Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:03, 22 April 2020

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages: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 @Adamant1: Please provide diffs for the claimed misconduct. — MarkH₂₁ 02:12, 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)

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

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

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

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)
  • That's because you misconstrued references as external links. You didn't understand the difference then and you don't seem to understand it now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@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)

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

@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)

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

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 , as I explained several times on talk page . 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. , 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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: 16:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

HHH Pedrigree

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

On the WWE Hall of Fame discussion on the talk page of the wrestling Wikiproject, I made one last comment to HHH Pedrigree as you can see and he responded by telling me to "fuck off" as you can see. He was very uncivil. I've never seen anyone swear at someone nor have I been sworn at or swore at some. If he had an issue with something said, he could messaged me on my talk and we could have worked it out . But he decided to respond the way he did. Never had a problem with him till this happened. This is serious and needs to be dealt with accordingly. Thank you. Mr. C.C._{I didn't do it!} 08:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

You repeatedly said that he's not neutral. What did you expect him to say? That said, he shouldn't resort to insults. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I said so. First you made several changes on the Hall of Fame article. I explained since, from the beginin, there is a consensus: just the most notable titles, supported by several users for 10 years. However, you said there is no consensus even If I prove it. Then, a discussion, fine. Let's go to a new consensus. During the discussion, you disrespected me. I show several users, examples of other articles and gave sources, but in the end, you and JDC only relive my argments because I used the word I think, calling me No neutral (For years, people has complained because I sound to agressive English is not my first language), but is just a way to express. There is any difference between "I think this policy applies" and "this policy applies". Also, you insulted me. You told me "I'm wrong", "afraid of change", "a yes-man" and I told you these kind of comments aren't neccesary, but I don't see any apology. (In fact, JDC called me yesman one more time, again, an insult during a civil discussion). I have spent 10 years here, learning and reading several policies, but suddenly, I'm just a no-neutral yesman and users of the project insults me just because I don't agree with them. After 4 users said they prefer a new consensus, I agree, I don't change my mind about the issue, but I see more users want to change it. Then, Insult to injury. You told me that I should agree with you before and don't waste your time while you *Shake my head*. What do you expect? To smile at you? I felt very unrespected and insulted during the whole process and you joked on me even after the discussion ended. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

My calling you a "yes-man" was based on your editorial behavior of seemingly only going with the status quo as opposed to actually forming solid arguments to support your position. It was not intended as an uncivil insult, but rather a flaw to work on. --JDC808 ♫ 19:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• New rule. In any dispute infvolving wrestling,. all parties are blocked for 31h. Guy (help!) 10:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  Absofuckinglutely. About time. Plus smash their keyboards with metal chairs. EEng 10:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Cheating in a fake fight. A new low. Lugnuts 12:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: You can't just make new rule without consulting other peopl just because you are am admin. That's not how that works. Mr. C.C._{I didn't do it!} 18:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Fishhead2100, I'm 95% confident that JzG was being facetious. creffett (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Creffett: Sometimes you can always tell in text. Mr. C.C._{I didn't do it!} 18:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The level of disrespect from the admins here is atrocious, regardless of how many ANI reports come from our particular project. --JDC808 ♫ 19:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

JDC808, maybe because you take fake fighting waaaaaaaaay too seriously and Misplaced Pages core policy not half seriously enough. Guy (help!) 19:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It's nice to know that you blatantly admitted to being disrespectful. And you guys were made admins how? It does not matter how seriously one takes a form of interest. I mean, are you all this disrespectful to those with interests in other forms of entertainment (a lot of which is also fake mind you). --JDC808 ♫ 19:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Fishhead2100, would you like to test that hypothesis? Guy (help!) 19:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Saying "I think" is not neutral. A fundamental of Misplaced Pages is to have an NPOV. You can be for or against something while doing so in a neutral manner. If you were debating someone, you wouldn't say "I think." You present arguments for or against something while remaining neutrak with the language you use. He was also hoping that people who participated in the previous discussion about this particular WWE Hall of Fame issue would chime in. He miight have thought that if they did that their thinking would have remanied the and would have agreed with him. If he did think that, that's not neutral either. But that's not issue at hand though. The issue is as stated. He told me to "fuck off." Like I said, if there was problem with what was being, he should have came to me or JDC808 on our talk pages and it would have been worked out. If would have apologized and admitted what he said was wrong, I would have accepted and moved on.

HHH Pedrigree You didn't like the fact that accolades WWE recognizes JBL for were added because you deemed them unimportant because that is "consensus" and you didn't like the fact that it was being challenged. The box is called "WWE recognized accolades" for a reason. It's not "WWE accolades we deem important are only added." You were going off a discussion that happened well over ten-years ago. You were dead set against against change. You said because consensus was established all those years ago, it shouldn't be changed or even in the very least discussed. You continually would find any reason to try and shut us down. You were hoping people involved the previous discussion would chime in because you were hoping you'd get people on your side because you are against changing the way something is done. That's not neutral. Just consensus was established all those years ago doesn't mean it will he like that forever and never discussed or changed. Ways of doing things can become outdated or not proper. You are allowed to challenge the "consensus," but you are dead set against that. You like the "status quo." You just want to keep doing it the way it was in the past because it's always been done that way. When the in wrestling sections were done away with, I didn't like that. I was against it. I have learned to accept and now think it is okay. Someone challenged consensus and it got changed. So yes, consensus is not set in stone. Also, you starting how long you've been on Misplaced Pages is irrelevant to that discussion. I have been on Misplaced Pages for 15-years, but I have never once brought that up. I've rambled and strayed from the original intent of coming to the notice board. If you apologized and admitted what you said was wrong, I would have accepted and moved on. But since you haven't bothered to do that, we will have to seen where this goes. Oh and I never once swore at you or anything like. Also, JDC calling you a yes man is something you have to talk to him about. Mr. C.C._{I didn't do it!} 17:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

What are you expecting? You're not going to convince me. I already gave up. The discussion is over. You insulted me the whole discussion and joked on me after that. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: I said you weren't being neutral. I explicitly said here, if something said in that discussion was a problem, you could have come to me on my talk page and it would have been resolved. Instead, you went as far as to tell me to "fuck off." I also said if you apologized and admitted what you said was wrong, I would have accepted and moved on. Before this, I never had an issue with you until you told me to "fuck off." There are insignificant things about you that are pet peeves. The main one was something someone already pointed out to you. Regardless of those things, I never had an issue with you. I want you to seriously answer these questions. Why are you against "consensus" being challenged? Are you afraid of change? Are you afraid that something won't be the way you know it? Are you afraid that you might be wrong? Are you afraid the correct way doing things would be established? Who are you to deem and pick and choose certain accolades WWE recognizes and has listed in Hall of Fame profiles on their site as not as important as other WWE recognized accolades? Do you not see that excluding those accolades is wrong? Answering these is not asking much. You never answered some of these things in the discussion. Mr. C.C._{I didn't do it!} 18:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Saying "I think" is not neutral. is one of the dumber things I've heard in a day full of dumb things. Grandpallama (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: It's not though. You say "I think" when you know.you aren't supposed to be neutral. You can say what you have to say without saying "I think." Plus what he thinks is not really what thinks. He wants to stick with the so-called "status quo" because that is what has been done for years based on an outdated "consensus." Mr. C.C._{I didn't do it!} 18:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Please stop poking HHH Pedrigree. Your interest in policing the phrase "I think" is getting a bit disruptive, and I suggest that you drop the issue. There is nothing wrong with using that phrase, and people don't have to be mindlessly neutral on talk pages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

If you make stupid assertions such as Saying "I think" is not neutral then you shouldn't be surprised if people swear at you. Spike 'em (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Spike: That's not a good reason to swear at someone. Mr. C.C._{I didn't do it!} 05:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Spike 'em: I believe this last comment was meant to be addressed to you, not me... Spike (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Spike. I stand by what I said: that is one of the stupidest things I have read in a discussion on here. Spike 'em (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't blame HHH for losing his temper. It was a discussion of opinion. People are going to say "I think" when giving opinions. Not one iota of that is invalid, and the implication that it somehow makes it illegitimate is frankly silly. oknazevad (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• I hate everything about this thread and am tempted to agree with JzG's "facetious" viewpoint.--WaltCip (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Mavi Gözlü Kel

As previous ban expired, the same user reinstated the same edits + tons of new questionable edits --Havsjö (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I cannot help but notice there has been zero attempts at any discussions with this user. Nothing on either their talk pages nor the talk pages of the article. Not even any warnings or templates to the user other than ANI discussion notifications. Canterbury Tail talk 22:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Havsjö, please start a discussion on the article's talk page and notify Mavi Gözlü Kel of the discussion and location. If edit warring continues despite the attempt at discussing the matter, you can file a report here. ~Oshwah~ 02:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail:@Oshwah: Well, after initial reverts he just wrote "fck u" on my talk page (which among other things led to my first report), but discussion can be attempted in the future --Havsjö (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Havsjö - *Sigh*.... Lovely.... Thank you for letting me know about the message; I'm sorry that it happened. That behavior is clearly unacceptable, and it has no place here. Please let me know if any further edits or incivility occurs, and I'll be happy to step in. I warned Mavi Gözlü Kel for edit warring yesterday, and he/she hasn't made further edits to the article since. Right now, we should focus on attempting to discuss and resolve the dispute peacefully. Worst case scenario: Mavi Gözlü Kel continues what they're doing and ends up blocked. Best case scenario: They listen, understand, and choose to participate and comply with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. ~Oshwah~ 16:45, 18 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

