Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution 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)
Start a new discussion

Repeated problems with Walter Görlitz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment @Adamant1: Please provide diffs for the claimed misconduct. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Gospel Music Association and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Gospel Museum and Hall of Fame, where they derisively refer to the latter as merely 'a room'. My vote! that a hall of fame and organization for a well-known genre of music were notable and they need to find better sources was viciously taken apart in a way that's chilled me from commenting any further (and note that I'm hardly a hardcore Christian, I just argued that deep sourcing should be very easy to find for a Southern Gospel topic and they think that, along with simply reminding the nom that the SGMA isn't a company but a non-profit, is a 'totally trash' reason for a keep vote!.). I can see why Walter has taken issue with the OP's tone, because I never want to deal with them again myself. Again, no further comment, so don't bother with a ping, just my experience with the OP. And just looking at this summary on Bethel, it explains succinctly why it was a rare error on my part to comment on an AfD they created. Nate • (chatter) 21:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• 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 (([1], [2], [3]). He doesn't seem like a bad editor, per se, but frankly, I'm surprised that he hasn't been hit with a 1RR yet. Cryptic Canadian 03:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
  • 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 [4]. Here he restored material which is simply not supported by the cited source. Then he did it again [5]. I have no idea if it is related to one specific subject or something more broad. My very best wishes (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Rock music. Seriously.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

User with no contributions to mainspace

• Florin747 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Florin747 joined Wikipedia in 2017 after apparently some time as an IP editor. Since then, he has edited his user page, user talk, sandbox, and reference desks. He is apparently a university student and posts a lot of "ideas" or "homework questions" and doesn't seem to constructively answer others' questions on said reference desks. He has never made an edit to mainspace, or really anything outside the spaces mentioned. His English literacy (as a Romanian) is idiosyncratic. I believe he is not here to build an encyclopedia. Elizium23 (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Well no-one else had edited his talk page prior to your notifying him of this discussion. Maybe there should be an attempt at dialogue there first.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Eh. There's a consensus that the refdesk should be part of our encyclopedia project (or, rather, a lack of consensus against), and we have some people that engage there and virtually nowhere else (on the question side and the answer side). As long as we're going to keep it around, that's going to happen, and it doesn't seem any more problematic than any other narrow-focused editor whose activities have little to do with the actual writing of articles. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

If someone uses Wikipedia a lot and registers an account in order to use the refdesk, I'm not sure I see a problem with that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

It's one thing if he's fielding questions and answering them, but it's a bit hinky when they all seem to be homework assignments he's posting for others to work out. Elizium23 (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

So what? It's okay if we have anonymous users copy-paste off the website for homework (who doesn't :) but registering an account to ask questions is THË BÌG BÃD? --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:VOLUNTARY is in point. Also, if they're taking now, someday they might give back. What's the problem? Narky Blert (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

There's no requirement to answer questions at the refdesk in order to be allowed to ask questions. If people don't want to help with the homework questions, nobody is forcing them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Why would the refdesk exist if you had to answer questions to ask questions Tsla1337 (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

While WP:NOTHERE is kind of a broad concept, in general it is only used against editors whose conduct is actually detrimental to Wikipedia in some way -- editors who are not here to build an encyclopedia but instead focused on some other malicious, destructive, or unethical conduct. Asking questions at the Refdesk doesn't seem to fall into the category for me, but I welcome any correction on that front. Michepman (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

CIR - SHISHIR DUA

I think we need a competency block for SHISHIR DUA (talk · contribs), an editor whose over-enthusiasm strays into disruptive. Some examples:

• A quick look at their deleted contribs shows they have created numerous non-notable/poorly thought out articles/categories which have been deleted.
• Recently, they have created identical categories in Category:Indian Super League coaches and then Category:Indian Super League managers, both of which actually duplicate an existing category (and are therefore now at CFD).
• They have incorrectly added categories to articles, such as this
• They have taken it upon themselves to launch an entirely new WikiProject (Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Super League), something which is already adequately covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/India task force, and also created a heap of associated templates and sub-articles ({{Strikers of ISL}}, Wikipedia:ISL/Strikers of ISL, {{User ISL Vice-Coordinator}} etc.) which will need to be deleted.

I, and others, find ourselves spending more and more time cleaning up after this editor. My previous attempt to reach out fell on deaf ears.

I suggest that unless serious and genuine assurances are given, SHISHIR DUA is blocked per CIR. GiantSnowman 16:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Please stop harassin' others by usin' administrative might. Everythin' is relevant SHISHIR DUA (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Everythin' is relevant is not a persuasive argument. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I think their response is a great example of their general attitude to Wikipedia. Doing what they want, refusing to listen or work with others - the antithesis of what Wikipedia is actually about. GiantSnowman 19:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

What I saw in their edits (5000 or so?) does not suggest CIR to me. They may have created a project and the attendant templates and categories, but this essentially conflates all your points: if they create this project because they think they are doing a noteworthy thing, it stands to reason that they would create the categories etc. to go with it. Now, that their comment here shows a lack of collegiality, which is essential to a collaborative project, doesn't mean they're a candidate for an indefinite block. But I am not the best person to ask them to stop being antagonistic. At the same time, going to ANI after one notification was ignored, that's a big step, and it seems to me that this should be taken up first at one of the soccer project pages--y'all have functioning projects, so use them. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Am I missing something? GS noted that the category they created already existed under a different name (Category:Indian Super League head coaches). They have created two new categories, which duplicate this one. Number 57 22:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

And list articles copied and retitled with the exact same duplicated list under different names, I've PROD'ed some which got deleted. It can be quite repetitive. Govvy (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Number 57, did you ask that of me? Because I'd ask whether we are seriously considering indeffing someone for creating a duplicate category. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I would agree that would be very strange to block them if the category were the only issue, but several other problems have been noted by GS and Govvy above. Number 57 11:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: what about the articles/categories that have been deleted? The comments from other editors which have fallen on deaf ears? The more this editor edits, the more mess we have to clean up. GiantSnowman 16:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds, Drmies, Number 57, and Govvy: this editor has today re-created Category:Greek Football Cup players, a category which they previously created and which was deleted by CFD only a week ago. This cannot continue. GiantSnowman 16:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Ugh, yeah, in that case a short block to get their attention is in order. They need to understand they cannot simply recreate deleted categories like that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

If somebody uninvolved could step in, that would be great... GiantSnowman 15:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• I've blocked them for 2 weeks, the next one should be indef, the refusal to engage (pure WP:IDHT), removal of notices, huge number of deleted creations, 2 weeks is pretty short imho but they do good work sometimes and maybe it's possible to fix the present issues without an indef. --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks @QEDK: - what would your suggestion be dealing with cleaning up some of their mess whilst they are blocked? eg I don't want to take the WikiProject they created to MFD whilst they are blocked because that looks sly, but it needs doing sooner rather than later... GiantSnowman 16:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: If it feels the project (and other pages) are WP:NOTHERE enough, you can choose to not wait - ethically might be not okay, but improvements to the encyclopedia are always worth WP:IARing over. --qedk (t 愛 c) 11:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

HHH Pedrigree

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.^{Hey yo!}_{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 ^{Fire Walk with Me} 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.^{Hey yo!}_{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.^{Hey yo!}_{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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia is irrelevant to that discussion. I have been on Wikipedia 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.^{Hey yo!}_{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.^{Hey yo!}_{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.^{Hey yo!}_{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.^{Hey yo!}_{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)

