. What you're complaining about is a content dispute. I suspect at this stage, after all these wasted electrons over the last few days, if you open a new ANI thread complaining about a content dispute, someone will block you for WP:IDHT or WP:TE or something. It won't be me - even though I'm not technically WP:INVOLVED, it's clear you think I am, and it's not worth the headache of arguing about it - but this is an honest warning. I believe you are much closer to a block for resuming the battleground behavior than you think you are. In the mean time, I have muted pings from you, so don't expect them to work anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A couple examples of Abductive's use of Google Maps (ie: original research) in coords can be found here and here where he says in the edit summary "Tower now visible on Google/Bing/OSM maps." Clearly a violation of a OR. In this case he removed marked NAD83 coords, ones correctly sourced by FCC documents, for ones he "found" somewhere. It's clear original research. There is no backing source to his edit. If I wasn't the subject of this ANI discussion, I would revert that edit, probably with an OR warning.

This is clearly the behavior that has pushed me to the end of my rope, my patience to the very end, and exhausted my good faith. I urge Mlaffs, Floquenbeam, TParis, and others to take a look at Abductive's edits as there is clearly an issue here. Yes, I may have lost my temper, but that does not excuse Abductive's editing behavior. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:44 on April 24, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

It is unreasonable to be "pushed to the end of your rope" by edits like this. If you can't manage your emotions better than that, then please don't edit until you've regained control of them. Assuming for the moment that these aren't useful edits (I have no opinion, except to note that it would make us look silly to list people's height as 6 ft 3.000 in, or as 1.91000 m, and this seems, superficially, like a similar case), your battleground approach to content disputes is still more harmful to the encyclopedia than Abductive's edits here. Get a third opinion. Ask at WP:RADIO. Start an RFC. But don't go seriously overboard, hurl personal attacks, threaten to revert all of their edits, and expect people to ignore that and focus on a minor content dispute. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: How about, instead of "Neutralhomer has a problem and probably shouldn't edit, but I have no opinion on the current problem, which helps no one, let's throw the problem on someone else's lap", maybe just maybe actually help. Clearly there is an OR issue. Clearly there is an RS issue. Clearly there is a V issue. These are BIG policies here at Wikipedia. Now, I'm just an editor who "can't manage [his] emotions" because an editor brought up my friend on the 4 year anniversary of the death of my friend (no opinion there, either?) but, I think we should do everything possible to uphold these policies. Fight to protect these policies. If needed, warn and block people who disobey these policies.

So, yes, it is resonable for me to be "pushed to the end of [my] rope" by an editor who refuses to listen to the most basic of policies here at Wikipedia and basically do his own thing. It's also reasonable for me to get a little bit irked at an admin for allowing it and passing the buck.

So, I'm asking you, get involved in the discussion, have an opinion...please. You've made it very clear how you feel about me (repeatedly). But as an admin, your input about the heart of the this problem is what really matters. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:49 on April 24, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Yes, I do have an "opinion there". I think you should be 100% ashamed of yourself for assuming that Abductive intentionally brought up a conversation your friend participated in to intentionally hurt you. 100% ashamed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: Like I said, we all know how you feel about me. Since you don't have an opinion on Abductive's editing behavior, I thank you for your time. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:12 on April 25, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

This feud is not helpful to anyone, especially its two participants. I agree that the optics of Neutralhomer invoking a dead Wikipedian as pertaining to this dispute was in poor taste. El_C 00:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, if you actually follow the links related to this accusation, that is not what happened. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, I've been following along. I'm not sure what you think I missed. El_C 00:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I just said something stupid. For some reason I thought you meant Abductive somehow "invoking" him, which is what NH claimed above, and which I'm saying didn't happen. Upon reflection that was a weird assumption to make, particularly in the context you made the comment. I think my Saturday evening gin and tonic might be a little too strong (in the sense that there's not really any tonic in there). Sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wizardcraft is posting unencyclopaedic content, is edit warring and is refusing to engage in discussion. He continues to do this past level four warnings but I don't think this is quite a straightforward WP:AIV issue so I am bringing it here for consideration.

Clearly, this is not a malicious vandal. The content being posted would indeed be welcome in many other venues, but it is inappropriate here. For example, this is an extract from the new content added on their first edit:

Aubameyang then netted his fourth of the season, whipping into the corner after Aaron Ramsey`s pass was miscued. The goal was given, despite Aubameyang being marginally offside. He then scored twice and assisted despite playing just 28 minutes as a substitute as Arsenal hammered Fulham 5-1 at Craven Cottage. He was, however, benched for the home tie against Leicester City, but was subbed on on 61 minutes, with the scores level at 1-1. Aubameyang then scored twice in five minutes to seal a 3-1 win for Arsenal; his second goal came at the end of a magnificent passing move, and would be voted Arsenal`s Goal of the Season.

This is not written in a "business-like" tone required of an enclopaedia: phrases such as "whipping into the corner" are what you would expect in the tabloid sports pages; there is commentary such as "magnificent passing move" and the whole thing (arguably) contains undue levels of detail. But worst of all is that it is is almost all entirely original research. It looks like it's referenced - each of the three matches cited has a reference to an online match report - but I'm not convinced these refs weren't simply added later to the author's own match reports because there's nothing in the ref for the last game that says that Aubameyang was substituted after 61 minutes or that the goal would be voted Goal of the Season; the ref for the second match says nothing about playing "just 28 minutes" and whilst it does say he was substituted on after 62 minutes, it also says he scored in the 91st, so it looks like the assertion wasn't even correct.

Attempts to engage in discussion have failed. Mattythewhite and I have both left messages on their talk page but they just delete them without responding. None of their edits has been given an edit summary; they just keep reinstating their content when it is removed (see the edit histories of e.g. Eddie Nketiah).