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 \\ 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 Misplaced Pages 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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] - 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)

Bgkc4444

• Bgkc4444 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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 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

user:193.190.253.145

There's been a history of vandalism from this IP. I assume it may be multiple users, so I don't know how this would usually be dealt with. But I figure its worth looking into as the IP's talk page contains many warnings for this kind of behavior. Bacondrum (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Pretty low level, despite the length of the talk page though the years. This is not immediately actionable, beyond the warning they've already incurred today. If there is sudden burst of activity, please let us know. El_C 00:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It looks like it's a shared IP from a Belgian university, it's likely almost every edit is from a different user. The edits seem to have been fairly spaced out and are frequently neutral if not actually helpful, even though there's a sparse scattering of vandalism in there too. IP addresses like this can be blocked temporarily if one or more users starts actively vandalising - use WP:AIV if there's a sudden burst of it - but in general there's very little we can or should do if there's the odd single unconstructive edit - just revert it and move on. ~ mazca 00:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Cool, just thought I'd bring it to the attention of more experienced users. Thanks. Bacondrum (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Hijacking of My User Talk Page & Borderline Harassment

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

Having been reassured by @El C: I should no longer have any issues going forward over my talk page, I have effectively lost control of my own user talk page because of User: Dennis Bratland violating WP:HARASS and WP:3RR, while trying to respond to El_C. My recent AN/I over WP:Wikihounding, was regarding this. It has blown up into this situation, where nearly every and any submission I make anywhere, is stalked by the user in question and deliberately goading me into leaving Misplaced Pages . I did not want to create an AN/I over this, as it felt over the top. However, having my talk page hijacked and edit warred to death, no thanks.
I brought to the table (in link 2 above), a removal of information from BMW, I provided to a BMW article 28 months ago by a fellow editor 14 months ago, which had been verified, agreed on, and supported by Wiki guidelines in 2017. I expressed disappointment on the BMW E21 talk page (link 2 above), because no explanation was provided for doing that and I required one, so that it wouldn't happen again. On another page (Nissan Navara, link 3), I gave thanks regarding public usage of Misplaced Pages paying off to any and all contributing editors. They followed it up with negative commentary, which I removed (not acceptable by me), being rightfully restored by the user (no matter how unwelcome). On another page (Ford Bronco, link 1), I expressed concern why an often active user (Sable232) missed a glaring error (yet does the opposite with my edits), with no citation and misleading information?

Both User:Sable232 and User:Dennis Bratland are stalking my edits to varying degrees and are setting out to create an uncomfortable editing environment for me by "targeting", in hopes I will leave Misplaced Pages voluntarily, blow up at them, and/ or be terminated indefinitely. If I change a timeline format that has been poorly written, Sable232 undoes it to make a point (or be disruptive) and Bratland makes incendiary commentary in areas they had little to no previous involvement as long as it pertains to me. An Arbcom is ongoing regarding my previous conduct, in which these instances of antagonism and harassment are key factors. I am bringing it up, so I do not resort to unnecessarily rash action. (drawn out verbal fights, warring). I'm not an expert on what should be done to ensure, I am not being targeted by these individuals with every submission and edit I make, particularly Bratland. In terms of page protection for manipulation of a user's talk page and etc. The 3RR violating user is somehow annoyed by the fact that myself, Dr. James N. (known here as Carmaker1), of Ford Motor Company Product Development Center and formerly of Jaguar Land Rover at Whitley Centre Coventry, wants to expand automotive Misplaced Pages (when feasible), but not ashamed of my background and expertise, to the point I work within those articles. Reading previous comments on Talk Ford Bronco, will highlight I don't use it as a means to intimidate. A few of us engineers do contribute, as well as designers. I have been warned in the past (about attitude), so going forward I am focusing on content (expansion, in depth historical information) and preventing disruptive actions (deleting without consensus, introducing contentious information, vandalism). I cannot do so successfully, if I feel harassed by someone, who thinks they can hide behind WP templates via WP:Wikilawyering and actively insult me in the process for amusement or stroke their own ego.--Carmaker1 (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

This isn't your first trip here, Carmaker1; not even this month. You should know by now that long emotional diatribes don't get you results. Concise evidenced reports will. X editor violated Y policy at Z diff. And so on. I don't know or care what the gist of everyone's bitching at automobile articles is about, and will not get involved. Don't do Wrestling either. And it's ridiculous that a serious primarily nuts and bolts subject like vehicles has descended to the level of something fundamentally meaningless like professional wrestling, but that's what it is. I see this is at Arbcom. Perhaps they can fix it. Betting pretty much no current vehicle editors will care for what they do. John from Idegon (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The ArbCom does NOT address this new development, so I am opening it up here to resolve it. As for: "I don't know or care what the gist of everyone's bitching at automobile articles is about, and will not get involved." Did you just state that? If you are an administrator, that doesn't read very objective, as this has nothing to do with content, but behavior and manipulation of another user's talk page. I currently have no new issues with content, that demands such mediation. If I did, it would appear at dispute resolution. I have recognized that your approach to this already shows a lack of objective care, as well as possible bias in overlooking the major aspect of hijacking a user's talk page (despite being requested to not be going there to edit, aside from warnings or notices/summons). I ironically was goaded into bringing to AN/I by the user in question, because they felt empowered to do as they liked on my talk page, so what choice did I have? Hope for magical interference? Your snarky response is unwelcome and disrespectful, as you know very well the subject matter isn't related to article content at this point. It is addressing for once, an underlying issue and ongoing harassment.--Carmaker1 (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

All I have to say is that the user page guidelines and WP:POLEMIC don’t allow anyone to use their user pages as a safe perch to attack others with impunity. If Carmaker1 is going to use their talk page as a venue for a laundry list of disparagements, I have every right to reply on that page. Anyone who uses their talk page to badmouth an editor forfeits the right to kick them off their page.

None of this drama would be happening if Carmaker1 honored their repeated promises to focus on content, not contributors. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

No one attacked you in text within that discussion between El_C and myself. I was asking for advice. You've chosen to take that impression, while edit-warring on someone else's talk page by hijacking it from their own control. I have never hijacked someone's talk page :0. That right there is very, very telling. Signed Dr. James N.(BTY)--Carmaker1 (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Carmaker1...besides wrestling and nationalistic editing, no single subject area consistantly lands here more than cars. I don't need to be involved in the details. I can see. If you don't want to follow good advice for how to successfully form an ANI complaint that's on you. I'm not an administrator and being an administrator isn't required to comment here. Your perception of having your talk page "hijacked" is not equivalent to another editor violating a policy. If you want action, you need to provide evidence. If you want it without a ton of drama and timesink, don't make your report dramatic and a long winded timesink itself. Listen or not, I don't care...it's not worth the grief. Frankly I hope Arbcom blocks the lot of you. Maybe the community can get some peace. John from Idegon (talk) 03:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

If you think being rude to me in the manner that you are exempts you from being accused of incivility towards me, you are quite mistaken. I am not above defending myself against a nasty temperament, provided that it's worthy of direct response. None of your points made, have solid credibility in being highly opinionated. I'm not interested in your viewpoint if it can't be objective and is essentially trolling, to insult an editor and not resolve a matter.--Carmaker1 (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I echo John from Idegon's comment above. Carmaker1 is advised that from now on, they should focus on content, not contributors—no more mentions of Dennis Bratland unless at this noticeboard with evidence, and not unless the issue is something new and substantive. The same applies to Dennis Bratland. If any evidence of a new problem is presented, one or both editors can be blocked. Meanwhile, stop talking about the past or each other. The Arbcom case request will be declined and any new issues can be handled here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed sir, I genuinely mean that and will only refer to a user regarding content and not them as an individual going forward. Thank you for your input and I honor that by being 100% respectful, no more excuses nor any iota of snide behavior on my part.--Carmaker1 (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Although Dennis Bratland should not have reverted your post to your talk page, you should also have not posted about them on your talk page, except to alert El C if there was a violation of your request to stay off. It's at a minimum extremely rude to demand someone stay off your talk page, then effectively talk about them behind their back, in a way they cannot directly respond. (This doesn't mean it's wise for Dennis Bratland to respond, often it isn't. But they should be able to.) I assume you're banning someone from your talk page to partly disengage from them, which clearly isn't happening if you then start talking about them. In other words, if you want someone to leave you alone, then you should be leaving them alone as well. If you have actual issues requiring sanction or whatever, then bring them to an appropriate noticeboard, with evidence. Nil Einne (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, that's understandable, to a degree. Should have kept it simple and waited for El_C, but re-read why I made that request. It was due to unwelcome harassment, which finally took the cake at Nissan Navara talk page for the 3rd/4th time of "fending off" unwanted harassment. What can be done however regarding the tendency of what I mentioned above as WP:HARASS and provided examples in diffs above?--Carmaker1 (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm dissapointed that Dennis Bratland broke their promise by not only editing Carmaker1's talk page, but actually edit warring there, too. Responding to multiple comments by Carmaker1 directly (rather than reporting any issues with these elsewhere) also comes across as provocation rather than dialogue. Had there not been a new warning issued by another admin, I would apply immediate sanctions. El_C 17:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