"Further reading" spam by User:MedievalSam1

The entire contribution history of MedievalSam1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been to add the book Cornwall, Connectivity and Identity to the further reading list of any article remotely related to Cornwall or Cornish history. Said book's author, one SJ Drake, appears to be a scholar of Cornish history of little impact (few citations of his few published works). This would appear to be a clear attempt to drive sales (or at least interest) in this book, which itself appears to have yet received no reviews from any major sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I came across this being added to articles on my watchlist. User:Cullen328 beat me to blocking him. Doug Weller talk 17:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, all this editor has done is to add this book to many Cornwall related articles. Nothing else. So, I blocked the account for spamming/advertising. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

They were overzealous in adding it to further reading sections, but the book does seem relevant to some of those articles such as culture of Cornwall. The book is published by Boydell & Brewer so very likely to be good quality. They were asked to stop at 18:06 and haven't edited since so I'm not convinced that a block is needed at this stage. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell: I did some checking into the book's author and publisher before posting this thread; I recognize they are a reputable publisher, but the book itself does not appear to be a significant volume, nor does the author appear to be a significant authority. Now, this may have to do with the fact that the material is rather specialized (medieval history of Cornwall), but between the unknown value of the book and the clearly promotional intentions of the editor, I can't recommend restoring the book as a further reading source, but I'll defer to others who may be more knowledgeable of this particular niche topic. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Your estimation of significance is based on the fact you couldn't find any reviews, which given the book was only published in November is hardly surprising. A browse of its pages shows that it contains lots of information about Cornish history. I wouldn't rely too strongly on Google Scholar, its coverage of history and archaeology is patchy at best and will not give the full picture. In future can we please look for healthier snacks than the newbies. Perhaps someone who took the time to think where the book was relevant could have been persuaded to add some text, but instead we all seem to be in a rush to see who can show them the door first. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It could be an enthusiastic new editor who happens to have picked up the book, or it could be someone sneakily promoting the book. There's no way to know with the available data. Personally, I'd err on the side of AGF and recommend unblock + discuss with the user. creffett (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Nothing in life is free from problems, and the same applies at Wikipedia. If someone looks like a promotion-only-account, and adds spam as if they were a promotion-only-account, they should be blocked to avoid wasting other editors time. We see such accounts all the time. Johnuniq (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, Good block, this is WP:REFSPAM. If he engages on Talk, we can unblock. Guy (help!) 10:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I tend to concur with Creffett: unblock and engage, I think the block is overkill at this point. I agree with Richard's assessment that this book is likely to be of scholarly value, and relevant in at least some of these sections. That said, this is also a poor way for an academic author to go about engaging with Wikipedia; there are a great many people who could make claims of equal merit to add their monograph etc. to a "Further Reading" section here, and we aren't a directory of links. Using it organically as a reference to support unreferenced material in existing articles, or expand them further, benefits both the encyclopedia and the author. Choess (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

My block was based on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, specifically the section reached by the shortcut WP:SELFCITE, that says "adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming." I think the reasonable presumption given the username and the behavior, is that this editor is probably the author. This editor added links to this book to over 40 Cornwall-related articles without adding or improving any content whatsoever. If it had been a handful, I would have left a friendly expression of concern. I consider this overt spamming which is why I blocked but I now see that other editors disagree. So, if any administrator wants to unblock with conditions, I will not object. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

If someone is able to unblock MedievalSam1, I am happy to walk them through the editing process and talk to them about conflict of interests. Richard Nevell (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The user made 41 edits in 90 minutes, each to add spam. They have not made any other edit since then (17:06, 15 April 2020). Anyone believing they will turn out that around should post on the user's talk explaining what the problem is, and offering whatever help they think appropriate. Ask if they would like to improve any articles, and offer to help them achieve that. With a suitable assurance, an unblock appeal would be successful. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive renaming of several pages

Hayq11 (talk · contribs) shows a highly disruptive behavior by renaming several pages of medieval Armenian authors, including Mesrop Mashtots and many others from their widely-accepted English names (e.g. Mesrop Mashtots) to ones with diacritics (e.g. Mesrop Maštocʻ) used in academic literature without any discussion whatsoever. Please revert his arbitrary moving of pages. ----Երևանցի ^talk 09:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism of Pashtun pages

• Kami2018 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, I'm writing this message here to draw the attention to activities of one of the users who goes by the name kami2018. This (kami2018) account engages in war edits. I have observed that whenever any user reverts his edits or makes changes to the edits he has made such as in the case Bangash or Ahmadzai (wazir clan) Kami2018 not only reverts them but also uses rather an aggressive tone in info bar. For example he made an edit to Ahmadzai (wazir clan) writing that '[this tribe] lives on border between Birman valley and Kurram valley' even though the source explicitly mentions that Ahmadzai were originally based in Birman valley. You can check the source by typing in Ahmadzai in the search bar & download the doc. This was reverted later by Yamaguchi (another Administrator on WP). But this is one example of his nonsensical behavior. He has done the same to the page of Bangash tribe. According to the attached (Iranica encyclopedia) reference they were settled in gardez in Afghanistan until 10 CE. Afterwards they migrated to their current location in Kurram valley. But because it was changed by an IP citing the reason that the source mentions Gardez,(which it does, please look that up) and that 'Gardez' was removed by 'Saladin1987' (now a banned user), Kami2018 (who, it appears, previously operated under the username 'saladin1987') reverted the edit. Kami2018 continues to use WP platform to promote his own personal opinions, which are by any account biased and obviously nationalistic (anti Afghan and pro Pakistan). He randomly removes 'Afghan' "Afghanistan" and Iranic peoples" and other such terms related to Afghans/Pashtuns/Afghanistan from articles and inserts 'Pakistan' even if the doesn't mention Pakistan. He has been warned multiple times on his talk page User_talk:Kami2018 multiple times for his disruptive behaviour. He continues to remove those messages of warning but I'm sure administrators here can look into that. Furthermore, many of his edits as I have checked are reverted and he has been warned already. I dont know who to reach out to so I'm writing here. (because I dont know the technical aspects of using WP which is why I haven't formally joined this community.) I request you to PLEASE look into this and take an action! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.50.95.62 (talk • contribs) @ 21:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Kansas Bear: You seem to be familar with Kami2018. Can you elaborate a little better?--v/r - TP 23:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • It seems that Kami2018 has been editing with a pro-Pakistan POV based on his edits but I don't know enough about the topic area to judge adequately.--v/r - TP 23:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

In response to TParis.

Kami2018 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I investigated Kami2018's editing following the IP's post on my talk page. Following a cursory inquiry into Kami2018's editing, I found Kami2018 had added "Kurram Valley" to a referenced sentence.

Copied from Kami2018's talk page:

"Do you have a source for this edit of yours?

• "...Kurram Valley of present Pakistan, where they were still living as of the Ghaznavids period (975 to 1187)."

The source states:

• "The ethnogenesis of the Bangaṧ, therefore, seems both to be religious and to be located in the Gardīz region during the Ghaznavid period. Later on the Bangaṧ, who were then expelled from their mountain den by the Ḡelzī during Tīmūr’s invasions, crossed the Paywār pass and progressively moved into the upper Korram basin on the eastern slopes of the Solaymān mountains."