The user is continuing in the same vein over a range of football-associated articles, most recently at 2018–19 Chelsea F.C. season. See e.g. this reinstatement of content such as "they then faced a Reds side with a stronger team sheet at Stamford Bridge in the league, but were undone thanks to a late Sturridge stunner, and had to settle for a 1-1 draw", which includes the same sorts of problem cited above, including content unsupported by the ref. Even more understated statements are WP:OR, for example, "Chelsea began the league campaign under new manager Sarri with a routine 3-0 victory at Huddersfield Town" is nowhere described as "routine" in the reference. I have not reverted this again; having done so once, and made one last effort to engage, I think it's time for Administrator attention. Dorsetonian (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually wondering if Wizardcraft was a continuation of a banned user, simply because it's a new account that has a fair understanding of how wikipedia works, much more than say a new user. Not to mention he logged out of that username and started editing under this IP (122.61.100.131 contrib) Govvy (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Salmanalpy12 keeps removing information from various pages arguing that the references are not 'reputable' or that they are misleading.[32] Even after a large-scale re-diting by a third user on Kurdish calendar.[33]. However, the issue does not seem to be verification, since one edit targeted sourced sentences while the unsourced section remained. [34]. --Semsûrî (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Semsûrî: Can you let us know what were the results of the prior discussions you had with this user? What kind of results did you get when you tried to talk with them about their concerns over the sources? Can you link to those conversations so we can read them ourselves? --Jayron32 15:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: This is the same type of editor I've seen for about a year now (I call them 'edit and run'). They come and go and I don't have the energy any longer. If you believe my report was premature; fair enough, I retract it. Also a similar new account[35][36] where interaction quickly turned to "You clearly have a hatred for Assyrians and it shows."[37]. --Semsûrî (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edits of Hi.mariam on that talk page definitely need administrator attention. They appear to say that they are canvassing cross-wiki to scrutinize Semsuri’s edits, which could easily lead to meatpuppetry. This, because as they seem to imply, their editing of pages related to the Assyrian people (“our pages”) and removing original research, as a non-Assyrian, is tantamount to vandalism. Semsuri was very collegial in that conversation, and communicated the need for secondary reliable sourcing, and how we can’t accept original research. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Semsûrî:, while I’ve pinged them, you need to inform Hi.mariam on their talk page that you’ve mentioned them on this noticeboard. I’ve taken the liberty of doing so. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't think that this is at all an appropriate first notification to give to a new user who was adding much more sourced information than you say they deleted. I may have been inactive on this site for some time, but even I can tell that's a borderline bad faith assumption and newbie-biting. When you are personally linked to heated ethnopolitical issues in any fashion, you should take care to maintain some decorum on a site like this. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lothar von Richthofen I don’t disagree. I think Jayron32 asked the correct questions in his initial response. One needs to engage every editor in good faith, even if they’re perhaps an SPA. There are exceptions to this of course, but it’s always better to give the benefit of a doubt. Taking an editor to ANI without attempting substantial discussion isn’t a good move. And I don’t disagree about his initial comment. They’ve been BITE-y, yes. Regardless, that doesn’t erase the clear problems with the second user that became clear throughout the rest of the conversation, where Semsuri gave clear policy reasons without any further vitriol. I think guidance is needed here for the users mentioned, and a logged warning for the second, as they’re straddling WP:NOTHERE. Given that Semursi has agreed to disengage, and recognized their fault here, I don’t think further action is required beyond that. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Symmachus Auxiliarus:@Lothar von Richthofen: My own behavior has probably not been the best on Assyrian-related pages like mentioned above, but one cannot be anything but frustrated with the behavior taking place. I'm ignoring the personal attacks, but sourced information keep getting removed and the adamant push to keep unsourced section is perplexing. Nonetheless, this edit this morning is hopefully one of the last edits of mine on Assyrian-related page[38] I'm going back to constructive work on Kurdish-related topics and remove most Assyrian-related pages from my watchlist. I just hope that other users watch these few dozen pages that tend to be disruptively edited since I don't have the energy anymore (especially Alqosh). --Semsûrî (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: User:Hi.mariam has been blocked per WP:NOTHERE. It’s clearly a good block, especially given their subsequent unblock request, which was followed by accusations of racism and threats against the blocking/reviewing admin(s) (it’s not clear to whom they were referring). Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think @Berean Hunter: made a bad block here actually. Anyone making detailed contributions like this reverted content can't be claimed in good faith to be "not here to build an encyclopedia", that's a little rich. Aside from some minor points of tone and needing some sourcing (not an insurmountable issue), that's the kind of content which enriches this resource, and should be given guidance rather than immediately penalized. What happened here is that a well-established editor, with respectable contributions but a POV of his own, snapped at a newbie, who took offense and likely made sense of the situation as being yet another inter-diaspora online attack directed at her and her culture. If you know anything about the topic area and the online circles around it, that's not an unreasonable assumption from her point of view. The newbie, feeling angry and not being hip to the codes of behavior on here, went and did some not-smart things which escalated the situation. But if you go up to a stranger and bite them, they're going to get mad.

The net result is that this incident is going to blow back into her online circles, which no doubt contain folks just as passionate and knowledgeable about their own culture and history as Semsûrî is and who could legitimately improve this site, and is either going to put them off of editing entirely, or else give the impression that this place is as much a nasty bare-knuckle arena as any other they know and encourage more hostile editing. In the long run, this is the kind of gratuitous gatekeeping that deprives this resource of good content and poisons the social well here. I took an extended break from this site after getting burnt out from similar bad environments allowed to fester here, lurking and spectating for a while, but seeing this situation spurred me to log back in and say something. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through contribs and found this amazing, well-sourced expansion. "Removal of sourced content"? "Not here to build an encyclopedia"? Yall must be joking! ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this by clicking the above user's contribs - I saw him on the page in question as he also joined the edit war. The content which had many issues, was not created by the indeffed user he mentioned, but by a different site-banned sockmaster - they simply restored the banned sock's edits (they were not the creator of the "amazing" content mentioned above). Puduḫepa 18:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hot take, but in this case I'm less concerned with in-wiki-universe concerns about sock/meatpuppets, but how we got to a point where individuals legitimately trying to make productive edits and improve the quality and coverage of this resource end up getting swatted around into breaking WikiLaws they haven't even had adequate time to learn to lawyer around like the rest of us. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn’t about whether they made worthwhile contributions. It’s about their behaviour, and that they’ve clearly expressed a desire to contravene policy, “go after” and besmirch other editors and administrators, and have made personal attacks. I’m sorry, but calling those who disagree with you or are enforcing policy racists, saying a person’s ethnicity makes them unqualified to edit, canvassing across other Wikis to encourage meatpuppetry, and making attacks both there and here against others is unacceptable. I’m blown away that you’re glossing over all of this. Perhaps their behaviour isn’t intractable. Perhaps mentorship is a path forward. But first, they’d need to file a proper unblock request. You know, without threatening the administrators involved, and acknowledging their own problematic behaviour. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This particular user may be a lost cause at this point, I left a message on her talk gently enjoining her to pursue more conciliatory and patient habits, but I doubt that it will change anything. However, I still do think that we arrived at that point first and foremost by fostering hostile editing environments which are intolerable enough for long-term editors but deathtraps for newbies. One's ethnicity shouldn't be a disqualifier, but how many ARBCOM cases has this site seen in contentious topic areas from all around the world where members of opposing historical-cultural communities engage in escalating, tit-for-tat tendentiousness until something goes very wrong? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet one more reminder that by using essentially dishonest language, as so much of wiki’s newspeak is, we are interfering with our ability to think clearly. How many more reminders do we need before we do something about it? Qwirkle (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lothar, "this reverted content" is not Hi.mariam but is another editor that was IP socking. You've made mistaken conclusions based on that and credited the wrong person. Also, as pointed out above, this is a restoration of a banned sockmaster's version of the page and you've credited the wrong person for that, too. I didn't block until she ignored another admin's warning and reverted a fourth time and did not respond to the admin's request. There is a battleground mentality apparent in this reply that illustrates that she is NOTHERE. There is more to it than that but not for public discussion.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, I'm less concerned with individual authorship and more about contributions which legitimately improve this resource. As someone with close familiarity with much of the material, I think a lot of that is legitimately good stuff, and a marked improvement on the skeletal list of redlinks which the page seems doomed to remain for now. Moreover, I've yet to see substantive discussions anywhere on how to make the content better rather than just clear-cutting it on procedural grounds. Don't want to get into a revert war over it, so I've moved it to my own spaces to tinker with.