In essence, Dennis Bratland cannot revoke his promise not to post on Carmaker1's talk page for any reason. He needs to report violations, if he believes these are occurring, not committing a violation himself. Which he did. More on that here. El_C 20:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

You say I broke my promise but to me Carmaker1 is the one who voided the talk page ban by abusing it. That is something not everyone seems to be entirely in agreement about. I'm not the only one who thinks a talk page ban is contingent on the talk page owner not proceeding to use their talk page level accusations against someone who cannot reply there. Moving the discussion to another page was a better solution than either replying or removing their posts about me, but I didn't think of that at first. In any case, I'd suggest going forward we need to make clear to everyone that if you ban someone form you talk page, you have to find some other venue to post diatribes against the person you ostensibly don't want contact with. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland: Can I ask how you even became aware of that discussion? It looks like intentionally or not, Carmaker1 wrote it in such a way that you wouldn't be notified . Yet somehow 17 minutes later you were responding ? If you are still watching Carmaker1's talk page, may I suggest considering you've been banned from it, this is unwise? While you are not ibanned, given the relationship between you two, you shouldn't be following Carmaker1 around except specifically when you are building a case to bring somewhere in the immediate future. And you cannot comment there so what goes on on it should not generally concern you.

If you're going to use the fact Carmaker1 talked about you as an excuse, well I wrote a very long reply but decided against posting it and will just give a brief summary. May I suggest this is a poor example since you couldn't have known that before it happened, and Carmaker1 pinged El C, the admin who was well aware of request you stay away, and who therefore would likely have dealt with concerns over the appropriateness of what Carmaker1 was doing.

I don't know if my earlier reply was clear but IMO your best solution by far if you did somehow become aware of that discussion, was just leave it be and let someone else deal with it. Your second best solution, was to bring it to a noticeboard or with El C without touching Carmaker1's page in any way.

The options you chose to deal with it was close to the worse possible. Noting of course that even without a ban once per WP:OWNTALK and WP:UP#OWN, once you start edit warring with someone over what is on their talk page, most of the time you are clearly in the wrong.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

A requirement to remove their talk page from my watchlist is rather novel. This is not an WP:IBAN. Carmaker1 can’t unilaterally declare an interaction ban, that’s for the community to decide, and they never requested one. If it’s unacceptable to criticize someone in a venue they are not allowed to reply in — and some of us think that’s a fundamental principle, even if the polemic and talk rules don’t explicitly say so — how would I be aware of it unless I watch the page? Again, I’ll at least admit replying on their page was not the best response, and copying the thread elsewhere, which didn’t occur to me at first, was better. If I hadn’t seen substantial evidence that Carmaker1 seems to have a unique immunity to community sanctions, I would have simply requested help in an appropriate form instead of taking action myself.

You could propose unwatching a talk page one has been kicked off as a new rule, perhaps in some combination with my proposal that you can’t criticize someone on a page you’ve banned them from. But all that belongs on a village pump proposal discussion. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

No, you were mandated not to edit that talk page, for any reason, and you contravened that. If you see a violation, you report it, you don't commit a violation yourself. It's that simple. El_C 18:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Is there anything going to be done about my concerns related to WP:HARASS, where the user wasn't mentioned, yet followed me to numerous talk pages, to counteract with antagonistic responses (cited above) or should this AN/I just be closed, if there is no interest in doing that? Thanks again for your sound input.--Carmaker1 (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand that is how you see it, and I can respect your reasons, even if I reach a different conclusion. But now I’m confused about where you’re going with this. Can you help me understand what you’re asking me for right now? Is there something you are asking me to say or do? —Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Asked and answered here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Carmaker1, I hope both of you will tread lightly from now on with respect to direct interaction with one another. As seen from Dennis Bratland's link directly above, on my talk page, he seems amenable to that, so I'm closing this report on that note (see also my closing summary at the top of the report). El_C 23:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:PAID

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

• Couple questions, Johnuniq. Is the comment immediately above a formal sanction? Second, as an employee of Ford, as he self-outed himself above, shouldn't he be restricted to talk pages only on automobiles? Being an important person in an important part of one of the major players in the automotive game is a clear cut conflict of interest and I'm betting also includes WP:PAID. If Carmaker gets profit sharing, a 401k contribution from the company, or stock options (all common compensation for key employees such as designers), then he's PAID and has no business editing automotive articles directly at all. John from Idegon (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'm making that a question for the community. I strongly doubt Carmaker can honestly deny that his personal income is directly tied to Ford's profitability. Can our reputation afford having someone whose income is directly tied to an particular auto company's bottom line generally editing automotive articles at all? Many police departments have policy in place barring officers from drinking in public licensed establishments in their jurisdiction. It's not because it has caused problems; it's to avoid any public perception that it could be. Fraternal Order of Police posts frequently have private bars, for just that reason. With his revelation here, we have a huge perception problem. We need to act to maintain the public's perception of neutrality in our encyclopedia. As I frequently tell my son: "Reputation is our most important asset". John from Idegon (talk) 04:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

  That's a common misunderstanding of PAID. If Carmaker works for Ford, then they are paid to do things with cars, not edit Misplaced Pages. PAID is specifically about paying someone to make edits to Misplaced Pages. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• And unsurprisingly, you are reaching over some wonderous, underlying reason. My interest is in the automotive project (globally), past, present, and future, not solely Ford products. I mentioned being a Jaguar engineer years ago and no issue was made of it for well over 3 years. How often did I edit Jaguar Land Rover articles? Hardly, compared to Japanese and German products, with various American brands thrown in. It's a hobby as an automotive collector, historian, and enthusiast since youth. It is all very interesting how personal you are taking this, to turn it into something extra and OFF-TOPIC. As someone that is a fan of spy and detective/investigative novels/films, I can read right through people with their intentions and certainly wasn't born yesterday...--Carmaker1 (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Carmaker1: You must comment with less emotion. Stick to substantive issues such as article content and the substance of your edits. Almost all of your comment is pointless, and talking about when you were born is a waste of other editor's time at this busy noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
    • It was a waste of my Sunday, to listen someone who is not an administrator (John from Idegon), gripe and insult me about over their irrelevant, negative opinion in a pointless fashion. I generally mind my business, rightfully so. In terms of my lengthy writing, yes I understand and I respect your request.--Carmaker1 (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• I intended my comment above as an informal formal sanction. That is, I was planning to give one more warning to either of the two editors at the next problem, but then issue a significant block for any second problem. However, I don't think this discussion is ready to be closed, and I didn't want to be overly pompous. Nevertheless, my comment should be interpreted as a friendly threat. Re the Ford issue: I don't know enough about the background. COI is an important problem but in principle it's quite possible for an employee to edit helpfully. If they consistently puffed up Ford articles and denigrated competitors, an indefinite block might be appropriate. However, it would be good if they were using their knowledge to add neutral and sourced content. I wouldn't automatically say that a Ford employee must not edit a Ford topic or any car topic unless the edits involved COI issues. Johnuniq (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, a good friendly threat nonetheless. It is very obvious I've had a behavioral issue and yes, for good I am refraining from carrying on in any negative manner outside of defending myself on AN/I or my talk page. I solemnly swear to be objective about any corporate failures on the part of Ford and will remain 100% objective regarding all companies, to be solely informative and not intimidate anyone. The idea is to "help" people out, so if I know something, it can be found by anyone and brought back here via verifiable source. I am responsible for the leak of launch date for the 2023 Mustang, using a relative and not giving myself credit. That's how I work. If I can publicize every relevant aspect of the automotive industry (without harm), to the benefit of the public, that's my goal and nothing but that. I will leave it at that.--Carmaker1 (talk) 05:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Again, Carmaker1, that's not how Misplaced Pages works. Administrators are not "the boss". They simply enforce the community's will. We are all the boss. Anyone can comment here. Misplaced Pages has a reputation and managing perception of that is 100% in the community's domain. I feel it is a major problem. Johnuniq, not as much. No one knows how you feel, because snark and verbosity have completely clouded your response. How about you clarify your communication in an unemotional way and then leave it be so the rest of the community can respond? I'm asking for a topic ban sanctions to avoid public perception of bias. Do others feel this better addressed at VPP? I think current policy allows it, and interpertation of existing behavior policy issues generally happen here. Comments please. John from Idegon (talk) 05:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • That's very rich and grossly hypocritical.--Carmaker1 (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Personal attacks are definitely not warranted. Not to mention a glaringly bad idea in an ANI thread. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with any of your edits. I'm saying in general that someone editing pseudonymously claiming to be in a key position with a major player in the industry, one that commonly includes profit-based incentives and claiming to be in possession of insider information that he has used in his editing (or was that claim more snark? Cannot tell) is a detriment to the project on general principle. We cannot afford a public perception of bias. Something tells me we will be reading about this in a future issue of Wired. One single editor no matter who it is, is not indispensable to the project. Public perception of the project is more important than a single editor. If you were retired from multiple companies or were teaching automotive engineering or design in a university, no one would question your neutrality, because no conflict would exist. We simply cannot claim we are neutral and allow someone who has a profit to be had from an automobile company to be editing extensively in the area of automotive articles. A topic ban that removes any possible profit motive would solve that perception issue. Possibly not "automotive, broadly construed", but rather "contemporary automobile and automotive companies articles". That would still allow edits in the area of automotive that would have no bearing on the profitability of his employer. Like general articles on components, antique cars, history, etc. No diffs here. The issue at hand was raised by the OP himself in this very thread, and I'm not making an accusation of bias. I'm saying that public perception of the project is more important than the contributions of a single editor. Don't know how to state this any clearer than that. John from Idegon (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • And, as no one has yet replied, let me clarify further. I'm looking for paid editing restrictions, not a topic ban. His expertise is valuable. He can contribute to talk discussions and make edit requests, just not edit directly. We have to be able to deny bias by showing that the conflicted editor's work is reviewed. This is where this might need to be at VPP. We have to use our PAID policy not only to prevent non neutral editing, but also to avoid negative perception of our neutrality in general. The last may be pushing the envelope a bit, but it is certainly a valid discussion point. John from Idegon (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I have to say, not having looked at this in any great detail, but if he has disclosed he works for Ford then I don't think this completely excludes him from editing all automotive articles. I did some work for an Acquarium shop, disclosed this and was able to add some info on bettas without any issues. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Chris.sherlock, the argument is a red herring. Information on betas cannot give a competitive advantage to a particular seller of betas. They all sell other things, and all the competition also sells the exact same betas. However it does sound like you agree that his admission here create a perception issue. Am I reading you correctly? (BTW, I edit conflicted you posting my previous entry). John from Idegon (talk) 06:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