"Therefore, the Bangas were not in the Korram basin until after Timur's invasion. Do you have a source stating otherwise?"

"AND, why did you remove referenced information along with the reference from this article?"

I have not received a response from Kami2018 at this time. Essentially, Kami2018 has added unsupported information to a sourced sentence and removed reference information and a reference from another article. I have not checked on the other allegations made by the IP. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

More from IP101.50.95.62

Please read further as I provide proof of kami2018's disruptive behaviour.

There are many more examples of Kami2018 adding information without adding a source:

• Here to Dir district page he added info without adding a credible reference (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/949559929). This edit was reverted later by another administrator.

• Here Kami2018 inserts 'Pakistan' to the page on Jalalzai tribe of Pashtuns, when the cited reference doesn't even mention Pakistan (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/949559635). This edit was reverted by Yamaguchi (his page is here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Yamaguchi先生&action=view)

• An another example is of the Sulaimankhel tribe where he again inserted Pakistan when the references cited do not mention Pakistan (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/949558073) this edit was reverted by Admin Yamaguchi. He also warns Kami2018 for his disruptive behaviour.

• Kami2018 did the same to the article on Barech Pashtun tribe ( here see this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/949558198). The cited sources DONOT mention Pakistan but Kami2018 added Pakistani cities to the article. This edit was reverted again by Yamaguchi.

• Here is yet another example of Kami2018 disrupting a Pashtun article. He added Pakistani cities to the article with out adding a reference. See here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/949558367) His edit was AGAIN reverted.

There are countless examples of Kami2018 adding info to Pashtun articles without adding reference or adding info contrary to what the cited reference states.

Also check out his talk page. See these examples of warning which Kami2018 removed from his talk page

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/951212271

• Here he blames an IP which he also mentioned earlier for removing content that was without reference. Kami2018 here is warned by Yamaguchi for doing that. Kami2018 gets personal with other users who revert his foul edits or add/remove information that Kami2018 doesn't approve of. (SEE here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/950382631)

• Yet another example of Kami2018 being admonished for his disruptive behaviour (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/950382595) Strangelt he removes all these warnings he receives.

• And here again yet another example (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/924691842)

At the end I would reiterate what I wrote earlier, Kami2018 is driven by his nationalistic instincts to remove information to disrupt WP articles on Pashtuns and Afghanistan. He is clearly anti-Afghan sentiments are visible through vandalism of Pashtun pages.

As an administrator I hope you will take action in light of examples I've provided you here.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.50.95.62 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Whatever IP has mentioned and is referring as sourced information is not always the case. Below are some of the articles where he keeps on removing sourced information and even the sources. He blames me for using foul language. I would appreciate if he could provide me with an example where i have used such language ? if you look at the following he keeps on adding Afghanistan in every article:

Amir Kror Suri - For this he keeps on adding that he established Ghorid Empire but ghurid dynasty was established by another Amir Suri. Please refer the language here [[11]]

Durrani - Keeps on removing Pakistan when Pakistan has the 70 percent Pashtun Population. Please refer [[12]] where he removes information without any reference. I am not involved in this edit.

Removing referenced information like "The cult of this god was primarily Hindu, though parallels have also been noted with pre-Buddhist religious and monarchy practices in Tibet and had Zoroastrian influence in its ritual" from Zunbils. Please refer [[13]] and [[14]] where he removed sourced content.

Kambojas - This IP user has been removing referenced information with multiple IP's. Please refer [[15]] where he removes sourced content

Muhammadzai (Hashtnagar) - They were originally said to have resided in Afghanistan - Now the source does not mention this at all but he has added it. Please refer [[16]]. This was the original content.

Turi (Pashtun tribe)] - He keeps on adding Khogyani without any reference when under Pashtun tribes it is Karlani. Please refer [[17]] where he removes without any references

He has operated under multiple IP's 101.50.95.62 and 58.65.159.42

I would really appreciate if he could let me know where i have used abusive language or even became personal. He has been personal many times calling me Punjabi nationalist anti afghan Pakistani nationalist and giving me different names which can be seen in the history of his edits.

The most abusive language he has used is as of here where he is abusing Indians in general [[18]]. Anybody can use translation to translate the abuse hurled at the users and indians in general. Clearly we can see who uses abusive language here [[19]] and [[20]] and [[21]]. He abuses indian, Pakistani or even anybody while he reverts their edits. Following his unreferenced edits, i did revert some of his edits but nowhere i engaged in edit wars rather he has been abusive at several occasions. Whatever he adds or removes is without references. I havent added anything myself rather i did revert some of his edits to the original wording before he removed stuff without explaination. Here we can clearly see the language he uses while he reverts the edits. [[22]] and [[23]]

I would greatly appreciate if he could provide me any link where i have been abusive. Kami2018 (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Kami2018 (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kansas Bear, as you mentioned :::"AND, why did you remove referenced information along with the reference from this article?", i basically didn't add any information rather reverted the article back to the original content as seen here [[24]]. Many of the edits by the IP were actually reverted due to copyright issue as can be seen here [[25]] and i just changed the article back to original content as it was here [[26]].

In relation to the Bangash i changed the article to original content as can be seen here [[27]]. I did not add anything myself and i might have not looked at the reference. But by looking at the history of the IP edits here [[28]] where he is clearly abusing Indians no constructive edits can be imagined. Anybody can use translation to translate the abuse hurled at the users and indians in generalKami2018 (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

To begin with I never called Kami2018 a Punjabi nationalist. Perhaps that's how he identifies himself but I've never called him that.

The question here is the disruptive behaviour of Kami2018. If his edits were correct then why were they reverted? The activities of the said IP is not under scrutiny here. The behaviour of kami2018 is. He should provide reason why he made those foul edits which were reverted. I have provided proof here. kami2018 has already been warned for edit war by Kansas Bear. Please check this out: (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/905422999). This warning was removed by Kami2018.

Also here I would like to say that kami2018 used this account ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:2605:6000:8B06:D100:C8E2:6E98:17C8:915E) to edit Ahmadzai (Wazir) page. Please see below:

(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/941110583)

And then he re-edited the page see here: (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/942680894). I believe Kami2018 operated under this ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:2605:6000:8B06:D100:C8E2:6E98:17C8:915E). Please look into this.

As for allegations of Kami2018 towards IP, all those allegations have already been addressed on the page of Kansas Bear. But there are addressed below.

• First off, Muhammadzai (Hashtnagar) page that kami2018 talks about is absolutely wrong. The cited source mentions 'Khorasan' in modern day Afghanistan, (read the last paragraph of the page 883 of this reference in the article: [29] please check that there is NO mention of Zhob or any other Pakistani city). This was changed to ' Zhob' Pakistan by 'Saladin1987' years ago. The edit by Saladin1987 (now banned and apparently active under a new user name that is I believe is kami2018) was reverted. But Kami2018 re-added the false info. Why? I request you to read the source yourself. The source mentions (Khorasan) - modern day Afghanistan.

• As far as Amir Kror Suri is concerned, he was a legendary figure in Pashtun folklore (not a real Amir Suri) in Ghor and he has been called 'King of Ghor' in the Pashtun epic Pata Khazana. Ofcourse Amir Kror Suri and Amor Suri are not the same because Amir Suri was the actual ruler from Ghor who went on to establish Ghorid Empire in 8 CE. This is written in the very next sentence only if Kami2018 had bothered to read that.

