Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    Repeated problems with Walter Görlitz

    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)[]

    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    • 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)[]
    • 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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    • 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)[]
    @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)[]
    @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)[]
    @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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    @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)[]
    @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)[]
    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)[]
    (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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    @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)[]

    *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)[]

    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)[]

    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)[]

    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]

    Contaldo80

    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)[]

    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]

    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)[]

    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)[]

    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)[]

    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)[]
    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)[]

    Bgkc4444

    The evidence suggests that Bgkc4444 is a fan of Beyoncé. I grow weary of this user's addition of badly-sourced material to List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and his bloating of articles with relentless puffery.

    I do not think that Bgkc4444 is paid to edit on behalf of Beyoncé, but the effect is the same. Only maybe worse: paid PR teams are probably better at pretending to follow NPOV. Guy (help!) 00:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[]

    @JzG: Apologies, I reversed an edit by a user known for making unreliable edits to awards articles which mischaracterised an award as a poll, which it is not, but I did not recognise the source was a blog. Regarding the edits to the Lemonade album article, I was reviewing Featured articles for the Albums WikiProject and was trying to emulate those articles by creating the edits that I made. I don't see how it is "bloating of articles with relentless puffery". I'd appreciate it if you brought it up with me personally first if you had an issue with the article; I'm not sure why you always seem to want to try find mistakes in my edits. Bgkc4444 (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444[]
    I'm honestly not seeing anything requiring admin intervention here; I agree that not all of the edits are quite right but most of them seem fine, and there doesn't seem to be any real pattern of major misconduct. Can this not be solved by constructive discussion? ~ mazca talk 01:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[]
    Mazca, the issue is a WP:SPA edit-warring against consensus to include bloated lists of badly-sourced and non-notable awards. Guy (help!) 10:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[]
    @JzG: The reverting edit I made on the page wasn't "edit-warring against consensus to include bloated lists of badly-sourced and non-notable awards", and I have not added any new content to the article. As stated, I reverted an edit by a user who removed information for an incorrect reason, not because of the topic of non-notability that was previously discussed and that we reached consensus on. You also raised an issue with my edits on Lemonade (Beyoncé album), calling them "bloating of articles with relentless puffery", which, again, is completely false. I ask again for you to start a discussion on my talk page or on the article in question's talk page if you want to question my edits. Bgkc4444 (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444[]

    AldezD

    AldezD (talk · contribs)

    This user keeps undoing my good-faith edits without explaining why, and when I try to explain on both the Concentration (game show) talk page and his talk page, he just deletes them without explanation, then sends me a "warning", claiming my edits were "vandalism". That is going overboard. I request an explanation as to why. I told him that I clearly saw on first game of the May 12th, 1988 episode of Classic Concentration, a contestant used a Green Take to take his opponent's Red Take out of play. I saw it on Buzzr a month ago. Why does he not believe me? DawgDeputy (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[]

    DawgDeputy has a well evidenced and documented history of disruptively editing, warring and sockpuppetry. This user has been given chance after chance following multiple blocks, and continues to add original research and edit war. DawgDeputy is an editor who has been on Wikipedia—not counting earlier socks which did exist or may still exist—for 11 years. "I clearly saw on first game of the May 12th, 1988 episode of Classic Concentration"—completely ignores WP:V, one of the most basic and simple content policies, and is further evidence of a lack of competence.
    The edit I reverted was WP:OR and I removed content that did not meet WP:V. The edit summaries by DawgDeputy are yet another example that despite 11 years of editing, the user cannot edit competently: "May 12th 1988: A contestant used a Green Take to take a Red Take out of play.", "I saw it.", "Again, May 12th, 1988. It was not a joke. It was actually done."
    AldezD (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[]
    For the record, aside from that alleged "incompetent" edit to Concentration (see the May 12th, 1988 episode for proof), a majority of my edits have been in good shape for the past few years. And edit-warring has been severely lacking in my history for that same time period (and I was scarcely blocked as such). Plus, there has been no legitimate report of sockpuppetry involving yours truly for the past five years. Those 2017 reports-- Those were fakes. Gsnguy was the real culprit in that case.
    But seriously, that was not vandalism. I saw the episode, yet AldezD refuses to acknowledge it, and claim it was vandalism, not good faith, even if the edit was wrong. DawgDeputy (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[]
    WP:IDHT. You are making unsourced edits to articles that are then reverted by others. You continue to edit in this long-term evidenced pattern of ignoring WP:V and resort to WP:EW or harassment when your edits are reverted. This is not competent behavior.
    Stop harassing me on my own talk page by reverting edits I have made within WP:UP#CMT guidelines. "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages...There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so." AldezD (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[]
    In that case, I will leave the article as it is for now. DawgDeputy (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[]

    Bulgarian Holocaust: personal attacks and canvassing

    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:

    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)[]

    @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)[]

    @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)[]


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

    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)[]

    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)[]
    "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)[]
    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)[]
    @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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    @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:
    Statements by Shalom
    “We, Bulgarian Jews who are Holocaust survivors, joined in this call by our families, insist on an immediate end to attempts at distorting the history of the Holocaust in this country.

    We are gravely pained by events such as the “national round table” held on January 17 on the false question whether the labour camps for Bulgarian Jewish men during the Second World War were a repressive measure or a “rescue plan”. We know the question is false because there is only one answer – they were a repressive measure. Everyone who endured them knows that.

    We see such events as part of a disturbing wider pattern of Holocaust distortion in Bulgaria. Attempts to turn key figures in the pro-Nazi regime of the time into “rescuers of the Jews”. Attempts to deliberately ignore the fact that more than 11 000 Jews from the “new lands” in the territories of northern Greece, Vardar Macedonia and the city of Pirot, then under the administration of the Kingdom of Bulgaria, were deported to be murdered at Treblinka.

    We stand ready to give our testimony, that everyone, must hear, in the interests of historical truth. In this month of International Holocaust Remembrance Day, we will not remain silent. We will be heard, even by those who want to ignore our voices for the sake of spreading falsehoods.“

    and
    “We are disturbed, and highly disappointed, to note that the Institute for Historical Research at the Bulgarian Academy Sciences has agreed to lend its name to an event that seeks to distort history by giving a platform to the false interpretation that the forced labour camps, to which Bulgarian Jewish men were sent during the Second World War, were established to shelter these men from becoming victims of the Nazi death camps of the Holocaust,” Shalom said.

    “By doing so, the reputation of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, built up over the more than 150 years since its founding, is being put at risk by association not only with fake history but with outright Holocaust distortion.”

    By associating itself with this so-called “national round table”, it is also putting at risk the name of Bulgaria, not only in regard to the truth of the events involving the country at the time of the Holocaust, but also considering that this country is proudly a member of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, and as such has a duty to uphold and promote accurate knowledge of the events of the Holocaust, the statement said.

    It is equally disturbing to note that the names of other Bulgarian institutions have been associated with this event, including – going by the notice on the website of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences – the Ministry of Defence, Sofia University St Kliment Ohridski, the GS Rakovski Military Academy and the Veliko Turnovo University Saints Kiril i Metodii. “Whoever involved them in this ill-conceived project is also complicit in putting at risk the names of the Republic of Bulgaria and their own names,” it said.

    “Linking this event to International Holocaust Remembrance Day, which is marked on January 27, is a mockery of the survivors of the suffering and the victims of Nazi ideology,” Shalom said.

    On International Holocaust Remembrance Day, in Bulgaria we remember all six million Jews murdered, including those more than 11 000 Jews deported from the territories of northern Greece, Vardar Macedonia and the city of Pirot, administered by the Kingdom of Bulgaria, as we honour the deeds of the Bulgarians who genuinely played key roles in the rescue of the Bulgarian Jews from deportation, the statement said.

    “We will never forget that the Jewish labour camps were nothing other than a part of the antisemitic repressive apparatus of the time, characterized by acts of violence and inhuman conditions,” Shalom said.

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

    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)[]

    Multiple IP user

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

    The author has been previously instructed times about:

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

    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)[]

    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]

    Purging misconduct

    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)[]

    Please see Pope Adrian IV. ——SN54129 16:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    So you think popes should face versus populum? EEng 20:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[]
    Servus servorum meh, EEng :) ——SN54129 11:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]

    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)[]

    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)[]
    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)[]
    (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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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: [29]. 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)[]

    Meta-wiki block

    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)[]

    @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)[]
    Thanks; trying the noticeboard. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[]
    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)[]
    I disabled it on English Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[]
    Thank you very much. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]

    Troublesome editor at Belgian monarch's page

    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)[]

    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]

    Recalcitrant user threatening to "en masse revert every article" I have touched

    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)[]

    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)[]
    It's rounding, a routine calculation. There is no carveout for coordinates. Abductive (reasoning) 04:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[]
    @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)[]
    I'm not a navigator.--v/r - TP 13:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[]
    Nor the bombardier, I hope. EEng 16:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    The abuse continues. Abductive (reasoning) 04:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    @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)[]
    @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. [30] 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)[]
    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
    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)[]
    • @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)[]
    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

    Wizardcraft and WP:TONE, WP:OR, WP:EW

    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)[]

    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)[]

    Removal of sourced info

    Salmanalpy12 keeps removing information from various pages arguing that the references are not 'reputable' or that they are misleading.[31] Even after a large-scale re-diting by a third user on Kurdish calendar.[32]. However, the issue does not seem to be verification, since one edit targeted sourced sentences while the unsourced section remained. [33]. --Semsûrî (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[]

    @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)[]
    @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[34][35] where interaction quickly turned to "You clearly have a hatred for Assyrians and it shows."[36]. --Semsûrî (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[]
    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)[]
    @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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    @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[37] 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)[]
    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)[]

    IPs and English anime voice actors

    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)[]

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

    Block review request

    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)[]

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

    Strange edits by IP

    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)[]

    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)[]
    (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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]

    Quick question

    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)[]

    [[Special:Mute/username]] should do the trick. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    Sorry. Collapsing lots of text that amounts to me eventually discovering that E247 and NE above are correct. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[]

    From https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Notifications#mute, "... emails are not affected by the mute list". @Eagles247 and Nil Einne:, are you sure that would work? If mute works, I think that's better than blocking email. But if mute doesn't work, I suggest providing the name of the user to an admin, they can leave a final warning, and then block if any more emails are sent. I'm also not sure you can block only emails, but still allow on-wiki editing; I'll look into that. If not, continuing to email after a final warning could result in a full block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[]

    Maybe everyone but me knows this, but I just did a quick test, and partial blocking email works; I can't email with this account now, because it's partially blocked with no specific page specified, but with email disabled. --Floquensock (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[]
    (edit conflict) @Floquenbeam: Help:Notifications appears to be out-of-date (also, I couldn't find the text you quoted there). Wikipedia:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/User Mute features#Special:EmailUser Mute indicates the email mute button works, but the talk page has been marked as {{historical}}. @Bearcat: have you tried the mute feature yet? Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[]
    I see the problem; "mute" under "notifications" doesn't work on email (it does on normal notifications), but "mute email" under "user profile" seems like it does. --Floquensock (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC) (also, you're right, the text I quoted was from https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Notifications#mute, not the en.wiki I provided at first. Link above fixed. --Floquensock (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[]

    @Floquenbeam: am I missing something? When I visit Special:Preferences I see the option "Prohibit these users from emailing me:" As for mute, when I visit Special:Mute/Floquenbeam as an example, I see the option to "Mute emails from this user". I haven't actually tested these either of these to disable emails, I just assume they work to block emails form a specific user since they specifically say they will. I wouldn't trust documentation, unless it specifically mentions these options since documentation can often be out of date, especially the en.wikipedia specific ones. (IIRC I found some confusing stuff on Echo before, I think one of the pages itself says it's out of date.) I'm not sure about muting in other locations. No one suggested muting in other locations until you brought it up AFAICT?

    Edit: Thinking about it a bit more, I guess the "mute emails" could just mean muting on Wikipedia notifications of emails from that editor. But prohibit these users definitely implies to me that it will forbid those users from emailing you.

    Also I forgot to mention that I suspect these only work on en.wikipedia. If you have an account somewhere else, e.g. commons they can probably still email you if they have an account on commons allowed to send emails. But we have the same problem even when we simply block them from emailing here. I think if someone is blocked from emailing here and goes on to email from some other project, it should be relatively easy to convince either that project or a global steward to take action although it's not something I have experience with.

    Nil Einne (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[]

    Actually I guess this was fairly obvious but both options are the same. I tried Special:Mute/Floquenbeam and muted emails. Next when I visited my preferences, Floquenbeam was on the list of "prohibit these users from emailing me:" despite not being there before. (Now removed if you're wondering why you can still email me.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[]
    @Nil Einne: You're not missing anything; I was. The problem was that I initially looked in preferences for a way to mute email from specific users next to the option to mute notifications from specific users. Instead it's in a different tab. Although I understand you missed it in the confusion I've caused by kind of thinking out loud on this thread, I did finally realize this in the post you responded to above. I didn't try Special:Mute directly. I'm sorry for contributing to the general confusion here, I should have followed the rule of "if you don't know something, shut up and let people who do know something talk". But the end result is that it is possible to mute email from specific users (on en.wiki), and it is possible to partially block someone (on en.wiki) to prevent them from using the "email this user" feature. I'm going to collapse my mess. Thanks and sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[]

    Anon and the Friday the 13th articles

    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)[]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=952707477"