John from Idegon not a red herring, a betta splendens. but, actually, adding the wrong or slanted info on bettas could be problematic. There are hundreds of species of bettas, and thousands of varieties. The advise each shop gives can be quite different. You could influence what food people buy, for instance. This makes it very important to reference solid information, which I have taken care to do. The same goes with the automotive industry. If he is writing about automobiles and sourcing correctly (and I suggest he stays away from Ford articles as much as possible, which may not be easy or even fully feasible given Ford is massive) then I don't think there is a problem if he contributes in an NPOV, accurate way with proper sourcing to automotive articles. And he also needs to disclose his potential COIs, which he has done.

I'll admit I've walked into the middle of what looks like a complex and major dispute. Carmaker1 isn't doing himself any favours with his major screeds, but I similarly don't think you do yourself any favours by being so strident. I do know it makes it impossible for either party (or anyone else!) to find a resolution. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• • • • I have never hid who I worked for, having worked for Toyota USA as a paid intern in 2010, JLR in Mahwah, NJ in 2011, and UK as an intern in 2012-13, then full employment from 2013-16. And now this is becoming an issue? Am I no longer allowed to edit family members' Misplaced Pages pages, because of a conflict of interest? Misplaced Pages is not going to help the horrible Ford stock price nor is my nada effect editing.--Carmaker1 (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
        • Assuming this unsigned edit is Carmaker, you're clueless (regarding COI editing) post reinforces my opinion that you cannot manage your COI without intervention. You posted all this in the single most visable place on Misplaced Pages, asserting your position and title as if they had some bearing on the conversation, while at the same time admitting you've been editing in other areas where you have a COI. So please now disclose what articles about your relatives you have edited, so that other non conflicted editors can review them.--John from Idegon (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
          • There really is no need for such an aggressive message. Whilst you may be suspicious of COI, there is no need to be rude about it. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
          • What are you even talking about? What "visable" place did I assert my position and title? An article? Here? It's called "my background", on why I care to edit about certain subjects and being transparent (and not deceiving to flout COI). I clearly do not have my own Misplaced Pages article page like a politician or a celebrity, therefore, COI reduces quite a bit doesn't it? Ironically, I refrained from doing that (family articles) to not give away my ethnic background. You can check my edit history and come to that resolution regarding the relevant nationality and my edit summaries disclosing that on each differing page.--Carmaker1 (talk) 07:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
            • And thank you Chris sherlock for your input.--Carmaker1 (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Just a second-hand opinion here, but I would recommend that you do not, in fact, edit family members' Misplaced Pages pages, and perhaps review WP:COI. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 06:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the polite and respectful suggestion Dumuzid. Have a good day.--Carmaker1 (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• FYI, now listed at COIN, which is the proper forum for WP:PAID issues. I suggest this WP:PAID sub-thread be closed here, in order not to have two discussions about the same in two different places. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages—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.

• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/DawgDeputy/Archive
• DawgDeputy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

• Comment The article is mostly unsourced fancruft anyway (and has been flagged as such since 2011) - it probably needs a good going over with the pruning shears. DawgDeputy isn't helping matters by adding more unsourced stuff, but it's not vandalism - AldezD, 4im vandalism warnings are more usually given out for inserting abusive profanities into BLP and that sort of thing, not adding unsourced content about game shows. I know that it's almost never actually productive to tell someone to calm down, but both of you should probably chill? GirthSummit _(blether) 16:03, 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)

• Further comment I've given both users some advice on their talk pages. I don't think any further administrative action is warranted at this point, but am happy to field questions or complaints from either party if there is any further disruption. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio pics, probable COI, edit-warring copyvios back, etc.

Cpitcher1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding copyvio pictures to the article he created: James Ketchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). In the Commons, he declares the copyvio pictures he uploads as authored by James Ketchell himself. Please see c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Cpitcher1977. Meanwhile, in Misplaced Pages he restores the copyvio pictures I had removed earlier while removing multiple times COI tags placed in the article. Overall, very bad editing tactics. If not an indef, we need at least a final warning and/or a topic ban from the article. Dr. K. 04:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Clearly COI and/or copyvio, merits attention.--Eostrix (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeffed. MER-C 18:49, 21 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 Misplaced Pages and some personal attacks that could merit administrator attention:

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

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

@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 () 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 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 Misplaced Pages terms but I have found Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Canvassing there are four points. What I found may not be "mass posting", however: posting on the Bulgarian Misplaced Pages is to a partisan audience, is non-transparent without a notification on English Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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

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" & 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? 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" "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:

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: , 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. 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).. 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)

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

@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" , 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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages'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)

Multiple IP user

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

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

The author has been previously instructed times about:

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

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

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

When edits in Christianity and colonialism#Korea were called into question, the author's justification predominantly consisted of theories and unsupported assertions: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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/search/?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)

Editor emptying categories then requesting CfD, refuses to discuss or use WP:CFD

Chris.sherlock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has emptied Category:Australian convict women and then sought speedy deletion for it being an empty category. I noticed this as I have had Mary Bryant on my watchlist since 2006. I noticed the removal, reverted advising in the edit summary that WP:CFD was the correct place to seek deletion, and objected to the speedy on the category talk page. Chris.sherlock then undid my reversion (contrary to WP:BRD. I left a note on his talkpage advising him of WP:BRD and WP:CFD. He responded by telling me to go away and threatening to take me to ArbCom. DuncanHill (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

He then went to another board to ask others to step in, and made personal attacks on me. I only saw that because he pinged me in the comment. DuncanHill (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I have very little to say to DuncanHill. I asked him not to post to my user talk page, but he has decided that he will do so anyway. Anyway, on the issue at hand, it was extensively discussed at on AWNB and we came to a consensus on the best way to handle a problem with the category structure we were using, as Gnangarra pointed out, “being a 20th century Australian woman writer is not an occupation, nor is it a defining characteristic, or subset of 20th century Australians by occupation".

I think this is likely an attempt by DuncanHill to needle me. He’s done this in the past, at this point I feel he is deliberately harassing me.