• Furthermore Kami2018 mentions Durrani tribe of Pashtuns. Sir, Durranis, historically known as Abdali, are primarily found in southern Afghanistan which is mentioned in the very article and a reference is cited as well ( look at the intro paragraph). Anyone can read that. Just to brief you a little. The two major tribal confederates among Pashtuns are Ghilzais and Durranis who are primarily found in Afghanistan, NOT Pakistan. The so called '70%' Pashtuns living in Pakistan has nothing to do with the tribal division between Afghanistan and Pakistan. If you're interested to know further, you can read up on this.

• BUT that's not it. Kami2018 uses his account to vandalize other pages. See here

(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/942685227) by adding Pakistan without a reference.

• Here to this page Afghans in Pakistan Kami2018 changed the figures when in fact it was correct. The information was RESTORED and Kami2018's edits were reverted. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/923846336)

• Kami2018 added an unsourced category (Punjabi category) to the Katoch page here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/924647323 , which was reverted by yet another editor, see here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/924691816

• Similarly Kami2018 removed 'Afghan' from this page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/911485282) when in fact the article states that Shamsuddin Ilyas Shah came from Sistan in modern-day Iran and "Afghanistan". The question is why was it removed by kami2018. The information however, was restored to include iran & Afghanistan.

• Similraly to punjabi qisse, Kami2018 removed Afghanistan when it actually was in that article long before. Kami2018 removed Afghanistan without any explanation. The reference no longer exists, but kami2018 still removed Afghanistan from the page. Why?

I request the admin here to check out his talk page where he has been warned multiple times of his disruptive behaviour.

The question here is Kami2018's behavioir so why is he justifying his behaviour by pointing out what other accounts do. As far as I see, the edits made by IP were restored by Yamaguchi while the edits made by kami2018 were reverted. Why?

I reiterate what I wrote earlier, kami2018 edits pages with pro-Pakistan POV. Please look into his account and take an action.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.50.95.62 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

To Answer a few questions here as i have other stuff to do:

• Muhammadzai (Hashtnagar) page that kami2018 talks about is absolutely wrong. The cited source mentions 'Khorasan' in modern day Afghanistan,

As you yourself mentioned that you added Afghanistan but the source says Khorasan. Please refer here Greater Khorasan to see how many countries are part of Khorasan.

• Here to this page Afghans in Pakistan Kami2018 changed the figures when in fact it was correct. The information was RESTORED and Kami2018's edits were reverted. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/923846336)

The source that you are referring to actually supports the numbers which i added Please compare this edit [[30]] with the source [[31]]

• Similarly Kami2018 removed 'Afghan' from this page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/911485282) when in fact the article states that Shamsuddin Ilyas Shah came from Sistan in modern-day Iran and "Afghanistan". The question is why was it removed by kami2018. The information however, was restored to include iran & Afghanistan.

So here you yourself contradict yourself by calling Sistan a part of Iran and Afghanistan. But then Specically Sistani "Afghan" was added to prove linkage to Afghanistan. Please refer [[32]]

These are a few answers to the IP who has been using abuse language towards me and other users. I have previously provided some examples and links to his comments related to race and ethnicity of other users. Kami2018 (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Mavi Gözlü Kel

As previous ban expired, the same user reinstated the same edits + tons of new questionable edits[33] --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~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail:@Oshwah: Well, after initial reverts he just wrote "fck u" on my talk page[34] (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 Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 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 [[AN thread that Slugger pointed to. Elizium had come there requesting a one-way i-ban on himself, which is a request that I think would normally get accepted without much fuss... but Contaldo chose to weigh in for some reason, to paint himself as a victim for this. I wouldn't even have known of the thread if he had not suggested that I look at it, but when I then responded to the thread and his claims there, he has accused me of making him "feel harassed and intimidated" for being there. He is not playing well with others. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stop the Church

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

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

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

Talk:Epik (domain registrar)

As you value your life or your reason keep away from this talk page.

-EEng

A commenter at Talk:Epik (domain registrar) has asked Where are all of the other Wikipedia assistants who should be protecting their own platform here? Figured I'd help them out by putting their plea where the Wikipedia assistants would see it—I happen to agree that there needs to be more eyes on that page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this an NLT violation? M Imtiaz (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: Can I get an illustration appropriate for seeing the wall of text, rolling my eyes, and doing a u-turn out of the nonsense? Natureium (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I've issued an NLT block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

And to try to make the page a bit more readable, I've hatted a couple of long rants containing personal attacks and legal threats. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• I've reverted and blocked the latest sock/meat posting the same personal attacks against GorillaWarfare, and showing the same stylistic tells as all the others. There's clearly extensive socking and/or coordination going on here, so I've also semi-protected that page for 24 hours. As I have commented on the change proposal there, I'm trespassing on WP:Involved by taking admin actions. But I think the level of coordinated personal attacks justifies a bit of WP:IAR here, and I open my actions to any other admin to revert, endorse, whatever, as you see fit. Also, could any admins who can spare a little time please keep an eye on that page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

User:104.36.204.205 and lead sections of articles about actors

104.36.204.205 is adding information about the television series Banshee to the leads of literally every single article about actors who have appeared in that series. Per WP:AGF, this may simply be a fan at work, and I do not wish to violate 3RR by reverting this editor (I have reverted twice at Ben Cross, not only because the edits broke formatting but also because there is nothing sourced in the article to suggest that this is a series for which that actor is known). However, this does seem like single-purpose editing and the editor does not seem to be communicating about this despite my talk page messages. I'd appreciate other opinions and/or other sets of eyes on this. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Kinu - I agree that this is likely a misguided editor who is a fan of the TV show, and we should do our best to try and educate the user and avoid leaving any bite marks. That being said, the user's intent starts to become irrelevant if the disruptive editing continues despite repeated messages, warnings, and requests for it to stop. Regardless of whether or not the editing is being made in good faith vs bad faith, if the editing behavior is disruptive, repeated, and continues after being given a fair number of warnings and opportunities to cut it out, the user can be blocked in order to protect the project and prevent further disruption from occurring. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Oshwah. Seeing as how this editor refuses to communicate and is edit warring, I have temporarily blocked them. Like I said, I want to assume good faith, but the possibility that this is some sort of astroturfing campaign is still within the realm of possibility. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikihounding

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

---

I am very tired of dealing with User:Dennis Bratland, who I have requested to no longer engage nor address me on my user talk page numerous times, realizing that any commentary left by them is almost never meant to be genuinely constructive and is often a form of posturing for an audience. It comes as a method of antagonizing me and inserting themselves into matters that do not involve their input. Unlike others, this particular user seems invested in following me around and that of my edits, similar to another user in User:Sable932 (who does not litter my talk page). From my observation, it is borne out of a long held grudge over a statement "...American h**ks..." made by me in 2017, not being handled as they would've desired and a resulting complex from it. I am here to formally request, that User:Dennis Bratland no longer comments on my talk page without invitation, unless it concerns content-related matters such as mutual work on an article page or formal summons/notices.