I am assuming you are referring to certain discussions on other sites. I agree that these do nothing to improve the environment here, and seeing them I took the step of coming out of retirement to step in and see if I could bring some sanity. No such luck it seems, but I think the quietly but persistently tendentious actions of established editors in the topic area have contributed equally to the toxic environment. Had they not taken the hostile, BITEing, wikilawyering approach they have for so long, I do not think we would have ended up here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s fine. I can respect that. But your most recent comment seems to be trying to make a point. As in WP:POINT. I don’t disagree with what you say, but this isn’t the place to raise those issues. And comments supporting socks and problematic editors are questionable. Regardless of who made the edit(s), like I said before, it’s the behavioral issues that are examined here. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The main difference between the two "sides" here, as I see them, is that one has well-established editors here who know how to navigate this site, and the other thinks—erroneously!—that this place is regulated more like Twitter or Instagram. They both count many passionate, well-read young folks among them who should have a lot to contribute to a resource like this, provided they learn our internal language surrounding conduct and content requirements. And although the newbie side has engaged in some demonstrably obvious no-no's by WP standards, we should consider that this might just be because others do their offsite coordination in things like private DMs, which are only occasionally leaked to public view (not unheard of here).

Most of us here can rattle off seemingly basic codes and policy on this site, even after extended breaks from the internal world, and have long since figured out how to assimilate to the editing culture here. It is perhaps difficult to think that all the alphabet soup, shibboleths, and taboos we take for granted here may not be easily intelligible to total outsiders. But that has a real impact on our ability to provide comprehensive and balanced coverage for this project. For new editors entering this site, particularly those interested in entering underserved, undersupervised, and unbalanced areas of real-world contention, that can be a steep and brutally immediate curve with no room for error or redemption.

I doubt anyone will be unblocked, or even any content restored just because of anything I've said here. But I just wanted to register that as someone who has actually put in time on this site, who has then spent time out of here, and who knows this particular topic area well, I don't think this has been handled well at all so far, and I stand by that. I *do* think that a few established editors have engaged in subtle but substantive tendentious editing in a topic area with thin Wikipedia oversight, using their more advanced grasp of this site to avoid obvious violations while cornering new editors into fast and hard punishments over rules they don't really "get". This site is not a vacuum—off-siters use this resource, our editors are active off-site. That feedback loop can translate into a snowball effect here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past month, a number IPs (most recently 47.31.137.40 (talk · contribs)) have been randomly removing English voice actors from fictional anime character articles and changing the section headers in said actors' pages from "Anime" to "Animation English dubbing" (which isn't incorrect, but it's extremely clunky in comparison to just saying "Anime"). From this one IP specifically, examples of the former include a number of Fullmetal Alchemist characters (Scar, Winry, and Alphonse); in a recent case of the latter that just transpired, "Anime" was changed to "Television" and "English dubbing" was at the end of the header when the subject matter is obviously about an English dub VA.

After checking the IP, it was apparently blocked from editing airline pages back in February, and it's not the only one either. A myriad of IPs from the area (somewhere in India, per Geolocate) have also been blocked from airline articles and have gone on to make the same edits to English dubbers (one example from 47.30.129.143 (talk · contribs)) and character pages (another FMA-related edit from 2405:204:3399:8425:B5D9:4C67:60C5:C5D2 (talk · contribs)). I get that dubs can be polarizing for the anime community, but this is just ridiculous. Zappa⚡Matic 18:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's a content dispute, but I don't get why we have the English voice actors for Japanese anime series. It's not the original actor, and we don't list the Spanish, German etc voice actors. It's not like English was the original target for the audio for the anime, it's just a secondary dubbing done by a local market and not really part of the original. Canterbury Tail talk 19:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because this is English wikipedia? --Jayron32 19:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, but it's based on local market and releases and isn't a universal thing. Anime in the UK sometimes has different voice actors for the English dub, same with Australia. And different releases in different years often changes it as well. It's basically the American dub at one point in time on these articles. Canterbury Tail talk 19:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there is verifiable evidence to identify other English speaking actors in different dubs the answer would be to include them not to remove all the dub actors. I see no need to include non English speaking actors (except for the original Japanese version) due to be this being the English Wikipedia. Finally, if there is an attempt to remove dub actors from Wikipedia WP:ANIME needs to be informed.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've fired up my test filter Special:AbuseFilter/201 to keep track of the extent of the problem. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am requesting a review of my indefinite block on Hushpuckena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I explained in revert edit summaries here and here about piping in links per MOS:NOPIPE. They posted on my talk page asking for an explanation and I pointed them to the appropriate guideline. I warned them three more times on their talk page after seeing them continue to pipe in links to avoid redirects, and after still continuing, I issued a 24-hour block. They responded by saying I've misused my administrator tools. They requested unblock twice, calling my block "retributive" and my claims of MOS violations "specious" (both unblock requests were declined). In the three days since the block expired, I found 12 instances of NOPIPE violations and blocked their account indefinitely. As I'm sure they will say this block is punitive and abusive, I am asking for community input since this editor has 40,000+ edits and 10+ years of experience here (with little to no collaboration with other editors). Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite uncomfortable with this block. I'm comfortable with imposing an indef on a user with one or zero previous blocks if the user's vandalising or spamming, but not for MOS issues that don't affect the rendered text. This edit, your second "here" link, is small enough that I can't support blocking a human at all for making it, let alone letting it play into an indefinite block. Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Nyttend. I don't think that any block was justified, let alone an indef.