I did tell the guys at AWNB what is happening because we all discussed the issue and came to a decision on the best way forward. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

P.S. it is just past midnight here so I’m going to bed, so you may not hear from me till morning. Night to all those in my timezone! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and incidentally, I don’t believe for a minute that he only noticed my category changes when he saw me make a change on Mary Bryant, because he reverted a CSD I placed on a category well before I made the change to articles in the convict category. I'm curious how he knew about this... unless he’s been obsessively stalking my contribution history, I’d say he did this because he’s got my talk page on his watch list. I don't think he's being very honest, and it really is getting to the stage of harassment and I wish he’d stop. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I have had Mary Bryant on my watchlist since I edited it in 2006. I noticed the edit removing a category and followed that up. It could have been done by anybody and I would have done the same thing. The correct venue to seek deletion of a category is WP:CFD. DuncanHill (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Please don't place your answers above the thing they are answering, it looks deceitful. DuncanHill (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Duncan, I wasn't answering you. I want nothing to do with you. There was an edit conflict. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• There is no WP:HARASSment going on; including this very discussion, you've only edited the same pages in the same month eight times—and of those, on five occasions DH was the first to post. And of course at least one of those edits—to your talk page—was an official requirement over and above the allowance made to editors per WP:NOBAN. Harassment is a serious accusation, and I think casting such an accusation groundlessly, cheapens the offence. It is also, perhaps, inflammatory, to suggest that DH went straight to the dramaboards, when in just the preceding section, you threatened to go to Arbcom. Describing other editors as "obsessive2 could also be construed as an WP:ASPERSION.However, DuncanHill, even though you may feel strongly that CS was in breach of WP:CANVAS, some may argue that—while CS's phrasing may have been a little florid, it was fair to mention the direction the discussion had turned in on the same noticeboard that it had begun. The same goes for accusations of deceit; while you have a right to be sensitive, edit conflicts are legion here, are they not, and could also be construed as an aspersion. ——SN54129 14:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

You know that my other account was User:Letsbefiends and User:Ta bu shi da yu, right? I’m not sure what that link shows as it’s not loading for me, but I suggest you check that account and User:Tbsdy lives. There are many people who have noted his animosity to me over the years, perhaps JzG could fill you in.

Incidentally, as the creator of this forum, it is a drama board and I often regret having started it. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Whether you "created" this forum (or rather, its main page where there is, in fact, far less drama) does not alter the fact that arbcom is a greater drama board yet. And yes, your history is well known, Chris.sherlock; I didn't want to include it (generally, it's irrelevant here what happened years ago), but your previous (TBDSY, LBF) show a corollating low-level of interaction. So yeah, maybe reduce both the interaction and the aspersions even further. ——SN54129 15:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

What do you think I’ve been trying to do? I didn’t initiate any of this. And it’s not irrelevant when the other party literally holds a decade old grudge. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a grudge against you Chris, despite the years of abuse from you and the disgusting email you sent me. I feel sorry for you (as a human being) and wish you (as an editor) would go to WP:CFD and follow the instructions there. DuncanHill (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what abuse you are referring to. And I’m not sure why you are sorry for me. That’s quite... condescending. Your own words show you do indeed have a grudge. Let’s not speak again. Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Go to WP:CFD and make your case there. I won't join the debate as long as you don't mention me there. There, that suit you? DuncanHill (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Stop trying to engage with me Duncan. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Stop posting here then, go to WP:CFD and propose the deletions there. DuncanHill (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Duncan, you are the one who brought this here for discussion and review, so discuss it I shall, though hopefully not with you. I guess that’s my final thing I need to say to you. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I must have missed the edit summary explaining the move. Had I known it was an edit conflict I would have understood. DuncanHill (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

True, DH; the lack of an edit-summary does make it easier for parties to suggest that in fact, "edit-conflict" was just thought up after the event  :) ——SN54129 15:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

What the heck does that mean? Do you normally speak to someone directly in the second person like I did in my reply? I certainly don’t. If I have something to say to someone directly, I use their name and such words as “you”, I don’t use words such as "he" when speaking to someone directly. If that’s how you communicate, it must get fairly confusing! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Instead of using this as an opportunity to fight, why not ask User:BrownHairedGirl and do whatever she says? I would have thought the whole point of categories was to have an overarching system, not to have the Australian wikiproject decide how to categorize Australian writers, the US wikiproject decide how to categorize American writers, etc. I'm sure BHG knows whatever that overarching system is. (I should probably have asked her if I could suggest this; if she doesn't want to be "volunteered" for this, then ask at WT:CATP.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

There is one :-) it is point 1. of WP:EGRS#General:

Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic.

In our discussions that was the Australian contingent’s concern. Not sure how the rest of the world does things, but in Australia we don’t have an occupation of “Australian women writers”. We have “Australian writers”. If other countries have this, then I guess we should use it for those countries but that’s not the way things work in Australia! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Let’s keep in mind the bones of this, rather than personalities. Doing something piecemeal, and then using that to justify another action, is generally a Bad Thing. Parricides don’t get sympathy because they are orphans, do they? Qwirkle (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• My suggestion is that if someone believes a category or categories should be deleted, then they should go to WP:CFD and follow the instructions there. DuncanHill (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Also see WP:CONLIMITED. ——SN54129 15:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

You mean, like WP:EGRS#General point 1.? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Without splitting hairs, that's an important guideline; but it doesn't override policy, of course. Night! ——SN54129 16:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Could you clarify which policy you are referring to? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:CONLIMITED is policy, and WP:EGRS is a guideline. Night. ——SN54129 16:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, that policy says that consensus should not trump policy. What policy are we overturning? It would be amusing if the answer was WP:CONLIMITED, but I had rather assumed you had a specific policy other than that one in mind. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It would be more amusing if you just dialed the passive-aggression back a notch. ——SN54129 19:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Could you please tell me what policy you are referring to? I don’t believe you have answered my question. It’s a fairly serious accusation you have levelled against me and a number of others - you say we have violated a policy, I think it only fair that you tell us what that policy is. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yesterday I had the pleasure of interacting with Chris for the first time, on my user talk page, arising out of the last ANI thread about Chris. It's too bad there's a new ANI thread today. This comment at WP:AWN (Mitch Ames, Gnangarra, JarrahTree, The Drover's Wife, we have a major issue developing. It appears a few uninvolved parties have decided that we, as a bunch of Australians, don't know how to structure categories around Australia. They have been reverting the changes we agreed on. Can I get some help when you get a chance?) strikes me as battleground canvassing, with a lot of ownership to boot. Trying to wedge Australian editors from other editors is extremely uncool. The last thing we need is to go tribal. It was followed up by this comment, Ok, now I’m getting harassed by User:DuncanHill, who is attempting to start a revert war. If anyone wants to step in, it would be appreciated. I really don’t want to interact with that guy, he has been horrid to engage with from the very start and personally hates me to the point where it is impossible to deal with him. In fact, I have told him I want nothing to do with him and I asked him some robe ago not to post to my user talk page as he tends to harass me - I’m fairly certain he has gotten involved because he has my user talk page on his watch list and is doing this just to needle me. The point being is he will be quite happy to unravel all our food work. (I assume he means "good work"), which also strikes me as battleground canvassing. The heat needs to be significantly turned down here. We get nowhere by turning against each other, or trying to rally editors against other editors with nationalist appeals. Levivich  18:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I had the especial pleasure of being told I was full of shit by Levivich yesterday. The admiration goes both ways. The original person who filed yesterday's AN/I thread, incidentally, apologised to me. The issue was over WP:DOB, and nobody could give an example of where I violated the policy. You, however, removed reliable sources of information and retained unreliable sources, and then got upset when I noted this. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• I am preparing a longish reply to the ping by @Floquenbeam, setting out the background at the existing consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

This whole ANI thread is an unwarranted and aggressive escalation that clearly seems to be motivated by some longstanding personal history given Duncan's comments. I don't particularly understand why the "Australian convict women" category is being emptied, but rather than revert-warring and instantly escalating to ANI, it would have been much more helpful to either ask Chris what was going on or to take it to WP:AWNB for some further feedback from Australian editors. (My instinct, not knowing the actual reason, is that I probably would have agreed with Duncan on the content issue if he had.)

The allegations of canvassing for bringing it to the general noticeboard of Australian editors (for an Australian-specific category in the Australian category tree) is crap. It's a way of bringing it to editors who probably have relevant opinions, but not necessarily taking any particular side given that it's just a country-wide noticeboard, and everyone he pinged directly tends to have different opinions on these issues from one another. Everyone directly involved in this needs to dial back on the aggro, chill out a bit and focus on discussing and resolving the actual issues. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: your comment that this is an unwarranted and aggressive escalation that clearly seems to be motivated by some longstanding personal history given Duncan's comments is complete wrong. This desire to eliminate Australian-women-by-occupation should have been a proposal at WP:CFD accompanied by a neutral notification at WP:AWNB ... but instead it has been implemented in a rush by a small clique at WP:AWNB, without any notifications. The only aggression here is from this small clique of Aussie editors (I think 4 in all) who have bypassed CFD and gotten all angry when challenged about their misconduct and asked to use established processes.

At User_talk:Chris.sherlock#Category:_20th-century_Australian_women_artists, at least three editors had asked User:Chris.sherlock to use WP:CFD, but Chris rejected their requests. So ANI is the proper venue to discuss such rejection of process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: - what clique? Chris was trying to find a solution to his disagreement with Mitch Ames, Mitch and Chris both agreed that it was a solution they could agree on, and the other two editors in the discussion (one of which was me) both went "meh". He should have used WP:CFD, but he's been gone from Misplaced Pages a long time and it seems just forgot the appropriate process to do this by; unfortunately, in not doing that, he's accidentally stumbled into a whole different dispute that I'm pretty sure he didn't realise he was getting into by trying to compromise with Mitch. There is no "desire to eliminate Australian women-by-occupation" - he depopulated the category that was the subject of his dispute with Mitch, asked for feedback about a different occupation category given that he apparently recognised that what he'd just done had wider implications, didn't get any responses, and stopped. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: The clique is the 4 editors (of whom you appear to be one) who decided to implement a wide-raging set of changes, using the wrong venue, with zero attempt at notification ... and esp User:Chris.sherlock, who repeatedly rejected requests made by other editors to stop depopulating these categories, and use WP:CFD:

• User:14GTR:
• User:DuncanHill:
• User:SlimVirgin (aka SarahSV): (not that SarahSV doesn't explicitly mention CFD, but does say that it shouldn't be decided by one WikiProject)

So it's quite perverse for User:The Drover's Wife to accuse DuncanHill of unwarranted and aggressive escalation, and especially to make an unqualified assertion that DuncanHill was acting in bad faith (clearly seems to be motivated by some longstanding personal histor. Note that it's not allegation or a suggestion or a query; it's an assertion as fact that DuncanHill's has ulterior motive.