I have no reason otherwise to address them and leave him to his own devices (positive or negative), so I suggest he does the same and only discuss project related matters. I left a TW warning on his page, because I am tired of being Wikihounded by the user in question, when I already requested they do not comment on my page anymore. I did not summon his input, because I don't care for unnecessary strife with him. The using of my talk page to posture for an attempt to goad me into leaving Wikipedia or others to do that legwork for him, is a form of unwelcome stalking and baiting me into an argument. Any issues I have nowadays with content, I limit to article talk pages, my own page, or edit summaries and if possible, @ the user in question. Outside of TWs, I respect others' talk pages and do not chime in. If this is deemed not worthwhile as a request, fair enough. I am just taking mediation action so I don't have to get my hands any dirtier and endlessly edit my talk page.--Carmaker1 (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to open an Incident report here to secure that request. It's your talk page, so if you say they're out, they're out. El_C 20:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response, but I have said that a number of times and nothing seems to happen, so I'm rather lost on what to do in that respect. He gets a kick out of leaving snarky comments on my page and antagonizing/baiting me in the process, knowing I won't report it. I am not asking for punishment of Bratland (it's not≠ warranted), but just a decision to be made via a more public forum. If you all want to close this that's fine.--Carmaker1 (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

On the broader "hounding" issue, I'm no admirer of Dennis Bratland, of whom my sole previous experience was this bizarre episode when I dared to close an AfD in a way with which he disagreed, but as far as I can see he's only made six comments on your talk in his entire history, only two of which were this year. Unless there's more going on elsewhere, I really can't see enough there to be construed as any kind of harassment or hounding. ‑ Iridescent 20:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I've made the request before to no longer comment on my page, as it would only spell unwelcome strife. He does so regardless. My request to "not comment" mostly originated from a previous AN/I discussion full of contentious statements by him (in addit. to clamoring for my dismissal) and what amounted to trying bait me on my talk page when that didn't succeed. Carmaker1 (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

"[C]reepy spanking porn!" El_C 21:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I assume a reference to File:Suspension-bb-lorelei-9016-jonwoods.jpg, which is one of the random images that cycle at the top of my talkpage. (That photo amuses me owing to the models' striking resemblance to Jimmy Wales and Lila Tretikoff.) ‑ Iridescent 21:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

LOL! El_C 21:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Ain't this tied up in a current Arbcom request case? GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Not really, this is because of a recent post he made to my talk page in the midst of that, instead of keeping any grievances to that ArbCom. It's just rather convenient for him to also be involved in that ArbCom too (which is fine), but yet disrespecting my request to not comment on my page. Considering the content, it is baiting. If I am an issue in any respect, a simple be respectful/civil wouldn't gather any outrage and would be genuinely constructive. His intent isn't to be that, but bait and dress down on as a personal attack.Carmaker1 (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, Carmaker1, I expect now they know, so that will settle that. Also, you were supposed to inform Dennis Bratland of this discussion about him. I have done that for you. El_C 21:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Very sorry about that, how forgetful of me. I figured I had forgotten to do that (using smartphone tablet).

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

ForzaItalia2020

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

---

User:ForzaItalia2020 is a very, very obvious sock of Sprayitchyo, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sprayitchyo. They are being a pest on my talk page, and I would appreciate some help. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. Sro23 (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Grayfell (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Civility issues with an editor

Can someone talk to User:Alex Devens about what's expected with civility? They've been blocked for WP:NPA issues in the past and just posted this bizarre rant at and AFD of there article that ended with the article being speedied [35]. Definitely an issue here. Previously block was this January, see the block log: [36]. I initiated the AfD, but I believe I'm otherwise uninvolved in this situation. Hog Farm (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked the user indefinitely, given this was an exceptionally blatant personal attack after they'd already been blocked for a month for what was, if anything, something significantly milder. I do not consider a user that's had multiple warnings and opportunities to stop doing this, but hasn't, to be capable of collaborating with others in this kind of project. I invite review if anyone thinks I'm being too harsh here. ~ mazca ^talk 00:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I endorse this block, and it would take a truly exceptional transformation for me to support an unblock. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:11, 19 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 ^talk 01:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Mazca, the issue is a WP:SPA edit-warring against consensus to include bloated lists of badly-sourced and non-notable awards. Guy (help!) 10:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: The reverting edit I made on the page wasn't "edit-warring against consensus to include bloated lists of badly-sourced and non-notable awards", and I have not added any new content to the article. As stated, I reverted an edit by a user who removed information for an incorrect reason, not because of the topic of non-notability that was previously discussed and that we reached consensus on. You also raised an issue with my edits on Lemonade (Beyoncé album), calling them "bloating of articles with relentless puffery", which, again, is completely false. I ask again for you to start a discussion on my talk page or on the article in question's talk page if you want to question my edits. Bgkc4444 (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

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 [37] 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 ^talk 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)

Sir Joseph interaction ban violation

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

---

Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sir Joseph is currently under a one-way IBAN on me. That follows this thread at ANI. Following a series of edits I made to WP:GS Sir Joseph decided to object to my actions by asking another administrator about the propriety of having the change discussed at AN over GS (diff). While I do not mind criticism or feedback on any of my actions, the IBAN was meant to prevent Sir Joseph from commenting negatively on everything I do simply because he doesn't like me. WP:IBAN prohibits him from mak[ing] reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly, and given Sir Joseph's history on Wikipedia, I think he knew exactly what he was doing.

In my opinion, objecting to an edit I have made by asking someone else about it is a violation of his IBAN as he is still trying to object to something that I have done. I'm not really sure what the best way to deal with this is, but Sir Joseph should know that if there is an issue with one of my actions he shouldn't be the one raising it. There are thousands of other active editors on Wikipedia and if I am acting outside of consensus or inappropriately, they should be the ones to raise it, not him. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree. Circumventing the IBAN via editing by proxy would still count as a violation. But I would also be good with just a strong warning to that effect, rather than sanctions outright. El_C 04:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I would be fine with that. I'm not trying to get him sanctioned here. I just don't want someone who is going to find fault with anything I do to find ways to circumvent the intent of the IBAN, and I think it's important that someone else send that message. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to oblige, Tony. El_C 04:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

El C, firstly, I was using the reply-to template so I was going to just reply to. I was going to reply to Vanamode or to you, my issue was that the edits were being done to the article but being discussed at AN and not at the article. Secondly, (and I was thinking of having a thread somewhere about IBANS about this) this is why I object to the IBAN in general especially against an admin, an oversighter, a checkuser and a functionary. It is ludicrous to have an IBAN against an authority figure, just like in the real world where a Congressman/Rep/President can't block a person.

In any event, I didn't mean to violate the IBAN I was just replying to the thread and noting by objection that the change should have been discussed there. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I realize there is a power imbalance, but both of you are first and foremost two editors. Since the IBAN exists, just try your best to adhere to it, armed with the knowledge that any further violations will result in sanctions. Thank you. El_C 04:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

El C, you're basically saying that I am now being left out of any conversation that might be important to Wikipedia. That doesn't seem fair. And parts of this is of course hogwash, but I've been here before so I'll just forget about this and call it a night. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

That is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying has to do with Tony's edits, specifically. El_C 04:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

El C, OK, then clarify how am I supposed to object to modifying the GS page without discussing it at the GS talk page and only discussing it at the AN page? Because that is what I did and yet that was ruled a violation. So how am I supposed to participate in conversations about Wikipedia policy? And if you want, we can take this to my talk page, and close this because I don't need this open more than it needs to be.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, again, you must refarin from addressing Tony's edits (addressed through whichever means). I also note that, unrelated to this incident, you have a habit of skirting your bans. In one instance, I, myself, warned you about such an infraction, but was forced to block when that failed to produce its intended results, anyway. The point is that you have pretty much reached the point where warnings, in general, would no longer be viewed as viable. El_C 05:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Fully aware of the awkwardness that Sir Joseph can't reply to me here I'll add this while still trying to be fair to him: his comment here shows what the problem is. He was looking for a way to object to my edit without being in technical violation of his IBAN, which shows a degree of good faith while missing the bigger picture. If you have to think about ways to make an edit criticizing someone else's actions that aren't a violation of your IBAN with them, then odds are you shouldn't be criticizing it. Yes, he was actively trying to not violate the technical terms of the IBAN, but still be able to do the conduct it prohibited. That's the problem.
  The reason I brought this to ANI was because I knew we'd get a wikilawyer response and that he'd need to be told in no uncertain terms not to interact with me. He is not somehow special. He doesn't get a special exemption from his IBAN because I'm a sysop and functionary who is involved in policy areas. He's allowed to vote in RfCs and the like, even if I have commented. What he cannot do is to object to specific actions of mine. As I said, there are thousands of other editors. If he's the only one who sees the issue, it likely isn't an issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• Well, now that's been clarified for Sir Joseph, I suggest El_C implement the warning—unless SJ wants to wikilawyer some more, in which a block will probably be necessary. ——SN54129 08:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Serial Number 54129, the warning is in effect. Sir Joseph's participation in this discussion saves me the trip. El_C 08:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Death threat by IP

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

---

Could an admin take a look at this please? I've reverted it but I believe further action is needed. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 08:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for one week and revdeleted. El_C 08:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Much obliged. Jusdafax (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Jusdafax, next time, contact WP:EMERGENCY, as they have the means to see where the IP is located, and to contact police if necessary. I dream of horses ^{(talk) (contribs)} _{Remember to {{ping}} me after replying off my talk page} 09:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Will do. Been a while. Jusdafax (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Suneye1

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

---

• Suneye1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Suneye1 appears to be having clear competence issues, given he was already blocked for sockpuppetry and has now made a comeback by engaging in violations of numerous policies for the sake of his advocacy, by creating POVFORKs. He has been already warned for this disruption a number of times,[38][39] but he is not learning.

Created 2008 Kandhamal violence and 2007 Christmas violence in Kandhamal, in violation of WP:POVFORK, by copypasting from Religious violence in Odisha and making sure not to provide credit to the main article[40] in violation of WP:COPYWITHIN.

Has doubled the length of Violence against Christians in India since March 2021, by adding more and more trivial and non-notable incidents to the article.[41]

He believes that reverting such disruptive edits constitutes "vandalism",[42][43] contrary to WP:VANDNOT.

I am not sure if this user deserves anything but a WP:CIR block at this stage for this disruption and use of Wikipedia for WP:ADVOCACY. Srijanx22 (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Noting that Suneye1 is aware of this thread and is resorting to WP:CANVASSING for garnering support.[44] Srijanx22 (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

First the user is making personal attacks against me WP:NPA by using the sock-puppetry case which was months back when i was very new to Wikipedia and a personal attack by another user.

1. The 2008 Kandhamal violence is a WP:SIZESPLIT from Religious violence in Odisha because it exceeded 50kb, see [45] and i did a bold move as per WP:PROSPLIT and gave attributions to both pages, see [46], [47]. The article 2008 Kandhamal violence was not "created" and it already was a redirect to the section.
2. The 2007 Christmas violence in Kandhamal has nothing to do with POVFORK as i created that article from the start just days before (on 14 April 2020) from scratch, see[48] and mentioned about it in a paragraph in the article Religious violence in Odisha#2007 Christmas violence in Kandhamal
3. The user just reverted a lot of content in the article in Violence against Christians in India without any discussion. SUN EYE 1 13:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

It is not an WP:NPA to highlight your recent history of sockpuppetry, especially when it concerned the same articles which you are currently disrupting. But falsely accusing others of WP:NPA is itself violation of WP:NPA.

You are not allowed to create WP:POVFORKs. WP:SIZESPLIT does not apply on those articles which are relatively below 75k bytes and largely depend on the subjects which you are forking out.

"The 2007 Christmas violence in Kandhamal has nothing to do with POVFORK" is misleading and contrary to the evidence since the main Religious violence in Odisha mentioned "In December 2007, Christians had installed a Christmas arch across the road in the town of Brahmanigaon, Kandhamal district", and other editor who observed that you copied content from that article for creating this POVFORK.

If all you are doing is adding non-notable and trivial incidents then the WP:BURDEN is on you to prove why your problematic content should be retained.

Fact that you see no problem with your disruptive editing and you are either trying to evade concerns or misrepresenting the evidence is terrifying. Srijanx22 (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The WP:SIZESPLIT says "May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)" in the 50kb section. The article was more than 50kb when i did the split and it is more than 60kb before you reverted it. You can perform a bold move as per WP:PROSPLIT.

There is a difference between the 2 sections, this is the section that i created after creating the 2007 Christmas violence in Kandhamal on 14th April 2020 while this is the section you are now mentioning. I accidentally created the second section without seeing the first. The warning is for copyright violationWP:COPYVIO from the "2008 khandamal Violence" section before i split the section into two, see [49] (17 April) and the time i got the report [50] (16 April). Both the sections are still there right now so that is not a WP:SPLIT as what you mentioned before. That was the one of the incident during the 2007 Christmas violence in Kandhamal and i have cited the sources for it. SUN EYE 1 14:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

You are still yet to tell why you are creating these articles. WP:POVFORK cannot be justified by WP:SIZESPLIT when the original article loses most of its content to your POVforking and you are not even willing to get consensus priorhand.

You have frequently denied the "2007" article being related to main Religious violence in Odisha when other editor also observed that you copied from the main article. This strikes me as clear deception from you and your lack of AGF leaves no room to think that you are here for any constructive editing. Srijanx22 (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Reason why Suneye1 has been creating POVFORKs is because he wants to expand Template:Violence against Christians in India (which he created 2 days ago). I had warned him of these problems 5 months ago, but I don't see any improvement so far. Suneye1 does not understand what constitutes vandalism as observed months ago as well. I would support at least a topic ban from Christianity-related subjects mostly because this editor has developed a recurring pattern of problematic editing. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Srijanx22:When i created the 2007 Christmas violence in Kandhamal, i did not see the "December 2007" section in the article and that's why i created the "2007 Christmas violence in Kandhamal" section. And how can you say that the article was copy pasted from the Religious violence in Odisha. If you have problems with the 2007 Christmas violence in Kandhamal, you are free to start a deletion discussion there citing POVFORK or COPYVIO. You just redirected the entire article of more than 64kb 2008 Kandhamal violence with out having a proper discussion with me or in the talk page. You did the same thing for Violence against Christians in India without any discussion and you are teaching me about AGF. - SUN EYE 1 15:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: How do you know that i want to expand the Template:Violence against Christians in India created on 17th April with the 2007 Christmas violence in Kandhamal created on (14 april) and the 2008 Kandhamal violence splitted on 13 April. I was just creating articles of notable incidents and you are free to take it to a deletion discussion citing your reasons. Your warning is when i was a newbie and for a completely different article and how is that related to the "POVFORK" incident here? SUN EYE 1 15:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

You are clearly deceiving here because you got the idea of creating 2007 Christmas violence in Kandhamal after you saw Religious violence in Odisha#December 2007 and other editor also observed that you copied content from that article. There is nothing wrong with redirecting POVFORKs, given you never had a consensus to create them in first place. Per WP:BRD, onus is on you to prove that why your POVFORK is needed but all you can do is allege others of vandalism. I stand by my initial observation that you have apparent WP:CIR issues, especially when you don't want to hear anything that goes against your POV. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

If you see what i wrote before i said that, i did not see the Religious violence in Odisha#December 2007 before creating the 2007 Christmas violence in Kandhamal article. I have already said that the content i copied was from the "2008 Khandamal Violence section" before splitting it. There is a difference between the 2 sections, this is the section that i created after creating the 2007 Christmas violence in Kandhamal on 14th April 2020. I accidentally created the second section without seeing the first. The warning is for copyright violationWP:COPYVIO from the "2008 khandamal Violence" section before i split the section into two, see [51] (17 April) and the time i got the report [52] (16 April). Please prove that i copied the content from the exactly the section to create the article. Again if you have problem with the articles you can take it to a deletion discussion. I can start a split request for the 2008 Kandhamal violence in the Religious violence in Odisha article and get consensus. SUN EYE 1 15:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Expanding articles, expanding templates, creating new articles etc. are the normal activities of Wikipedia. The filer is barking up the wrong tree here. If he thinks there is a problem with these articles, it is a content dispute and should be taken up on the respective talk pages, AfD's etc., not here. What does belong here are his repeated personal attacks citing Suneye1's block history. Suneye1 has served his block, and that is history. Unless he repeats the same conduct that led to his block, referring to it constitutes a personal attack. Frankly, this whole complaint smacks of a lynching job. It should be dismissed with no action, or perhaps with a warning to the filer. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• I'm seeing a lot of smoke and very little fire here. Suneye may need to be more careful with respect to copying content, and their use of edit-summaries; but there's no sanctionable content that I can see, and the OP's activity may require further scrutiny. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

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

CLARITY

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

---

Hello.

I need clarity on this issue: Do I need to any special requirement to publish an article directly into mainspace (as an autoconfirmed user)?

- My first article - American Scientist Dennis Burton was published through the AfC channle and it was approved.

- My second Article - Indian Actor Bishnu Adhikari was written using Article Wizard, after publishing, I discovered that I could not find the article in a google search. Like when I search google for "Bishnu Adhikari Wikipedia", there were no results.

I am new here, but I love Wikipedia, and writing is my passion. Help me! TheEpistle (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Hi TheEpistle, Bishnu Adhikari was only created today, it will take time for it to show up on google searches, just give them time. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC) (non admin)

TheEpistle, I'm going to be blunt here - when editors ask about their page being indexed by search engines, it usually is because they're being paid to create the article or are otherwise connected to the article subject. Is that the case here? creffett (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello (talk), thank you all for your contributions, but I honestly feel I'm being kicked out of Wikipedia here, but it's fine. I would explain myself all again. I had always been enthusiastic about being a Wikipedia Editor. Recently, after joining, I decided to try out my first page with the Dennis Burton, which I saw on the Requested Articles list! I had no relation to the person whatsoever. After the article was approved from AfC, I was told I could now publish directly into mainspace, and within three hours I enthusiastically google searched my new write up. To my delight, knowing that practice makes perfect, I sought further,I discovered a page titled 2019 Hartford mayoral election, where i found Aaron D. Lewis as one of the candidate, I felt he was't profiled because he was black or because he defected from Democrats, so I decided to try writing, simple! Lastly, I watched an Indian Tollywood film, and I really liked the Lead character Bishnu Adhikari, I began to google search him and saw he had no Wiki page, this motivated me to create one for him since he met the requirement of being a notable person. After creating the page, I wondered why he didn't come up in the google search as fast as Dennis Burton which made me inquire. I hope my explanations are fairly understood. By the way, I called out for Editors to comment on my TALKPAGE with constructive criticism since I'm still getting around, but all these is really bugging my mid seeing deletions and negative comments, but it's all good. Thanks for asking anyway. Hopefully, I'd become expert like you someday. Once again, many thanks. TheEpistle (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

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

User Flyer22 Frozen

We are not going to sanction someone for following Wikipedia's rules, and the underlying content dispute isn't a matter for ANI. ‑ Iridescent 16:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

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

---

I briefly was a Wikipedia editor, editing from IP address 143.176.30.65. As my contributions show, I started editing last February, and increased my contributions last week. One of my edits was an edit request at Talk:Sex#Suggestion Hatnote Change. After my edit request was denied by User:Deacon Vorbis, I made another edit suggestion that was replied to by User:Flyer22 Frozen. Her reaction to my posts there were hostile. I then noticed she had reverted another - earlier, before we talked - edit of mine, at redirection page Having sex, with an edit summary that once again displayed her hostile stance. I decided that being a Wikipedia editor is not for me, given Wikipedia's apparent unpleasant, toxic environment. In a contribution on her Talk page, I notified her of my decision to stop editing Wikipedia because of her behavior. I now see she has undone my edit. This really adds insult to injury. And her undoing of my edit may even go against WP:TPO given that none of the exceptions apply to the basic rule to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission. She's now hiding my - a (former) newcomer editor - negative opinion of her. She claims in her edit summary that I did not quit editing because of her, but I most certainly did. In an "additional comment" edit summary she claims I "give [myself] away" because I would know more about her than I could if I didn't already know her from past conflicts. She's wrong. Her unpleasant attitude made me start reading her old and current User and Talk page edits, and it became clear quite quickly that she's had more than a handful of conflicts with other editors on Wikipedia. I had never heard of User:Flyer22 Frozen before I started editing. She first contacted me on Talk:Sex. You can run a sockpuppet investigation (or whatever else) on my IP address 143.176.30.65 if you want. I want the record to show that I did not give this editor permission to undo my edit on her Talk page. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

She does not need permission to remove comments from her talk page. Refer WP:OWNTALK: Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

This complaint is spurious. The IP left a bitter, hostile message on Flyer22 Frozen's talk page, which she quite properly removed. End of story. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify that in certain circumstances, You can run a sockpuppet investigation (or whatever else) on my IP address = "I am sock"; this is one of those circumstances. ——SN54129 16:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

---

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

User:Chris.sherlock

User:Chris.sherlock is currently going around removing the date of birth from Australian females. They are citing WP:DOB as reason, but this editor is removing regardless of sources. We are guided not to censor Wikipedia. This is focused on Australian women and there appears to be an agenda. A full discussion has not taken place on this issue. This was brought to my attention because a widely known singer Kylie Minogue had her date of birth removed. This information is available at the drop of a simple google search, so I fail to see the benefit of removing the information. [53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76]. etc I could carry on.. basically this type of mass editing without consensus is deeply concerning. The user will also then proceed to add a category to the articles, which misleads those patrolling the articles that the editor simply added a category to.Rain the 1 22:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE
DOB POLICY
START A THREAD
AT WT:BLP
DON'T MASS-EDIT
(IT'S FAIT ACCOMPLI)
Burma-shave

– Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Unsure who that is directed at... - Chris.sherlock (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I have checked 10 of the links supplied at random. Not one of them has a reliable source for the date of birth. Per Verifiability and BLP these deletion are totally appropriate and even required, and actually should have gone further to remove the year since that is not sourced either. Slp1 (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Slp1, which other ones did you check? Kylie Minogue's DOB was referenced in the body to Hello Magazine]. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t check Kylie. I imagine there is a reliable source for her. I checked [[77] [78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87]Slp1 (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• I have worked at Toni Collette and I was surprised when the named user deleted her full date of birth but left the year. I queried the removals at its talkpage. The user only addressed one of the sources for her d.o.b. and claimed it was unreliable. I disputed that claim and asked for more details. I provided other refs (three were already in the article) for her d.o.b. and asked whether they were reliable enough. The user has not replied and so I returned the full d.o.b. pending a directive from this ANI (or from WP:BLP). I think, in this case, the user was in error.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I also provided 6 additional sources for Kylie Minogue. Ada Nicodemou was also sourced too. God knows who else. These people live their lives in the public eye, their DOB is out there. Just stop the mass removal of content. Their reason for removal is BLP privacy concerns over the subject's DOB. The user has been at it for a while too, sounds like a can of worms.Rain the 1 00:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Another example - Delta Goodrem's DOB was removed here [88] and then they did the category addition to hide the fact. An editing pattern seen over a 1000+ edits! This editor is playing games, I cannot assume good faith now. Goodrem's DOB is documented online [89][90][91][92].Rain the 1 01:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

You need to assume good faith a bit more. In fact I was indeed adding the categories to our Australian female articles, I noticed these violated WP:DOB. If I had wanted to hide from scrutiny I would have done the edits in one go, as it was I made seperate edits and noted what I was doing. I was never trying to avoid scrutiny.

I’m also not sure I consider Hello Magazine a reliable source, but regardless I’m not sure why you want to violate the privacy of the article subjects. Given it’s a BLP violation to do so, I’m well within my rights to make the changes. When people have reverted me I reverted back and added a note on the talk page. I think you need to calm down and read up on our policies around Biographies of Living People. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

This is an excellent example, thanks for bringing it up. There is no reliable source supporting Delta Goodrem's date of birth in the lede, but maybe there is one in the text? Unfortunately, no. The reference supposedly supporting her date of birth in the text [93] does not mention her birthdate at all. Per BLP all unsourced information such as this must be deleted. Please see WP:BLPREMOVE. If you wish to restore it, that is fine. But it is the restoring editors job to verify these facts by finding reliable sources for the information. Being able to find some "online" is not enough. For example, the first reference [94] seems like a reliable source, but it attributes the facts to "New Idea", whatever that is. The second is Who.com.au. [95] Is that a reliable source, with a reputation for fact cheching? The third, the Dalby Herald,[96] is a repetition of the first reference. The fourth does not mention Ms. Goodrem at all.[97]. It is important that you understand WP's rules about BLPs and Verifiability before accusing others of inappropriate editing in such a strong fashion. Slp1 (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

New Idea is a tabloid gossip magazine. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, I’m being cautious and removing potential BLP violations per WP:DOB. My question for those reading the DOB on living people are - why are they doing this, what does it add to the article and why are they potentially deliberately breaching the privacy of the article subject? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:DOB applies to those who are borderline notable, or those who have made a complaint to Wikipedia about their full date of birth being shown. Either of those apply to Kylie Minogue? P-K3 (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Where have they shown they are fine with their DOB being made public? But regardless, why is this not being discussed on the talk page? And what reliable source is being used? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Nowhere in the policy does it say we need a public figure’s permission to publish their date of birth. WP:DOB was intended for those who while notable enough for a Wikipedia article may not be widely known and who may not wish such information to be published. It was not intended for internationally famous pop stars whose dates of birth are already widely known. P-K3 (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, WP:DOB comes pretty close to saying that. Better read it again. EEng 02:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:DOB states that "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public". The point here is verifiability using (multiple) reliable sources... and these were singularly absent in all of the deletions that I checked above.Slp1 (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Slp1 is correct that policy requires excellent sourcing for date of birth information. They listed 10 articles they checked. Here's my check of those articles.

Examination of 10 links by Slp1

Therese Ryder sourced to [98]. Not a reliable enough source in my opinion. Birth should either be removed or limited to year. Leeanna Walsman cited to a podcast that is no longer listenable at that source. Unreliable. Vivienne Binns sourcing not present Leah Purcell potentially sourced to The Age. I don't have access to the article. Rebecca Rigg no sourcing present Fiona Spence no sourcing present Catherine Sutherland no sourcing present Libby Tanner no sourcing present Tasma Walton sourced to [99]. It sources to a different place which I don't see any greater signs of reliability for.

Overall those removals seem good though the ease with which I found a source present in the article for Kylie does make me question how much care was taken before removing the information. But upholding BLP is important and it seems, on the whole, that is what was being done here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I expect no less in thoroughness from Slp1; glad she is back on the job! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Same here. The Leah Purcel article gives her age, not birthday. Regardless, I don’t see why we would need to include this in the article. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 04:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's an edit at Davida Allen that blatantly disregarded a good source. Further, WP:DOB provides a scope for its application, it does not mandate the removal of DoBs in general. As others have noted, Chris.sherlock has also been inconsistent by leaving the YoB and its category unchanged. I don't know what to make of their focus on Australian females. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Any inconsistency is probably an error. It’s very simple why I went through “Australian females”, I have been going through our category list. Why do you feel Davida Allen’s DOB needs to be recorded? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Where did I leave the category unchanged? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

P.S. that’s very interesting the Australian Federal Government breaks it’s own privacy principles! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

P.P.S. It’s also not inconsistent to leave the year of birth. That’s the policy. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hijacking of My User Talk Page & Borderline Harassment

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 Wikipedia [100][101][102]. 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 Wikipedia 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[103][104][105][106]), 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia (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)

I have formally warned Dennis Bratland about the edit warring on Carmaker1's user talk page and advised them of places they could respond, including here. While this remains at WP:ARC there is some sentiment the community has not had a chance to adequately address this issue, a sentiment I share as I think the community is capable of addressing the issues at play here. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:41, 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)

WP:PAID

• 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)
• 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 Wikipedia works. Administrators are not "the boss". They simply enforce the community's will. We are all the boss. Anyone can comment here. Wikipedia 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 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)

2001:470:1F2D:C:0:0:0:6

This ip address has repeatedly restoring same comments on my user's talk which violates WP:3RR and WP:HARASS, please see [107], [108],[109]. I have also left the three warnings on ip address' Talk page to stop harassing me in which ip address still continues to harass me ignoring the warnings. — YoungForever^(talk) 00:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I was just responding to the users continuing responses in regards to their removal of article content. 2001:470:1F2D:C:0:0:0:6 (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Also this user has consistently been harassing me about my edits since the beginning of the year and obviously has an axe to grind against IP users. 2001:470:1F2D:C:0:0:0:6 (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Your accusations are baseless. — YoungForever^(talk) 01:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP user for 48 hours. But, to be clear, they can remove warnings from their talk page. Quit edit warring to restore them.--v/r - TP 01:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@TParis: The IP addresses' Block log says 24 hours and User talk says 48 hours. For the record, I did not restore any of the warnings on the IP address' Talk page. Each warning on the IP address' Talk page was a different level warning as the IP address continued to harass me even after each of the warning. — YoungForever^(talk) 01:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I see, okay.--v/r - TP 02:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)