Yes, the piping was redundant. But it was also harmless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: @BrownHairedGirl: WP:NOTBROKEN makes a convincing argument for these edits being disruptive. I regret only explicitly posting two diffs in my initial post of their typical edits, here are a few more: [[Catholic]] to [[Catholicism|Catholic]], [[unincorporated community]] to [[Unincorporated area|unincorporated community]], [[nerdcore]] to [[Nerdcore|nerdcore]]. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important elements of NOTBROKEN are things like [[Specific Neighborhood]] to [[List of Neighborhoods in PLACE|Specific Neighborhood]], or [[Italian Renaissance Revival architecture]] to [[Renaissance Revival architecture|Italian Renaissance Revival architecture]], where it's good to know what's being linked as an indicator of things like future article topics. We're not going to have separate articles on Catholicism and Catholic, for example, and Nerdcore and nerdcore aren't even separate pages. No harm whatsoever. Nyttend (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagles247: these edits don't help. But per Nyttend, they are not disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Without evaluating the justification for the original block, I think the jump from 24 hours to indefinite is hasty and unwarranted especially for such a long-time editor. If you truly felt the editing was disruptive (and there is disagreement here that it was), I would moved to 96 hours and then to a week. But at this point, I would have let another admin take over. It never hurts to ask for a second opinion and I think it is commendable that you brought it here for evaluation, Eagles247. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The block is fine. WP:NOTBROKEN is not some esoteric MOS quirk, but a guideline on editing behavior in articles. It is not negotiable, it is literally behavior that is prohibited by the community. Once a policy is brought to a user's attention, and they continue violating it in bad faith, that's objectively blockable. On the contrary to those saying "it's harmless", this case quite literally ticks several boxes of WP:DISRUPTION; repeating a penalised edit, accusing others of malice, repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits, repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits. Indefs are not "escalation" but simply blocks with no expiry, they can be as long or as short as the blocked user likes, provided they resolve the issue. Given the fact that a time-limited block had no effect whatsoever it's understandable that immediately provoking a second block would not have an expiry. The purpose of NOTBROKEN is that the systemic removal of redirecting links is generally a net negative to the project. That is the standard for the project set by the community, and it is inappropriate for admins to ignore that and say "it's harmless" or "not blockable". The user should simply request an unblock and agree to abide by the guideline going forward. Unblocks are cheap. However I do not agree with validating this behavior. If the block were to be overturned without resolving the underlying problem, and the user continued breaching the guideline in bad faith, we would have little choice but to indefinitely reblock them anyways. Best just to resolve this now. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• While recognizing that some find MOS violations disruptive and even aggravating, I just couldn't see myself blocking over it. Maybe bringing it here to be gnawed on first, as I've seen done in the past. On the other hand, user's persistence and continuing to violate the MOS after repeatedly being educated is disruptive and probably blockable. Indef is fine. All the user needs to do is agree to stop being disruptive. A time limit would not ensure compliance. Agree with Swarm's conclusion above. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 12:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting Hushpuckena's new unblock request and reply to points raised here: @ user:Eagles247 @user:Swarm Amongst the edits cited was one which was posted as follows: unincorporated community. If this piping is regarded as redundant, fair enough--I shall refrain in future--but why am I being singled out when I am merely doing as many others have done on analogous pages? What, exactly constitutes redundancy in an edit? Is this an arbitrary distinction, to be applied capriciously? Swarm has called me out for assuming malice, while in his turn presuming negative intent in my patterns of editing. Eagles 24/7 (C) 12:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• (Non-administrator comment) In terms of moving forward, they seem to have now recognized the original complaint and promised to amend their behavior: If this piping is regarded as redundant, fair enough--I shall refrain in future (diff). So whether or not the block should have initially been indefinite, it seems reasonable for the issue to be resolved now. — MarkH₂₁^talk 12:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unblocking on the merits of their unblock request noted by MarkH21 above. Agnostic on the appropriateness of the initial block, mostly as it doesn't matter anyways if we unblock them now because they have agreed to modify their behavior that was in question. --Jayron32 19:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Ambivalent on initial block; I can't say I would not have blocked but I might have tried something more collaborative first; nonetheless WP:NOPIPE is accepted practice and the block was within admin discretion. However, if the user thought the initial block was inappropriate they ought to have said that, and just that, in an unblock request. It seems they chose personal attacks and recidivism instead, and so I 100% endorse the second indef block per WP:RECIDIVISM. If you're blocked for doing a thing and when your block expires you immediately continue doing the thing, expect to be blocked again and for much longer. With that said I support unblocking: I think the point has been made. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• (Non-administrator comment) Continuing the disruptive behaviour after an expired block is still disruptive, and since the indef block is less than 24 hours old, I would suggest to revise it to a time-limited block of, for example, 1 week. If the user continues the disruptive behaviour after that it would warrant an indef block (three strikes and you're out principle). --Marbe166 (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to note that giving a time-limited block for the purpose of "driving home our point" or whatever purpose you have in mind smacks of a form of punishment, and blocks are not meant to be punitive. If we believe the user in question intends to change their behavior, there's nothing to be gained by keeping them blocked longer. If we believe the user in question does not intend to change their behavior, then there is nothing to be gained by letting the block expire on its own (for them to continue their disruption). In this case, as I've noted above, their unblock request offers sufficient assurances. --Jayron32 19:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've unblocked, with a rationale here: [39]. FWIW, I think this could have been handled better by both Eagles247 and by Hushpuckena. I really think the damage caused by using the block button so quickly on an established good faith editor is far worse than the "damage" caused by not following WP:NOTBROKEN. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks good. --Jayron32 20:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Floquenbeam: Thank you for taking care of this. For the future, how would you handle this situation? I undid two of their edits on an article with rationale pointing to MOS guidelines, they asked about it on my talk page, I pointed them to the guideline again, they continued to pipe in links incorrectly, I warned them on their talk page, they ignored my message and continued, I warned them again, they responded by brushing it off and asking why I warned them, I responded with further clarification, they continued doing the same thing, so I blocked for 24 hours. That was all within a span of a few days. Yes, I could have easily dropped it entirely, but since they primarily make very minor edits to a large group of sparsely-watched articles I wanted to ensure this enormous batch of articles was being edited properly according to guidelines approved with community consensus. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for doing something. It's easy to ignore a marginal problem that others would not have used as a reason to block, but allowing people to make undiscussed mass changes of any kind is rarely desirable. That is particularly true when the editor is working against MOS and is unwilling or unable to engage in discussion, for example, at User talk:Hushpuckena#WP:NOTBROKEN. Johnuniq (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagles247: I'll answer your question, but first I want to make clear I don't think you were wrong and Hushpuckena was right; I just think you both could have handled it a little better. If you did the things below and Hushpuckena still did exactly what he was doing, it's not like the problem would have been solved. But I guess I had in mind things like:

• Be less abrupt initially; that might have made him less abrupt in return
• Rather than just saying "See WP:NOTBROKEN", explain in words why what he was doing was actually harmful.
• Let the small stuff go; to be honest, the links he was changing weren't really the type of links where he was actually hurting anything; he just wasn't helping either. It's like blocking someone for adding 5 spaces to the end of every paragraph.
• Ask another editor/admin to try to talk to them first, before blocking
• For long-term good-faith editors, blocking for low-level issues seems a case where the cure is worse than the disease.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted two bizarre edits by 174.197.198.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Although those are the only two edits in their history, in the past, edits like these tend to accumulate under dynamic IPs depending on each time they login, so I suspect there’s a lot more of them out there. I seem to recall there being a way to search for additional IPs in this range, but I’ve forgotten how to do it. Could someone look closer into this? I’m concerned there’s a lot more that need reverting. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, on the contributions page you can append /24 and search again to find everything by 174.197.198.X. There are other possible numbers (for example, WHOIS says that that IP belongs to a /18 range, which is pretty big), but /24 is usually a good starting point if you don't know anything about the IP range. creffett (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(for reference: I clicked the WHOIS link in the IP info you linked above, and the asn_cidr line says 174.197.192.0/18, which tells me that I can find anything from the range this IP belongs to by appending a /18 to the IP. There's a lot more technical detail on what these magic numbers I'm throwing at you mean, and I can tell you more on your talk page if you're interested, but this is the information you actually need to get the job done) creffett (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link 174.197.198.78/18. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you could block the /18 w/o causing collateral damage. I would warn the user adequately. Two users-- and then anon block briefly if need be with account creation permitted. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 13:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing anything worth even warning for. These edits are not strange, but adequately explained and otherwise cromulent. This type of thing could be avoided if the content was properly referenced. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for weighing in. As I explained in my reverts, the adequate explanations you refer to were false. The information was neither an interpretation, nor an opinion, nor a peacock term as the original IP claimed. In the past, we’ve seen these types of strange edits before, from users who think they can make up a reason for deleting blue sky content, that in 99% of cases, is not unsourced as you claim, but fully sourced and explained in parent or daughter articles. Often times during the article creation process, duplicate content that is properly licensed gets moved around from article to article, with or without sources. I can’t say that’s what happened here, nor could I speculate as to who originally added the material without examining the page history, but this information is widely known by those familiar with the topic, which is why the edits appeared so strange to me. Per your excellent suggestion, I have gone back and made explicit the sources in at least one of the articles. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand much about ranges, but remember if you're blocking a big range to ask the checkusers (WP:SPI#Quick CheckUser requests) to see if there are registered users editing from the range, lest you accidentally block one or more good-faith contributors. Doesn't apply, of course, if you're doing an anon-only block. Nyttend (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to the two stewards who separately caught me up in sitewide blocks in 2018 without checking for possible collateral damage. Narky Blert (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a user has ignored my request to discuss a matter on Wikipedia, but has instead continued to send me private e-mail several more times in response to comments I posted on Wikipedia, then am I allowed to block their sending e-mail privileges myself or would that fall under WP:INVOLVED? I can't just block their e-mails on my own end — I haven't responded by e-mail, so they're using the Wikipedia "e-mail this user" feature, and thus as far as my e-mail provider is concerned the messages are coming from Wikimedia rather than the specific user. So I could block all Wikimedia e-mail (which I obviously don't want to do) at my end, but not e-mail specifically from just one person. Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[[Special:Mute/username]] should do the trick. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can also find the option in Special:Preferences to block emails from specific editor. That said, if you've asked someone to stop sending emails and they're still doing it, a complete block on emails for them is perfectly justified. It's probably best not to do it yourself but simply raising the issue at ANI and perhaps providing a copy of one of the email privately if there is any question should be sufficient. To make things easy, I'd suggest you make the request to stop emailing you on Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no privacy concerns, I respond to emails on a user's talk and add a request that they follow the principle of keeping communications transparent, open, and reviewable. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 12:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne's right though: if you've verifiably asked them to stop emailing you, then that's as much harassment as would be continuing to post unnecessarily on a talk page in defiance of a WP:NOBAN request. ——SN54129 13:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is in regards to 66.232.175.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and these pages.

Friday the 13th (1980) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Friday the 13th Part 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Friday the 13th Part III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Jason X (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Freddy vs. Jason (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Friday the 13th (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Their entire edit history appears to be connected to changings names on the Friday the 13th article. I have tried to assume good faith in their actions, because as far as I can tell they are adding first or last names to characters that received them in the novelizations of those movies. I have left 2 messages on that users talk page explaining that the film pages use the names as they are credited in the film, and requested that they stop changing them. They have not responded to any message, nor have their even left an edit summary on any of the pages they've changed explaining why they keep changing them. At this point, it just appears disruptive. Here are the pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested page protection for the character list. I suggest you do the same for the above-mentioned articles. MiasmaEternal^TALK 23:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The user has been trying to edit the page of Arundhati Roy which is a biography of a living person. The insertions made by them are controversial and full of synthesis and original research. I provided them with links to the relevant policies and attempted to engage them in a dialogue. The response to the attempts were antagonistic, evasive and engage in battleground behavior. Diffs are as follows:

• Diff1 - First edit where they attempt to insert a controversial line to the lead. An editor reverts their insertion citing extraordinary BLP claim and WP:UNDUE.

• Diff2 - They re-insert their line. I revert it citing WP:BLP.

• Diff3 - They re-insert their line citing "ideologically motivated members". I revert it again citing WP:BLP with an explanation in the edit summary on how it is applicable.

• Diff4 - They re-insert their line citing "communist activists on wiki". I post a warn template (DiffA) with an additional note recommending them to read the WP:BLP policy as well as explicitly mentioning the relevant part.

• Diff5 - They re-insert a modified version as a section and not in the lead. They also post a message on my talk page (DiffB). I post a response once again explicitly stating the relevant part of the BLP policy. At this point I decide to not revert their edit but modify it to remove original research. During the entire episode the BLP Policy on controversial edits requiring consensus before insertion was explicitly mentioned to them, again and again but they showed no sign of adhere to it or even addressing the point.

• Diff6 - They revert my edit and post a response on my talk page (DiffC). In their response, they state that they'll keep re-inserting their edits and that "this will not stop". I post a response to them and decide to leave the article be and just wait for a response.

• After 2 days they don't respond and move on to editing other article at which point I revert their edit once again. They immediately restore their edit (Diff7). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted VediKboy's latest edit to the article and have partially blocked him from the article, indefinitely, for BLP violations and disruptive editing. El_C 18:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely wrong El_C. I didnt recieve the notifcation that a new edit was made to my talk page and therefore I thought User talk:Tayi Arajakate is at it again. The user User talk:Tayi Arajakate has been continously trying to edit my contributions even when I have talked to him on his page and he had no answers about when the said authors clearly stated her position on the subject. I have included all the links of reputated websites. There is no fake link or anything. The user due to his knowledge of wiki norms, is trying to muzzle the information to hide the embarrasemnt. Please reconsider this and allow the correct information to flow. Censorship of ideas, even oppositie to your point of view, is not a good norm. Thanks again! I hope you change your mind and allow true information to exist on this platform. Wiki should be for all not for the few who follow the statist narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VediKboy (talk • contribs) 18:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VediKboy, please review WP:INDENT and WP:SIG. More importantly, please review WP:ONUS, especially the part that reads: the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. I have no view on the subject, but we take claims of BLP violations, whether these are the product of synthesis or otherwise, very seriously on the project. You still have access to editing the talk page, where you can attempt to gain the consensus for your changes. But as for undoing your block, or accusations of censorship for that matter, I reject these outright. El_C 19:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reporting this here because it isn't actually WP:OUTING, just a poorly misplaced attempt. Oldschoolboxing (talk · contribs) left this comment on my talk page. If I was "Mr. Briggs", then this would be a clear violation of the aforementioned policy. Fortunately for the user in question, I'm not "Mr. Briggs", but I still believe some kind of warning is needed (from somebody other than myself) to prevent such actions in the future. – ².O.^Boxing 21:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Mr. Briggs" is an insult. --MrClog (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a new (and odd) one. Not really quite sure how that would relate to me reverting his edit, but ok (I think? Lol). Any idea who the "Benji" in that apparent insult would be? – ².O.^Boxing 21:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as a google search of "Mr. Briggs insult" brings up nothing of the sort, and there's only one entry with three likes on urbandictionary, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree and say that was an attempt at outing. – ².O.^Boxing 21:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I asked them on the talk page. It may be an attempted outing, by the way (I had never head of the insult before either). We'll see what they have to say. --MrClog (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suspect the urbandictionary entry may have been written by someone who disagreed with the grades his teacher gave him ... Black Kite (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Benji and Nick (Briggs). It's just silliness. Black Kite (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Black Kite, thank you. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 05:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked through my edits and noticed one of my most recent edits before the comment on my talk page was to an article created by somebody known as Benji (not outing, he has the details on his user page. Bennyaha). He has two excuses to use now because of you pair anyway lol no bother. It's done no harm to anybody, might as well forget about it. – ².O.^Boxing 22:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Mr. Briggs may refer to a song by Blur, which quite literally says "Is deaf and dumb to what you say", and "He walked around in circles but only in his head". Although it might also not be what Oldschoolboxing was referring to. Kori (@) 19:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton 29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ashton 29 is becoming increasingly problematic with his editing at multiple articles, reverting to blatant personal attacks on several occasions and edit-warring to get his preferred images into articles even when discussions have shown no consensus to include them. His edits have not been clear vandalism and his edit-warring has been drawn out over time so WP:AIV and WP:AN3 don't seem appropriate venues for reporting his actions but I have given him several warnings, including a final one and yet he still persists.

Back in 2015, in a discussion now archived here, he proposed adding File:Gold Coast summer, Burleigh Heads Beach.jpg to Australia after his addition of the image was reverted by HappyWaldo. The obvious consensus of that discussion was that the original image was preferred. Despite that, he restored it to the article in February this year,[40] but that was reverted by an editor citing the 2015 discussion. Ashton 29's response was to edit-war the image back into the article, acknowledging the 2015 discussion when he said "that was an old vote, I highly doubt anybody cares enough know...plus, this image is more populated with people" in his edit summary.[41] It's ironic that he mentioned that the image "is more populated with people" as that was one of the issues that resulted in rejection of the image. This time I removed it stating "The discussion is still valid until another discussion overturns it. That there has been some time since you failed to have this image used doesn't mean you can force it back into the article.",[42] and Ashton 29 let the matter be until recently when he again restored it, this time without any edit summary.[43] It was immediately removed,[44] but, less than 2 hours ago the image was again restored without explanation.[45] Ashton 29 has made no attempt to open a new discussion about this image on Talk:Australia and seems content to continue trying to sneak the image back into the article. I raised this matter on his talk page 5 days ago but there has been no response other than the edit-warring.

Ashton 29 has done this sort of thing at other articles. For example, his addition of a montage to the infobox at Hobart was reverted,[46] and his response was not to open a discussion but to simply edit-war, telling the other editor to "take it to the talk page",[47] even though the burden is his to gain consensus for its inclusion once it was opposed. Ashton 29 is strong proponent of montages and has been involved in attempts to include a montage at Sydney. A montage was proposed for this article last year but was opposed for various reasons. While discussion was still open in March, Ashton 29 added his own montage to the article.[48] That montage included images that had been rejected in previous discussions so it was reverted. (It shouldn't have been added while the discussion was underway anyhow!) Unfortunately, during that discussion another editor decided to resort to makes personal attacks so Ashton 29 decided he would too.[49] I removed it and warned him.[50] This obviously had no effect as several weeks later on April he added another, this time attacking both HappyWaldo and me.[51] I removed that one and warned him,[52] but his response was to restore the attack. Another editor subsequently made comment about the attacks.[53]

Since then, Ashton 29 has had what can best be described as a temper tantrum, which includes encouraging another editor to join him,[54] (which seems a bit of meatpuppetry to me) and making a post that was essentially whining.[55] He then edit-warred at Hobart and restored his image to Australia as explained above. The final warning that I left on his talk page was posted 5 days ago but the edit-warring at Hobart and Australia, as well as the meatpuppetry have all occurred since then. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You singled out me and a few other editors who don't share the same opinions as you, for "personally attacking you". Now I'm not going to speak on behalf on everyone involved, but not once have i targeted, harassed or attacked you in a personal manner. I've criticised your ideas and way of holding up progress and if you can't accept criticism, then I'm sorry that's your fault, not mine. I'm also not going to sit around and watch you bully other editors into submission, just to get your way of controlling all edits being made to your own personal preferences.- Cement4802 (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I invited you to this discussion was only because of this post on your talk page made by Ashton 29, which I mentioned above, and for no other reason. If you think it was because of personal attacks you must have a guilty conscience about something that you said. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me like the two edits you cite as personal attacks are uncivil, but do not constitute personal attacks. --MrClog (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are personal attacks. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The latter part of the comment "I've criticised your ideas and way of holding up progress..." from Cement4802 looks like a personal attack to me. From Ashton 29, I've copped "You can't keep peddling that pathetic tourist brochure excuse...get real." It wasn't the first time I've had something like that directed at me. A comment directed at another editor that uses the words "pathetic" and "get real" is obviously not conducive to polite discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, both the Cement and the Ashton comments appear to be personal attacks. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To add fuel to the fire, even though he is fully aware of this discussion, Ashton 29 continues edit-warring instead of discussing. At Sydney, before I opened this discussion, he made a number of changes, one of which included replacing an image with what I believe is an inferior one. I reverted the image addition with the explanation "The caption is about the war memorial, not the park or the buildings around it. The bigger image of the war memorial is therefore preferred."[56] I should note that I made a mistake here and reverted all of his changes instead of just the image change so Ashton 29's subsequent reversion was quite appropriate given the circumstances. I then proceeded to revert the correct revision with an apology in the edit summary.[57] Instead of then discussing the image, Ashton 29 simply restored the image.[58] This is typical. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It really does appear that Ashton 29 does not care any more. Even though he knows there is no consensus to add a montage to the Sydney infobox, he just added one with the summary "tell me any of those landmarks in any of those images isn't a Sydney icon, recognisable to any Sydneysider...I'll wait."[59] no attempt to discuss in the existing, still active talk page discussion, just add it to the article, which is clearly disruptive and he hasn't even bothered participating here. I think he just assumes that he is going to be blocked so he doesn't care. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that I don't care, or that I "know there's no consensus", it's more that the consensus is really just the recycled opinion of the same three editors, namely AussieLegend himself, HiLo, and HappyWaldo. If I had sufficient, substantial reason to know that the montage is void, I'd cease adding it. But because it's just so unconvincing, so repetitive in its opposing argument, I continue to add it. It's not edit warring either, because I don't constantly revert it. In fact, that's what you do. As others have pointed out, most of what I said are hardly personal attacks. They're uncivil, perhaps, but so is your constant denial of other people's valid contributions a montage on Sydney's page. You can't claim ownership and you fail to reach compromise. If you do not compromise, where is discussion going to get me? You've driven User:Cement4802 to give up on contributing to Sydney's page which is totally unfair. It appears you want me blocked, or afraid, so you do not have an opposition to the way you want a page to look. This is essentially an attack itself. Ashton 29 (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I had sufficient, substantial reason to know that the montage is void, I'd cease adding it - You do know. There is an active discussion on the talk page about the montage that you have posted to just recently. You know about WP:BRD and yet you keep adding a montage while it is under discussion.

because it's just so unconvincing, so repetitive in its opposing argument, I continue to add it. - Repeatedly adding the montage when its inclusion has been opposed and is under discussion is the very definition of edit-warring.

It's not edit warring either, because I don't constantly revert it. - Edit warring doesn't require constant reverting. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton 29 tells us just above that the arguments he doesn't like are "really just the recycled opinion of the same three editors..." Recycled? That's a strange description. I would happily have mine described as repeated, because they have never been refuted, but recycled is obviously getting personal, and pretty silly. HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its clear that they aren't listening to what has been said to him by Yamla or me (to read the declines) as they keep ignoring them and posting unblock messages that don't take in what has already been said. They are continuously disruptively using unblock requests to request unblock when they are not actually blocked (at least directly), they have been asked to provide the full block message or follow it's instructions and have so far refused to do either, instead opting to spam unblock requests that don't actually help. They were warned by Yamla that continued abuse of the unblock request would lead to them being blocked directly. They have ignored the warning and have actually now started removing the previous unblock requests. As they have continued despite multiple warnings I believe that it needs to be dealt with by directly blocking them (possibly with TPA revoked, but it depends on what others feel. As I am clearly not an admin so can't block I am bringing it here to be dealt with (I am also at 3rr with this IPs IDHT behaviour if it helps). Tknifton (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Tknifton: Not sure why any of you guys are edit warring with this IP to begin with. It's their talk page, they can delete whatever they want. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I see, excessive unblock requests. My bad. However looks like they stopped now and are just trying to blank their page. They're apparently not even blocked, so we can just leave this be if nothing else happens. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A user (User:Flix11) attacked me personally by reverting my edit and harshly saying some terrible stuff, Should this user to be warned or banned in order to prevent similar attack in the future? Thanks for any responseQzxv5 (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated issue reported by a clearly politically and ideologically non-neutral editor. Flix11 (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flix11 This is an old issue, dating back to January, but we have been through this at length in the CVUA course - vandalism is not the same thing as POV editing, and even in the case of true vandalism you should not insult editors through edit summaries (I find it hard to read 'rebellious jihadi' as anything but a personal attack). I have no view on the content, but surely you know by now that you shouldn't conduct yourself like this? GirthSummit _(blether) 13:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit I have refrained from that behavior lately. I do not know his agenda to up this issue after 3 months. Flix11 (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flix11, if you check the user's contributions history, they've made hardly any edits since that revert - it's likely that they've only just noticed that you said that, there's no need to assume that they have an agenda in raising it. I've looked through your contribs over the last few weeks and I'm not seeing any recent edit summaries like that, but you and I have discussed that at length in the past, and this isn't the first time it's been raised here at ANI. It has to stop. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit It has been stopped. Flix11 (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"rv PoV edit" would've sufficed. Juxlos (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flix11, that's bad enough to warrant revdeletion. It's maybe water under the bridge for some, but having this edit summary is a violation of the BLP and a host of other things. Girth Summit, I appreciate the coaching you've been doing--but if I were to see this right after it happened, I'd consider blocking for it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, in fairness to Flix11, their more recent contribs don't show any other edit summaries like this at all, I do think they have stopped doing it. Flix11, I hope you appreciate how serious this is. You say it has stopped, and I believe you - but it has stopped before, and then started up again. It needs to have stopped permanently, or people will lose patience. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Girth Summit. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• [60] SharabSalam attacks @Bbb23:: "Bbb23 It is not a mess and try to be nice with other editors, just because you are an admin doesnt mean that you can disrespect editors work like that, he obviously worked hard to write all of this. You just survived a report about abusing your adminship."

• [61] SharabSalam attacks @El C:: "You have been anti-Iran by supporting a terror group like The People's Mojahedin Organization. I have tons of evidences i saved in Notepad. You are totally unreliable to be an admin."

• [62] SharabSalam attacks El_C again: "Why do you need the adminship? I haven't seen you making any constructive edits at least since I have been here in Wikipedia. You only reverts, something that bots are able to do, the one time I saw you making an edit was disappointing, the problem is that it was obviously recent in that article, second, it says "In October" the Houthis did something bluh bluh. However, the time you made the edit was 28 September and after I reverted you, you went and added it to another article with the same mistake. I honestly wonder how can an editor who has so little contributions in the main space get promoted to become an admin and claim to fix disputes between editors. If I were you I wouldn't ask for adminship or withdraw my adminship."

This caused El_C to step away from helping in some WP:GS/IRANPOL pages. El_C had been providing valuable assistance there, and it is my belief that having El_C step away from there was SharabSalam’s desired outcome.

• [63] SharabSalam attacks @Vanamonde93: (also involved in assisting IRANPOL disputes): "Vanamonde93, based on the comments you have made in this talk page, youe clearly WP:INVOLVED in this discussion. You can't use your admin tools in this topic or that would be reported and considered as admin abuse and you would basically end up losing your adminship.-"

• [64] "I am saying that Vanamonde93 is acting like the authority here and he is always against Mhhossein. He shouldn't act like that. He shouldn't patronize other editors. If this admin used admin tools in this article, I will report it to the WP:AE and I will list all the posts where this admin has interpreted policies and guidelines differently from Mhhossein."

• [65] "You should have not closed that RfC. Do you think there isn't any other admin or editor to close that discussion? You know this is a highly controversial topic as this terrorist group that is supported by Americans is responsible for killing millions of innocent people. Your provocative close of that RfC should be your last close of RfCs in that talk page."

• [66] SharabSalam makes bogus accusations against BD2412: "You have used your admin tools in articles where you are clearly involved. You have called an editor in that discussion a single purpose account under every single comment he has made. You should apologize to SeriousIndividuals and remove all of your comments except the one under the !vote"
• [67] "You have violated multiple guidelines here. You have repeated your comment that this editor is a single purpose account under every comment he has made. See WP:TALK Avoid repeating your posts: Your fellow editors can read your prior posts, so repeating them wastes time and space and may be considered WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion. Your repeated, unneeded, unproductive comments make me thinks that you are trying to bite newcomers, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account. Besides, it is discouraged to label any editor with such invidious titles during a dispute (see Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade). WP:BITE.--"

I did not say anything when SharabSalam made bogus accusations against some good editors here on enWikipedia, [68] [69], or against me [70] [71], but these recent attacks on admins (who have been trying to resolve nasty disputes) are starting to cause admins to keep away from articles that very much need admin supervision. Barca (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, I'm lenient, perhaps overly so, so I have not chosen to apply sanctions, but I do believe there are grounds for these, for tendentious editing and battleground conduct. Mostly, I find SharabSalam is simply too close to the subjects he contributes to, which causes him to lose perspective. Take this, from two days ago, on Vanamonde's talk page: You should have not closed that RfC. Do you think there isn't any other admin or editor to close that discussion? You know this is a highly controversial topic as this terrorist group that is supported by Americans is responsible for killing millions of innocent people. I think we have a problem here. El_C 14:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're emotionally invested in the topics they edit on. It wasn't that long ago that Vanamonde93 advised them that you need to dial it down immediately. Comparing anything to ISIS is unacceptable without solid evidence, followed by the pretty unequivocal if you're unable to separate your opinions about them from how Wikipedia discusses them, then this is a topic you are likely to be removed from). This is possibly where those attacks above come from. It was March when another admin, Liz, warned SS on their talk that they were being unnecessarilly antagonistic at noticeboards. Then there was January, when Drmies had to advise them against personal attacks

Their approach is, as BarcrMac has established often abrasive, and occasionally verges on WP:BATTLEGROUND (if not actually into it). ——SN54129 15:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The attacks on BD2412 were particularly specious. He said they'd been "warned" about their behaviour (they hadn't). Hwe said they'd used their tools in a dispute in which they were involved (a recurring theme with this editor, and guess what - they hadn't). And he criticised them for marking the comments of an obvious SPA with a SPA tag (I note the SPA was a Hidden Tempo sock, surprise surprise). Obviously there is no big rule that says one can't criticise the actions of admins (indeed, one would hope that editors would do so if there were obvious problems). However, simply making up accusations (the Vanamonde93 ones are ludicrous as well) when an admin does something they simply don't like is not acceptable, and they need to quit doing it, right around now. Black Kite (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Black Kite and #54129. SharabSalam, too many people have lost patience with your approach. I defended you, your good faith, and your edits, but will not continue to do so. Bbb23 is a friend, and one of the fairest and hardest-working admins around, and El C, in the last few years, has proven to be like the oil that keeps the gears in a machine running smoothly. Sorry, but this has to change, or I will not be able to speak up for you when a call for sanctions comes, and I think that call will come. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BarcrMac, despite SharabSalam being on ANI all too frequently and would have likely seen this on their own, you still need to notify them of any discussions involving them (see the big red box at the top of the page). I've done it for you. Pings don't count. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wherever there's a fight these days, SharabSalam seems to be in the middle of it, and often to have started it himself. Guy (help!) 16:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I reported SharabSalam in February 2020 for personal attacks, namely, taunts and other unproductive comments at an article talk page. This is habitual pattern. I do not think the way this user currently behaves or has been behaving is a net positive for the project. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will also note that, I generally agree with the assessment that SharabSalam has "strongly held views" on the issue areas where they tend to focus and these views come out in their talk page comments, editing patterns, and treatment of other editors. I find this diff where SS lashes out at someone applying SPA tags to a user who agrees with them in a content discussion pretty ironic given their treatment/tagging of this editor who happened to disagree with them at another page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My criticism was about using the tag multiple times in one discussion not about using it.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the discussion. The tags were appropriately applied, and this user turned out to be a sock. I doubt you would have been so concerned, or as critical of the tagging editor, had the SPA editor disagreed with you in the content dispute. I also encourage admins not the buy this "apology" note. This user has been blocked for violating NPA before. I've been the recipient of personal attacks from this editor, and we will assuredly be here again in a few weeks unless more severe sanctions are applied. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologize

• Black Kite, Drmies, I apologize to all admins that I have been mean to them. If you want I will apologize to them in their talk pages. I am so sorry for what happened. I am not going to justify what I have done. I am going to promise that I will never repeat this again. I have been editing on politics-related areas in Wikipedia and I made some comments that I wish I havent made. I am so sorry. I have apologized to BD2412 before yesterday. Some of what I have said is unjustifiable. I am a human being, I do a lot of mistakes. My overall contributions to Wikipedia were mostly helpful to Wikipedia. My mistakes are like 0.0001% of my contributions. Not that I am trying minimize my mistakes but I am just asking for another chance so that I can continue helping this project. I am interested in articles about Yemen and Yemen-related politics. I have been editing in some American-politics but its not really my interest. I am not going to make any mean comment towards any editor or admin. I promise.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @SharabSalam: the thing is, I think it's the politics, generally, that;s the issue—not because you hold the views you do (after all, we all hold political views, even those that say they don't!) but because you bring them into article and talk spaces and, perhaps, let them dictate your actions. Look, how about writing about the history of the places whose politics interests you? We're crying out for good history content, and we're even more crying out for good history content outside of the Anglosphere. That area of writing might help keep you away from contentious discussions while holding your interest in Wikipedia. What say you? ——SN54129 18:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129, okay fine. I will try to avoid the political area.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• My old NPA block: When I joined Wikipedia, my English language was very basic. (I have never been to a non-Arab country) One time I was exploring some old discussions and I found this discussion Talk:Tunisian campaign and saw this comment. There was a phrase there that grabbed my attention. It was Stop acting like a whiney bitch. I googled it and I found some sources like Vice : "Why Is Ray J Acting Like A Whiny Little Bitch?" I assumed that it means to act aggressively or inappropriately towards other people. It sounded really cool. It was very weird and unusual phrase to me. I then wanted to say it in Wikipedia. I was waiting for a chance to say that word. Until one day an editor in Wikipedia called me "anti-Arab", I told him that it's not his first time to act like a whiny bitch. [72] then Oshwah reverted me and blocked me (and the other editor who turned to be a sockpuppet) for personal attack. I was shocked, I thought it was okay to say that phrase.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the proper context, practically any phrase can be said on WP. However, you directed that phrase directly at a user. When intended to do harm, even the most innocent words will result in negative responses. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there is a language barrier, this is not reasonable behavior. This user's English language skills have grown more sophisticated since then, which is laudable, but their attitude and approach to others remains the same. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast--I find the comments cited above troubling in a few ways, but it's not like that. I will take their comment above in good faith. SharabSalam, what SN# was saying about "the history of those places" is spot on. That is what we need more than anything else, IMO. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I will absolutely avoid politics from now on. These days I have been working on many articles that are not related to politics like Kawkaban or the new article I created, Al-Sahul.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary to avoid American Politics, just stop making comments in the vein of those above. Your contributions would be welcome absent that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The greatest concern is articles covered by WP:GS/IRANPOL. Conduct at that topic area has been, at times, highly problematic. El_C 23:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Which is why I am going to change. I have made lots of good faith, and productive edits in that area. I made few mistakes, I admit, I am more interested in Iran-politics than U.S. politics or U.K. politics. In any case, I will leave politics in general and start editing in history and geography area.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, A group of us are trying to update the wikipage Indigenous people in video games as well as create pages for various Indigenous game designers. A user is wholesale deleting sections citing "self-promotion". We have reverted their changes but they continue to press even though it's obvious that this is a page in desperate need of updating. This user has a history of targeting new pages and users and deleting their content. We would like to request an admin for this page so that we can resolve any issues like this without bogging down our volunteers who are trying to help update information on Indigenous video games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ByrneOuts (talk • contribs) 14:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ByrneOuts, there is a big red banner at the top of this page saying that you have to notify other editors when you raise a report about them here, but I'm not seeing anything on Creffett's talk page from you. For the convenience of others, the article is Indigenous people in video games. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute, not an administrative matter. It should be resolved in the usual means of article talk page discussion. El_C 14:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with El C, I'm seeing nothing here that warrants any administrator intervention just yet, but to be clear, there is nothing wrong with what creffett has done. They removed a lot of content, explaining why they were doing so in their edit summary; rather than discuss it on the talk page, ByrneOuts and Dnakmigziwnan reinstated it. Creffett did not then revert you again, but started a talk page thread to discuss the matter. There is nothing wrong with creffett's conduct; the OP needs to engage in discussion, find a consensus, and then proceed accordingly. I'll notify Dnakmigziwnan of this discussion now. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm WP:INVOLVED, of course (wow, I think this is the first time someone has reported me to AN/I!), but yup, content dispute. No objection to extra input to the discussion in case I did go overboard with my removals, there's a reason my edit summary said I was BOLDly removing - that's usually my way of saying "I think this big action is the right thing but am open to challenge if you think otherwise." creffett (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, hold on a sec: "this user has a history of targeting new pages and users?" That was a little uncalled for. creffett (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ByrneOuts - creffett makes a good point - why did you say that about them? Unevidenced accusations about other users' conduct are not acceptable - you should either provide evidence to support your accusation, or retract the statement. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ByrneOuts, the way to retract a statement is far from obvious, so there's no blame attached to your not knowing how to do it, but it is to edit your previous comments to use the <strike></strike> tags, for example content that you want to retract. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Sharon009 continues to make edits without explanation or sources to the "Vidya Vox" page, specifically editing the subject's birthdate/year. Myself and two other users have attempted to engage with this user both by initially reverting and asking for edit clarifications and sources as well as messaging the user on their Talk page, to no avail. The user has not responded to our attempts to engage or reach out whatsoever. I warned the user that if they continue doing so without engaging with us that I would post on a noticeboard and unsurprisingly they still are edit-warring. I don't want to break the three-revert rule and even if I reverted their edit, I am sure they'd continue this behavior. I'd appreciate your help! Apoorva Iyer (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Warn - User is only a day old, it would be better to warn the user than block the user in a day. Kori (@) 18:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! How do I go about doing that? And if they continue with this behavior, what should be my next steps? Apoorva Iyer (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apoorva Iyer, The user has been warned, if Sharon continues their actions, then it would be a great idea for an administrator to block them, so the next step is to wait until an administrator comes in. Kori (@) 19:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thank you! Apoorva Iyer (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Welcomes" have been nuked. Acroterion (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also nuking contribs by Special:Contributions/Potential414. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]