If The Drover's Wife is acting in good faith, then I hope that The Drover's Wife will demonstrate that good faith by striking those unfounded attacks on DuncanHill, and preferably apologising. DuncanHill has tried to uphold established consensus-forming processes, and should not be subject to this sort of smear campaign. Chris.sherlock and The Drover's Wife both need to clean up their acts, fast, before sanctions get applied. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Where, exactly, did this "clique" decide to "implement a wide-ranging set of changes"? Two editors (Chris and Mitch Ames) were having a dispute about a different category issue, and decided that getting rid of one category was a solution they could agree on. Two other editors who'd engaged in the discussion about the dispute, but didn't have any particular feelings about the solution, went "meh" and didn't say anything. The category was depopulated, and I thought that was the end of it. Chris then flagged the issue that the solution he'd implemented regarding his dispute with Mitch might have wider implications and asked about the "artists" category and didn't get any responses, which is where I thought it had ended - I've just realised that he went on and depopulated that too (which was a bad idea) but nonetheless. You've just gone nuclear on me and threatened sanctions (!) even though I don't have any strong opinions on the matter (besides thinking that the depopulation was a bad idea) and am just trying to resolve the issue. Perhaps that might be a sign that it's a good idea to take a step back. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: so you don't retract your smears against DuncanHill. On your head be it.

As to stepping back, since your idea of trying to resolve the issue is smearing the editor who opened this discussion to try to uphold established process, i suggest that you take your own advice.

Your comments on the substance are more interesting. You seem to be saying that the AWNB discussion did NOT in fact establish even a local consensus to depopulate any category, and that what actually happened was that two editors made a decision without seeking wider input ... and then User:Chris.sherlock unilaterally decided to do the same to a whole bunch of other categories. If so, then Chris.sherlock's claims about a decision at AWNB are baloney ... and if you genuinely want to resolve this (rather than just repeatedly smearing DuncanHill), you should be asking Chris to promptly self-revert his unilateral actions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The noticeboard discussion is right there on the board, it isn't a long conversation, and having read it to begin with might have prevented a lot of incorrect assumptions that've been made about how this mess happened to begin with. Two editors were trying to resolve a dispute, they thought they'd found a solution without realising the broader fallout, and because Chris forgot that it needed go to WP:CFD that didn't get flagged before the shit hit the fan. It's not exactly news (including to Duncan, given their history) that Chris gets stressed and doesn't exactly react the best way when people go nuclear on him. There's still an obvious solution: undo the depopulation, talk out the content issue without the aggro, and if anyone still thinks that's the best way forward (which I think is unlikely following a calmer conversation) then it can go back to WP:CFD. Problem solved, no drama necessary. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I did not "go nuclear" on anyone, again please stop your insinuations and misrepresentations. I used an edit summary to point out WP:CFD, I raised it appropriately on Chris's talk page, and only after his "nuclear" response of threatening me with Arbcom did I come here. I'm glad you agree with me that repopulation and WP:CFD are the correct thing to do. DuncanHill (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @The Drover's Wife: Sheesh, you are still at it. Stop trying to blame DuncanHill for Chris.sherlock's anger management issues. If Chris can't handle the normal rules of engagement here, that doesn't mean he should get a license to go on a rampage.

Multiple editors asked Chris to stop. He ignored them.

DuncanHill asked Chris to stop. He was rebuffed with a threat and a bogus allegation of harassment.

Then Duncan quite properly took this to ANI, where he made a well-formed and well-founded complaint, free of hyperbole.

Your decision to describe this as other editors deciding to go nuclear on Chris is not just nonsense; it is a blatant fabrication which inverts the reality of a gentle and civil escalation which followed the proper procedures. The only nuclear response has been from you and Chris, who have repeatedly tried to smear and malign Duncan for acting entirely properly. That's thoroughly nasty conduct by you, for which you should be sanctioned.

It seems that you now agree with the substance of the objections to Chris's conduct, and that you are trying to help Chris to climb down gently. But the honourable way to do that is to engage privately with Chris ... but instead you have chosen to be an attack dog against Duncan. That doesn't help Chris, and it does't help the community to resolve this issue; you are just pouring petrol on Chris's self-started fire. Round my way, that's called shit-stirring. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not constructive and I'm not engaging with it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

At last, we can agree: your repeated smearing of the messenger is thoroughly unconstructive. I hope that your latest post means that are now going to stop it.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Observations by BrownHairedGirl

• I come here in response to a ping from @Floquenbeam:.

(TLDR: categories emptied and tagged for speedy-deletion in a flagrant abuse of process, ignoring established consensus, and with none of the characteristics of proper consensus-formation. There should be mass-reverts).

The issues here are:

• Substance: The impact of WP:EGRS on the categories concerned
• Process: how and where the community makes a decision about that.

My thoughts:

Substance

It seems that Chris.sherlock has depopulated many of the subcats of Category:Australian women by occupation. I choose as an example Category:Australian women writers.

Category:Women writers is a well-developed category tree, with subcategory trees by format, by historical period (including by century), by nationality.

Note that the intersection between nationality and century is well-categorised: see the Category:Women writers by century, where there are 105 subcategory trees of women-by-nationality-century, e.g. Category:American women writers by century and Category:Irish women writers by century:

Of that set of 105, Category:Australian women writers by century is now empty.

There have been many discussions about these categories over the years, some large and heated. most notably WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 24#Category:American_women_novelists which arose out of a huge media storm (I think it even got as far as the New York Times). The solution agreed 7 years ago has remained stable since, and avoids ghettoising women writers (per WP:EGRS#General item 5).

Process

For as long as I have been editing en.wp (since early 2006), decisions on whether to delete a category have been made at WP:CFD. This is a community-wide noticeboard like the other XFD processes (AFD, TFD, MFD, MFD), all of which share these five characteristics:

1. all pages being discussed are tagged with a clear link to the discussion. That way, any editor who has watchlisted the page or who visits it can see that discussion is happening.
2. the discussion is at central location, where all similar locations are listed on a daily log, and indexed in various ways. That allows any editor interested in this type of discussion to scan the list and decide whether to offer their input.
3. the tagging is picked up by the WP:Article alerts system, which generates notifications for any WikiProject which has placed is banner on the talk page of the article concerned
4. the discussion remains open for at least 7 days
5. the discussion is closed by an uninvolved editor according to established guidelines.

This Australian case

In this case, there was a discussion at WP:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Australian_women_categories, which had none of those five characteristics: no tagging of the pages under discussion; discussion not at one of the central XFD venues; no article alerts; discussion lasted only about one day before categories were depopulated in a long series of edits by User:Chris.sherlock: see the relevant contribs.

This is outrageous. A significant category tree has been removed by discussion between only 4 editors, without using any of the established processes, and with zero notification. Editors who monitor WP:CFD will be unaware of this discussion; worst of all Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Women writers had no indication.

It should be mass-reverted, and if anyone wants to pursue this idea, then they should use the established process: WP:CFD.

In addition, sanctions should be considered against User:Chris.sherlock, whose statements are repeatedly problematic:

• Counterfactual assertion: in Australia we don’t have an occupation of “Australian women writers”. Fact: scholarly sources disagree: see e.g. 128 hits on JSTOR for "Australian women writers". This is important per WP:EGRS#Special_subcategories: "the basic criterion for such a category is whether the topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources". There is at least a prima facie case that scholars do find this a significant topic.
• WP:OWNership and a rejection of WP:LOCALCON: It appears a few uninvolved parties have decided that we, as a bunch of Australians, don't know how to structure categories around Australia. They have been reverting the changes we agreed on. WikiProjects do not own the articles within their scope, and there is absolutely no basis in policy for Chris.sherlock's view that these decisions should be made only by a group of Australian editors with zero notification ... and it is especially disruptive to try to assert some sort of nationalist basis for a decision, to the exclusion of e.g. WP:WikiProject Women writers, who editors would likely have something to say about this.
• WP:LOCALCON rejection of WP:EGRS: The issue is that we don't want Australian women + occupation. That's appalling: "we" in this case is 4 editors who have made decided at WP:AWNB#Australian_women_categories that all the nuances set out in WP:EGRS and applied by long discussions at CFD over many years, with broad community input, can be overridden for Australia by 4 editors in an un-notified huddle with zero evidence to support the dogmatic assertion of Australian exceptionalism.

I am also horrified by Chris.sherlock' hostile responses to User:DuncanHill, who has quite properly being trying to uphold long-established process.

I suggest a mass reversion of Chris.sherlock's recent categorisation edits. Crating and populating these categories has involved many many hours of work by many editors over a decade or more. It is outrageous that they have been depopulated on the basis of unividenced assertions by a small group who appear to reject both a long-established guideline and the established consensus-forming processes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

This move came out of an ill-advised compromise attempt in relation to an entirely different category issue discussed at WP:AWNB and (unwisely) rapidly implemented in an attempt (which, as one of those "four editors" I expressed no opinion on since I vaguely preferred the status quo). I suspect the non-use of WP:CFD by Chris was a more an issue of forgetting the right process, given that he has long been absent from Misplaced Pages until relatively recently. He's tried to come to a compromise resolution to a dispute with one editor who he was in a disagreement with, and inadvertently stumbled into a wider issue he hadn't been aware of, unintentionally antagonising some other people in the process. As I said above, the instant-nuclear approach here is really unhelpful: he's clearly offended some sensibilities he didn't even know existed, Duncan seems to have some sort of longstanding issue with Chris that is motivating an unduly aggressive response here, and it's easy enough to discuss the issue, undo the depopulation, and take it back to WP:CFD if anyone still thinks that's the right way to proceed. I suspect, with some further discussion, the answer to that last question might be "no", for all the grand accusations of "rejecting long-established guidelines" - he was just trying to find a mutual agreement with a difficult local editor and probably went the wrong way with it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: I think you've mistaken the sequence of events. Chris was bold, I reverted, Chris did not discuss but re-reverted. I raised the issue on Chris's talkpage and he told me to go away. It was only then that I came here. There was no "instant nuclear" or "unduly aggressive" response from me. I have consistently said the right thing to do is to go to WP:CFD and frankly that is ALL I want here. Your insinuations about my motivations and mis-representation of my actions are uncalled for. DuncanHill (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that he told you to go away because you've got some intense prior history (which is clear from your own comments to him if nothing else). This is something that seems to be to be extremely easily resolvable if everyone dials back on the aggro - there's been some misunderstandings in a few different directions, but I don't think there's actually much of an underlying substantive dispute underneath that aggro if people talk it through. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

So when he told me to go away after I asked him to use WP:CFD, and threatened to take me to ArbCom, what do you think I should have done? Nice of you to apologise for misrepresenting my actions, by the way. Oh, you didn't. I think that makes your position rather clearer. DuncanHill (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @The Drover's Wife: the aggro mostly comes from you and User:Chris.sherlock.

The substantive dispute is about the fact that User:Chris.sherlock has emptied a whole bunch of categories without using the established process (i.e. CFD) ... and that Chris.sherlock ignored requests from multiple editors to stop this. (See e.g. User:14GTR ; User:DuncanHill: ; User:SlimVirgin (aka SarahSV): )

The aggression here consists primarily of User:Chris.sherlock acting outside process, ignoring requests to sop, and asserting some sort of Aussie exceptionalism as justification for doing this. There is secondary aggression from The Drover's Wife, who appears to be trying to gaslight the objectors, and in particular seems to be engaged in a shoddy smear campaign against DuncanHill.

The solution is simple: restore the status quo ante by reverting Chris.sherlock's edits, as DuncanHill was trying to do ... then anyone who wants a change can open a discussion at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that's the obvious way to proceed, yes - but the general aggro in all directions is making that resolution more difficult. Duncan, you're making the argument that you and Chris probably need an interaction ban (however that be implemented) all for yourself. If you'd stepped back and let someone like SV with less personal history try to deal with this, it probably could've been resolved a whole lot easier for everyone. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I am making no such argument, please stop misrepresenting what I have said. DuncanHill (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife, please stop your repeated misrepresentations of @DuncanHill. As I noted above, other editors did try to resolve the issue, but Chris brushed them off. So Duncan acted quite properly by taking the issue to ANI.

Your are making repeated efforts to turn the heat on Duncan, and deflect away from User:Chris.sherlock's disruption. DuncanHill has acted entirely properly here, so please stop shooting the messenger. Your persistent smearing of Duncan reinforces the strong impression that you are trying to create trouble for an editor who has done the right thing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not playing this game. These two editors clearly have a long negative history and great difficulty interacting in a helpful way, which has obviously contributed to this getting unnecessarily messy. This much is obvious from this thread, and lashing out at me for pointing it out doesn't make it any less true an observation. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, The Drover's Wife: throughout this discussion you been playing a nasty game of repeatedly making false accusations against DuncanHill. Duncan has done this by the book, but you are trying to make Duncan responsible for Chris's anger management issues and Chris's repeated dismissals of established process. That is gaslighting, which is a thoroughly nasty practice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• List at WP:CfD. CfD is a funny place, but don’t by intimidated. It may appear to be run by a clique, but on examination they are having long running arguments with themselves in jargon. A new clique of four who are agreed on wanting to do something on the categorisation of Australian women might overwhelm the CfD clique. Or, the CfD clique might make an unexpected interesting suggestion on an alternative way of doing things. Bigger picture, CfD needs more diverse participants. This is a categorisation discussion. Everyone interested should go to CfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I'm completely uninvolved with this, but there are two aspects here. 1) A content dispute and 2) a conduct dispute arising from it. The correct way forward regarding the content dispute, according to every policy and guideline I could cite, is to discus it at the appropriate forum. In the case of proposed changes to a category tree that is WP:CFD with notifications on the relevant categories and to relevant WikiProjects. The speedy deletion criterion for empty categories explicitly only applies to categories that have been empty for 7 days. All speedy deletion criteria apply only to uncontroversial cases, when there is a good faith objection from an uninvolved editor that means it is not uncontroversial, even more so from multiple uninvolved users. Making edits for the sole purpose of making a page or pages qualify for a speedy deletion criterion it otherwise not do is also against very long standing practice and consensus (I've been around CSD for the best part of 15 years and it predates my involvement). So the status quo ante should be restored and matters discussed at CFD (to make it clear I have no preference about the relevant categories, but whether they are kept, deleted or anything else needs to be decided by a wide consensus). Relevant policies and guidelines include WP:FAITACCOMPLI, WP:BRD and WP:EW.
  Regarding the content dispute, I'm frankly appalled by the behaviour of Chris.Sherlock - new editors have been indeffed for far less than this, so for an experienced editor to behave in this manner is frankly atrocious and at the very least needs a final warning that any more edit warring, personal attacks or refusal to engage in discussion will result in blocks. Drovers Wife should be strongly warned that their behaviour here is also inappropriate. I'm not sure if they are intentionally attempting to gaslight other editors, but based on the evidence presented here I cannot rule it out. I don't know Duncan Hill's history, but I see no evidence in this dispute of them harassing anybody or violating content policies with regards to these categories. Thryduulf (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• I agree fully with BrownHairedGirl. Emptying a category without discussion and then proposing that the category should be deleted is the height of circumventing the proper and transparent process for disputing the existence of a category. Edits to that effect should be mass-reverted so that the requisite discussion can take place. BD2412 T 00:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with both of you the content issue (though I do think it was a case of not remembering the proper process rather than intentionally trying to subvert anything). @Thryduulf:, as an editor who hasn't interacted with anyone else in this thread besides Chris before, I formed opinions of the behaviour I've seen in the above thread - threatening editors for coming to a different conclusion about the behaviour of others and suggesting that they de-escalate said behaviour is completely inappropriate. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:55, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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/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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's narrow definition. ‑ Iridescent 18:35, 21 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 22:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I disabled it on English Misplaced Pages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Disruptive single purpose account at ImeIme Umana

At ImeIme Umana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) an account called Umana stolemoney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is persistently adding BLP violations to the article, including claims she is related to a criminal with the same surname (unverified) and how at school she did not work rather than blatantly blame institutional racism for all of their woes. I don't think it's much of a stretch to say someone with that username editing that article isn't here in good faith. FDW777 (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree; blocked indefinitely. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

SPA tags on people that disagree with you

Recently BD2412 went though and mass tagged SeriousIndividuals on Talk:Joe Biden here. This was reverted by SeriousIndividuals and then re-added by Muboshgu here citing Nope. Tag is appropriate. Added by an admin. After some discussion on Muboshgu's talk page I removed the tags here citing reverting challenged unhelpful tag shaming by opposition. Please stop edit warring over a user essay. which was immediately reverted by AzureCitizen here saying revert removal of valid WP:SPA tags. My issue is that the tags server no purpose other than tag shamming the individual and that it was inappropriate for BD2412 to go though and tag someone that they disagree with and has had previous issues with the Joe Biden pages in general shown here. Even per {{Single-purpose account}}, a comment should not be dismissed merely because it comes from a new account so if the tags are objected to why edit war them in? If there is a concern they are a sock, take them to SPI, otherwise it is not helpful. PackMecEng (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I have applied {{SPA}} tags literally hundreds of times, in all kinds of discussions, whether I agreed with the editor or not. I tagged an IP SPA that agreed with me in a discussion last week! The tag exists for a reason - because new accounts are known to suddenly pop up to aggressively press a position, whether it be to score a political point or to dispute the deletion of a non-notable business. This is a case clearly illustrative of that. User:SeriousIndividuals appeared on Misplaced Pages less than a week ago, and has done virtually nothing except opine in discussions on a highly contentious topic. Of course this is suspicious activity, and should be tagged as such, just as if the participation was in an AfD for a garage band or on a move request for a company to its assertedly preferred name. BD2412 T 22:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The issues that come up are WP:BITE and what does it actually achieve? Again if you think they are a sock take them to SPI, if they are disruptive block them or take them here. Just tagging does not and cannot actually achieve anything positive by itself. PackMecEng (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, they serve the purpose of alerting admins to examine a discussion more carefully and to consider whether to start a WP:SPI. There are probably other reasons I'm not thinking of but I am being called away. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 23:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

This is also an interesting question - is there a prior discussion that states the authority of users to enforce individual SPA tags? Nosebagbear (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hard to say, I have not seen anything definitive but it is just a user essay. PackMecEng (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That is not really the purpose of the template though. Even in this situation it says Unless there are multiple new accounts or IPs voicing the same opinion (a typical sign of sock puppetry), there is probably no need to use this template; the user should probably be addressed personally instead. Which was not the case here and no talk was had before hand. PackMecEng (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, I've been wondering about this SPA tag for a while now. When I was new editor, I was accused of being a SPA, (I thought they misspelled spy) but I definitely am not. I'm all over the place on WP - all the way to Commons - but I do know we have veteran editors who appear to be SPAs in that they only edit certain articles in a particular topic area...like AP2, or GMOs, or CAM, etc. We don't tag them and if my memory serves, we have had long time editors showing up with 5 or 6 accounts and ivoting. Anonymity is a dilemma, but I think we should probably AGF first. Having said that, I have drawn attention to new editors who show up at an RfC - and in small text I will note that they have 4 edits total...or something along that line. I wouldn't doubt that we have lots of editors who prefer not to be known for taking a political position so they'll use a safe name - that's legal isn't it - as long as they don't abuse it? _Talk 📧 23:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

By "use a safe name" do you mean to edit with multiple accounts, without disclosing a connection between those accounts? BD2412 T 23:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

We routinely use SPA tags when single purpose accounts WP:PRECOCIOUSLY jump right into the middle of RfCs, AfDs, etc. having done none, or very little, editing elsewhere. Given the canvassing, sock puppetry, and meat puppetry, at articles involving high profile individual in American politics, this should be uncontroversial. In almost every case, no one should remove a SPA tag that was placed in good faith. To do so is disruptive and ultimately works against our purpose. - MrX 🖋 23:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

When you say "no one should remove a SPA tag that was placed good faith," is that your personal view or is there some kind of rule that says you can't remove people's tags? I'm genuinely asking, and nobody seems to have an answer. SeriousIndividuals (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me, PackMecEng. I brought my concerns to Muboshgu's talk page here but never got an answer to my questions unfortunately. I was disturbed to see that BD2412 chose to return to editing Joe Biden articles less than a week after agreeing to stop doing so, but I mainly just wanted to know if Muboshgu's justification for the tagging (B2412 is an "admin") was legitimate, and if I was permitted to revert Muboshgu's reversion of my reversion. Muboshgu nor BD2412 ever gave me an answer. My main beef here is that I feel like these tags are designed to undermine views with which BD2412 disagrees. I asked to be pointed to the policy page that says that I'm not allowed to delete these tags, but neither admin answered this question. I feel like it would have been much easier to help me understand the regulations behind tagging people's edits and whether admins have special privileges to do so, rather than simply use the "admin" title as a cudgel to intimidate me into keeping my views to myself. SeriousIndividuals (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The tags alert editors that there is reason to suspect that the account perhaps didn't come to Misplaced Pages to help build an encyclopedia, but rather for advocacy or some other purpose that is contrary to Misplaced Pages's purpose. Weren't you the user who had a new IP address every time you commented, and who's contributions were focused including Tara Reade's allegations in the Joe Biden bio? - MrX 🖋 23:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, the assertion that I somehow agreed to stop editing articles relating to Joe Biden is false. Moreover, SeriousIndividuals knows that this is false, because he protested on Muboshgu's talk page that the addition of SPA tags was an administrative action, and it was clearly explained to him there that this was a regular editing action. This should be dealt with accordingly. I should add that I have no allegiance to any political party, and that can be well-attested to my lengthy history of contributions with respect to politicians of all parties. BD2412 T 23:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and then you reported me to the admins trying to argue that I was some kind of "vandal" (clearly false), attempted to dehumanize Ms. Reade as nothing more than a "staffer," claimed you "don't much care about Misplaced Pages," and were told to disengage. Clearly, this instruction wasn't sufficient because you're still campaigning to undermine my views almost two weeks later. SeriousIndividuals (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• FWIW I recently had this disagreement in an RFC where I was the one placing SPA tags and others were removing them, to which I objected. My feeling on the matter is that it's covered by WP:TPG. If an editor posts This editor is an SPA. ~~~~, others may disagree, but if someone who disagreed removed that comment, it would be a violation of TPG. I think writing {{spa}} ~~~~ is the same thing, and this shouldn't be removed. If someone is habitually making improper tags, that's the same as someone habitually casting aspersions, and should be handled in similar fashion. Having recently had this argument elsewhere, I've looked all over, and could not find any policy or guideline or anything documenting global consensus on this issue. Levivich  23:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I'll add that I think one tag per account per thread is sufficient. Tagging each and every comment an SPA makes in the same thread seems excessive and distracting. Levivich  00:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment: placing != plastering. In a single coherent thread, there is little reason to add a tag multiple times. Next, as alluded to above, there are a good number of ....”regulars” who are, when all is said and done, SPAs; they just have a longer history, which has allowed that narrow focus multiple targets. Cirt’s many later manifestations, for example, were (are?) political SPA accounts.

This isn’t, say, an AfD where the subject has alerted his friends, or borrowed their computers.

There may, of course, be other issues: canvassing, sockpuppetry, meat-puppetry, &cet. but the narrow POV problems being highlighted are every bit as big a problem when somewhen has done it a few thousand times. Larger, in fact. Qwirkle (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• BD2412 shouldn't have added that tag multiple times, after every comment made by SeriousIndividuals. It seems like BD2412 was acting in bad-faith here by trying to call an editor muliple times a "single purpose account". This admin has been warned before about using used his admin tools where he is clearly involved. I am not sure but I think this can be brought to WP:AE.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @SharabSalam: This is incorrect. I have not been "warned"; I protected a page and then voluntarily initiated a discussion here to seek evaluation of that page protection, and to advocate for protecting articles on all candidates and campaigns. I therefore request that you strike that incorrect statement. Also, I have not used any admin tools on any related pages following that discussion. BD2412 T 00:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I think the concern here is that Muboshgu reinstated your edit that had already been reverted, and seemed to imply that non-admins weren't permitted to revert admins by pointing out your status as an admin. Did you also lock the Donald Trump presidential campaign article through the November election, or was it just Joe Biden's campaign page? SeriousIndividuals (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
      • I advocated for locking both. The community had no appetite for that step. BD2412 T 00:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I have strikes "warned". You have used your admin tools in articles where you are clearly involved. You have called an editor in that discussion a single purpose account under every single comment he has made. You should apologize to SeriousIndividuals and remove all of your comments except the one under the !vote.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
      • I tagged the SPA where the SPA was being an SPA. Under what policy or guideline is that incorrect? BD2412 T 00:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
        • BD2412, You have violated multiple guidelines here. You have repeated your comment that this editor is a single purpose account under every comment he has made. See WP:TALK Avoid repeating your posts: Your fellow editors can read your prior posts, so repeating them wastes time and space and may be considered WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion. Your repeated, unneeded, unproductive comments make me thinks that you are trying to bite newcomers, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account. Besides, it is discouraged to label any editor with such invidious titles during a dispute (see Misplaced Pages:Don't call a spade a spade). WP:BITE.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not particularly seeing the problem here. BD2412 did what we regularly do in contentious discussions, which is single out SPA POV pushing accounts. Such accounts are often vociferous on a single topic, but aren't engaged anywhere else, a sign of POV pushing, or sometimes shenanigans. Thus tagging them as SPA is a totally legit step. If there is any issue, it lies not with BD2412, but with the template itself. I see no misconduct from BD, and think that we ought not focus on them here. If there are concerns about how we use the SPA tag, then we probably need an RfC about how to use the tag, since we seem to be short on official guidance. CaptainEek ⚓ 00:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

JOJOJOJO1234567890

• JOJOJOJO1234567890 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Needs an indef. Only creation is User:JOJOJOJO1234567890/sandbox, a nonsense sandbox rant about a fake avengers movie. Once it got declined, they posted this legal threat. Hardly doubt its serious, but also doubt there they're here to contribute meaningfully. CaptainEek ⚓ 00:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards