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

Tekrmn

Tekrmn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created their account on 2023-02-10, they made one edit, then went dormant until 2023 Covenant School shooting occurred. At this point they began editing significantly on the subject, as well as other transgender subjects. They were given the standard contentious topics alert (notice). Since then they've repeatedly misrepresented sources, our policies and guidelines, edit warred (AN/EW report), and engaged in personal attacks (accusing an editor of "vandalizing", "your opinion doesn't matter" and another "vandalism" claim, casting aspersions about other editors), finally culminating in this edit they made that's a combination of WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS: this template does not belong on this page, and locke cole has been consistently vandalizing this page, misusing wikipedia guidelines, goading people into edit wars, and now marking the whole page as not being neutral because they don't like that we aren't consistently deadnaming the shooter. why haven't we removed this template and why haven't we removed locke cole from this article? (as regards the end of their rant, the reason the NPOV tag is still there is because a number of other editors agree there is an issue). Their edits show signs of being a WP:SPA, seemingly here to WP:RGW. Behavior like this is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

While I have edited multiple pages that involve transgender people or topics, I have also edited a number of pages on other topics and am working on a draft that is on another unrelated topic. Many wikipedia editors have specific areas of interest. The edit warring report was dismissed for good reason. I think if you take a look at Locke Cole's own history and the context of the quotes they've given above you will see what is actually going on. Tekrmn (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you deny saying locke cole has been consistently vandalizing this page, misusing wikipedia guidelines, goading people into edit wars? You shouldn't because I literally linked to the diff of you saying that. So since you made those multiple claims of misbehavior, do you have any evidence of that to back those claims up? Because if you don't, that's exactly what WP:ASPERSIONS warns against. The edit warring report was dismissed for good reason. You did four reverts in less than 24 hours, after being warned about WP:3RR. Nobody forced you to do those reverts. The only reason you weren't blocked was because you ended up self-reverting. I don't know that I'd call that a "good reason" when you had all the reason in the world not to revert the 4th time already. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Locke Cole, do you have diffs to support repeatedly misrepresented sources? Schazjmd (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Was debating another editor over someone being characterized as a "friend", the linked source is even titled "Friend says she contacted authorities after messaging with Nashville shooter Audrey Hale on morning of attack". (As an aside, Derekeaaron1 and Tekrmn are the same editor, they changed their name in the middle of this, which ended up with editors restating arguments repeatedly because it seemed like another editor was engaging the topic.
• Claimed all social media accounts had changed their name, but this was demonstrably not true (specifically, their LinkedIn profile still used the "deadname").

Pretty sure there were more, but that was all I could type out in five minutes.. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

On the debating another editor diff, that isn't misrepresenting the source. The linked source quite clearly states Paige Patton, a Nashville radio host who goes by the name Averianna, told ABC News that said she played basketball with Hale in eighth grade and remained in occasional contact with Hale.

On the claimed all social media accounts diff that seems more like an honest mistake than anything particularly nefarious.

Do you have any more diffs? Because what you've provided so far doesn't really support your assertion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean the repeated claims of editors being "vandals" and asking when they're going to be blocked is really enough. Unless that's your definition of a collegial editing environment... —Locke Cole • t • c 04:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty clear that I was referring to the two diffs on repeatedly misrepresented sources when I said that the diffs you had provided don't support the assertion. If you do not have any other diffs that support the assertion on misrepresenting sources, I would ask that you strike it.

In relation to the three diffs in your opening comment, I'd agree that the first two are mildly bad. But only so far as they should be warned not to do that again on an article talk page. The third diff however, could you explain what the aspersion here is? The first sentence of it is certainly overly personalised, and could have been phrased with more tact (for example saying something like "I think you're overlooking the part that it can affect other trans people"), but it does not really fall into aspersion territory.

The fourth diff is something that doesn't belong on an article talk page, but would be appropriate at a noticeboard like this with sufficiently strong diffs to support it. But as with the first two diffs, this only really rises to the degree of a warning to stop making that sort of comment outside of an appropriate noticeboard.

As to your accusation of being a WP:SPA, I have to disagree. While a lot of Tekrmn's activity has been on the 2023 Nashville school shooting article, its talk page, and the current discussion at WT:MOSBIO about deadnaming of deceased trans and non-binary people, there are also mainspace contributions to a pretty wide array of topics. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I understood what you were asking about. I just think it’s akin to worrying about the walnut shell littering while the forest is burning down. Personal attacks and casting aspersions like that (all while advocating for “removing” me from the article) from an editor with less than 500 edits strikes me as enough to skip to NOTHERE. For anyone else reading this, understand that Sideswipe9th and I are on seemingly opposite ends of a discussion on that article talk page, and their appearance here feels like ally-protecting. It would be nice to see some uninvolved admins taking a look at this. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

And now Tekrmn has upgraded to WP:GRAVEDANCING with this edit, knowing that InedibleHulk (talk · contribs) is currently blocked and unable to respond, they've decided to respond to a nearly week old comment of theirs. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

More aspersions. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Not aspersions, nor is that gravedancing. It fully appears Tekrmn is unaware of InedibleHulk's block. Recommend closing this nothing burger. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming you don't know what aspersions are or what WP:GRAVEDANCING says. And note here again, FD and I are on apparently opposite ends of the discussion at the talk page there. It would be incredible if someone uninvolved took the time to look this over, or should I just go to AE since apparently that's what we do when we want to get rid of people? —Locke Cole • t • c 17:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I did not know that user was blocked (or even how to find that information), and responded to a comment in a discussion that I was not aware of until today. Even if I was aware they were blocked, I do not see how that would constitute gravedancing. you have been consistently misrepresenting my actions in order to try and get me banned for a week and a half. you know full well that I am a new editor who does not know the rules as well as you do and is therefor likely to stumble into them and not be able to defend myself against your accusations. or show the other side of the story. to any admins weighing in on this, I would appreciate it if you would look at the history between Locke Cole and myself, as well as their individual history. I feel this user is going out of their way to attack me. Tekrmn (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I’m going out of my way to attack you? Tell me, of the two of us, which one has called the other a “vandal”, and repeatedly claimed they “vandalized” the article? Which one of us has called for “removing” the other from the article? Now, tell me again, who is attacking who? —Locke Cole • t • c 20:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

you attempted to get me permanently banned from editing and have now brought me to a noticeboard, all without ever attempting to discuss what you feel is inappropriate about my behavior or how you think I should change it. I don't think that assumes good faith and I don't think you have followed the guidelines in dispute resolution when we have disagreed on content, guidelines that I have only become aware of recently. Tekrmn (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

you attempted to get me permanently banned from editing WP:AN/3RR is not a "permanent ban", I did indicate that given your other behavior at the time that WP:NOTHERE might be relevant. all without ever attempting to discuss what you feel is inappropriate about my behavior or how you think I should change it You mean like this? Which, instead of responding or heeding my warning, you chose to copy what I did, then remove the warning from you page and reverted again anyways (your 4th in 24 hours). I don't think that assumes good faith WP:AGF is not a death pact. And maybe you missed it, but we're all volunteers here: I'm not going to invest significant amounts of time when you initially refuse to engage. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:AGF is not a death pact No, but constantly assuming bad faith isn't very compatible with editing Wikipedia. It's fine to be annoyed sometimes (and God knows I'm sometimes pissed off by vandals when doing recent changes patrol), but so far, all I've seen from you is a battleground mentality. (Then again, we haven't interacted much.) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 09:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

you indicated there and here that you think I should be permanently banned. you have invested a significant amount of time into getting me permanently banned and zero time into discussing any of this with me. I never said why you tried to get me banned or that AGF is a "death pact." Tekrmn (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Asked and answered. I note with interest that the comment that precipitated this, calling me a vandal and stating that my edits are vandalism, is still active and you've yet to provide any evidence to support your aspersions. Some more examples of you accusing people of being vandals either collectively (for not agreeing with you) or directly:

• "editing is protected to prevent vandalism from who refuse to acknowledge the evidence and the rules of wikipedia that indicate we should use the name Aiden and he/him pronouns to refer to the shooter."
• "Your edits are vandalism at this point."
• "I'm not going to respond to you again unless you vandalize this article again or come up with a reliable source to verify your claims."

Can you please provide evidence that your claim that I'm a vandal is valid? Can you provide evidence for the last two bulletted diffs above that show InedibleHulk (talk · contribs) is a vandal? Are you aware that WP:VANDALISM says Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. For example, edit warring over how exactly to present encyclopedic content is not vandalism? Do you think you should be allowed to call people names without any repercussions? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The second and third diffs in your bulleted list are diffs you already included in your opening comment. While you can of course ask about them, characterising them as some more examples seems a bit misleading as they had already been presented in the same context that you are asking about now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

No more misleading than referring to editors acting in good faith as vandals repeatedly. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Astonishing. --JBL (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

the diff you linked to my saying "your opinion doesn't matter" (which I admit was not a respectful way to put it, but it was also taken out of context) is part of a discussion that led to InedibleHulk removing verified and cited information, which they had already disruptively cite tagged. I believe there was at least one other instance of them disruptively cite tagging that article but I am having trouble finding it. I believe your placing an NPOV template on that article was also an example of disruptive tagging, and other editors have said your behavior around the NPOV tag constituted disruptive editing. I admit that these do not constitute vandalism, which was a term I misunderstood and which I now know is an inappropriate thing to say on a talk page and without sufficient evidence.

the 2023 covenant school shooting talk page was the first one I had been active on in any significant way, and the way people are speaking in that talk page is very offensive. you were not the first editor to come after me from that talk page and yes, I got defensive when you posted a template on my page. it seemed to me (and honestly still seems in some ways) that wikipedia was an inherently unfriendly place, and I believed the way I was communicating was both in line with the guidelines and pretty respectful in that context. I now realize that the talk page for that article and the users who are active on it reflect the contentious nature of the article, and that basically nothing on that page follows wikipedia guidelines. I will adjust my own behavior accordingly now that I know that, as I have done and will continue to do each time I learn something new about the expectations.

If I should assume you're acting in good faith why can't you assume I'm acting in good faith? your actions toward me regarding the edit warring are mentioned by name in WP:civility, which says "Be careful with user warning templates. Be careful about issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with, and exercise caution when using templated messages for newcomers (see Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers). Consider using a personal message instead of, or in addition to, the templated message." and "(a) taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves. All editors are responsible for their own actions in cases of baiting; a user who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response, and a user who baits is not excused from their actions by the fact that the bait may be taken." several users have pointed out that your interactions on that talk page are inappropriate in tone

after looking at WP:DNB it seems clear that you have also not abided by these guidelines, particularly "Remember Hanlon's Razor. Behavior that appears malicious might be from ignorance of our expectations and rules. Even if you are 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good Internet troll, vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if they are not. Remember that the apparent test editors have the potential to be tomorrow's editors. By giving a polite, honest and noncondemning answer to newcomers, you have the opportunity to teach them Wikipedia policy. By being calm, interested, and respectful, you do credit to your dignity, and to our project."

you've also called out other editors for not attempting dispute resolution despite implying that it would be ridiculous for you to have tried to resolve a dispute with me, rather than spending that energy trying to get me banned Tekrmn (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

• I had concerns about User:Locke Cole and their editing, but hadn't gotten myself to fully dig in and vocalise myself or bring it to ANI.

There were several tone issues (1 2 3) and two cases of borderline WP:BADGERING to the point of making conversations unreadable (1 2). I also found one case of WP:BURO where I now realised they might be right (1) and another where I'm unsure but think they're wrong. (2 calling this discussion 'nuanced' and drawing out the RFC)

Their other edits as I went through the page ranged, for me, from 'understandable but probably wrong' to 'well rooted in policy'. I guess my sticking point is of discussions being drawn out to an unreasonable halt, but I cannot find policies they violated.

Having gone through the discussion, I'm no longer as convinced of my earlier conclusions. I'm pasting the diffs I collected anyway. Something about their behaviour ticks me, I just have not been able to pinpoint if they're a well intention-ed but rub people wrong; or doing some sort of WP:CPUSH.

Soni (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Having said that, I now notice several of their comments in this very heading that definitely highlight the same tone issues, so maybe I was not hallucinating my earlier concerns. Soni (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Your first diff is a Jim Michael2 comment? The other two are... to quote someone above, nothingburgers (let the "tone" sink in there). Regarding the alleged badgering, it's also a reverse WP:SATISFY (damned if I do (badgering) or damned if I don't (not satisfying those who disagree)). Don't worry, I won't respond to misunderstood policy and guidelines in the future and continue to let you lot believe what you want to believe... As to 2nd WP:BURO, are you not aware of WP:FRS? Closing an RFC after a handful of days doesn't allow those who were solicited to respond... As to tone issues, I guess taking issue with being told I'm not civil is a problem, but it's perfectly fine for someone to to say I'm a vandal and I should be "removed" from the article? Help it make sense, please! —Locke Cole • t • c 19:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

My first link went one diff too far but linked the correct section with what I wanted to link.

Don't worry... you want to believe This is the same tone issues I've noticed through this ANI thread (as opposed to the milder Talk page diffs). I recommend taking some time off to compose your replies.

are you not aware of... solicited to respond I freely admit I'm unsure on this, having not worked deeper with RFCs in a little while. Happy to be corrected/informed so by an uninvolved editor.

but it's perfectly fine for.."removed" from the article? I intentionally did not comment on Tekrmn's comments as I've not been following them along closely enough to make a full opinion.

Your other points are mostly valid, which is the entire reason I said I'm no longer as convinced of my earlier conclusions while writing the above comment. I'm pasted the diffs, but my conclusion was "Can someone uninvolved do a sanity check" as opposed to "WP:BOOMERANG time, admonish Locke". That was me ending up partially agreeing with you. Soni (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, the WP:BOOMERANG comment was already added, then quickly removed (I appreciated the ominous "not yet" edit summary). As interesting as I am (and I assure you, I'm very interesting), can we please stop trying to derail this thread about Tekrmn (talk · contribs) and their behavior? Editors involved in the disputes at 2023 Nashville school shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), who pretty much all disagree with me, seem to have made their way here to try a pile-on. Only one uninvolved editor has chimed in so far, and they thanked me for my reply, but it feels like the involved ones are just here to protect (or at worst, distract from) Tekrmn. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

For better or for worse, BOOMERANGs are going to be an inherent part of ANI. So I don't think they're as derailing as you claim. it feels like the involved ones are just here to protect (or at worst, distract from) Tekrmn Comments like these are precisely why you've been such a difficult editor to work with, I guess we just have to wait and see what uninvolved folk feel about them wrt our policies.

Either way, having no opinion on Tekrmn, I guess I'll just wait for other uninvolved editors to weigh in accordingly. Soni (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to add myself to the list of editors who have had negative interactions with Locke Cole. I hadn't planned on posting here until his most recent edit. To be clear, I don't think Tekrmn has always struck an appropriate tone—and I have, at least once, disagreed with him on the talk page. That talk page is a contentious one, and, unfortunately (though not surprisingly), the right tone is often not struck. But, while I understand Locke Cole's frustration that so much of this section has been devoted to his behavior, rather than Tekrmn's ("can we please stop trying to derail this thread about [Tekrmn] and their behavior?"), the simple fact is that the behavior of many, including Locke Cole (including myself, including Tekrmn, etc.), provides important context for the debate on that page and Tekrmn's edits—I'm not seeking any outcome other than providing that context.

Discussion of first interaction featuring quotations

Locke and I had a few brief interactions, but I think our first prolonged one occurred at the legal-name section. There, I pointed to Wikipedia policies that cover the discussion of people who are "not the subject" of articles and the discussion of people "outside of [their] main biographical article[s]". Locke contended that the shooter was the subject of the article on the shooting, and that the article was, for purposes of those rules, the "main biographical article" on the shooter, since no other biographical article existed. I said that I disagreed with that reading, and I pointed out that "subject" is singular, and if everyone who got a section in that article was considered a "subject," the article would have dozens—the perpetrator, victims, and possibly even the "react[ors]". In response, Locke accused me of "actively suggesting we shouldn't cover the perpetrator"—when I pointed out the absurdity of that interpretation (and also noted that I had added more info to the perpetrator section than he had), he stuck to it. He added, "Words have meaning, and they don't mean what you seem to think they do." I suggested that he was assuming bad faith, and I said we should take a break from interacting each other.

Discussion of second interaction

Shortly after I made that suggestion, Locke Cole decided to chime in on a completely unrelated discussion I was having with another user. I had made a table of editors participating in a survey, endeavoring to show that there was a relative consensus that the shooter should principally be referred to as Aiden Hale. As of now, the table shows that 19 editors have supported principally referring to the shooter as Aiden, and only 4 editors have not. In a small-text footnote, I also pointed out that one of those four had been banned in relation to their conduct on the page, including alleged violations of WP:GENSEX. Another user suggested that pointing this out was WP:GRAVEDANCING. I responded, saying that was certainly not my intention, and endeavored to explain why I had included the note. Locke Cole then jumped in, escalating the first user's complaint by saying I was violating WP:NPA. I attempted to answer the accusation he posed, but I also asked that he not hound me across sections. In response, Locke Cole said, "Do you think you can just break rules as long as you announce you don't want anyone to interact with you that might call you out on them? This was, of course, another absurd allegation—a different editor had raised the concern about the footnote, and I was in conversation with that editor.

I had no plans on chipping in on this section until Locke Cole made clear that he'd be unwilling to take break from interacting with me (as I repeatedly requested). But, given that my repeated requests were mocked or ignored, I think detailing them here is now warranted. I've found that Locke Cole consistently assumes bad faith and struggles to police his tone—he exaggerates editor's views into the absurd and turns them into caricatures. I'd agree that Tekrmn has made exaggerated aspersions against Locke Cole (including the "vandali[sm]" remark), but Locke Cole has done the same. I find it telling that, above, when Sideswipe9th pointed out that Locke Cole was being misleading, Locke Cole defended his characterization by saying he was being "[n]o more misleading than" Tekrmn. Using that same logic, Tekrmn has not exaggerated or cast aspersions to any greater degree than Locke Cole, and thus I don't think any sanction is warranted.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Disclaimer, am involved with the article, as are many of the editors above. It is quite stark with regard to four different editors so far (InedibleHulk, NewImpartial, Tekrmn, Locke Cole), the battleground lines have been drawn for the shooting and at MOS:GENDERID, and generally the support/oppose from those involved has matched the ideological ‘ally’ / ‘opponent’ theme. Now, moving on to this case. The strongest evidence was on Tekrmn's accusing good faith editors of vandalism, and that deserves a warning. I think we can let the others go because Tekrmn is relatively new. As for the evidence JFD brought against Locke Cole, I think the first incident is stronger than the second, but both are weaker than the evidence against Tekrmn. I would trout Locke Cole for sticking to the interpretation of the first incident despite being shown evidence against it. For the second incident, Locke Cole has already been involved in that wider discussion, and also extensively involved with the page, and thus he was continuing participation. starship.paint (exalt) 00:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor here- This thread is a bit of a slog given the inconsequentiality of so many of the accusations but from what I can tell, Tekrmn does need to be more careful about calling editors vandals and should probably be warned about it, especially as across this thread I only found one instance of them admitting or acknowledging that something they did wasn't approrpriate. I don't think many people are going to argue against that so I won't dwell on it. But I do think Locke Cole does deserve a bit more scrutiny than I'm seeing here.

• LC accused Tekrmn of repeatedly misrepresenting sources and policy (which for it to be reportable as chronic intractable behavior, would have to be deliberately). Schazjmd rightly asked for diffs on this and LC provided some unconvincing diffs. When challenged that these diffs aren't substantial apart from showing Tekrmn does need to use the term vandal/vandalize more carefully, LC essentially threw up their hands, said Sideswipe9th was missing the forest burning down for the trees, said we should just skip to declaring Tekrmn NOTHERE, and very blatantly accusing Sideswipe9th of defending Tekrmn just because they're an ally. For all the nobody that asked for my count, that's a hat trick of gross exaggeration, call to skip due process, and aspersions against another editor all in one comment.
• LC accused Tekrmn of WP:GRAVEDANCING because they responded to a 6-day-old post on the same talk page of the greater discussion this AN/I is about that happened to be penned by a now-blocked user. If LC checks to see if the user they are replying to is blocked before every one of their replies then that is commendable but that is not a standard we hold users to here. When FormalDude pointed out that this was a silly claim, LC quite snarkily accused FD of ignorance, dusted their hands of the matter, and heavily implied that they want to get rid of Tekrmn (diff).
• When Sideswipe9th pointed out that LC was reposting diffs from their opening post of this thread and characterising them as some more examples, LC admitted and excused this misleading because Tekrmn was calling people vandals.
• Soni pointed out some great examples of pages where LC seriously struggles with tone and civility. Instead of accepting they could work on their tone, LC replied to with a very snarky comment. Despite Soni explicitly stating they were calling for a sanity check and not a boomerang, LC played the martyr by announcing that someone had made, and then shortly after retracted, a Boomerang nomination, and said that all this examination of LC's behavior was derailing the discussion and would everyone please focus on Tekrmn's accusations of vandalism and ignore LC's accusations of bad faith. Ironically, this displays a lack of understanding of WP:BOOMERANG.

I can't be the only one that finds a lot of LC's comments here and on talk pages to be inflammatory and provocative, and I know I'm not the only one that finds them to be frequently uncivil. Just in this thread alone they've thrown multiple aspersions at other editors here. I'm going to be bold and table the possibility of a WP:BOOMERANG here. Even if it's a temporary partial-block, I think Locke Cole needs to take a step back from some of their more heated areas of interest and reflect on what kind of atmosphere they bring to discussions in the way they treat other editors. and since accusations of ally-protecting and dogpiling are being thrown around, I suppose I have to disclose that I've never worked with anyone here involved here, I recognize the usernames Schazjmd and Sideswipe9th, and I vaguely recall respecting Formaldude and LilianaUwU, so maybe I'm an unreliable narrator. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I want to address the fact that I've only acknowledged in one comment that my behavior was inappropriate-

I have only started to learn about these guidelines and rules through this noticeboard post, and while I did read them I have not been on wikipedia long enough or in the right places to see what it looks like when they are actually being followed. nobody tried to talk to me about these guidelines or commented on any of my behavior outside of this noticeboard, except in regards to the edit warring which occurred after the AN/EW was already underway. I was under the impression that LC was misusing all of the cited guidelines and policies in this post, but I now recognize that accusing someone of vandalism could be considered casting aspersions and possibly a personal attack and that regardless of the specific guidelines it is not appropriate to do that or to question someone's involvement on an article in the talk page. I also now recognize that I have, in many places, not used an appropriate tone. as I said in my earlier comment, the only real experience I have on wikipedia has been on a talk page that is very contentious, and that colored my perception of what was appropriate. now that I know my behavior wasn't appropriate I will change it.

I do not think it is worth addressing the other claims, as they have either already been addressed in the AN/EW or they are, as I understand them, pretty baseless. if anyone feels differently or has further insight I am always open to constructive criticism.

I was genuinely very excited to become more involved in wikipedia, and I would have loved to find the places on wikipedia that consist of respectful discussions, but someone trying to get me permanently banned for shits and giggles, especially after a lot of upsetting discussions on the 2023 covenant shooting page, has ruined that for me. I really don't have any desire to continue to edit in any serious way, at least for the time being. I'm not that invested in the outcome of this and I have many much more important things to worry about, so I have not put that much effort into this discussion. Tekrmn (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm coming around to the idea that, at the very least, LC needs a formal CTOP warning, if not strong sanctions.

In this comment, implied that another editor concluded neutrality is now optional if we don't want to offend people when they changed an erroneously placed {{NPOV}} content tag to a {{content}} tag, after a somewhat lengthy discussion on whether the NPOV tag was appropriate. While there was no consensus on what should replace it, if anything, there was a consensus that the NPOV tag was inappropriate. When Jerome Frank Disciple pointed out the consensus, LC responded with accusations of bad-faith wikilawyering, and WP:IDHT behaviour.

At this point, I find myself wondering if there are any editors in that discussion that LC won't attack in some way? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I just want to clarify that I didn't intend to describe the discussion as having reached a consensus—I think I actually said that I thought the user's change was a little premature. Separately, as described above, Locke Cole and I had a bit of a history—I took a week-long break of interacting with him. But I did object to the "neutrality" comment, pointed out that the user's edit could absolutely have been done in good faith, and suggested that the fact that it had been a week since the replacement was made complicated what to do with the discussion. (I'm not sure everyone noticed that the replacement was made; I had pointed it out a minute before LC's comment.) In response, LC made the bad-faith wikilawyering and WP:IDHT accusation. It is genuinely frustrating how quick LC's bad-faith trigger finger is. I don't think his views are inherently unreasonable, and he argues them well; I just think that, once he articulates those arguments, he can too easily jump to seeing opposition as ignorant obstinacy.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Alpinegora

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

Well, I was told by WP:AIV to take it here.

Major WP:NOTHERE, WP:POV issues, and anti-Iranian/Persian behaviour as seen through their edits and comment. Not a single edit by this user (starting from this summer) has been constructive and neutral. The vast majority of their edits have been reverted (some recent examples [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], notice their dishonest "simple changes" edit summaries) and they also responded to my warning with this grim comment, accusing me of getting paid for my edits, etc [6]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn't get archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: this page is archived by Lowercase sigmabot III, which according to its manual should obey a Template:Do not archive until. I've added {{subst:DNAU|10}} to this thread, which should keep it here for 10 days. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, that's a thing. Err.. well, this is embarrassing. Thank you very much Apaugasma! --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved editor: I agree, definitely looks WP:NOTHERE to me, only here to push a POV. Together with that user talk page response, should be blocked indef. — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, that Talk page comment screams NOTHERE. Indef is the right call. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Yep. They are still unashamedly pov editing under the same dishonest edit summary "simple changes", which I just reverted [7] [8] [9] [10]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• This is grim comment I was speaking of; "You may better to write and edit the content about your country, Iran. The history of Afghanistan is belong to Afghans and we can write by ourselves correctly! I see that many Iranian wiki writers like you are getting paid by dictator regime of Iran to change everything for their own benefit and as the religious regime of Iran want. You will never be proud by lying about history and stealing the pride of other countries! --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

trolling my talk page

.Raven is trolling my talk page. I've asked them several times to stop, but they continue. I don't know if this is some sort of game, or if they think they're somehow scoring points, but it's getting tiresome. — kwami (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

.Raven left 4 different warnings on Kwamikagami's talk page, with Kwamikagami reverting the warning each time with an edit summary of "rv. troll". Diffs of the warnings: 1, 2, 3, 4

It looks like these warnings were in retaliation to an edit warring warning that Kwamikagami left on .Raven's talk page here. .Raven did reply to the warning on their talk page, indicating that there has been disagreements across multiple pages in this dispute. So there's history here which I, frankly, don't want to take the time to dig into.

Your report is very vague and expects others to do the leg work of looking into the situation. Please try to explain a situation better when making reports at ANI and include diffs to evidence when you can. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

After Kwamikagami told Raven to stay off their talk page twice, .Raven posted additional template warnings to User talk:Kwamikagami, which might be considered harassment. Schazjmd (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Very simply, I did not see his edits on my talkpage because I was still posting on his. – .Raven  ^.talk 16:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

If I may offer background? kwami and I first encountered (as far as I know) in late March^＊ when he was changing numerous China-related articles – Cheng Man-ch'ing was the first I noticed – to change the ordinary apostrophe (') to an ʻokina (ʻ), a Hawaiian character. I did not revert him there or even edit that article at all; I objected on its talkpage, and as one outcome @Peaceray reverted, and took the larger issue to WT:MOS#Disallowing use of the ʻokina in Chinese romanized article titles, still open as I write. With that unresolved, I've tried helping restore the pages to their stable status quo ante, the default or neutral position... with kwami reverting my reverts, a move war. More recently he moved a page I'd been working on, from its clear WP:COMMONNAME of Theban alphabet (~32,900 Ghits) to the less specific Theban script (~74 Ghits, including Wikipedia)... which I reverted under WP:RMUM, and again he reverted – so that when *I* opened Talk:Theban script#Requested move 3 April 2023 it was a case of BRRD. It turns out he's done the same to a number of other "alphabet" pages that (per WP:NCWS#Alphabets and the consensus on WT:NCWS) should be titled "alphabet"s. Oddly enough, he claims WP:NCWS justifies this. So now there's discussion on WT:NCWS#RFC on alphabet definition (opened by me), as well as more page move requests on some of those articles' talkpages. And discussion on his talkpage and mine. He's repeatedly accused me of "playing stupid" for not agreeing with him, and also repeatedly of "bad faith" (for instance, because I posted those page move requests.) Today he put a user warning on my page in which (with his own added text) he told me that since those page move requests were open, I shouldn't edit the text of any of the articles. This is not only not the rule as I understand it, he himself has continued to edit those articles, so it's a "rule" he doesn't obey himself. I've responded with the same 3RR warning for the sake of the record (since he's far more active, despite being "semi-retired from Wikipedia", and engaging in both edit- & move-warring); as well as warning him about his violations of WP:AGF, WP:BRD, and WP:NPA, etc. As you saw, he's "rv. troll"'d them, and come here. I've just learned today from this page's archives that edit-warring is not recent behavior on his part. Apparently he lost at least one user-rights bit over it. That might be useful context. – .Raven  ^.talk 16:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

＊ Whoops! Date is about right, but I forgot an encounter before the China-related articles, in which he insisted it was "racist" of me to refer to indigenous peoples as either a "tribe" (even if they have a "tribal government") or "ancient" (even the ones with continuous cultures since before the cut-off date in the definition of "ancient"). See User talk:.Raven#Racist use of "tribe" to mean "primitive". – .Raven  ^.talk 17:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I think .Raven leaves some important context for the greater issue, and it does look like they are doing the right things with regards to dispute resolution. That being said, .Raven: if you haven't seen it before, please read WP:DTTR, and especially in light of the sequence of edits here from 13:33-14:10 today, I'm not sure how to read that as anything but low-level harassment. If kwami is reverting your warnings with "rv troll" (and yes, they should absolutely not be calling you a troll), the message is plain that they aren't interested in getting warning templates from you. If you've got a problem, explain the problem in plain English. If they ask you directly (or make it clear through their actions) that your messages aren't welcome on their user page, don't keep hammering at them. Instead, bring the matter up for dispute resolution. If they don't want to interact with you, fine. Find someone else to review the matter and give a neutral assessment. At no time should you be spamming a user's talk page with warning templates, especially not when they are currently in an active dispute with you. It comes off as rather rude. So yea, if your summary is accurate with regard to starting discussions on the talk pages, you did that part fine. That doesn't excuse hammering Kwami's user talk page with pointless templates. Start a real conversation next time, at the minimum, and if that isn't received well, then just don't. --Jayron32 16:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Fine, OK. In my own defense, once kwami started communicating on my talkpage with a template – to which he'd added a nonexistent rule even he wasn't following – that seemed an invitation to communicate with him likewise (but with better justification, since he'd *actually* violated more policies than he alleged I had) on his webpage. Or is one-way communication a thing on WP?

And as I told Schazjmd above, I was still on his talkpage while he posted on mine; so I didn't see his messages until I got out (the alerts don't show up on my screen when I'm at the bottom of a page). – .Raven  ^.talk 16:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

"Someone was rude to me, so I thought it was license to be equally as rude to them" is not a defense. Next time, let other people be the wrong ones, instead of joining them in being wrong. --Jayron32 18:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

That's a good principle, which is why I haven't simply reciprocated to his repeated and unfounded personal attacks of "playing stupid" and "bad faith", or even simply reverted his reverts with non-explanations like "rv", "rvv", and "rv. ignorance", as he's done – but rather, if my detailed and RS-citing explanations fail (as usual), taken the issues to RFCs and PMRs. I've been "letting him be the wrong one" for a while.

Note that even kwami calls my last comment on his talkpage "substantial", though he then repeats the unfounded attacks... to which, of course, I must not give any answer at all. – .Raven  ^.talk 01:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and now that I've had time to check, I see kwami has once again reverted me on N'Ko script (as he has renamed it from N'Ko alphabet), to delete citation of an RS which contradicts him – commenting "rv: this is an ongoing discussion -- wait for the result". But the "ongoing discussion" is Talk:N'Ko script#Requested move 10 April 2023, a page move request, which is not (that I ever heard) reason to stop editing the article text. He's deleting valid info I added, using a bogus reason.

No wonder he posted that bogus message on my talkpage. – .Raven  ^.talk 17:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Likewise this edit by kwami on 'Bassa Vah script', deleting three refs and fouling up two others. This seems to be reversion for the sake of reversion, as if he owns these articles. – .Raven  ^.talk 23:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

And kwami has now reverted to remove not only RS citations but also the wikilinking of "West Africa" from N'Ko script, commenting only "rv. troll". Clearly I'm not allowed to edit at all, if even brackets must be undone. – .Raven  ^.talk 04:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Yep. I reverted giving my reasons at User talk:Kwamikagami#You have again reverted RS citations without due cause; he re-reverted giving me another 3RR template (level 2). Then on his talkpage he said "If you want to restore any improvements you made, I have no problem with that." I took him at his word. He then reverted me again (third time in 1.5 hours), and threatened: "Once more and I'll file a 3RR complaint at ANI." Is that entrapment?

Per the above gentle hint about WP:DTTR, I have not posted any further template to him, nor tried to restore even the wikilinking he once again undid. It does seem he owns the page. – .Raven  ^.talk 05:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh and the remark on his talk page: "I'm simply not willing to parse the good from the bad in your edits...." – in other words, the parts he agrees with from the parts he disagrees with. He just reverts my edits in toto.
"... -- that's your job." – If he considers wikilinking "West Africa" the work of a troll and vandal, how could anyone guess what he'll accept as "good"? – .Raven  ^.talk 06:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Now what kwami has reverted (with the comment "rv. chronic POV warrior") included my adding the sign for comma in Bassa Vah with a ref to WP:PROVEIT; a fully relevant external link to Omniglot; and my making the Defaultsort actually include the full article title, three short words – of which he deleted the middle one. kwami himself has refused when asked to cite RSs supporting his edits. – .Raven  ^.talk 10:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Also please see Talk:List of numeral systems#Please provide RSs (not fandom sites etc.) for these prefixes to -gesimal. Or perhaps fandom sites are now RSs for adding mathematical vocabulary here; how could I not have known? Though Google can't find any site or book except the above page for the term "quitrigesimal". So is a Wikipedia page sufficient RS for itself? Please advise. – .Raven  ^.talk 06:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that Kwamikagami hasn't commented further on this discussion and is now involved in an edit war with this user at N'Ko script and Osmanya script. As a former admin, they should know better. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami:, @.Raven: You're both right on the line for an edit warring block. Courcelles (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Kind of an ironic comment by Kwamikagami considering their reversions and the edit summaries they've been using to call .Raven a troll and a POV pusher. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Courcelles: I know, and I'm upset at myself for getting drawn into this. I've tried discussing, on multiple pages/threads, including most recently Talk:Osmanya script#Stop edit-warring, and, as mentioned above, on his talk page. He has, for his share, templated me again (also as mentioned above), and tried to recruit other editors: WT:NCWS#Help with POV-warring. It has become impossible to do so much as add and document a Bassa Vah comma sign, fix a malformed link, or wikilink another article. 2012's report leaves me thinking this is just history on endless repeat. I should have taken that hint and just stayed away from the quicksand, even when he moved an article I'd been working on. Doing so now, despite the info still lacking or broken on multiple articles. – .Raven  ^.talk 15:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

So to add on, this former admin is canvassing, stonewalling, and levying personal attacks. It's really seeming like Kwamikagami has serious problems with edit warring and conflict resolution, given that they lost admin and then later rollback permissions for dispute related issues. They've also been blocked several times in the past for 3RR / edit-warring offenses as well.

Not to say .Raven has been perfect in this, which they've acknowledged, but I'm starting to suspect a WP:BOOMERANG may be appropriate. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I didn't want to file a formal complaint, just wanted someone here to tell Raven to stop trolling my talk page, a complaint I filed after I had told them multiple times to stay off my talk page unless they had something constructive to say. They had repeatedly templated me with warnings to stop doing things that I wasn't doing, such as vandalism warnings, after I give them a 3RR warning. After I filed here they did stay off, apart from later commenting on other topics, which I don't mind as long as they're arguing in good faith.

As for Josh's objections, there was no "canvassing". I asked for help on the NCWS discussion to keep various articles stable while the naming guidelines were being discussed, since Ravin hadn't notified the discussion of the parallel move requests. That's not "canvassing", and I didn't go behind their back to anyone's talk page. The only "stonewalling" was insisting that we wait for the outcome of the NCWS discussion before we start implementing our preferred version of it. (As, for example, just happened at Theban alphabet, due to a consensus for new wording at NCWS.) As for personal attacks, I've called Raven out on their bad behaviour. We can't have a constructive engagement when an editor is acting in bad faith, and there is plenty of evidence of that, including fake citations; POINTy citation of uncontested points in the leads of the articles being discussed, as if to prejudice the move requests; 8 duplicate move requests that don't mention the ongoing NCWS discussion on that exact topic, or notify the people involved; and chronically misrepresenting and pretending to not understand the simplest points that are made, which everyone else in the discussion is able to understand. Kind of a Borat defense, that in response we need to dumb down the discussion, which they then continue to refuse to understand.

E.g. R insists that unless I find a RS that a alphabetic script is not an alphabet, then I'm not allowed to revert their POV-warring, despite the fact that there's no claim, by me or anyone else in the discussion, or anywhere in the article, that it's not an alphabet.

In another case, I reverted them after they added a claim along with a citation that (a) is not a RS in the first place and (b) had been retracted by the authors themselves in a later edition. I even contacted the authors to ask why they retracted the claim -- they said they never had a good source and were contacted by people in the field that the claim was in error, and I let Ravin know. Raven then restored the bad citation and added two more, which didn't even mention the topic, and claimed that I now couldn't revert their edit because I'd be 'reverting sources'. Or, when they complained that I had reverted some good edits with the bad, and I said I wouldn't mind if they restored those bits, I just wasn't going to take the time to do it myself, they sarcastically took that as permission to continue the edit-war. These are examples of a pattern of behaviour that convinces me that Raven engages in bad faith edits and arguments when they don't get their way, and I have called them out on it whenever they do it. — kwami (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

• Drat, I was going to avoid interaction, but some of this has to be addressed:
  • "... insisting that we wait for the outcome of the NCWS discussion before we start implementing our preferred version of it." – So the RFC on WT:NCWS and not the page move request is the "discussion" meant in the revert-comments and 3RR template saying I shouldn't edit these articles? But – just as my move requests for the Bassa Vah, Gadabuursi, Kaddare, N'Ko, Osmanya, Todhri, Vithkuqi, and Zaghawa articles, as stated on their talk pages, were based on the existing text of WP:NCWS#Alphabets, "'Alphabet' is used for language-specific adaptations of a segmental script, usually with a defined sorting order and sometimes with not all of the letters, or with additional letters" (in context of the WT:NCWS consensus surrounding its placement by kwami, e.g. "If an alphabet is specific to more than one language then it’s still language-specific."), and were also compatible with the RFC's proposal(s), thus they would be unaffected by the RFC's outcome, pass or fail – so, likewise, my edits.

The RFC opens: "Should 'alphabet' in WP:NCWS include letter-sets for specific uses (e.g. ISO basic Latin alphabet, International Phonetic Alphabet, Theban alphabet), as well as for specific languages (e.g. Somali's Kaddare alphabet and Osmanya alphabet; Zaghawa's Zaghawa alphabet; Mandaic's Mandaic alphabet)?" [boldface added] IOW, the existing text already covers the latter set of "language-specific" alphabets; should it cover "use-specific" alphabets like the former set(ISO basic Latin, IPA, Theban) as well? I pointed out that Vaisaac's summary of consensus had included "for specific languages or use" [boldface added], to argue that should have been in the text all along.

Therefore the only articles affected by the RFC outcome were use-specific alphabets like ISO basic Latin, the IPA, and Theban – the last example of which has since been resolved separately – an important clarification to make, because kwami had declared these all "scripts", not "alphabets", and did so again during the RFC.

That kwami has also moved the natural-language alphabets (e.g. Somali's Gadabuursi, Kaddare, and Osmanya, all designed for that single language) into "script" titles actually contradicts the existing text of WP:NCWS#Alphabets, although kwami thumps "WP:NCWS" as the rationale and can cite no off-WP RS consensus agreeing with their premise.

But that's not even a "discussion" up for support-or-oppose comments. kwami's never started an RFC to move natural-language alphabets over to "scripts", nor is that proposal part of the current RFC. kwami's simply moved and edited them BOLDly, then repeatedly reverted any reversion, and also any article text-edit restoring (or supporting with cites) the status quo ante. To me this seems the encyclopedic equivalent of a coup d'etat; kwami now owns those articles.

And I don't think that's right.

• "fake citations" – which citations were "fake"? On various articles, kwami's repeatedly reverted to delete the Merriam-Webster dictionary entry 1a for "alphabet" ("a set of letters or other characters with which one or more languages are written especially if arranged in a customary order"), and Clair, Kate; Busic-Snyder, Cynthia (2012-06-20). "Key Concepts". A Typographic Workbook: A Primer to History, Techniques, and Artistry. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 347. ISBN 9781118399880. alphabet: a set of visual characters or letters in an order fixed by custom. The individual characters represent the sounds of a spoken language. ... In addition to English, there are... Bassa (Vah),... International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA),... N'Ko,... Somali (Osmanya),.... – I invite anyone to click the links and compare my quotes with their actual texts.

• "POINTy citation of uncontested points in the leads of the articles being discussed" – If the point is "uncontested" in those articles, why is kwami removing the word "alphabet" from both their titles and their body texts?

• "8 duplicate move requests..." – No, each is on a separate article talkpage, for that article alone, They cite the same documentation because the same issues apply. kwami knows this; kwami has made the same claim before, and I've refuted it each time.

• "... that don't mention the ongoing NCWS discussion on that exact topic" – as noted above, the RFC on WT:NCWS doesn't affect these natural-language alphabet articles, whether pass or fail; nor do they affect it.

• "or notify the people involved"' – Note that kwami, who moved those articles from "alphabet" to "script", did so without discussion or notification to anyone, and quickly reverted all reversions also without starting discussions (until quite recently, e.g. the templates and this ANI complaint). To each of my move requests, kwami has quickly !voted "opposed"; who else was "involved" to notify?

• "chronically misrepresenting and pretending to not understand the simplest points that are made, which everyone else in the discussion is able to understand." – As I told kwami before, "You mistake disagreement for incomprehension."

• "R insists that unless I find a RS that a alphabetic script is not an alphabet, then I'm not allowed to revert their POV-warring, despite the fact that there's no claim, by me or anyone else in the discussion, or anywhere in the article, that it's not an alphabet." – Again, note kwami's insistent removal of the word "alphabet" from article titles and body texts.

A writing system can be both an alphabet AND a script... as a logographic/ideoraphic script is also a script... but when a species is also the sole member of its genus, we still title it by its species name, then create a redirect to that from the genus name. (If more genus members turn up, we can convert that redirect to a dab without having to rename the species article.) The same preference for specificity surely applies to alphabets.

• "In another case, I reverted them after they added a claim along with a citation that (a) is not a RS in the first place and (b) had been retracted by the authors themselves in a later edition. I even contacted the authors to ask why they retracted the claim -- they said they never had a good source and were contacted by people in the field that the claim was in error, and I let Ravin know." – In fact, kwami never mentioned having done such OR offline, nor would I have accepted such an unprovable claim. kwami asserted there'd been a retraction, I asked for an RS to that retraction, and kwami never replied to that request. This is in reference to article Alchemical symbol and his deletion of Magnesium from a list there. My cite was a Unicode proposal from the website of Indiana University's "The Chymistry of Isaac Newton" Project – but kwami then claimed that project had had the symbol removed from Unicode. He gave no link, of course. Discussion on my talkpage, following the reversions on 'Alchemical symbol', from 01:21, 12 April 2023‎, forward. Note that ironically, and perhaps without even realizing it, kwami later added a link to an existing file photo of a 1931 book showing a recognizable symbol for "Magnesia", as I mentioned at the end of my talkpage's thread. I thanked kwami for it.

I also added the source book (of the chart kwami had linked) to refs for Magnesium. I now see that kwami has again deleted Magnesium from the list, along with all its refs, commenting "rv fv (spurious sources)"; look at those sources for yourself.

Update: I see that kwami made that claim of personal off-WP contact in Talk:Alchemical symbol#Magnesium, posted 20:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC) — 19 minutes after claiming in their above 20:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC) comment in this thread that they'd told me so earlier. Wow. (This was also nearly 17 hours after their removal of the Magnesium entry for "spurious sources".) – .Raven  ^.talk 01:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• "Or, when they complained that I had reverted some good edits with the bad, and I said I wouldn't mind if they restored those bits, I just wasn't going to take the time to do it myself, they sarcastically took that as permission to continue the edit-war." – What kwami actually said, verbatim, was: "If you want to restore any improvements you made, I have no problem with that. I'm simply not willing to parse the good from the bad in your edits -- that's your job."  I took kwami at their word. They reverted me in toto  again, as usual.

• "Raven engages in bad faith edits and arguments when they don't get their way" – Funny thing, I've never accused kwami of "bad faith", due to WP:AGF. – .Raven  ^.talk 23:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe because you don't have reason to accuse me of acting in bad faith? You're still pretending you don't know what words mean, which, since I suspect you're intelligent enough to know better, raather proves my point. — kwami (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I know I'm going to regret weighing in here...
@.Raven: It's pretty clear from context clues that kwami was responding to the second half of your comment: Is it "trolling" to even wikilink "West Africa" (one of your removals), for goodness's sake? when they said, If you want to restore any improvements you made, [etc]. It was a license to re-insert the wikilink; not continue to edit war.
That misinterpretation was really on you. You were told explicitly, if you improve content in the same edit that re-introduced disputed material, you'd get completely reverted. You made the same edit as you made the first time you were reverted, and kwami acted accordingly.
I am not excusing kwami's actions here because edit-warring is still edit-warring, but your insistence that kwami implied you could make these 2 edits is just wrong and disingenuous. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@MJL: In response to your request/comment on my talk page, Raven's duplicate move requests are at Bassa Vah script, Elbasan script, Gadabuursi Somali script, Kaddare script, N'Ko script, Osmanya script, Todhri script, Vithkuqi script and Zaghawa script. So that's 9, actually. (I don't count Theban script, which is a slightly different rationale and had been requested earlier.)

As for the difference between "script" and "alphabet", if you're interested, see Latin script and Latin alphabet, or Arabic script and Arabic alphabet. The one is the basic writing system, the other the application of that writing system to a particular language. So the English alphabet we're using is in the Latin script, but there are two Serbian alphabets, one Latin script and one Cyrillic, and two Kurdish alphabets, one Latin script and one Arabic. The question being discussed at NCWS is for cases like Bassa Vah, where the script is only used for one language. Thus the article could be labeled either "Bassa Vah script" or "Bassa Vah alphabet". Do we choose 'script' because it's a writing system, or 'alphabet' because we're discussing the application to a single language? Both aspects are (or should be) covered in the article. — kwami (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

By that rationale, every "alphabet" article should be titled "script", as all alphabets (and abjads and abugidas and syllabaries, etc.) are types or subsets of scripts.

But that removes information rather than adding it. We know, when seeing a title say "alphabet", that a type of script is involved. We do not know, when seeing a title say "script", that an alphabet is involved. "Alphabet" tells us both things; "script" tells us only one.

"Script" is appropriate when there are several subset alphabets, as "Cyrillic script" includes, e.g., the Russian, Buryat, and Mongolian alphabets. "Arabic script" likewise includes, e.g., both the Arabic and Persian alphabets.

In the cases at issue, there are no subset alphabets involved; just one alphabet per article.

Per WP:NCWS#Alphabets, "'Alphabet' is used for language-specific adaptations of a segmental script, usually with a defined sorting order and sometimes with not all of the letters, or with additional letters" – and these are all "language-specific", most of them for one language only; N'Ko for a small group of languages or dialects, the Manding languages, outside of which its chief feature (that all users, no matter how they speak a word, spell it the same way in N'Ko) doesn't work. – .Raven  ^.talk 02:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

> "if you improve content in the same edit that re-introduced disputed material" – But kwami has insisted over and over (even above) that these were "uncontested points"; kwami's point seems to have been merely that footnotes must not be in the lede. The last paragraph of WP:LEDE's lede differs: "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body, and not the lead." [emphases added]  I've cited and quoted that sentence to kwami, who has continued to disregard it. – .Raven  ^.talk 01:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

By the way, the so-called "duplicate move requests" were to return "alphabet" articles to that status quo ante, after kwami had BOLDly moved them to "script" titles without discussion or consensus (and against even the WP:NCWS#Alphabets kwami has thumped), and re-reverted reversions of those moves (thus knowingly overriding objections). Supposedly it was kwami's duty to create all those move requests after the first reversion; instead *I* did, rather than echoing kwami's move-wars. Somehow this is being listed as an offense I've committed. I've just learned, from lower down this page, of WP:FAITACCOMPLI, which seems to indicate otherwise. – .Raven  ^.talk 18:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

... and I have now come across WP:BECAUSEISAYSO, which seems to sum up kwami's !RS !citations. – .Raven  ^.talk 23:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Now kwami has deleted from 'Alchemical symbol', as "false claims", a source copied from Magnesium#History, where it was not controversial at all, the report of magnesium's first isolation: Davy, H. (1808). "Electro-chemical researches on the decomposition of the earths; with observations on the metals obtained from the alkaline earths, and on the amalgam procured from ammonia". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. 98: 333–370. Bibcode:1808RSPT...98..333D. doi:10.1098/rstl.1808.0023. JSTOR 107302. (Specifically, pp. 109-116, in the Collected Works version linked there, cover the extraction of the metal he calls magnium from – and its subsequent oxidation into – the white powdery material he calls magnesia: [p. 115] "It sank rapidly in water, though surrounded by globules of gas, producing magnesia, and quickly changed in air, becoming covered with a white crust, and falling into a fine powder, which proved to be magnesia.") When will these unjustified deletions, using false edit-comments, cease?

I have restored this with the comment that, before removing it again, that removal should be justified in discussion. I have made the same remark in reply to kwami on Talk:Alchemical symbol. – .Raven  ^.talk 04:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

... and DePiep has called "broken process" on that 'Talk:Alchemical symbol' thread, linking kwami's deletion of that source while kwami's own RFC was underway. – .Raven  ^.talk 18:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

You are not going to get your pound of flesh here. Stop beating a dead horse. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

WT:DTS#On the other hand... – .Raven  ^.talk 21:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

This addition, itself a failure to drop the damned stick, is really not helping anybody. — Trey Maturin™ 21:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

What was that utter nonsense of a post supposed to convince us of? Frankly, this is getting tendentious. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

This kind of argumentation is why I was getting annoyed with Raven. They continue to make OR edits that contradict their sources, but at least no longer edit-war over CN and FV tags that I add. — kwami (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

> "They continue to make OR edits that contradict their sources" – you haven't found a contradiction yet, merely reverted or marked {fv}{cn} when it was clear you hadn't read them, viz. Alchemical symbol (and its talkpage). You for your part almost never bother to cite sources when you edit, and that's WP:OR. – .Raven  ^.talk 19:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, at this point I'm calling for a Boomerang block on Raven for disruption. This has gone one long enough. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Is discussing the unclean hands of the original reporter "changing the subject"?

Is differing with an essay blockworthy?

Was WP:LEGS#On the other hoof... wrong? – .Raven  ^.talk 02:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

AI for article creation

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

Originally posted this to the Helpdesk, but it was suggested this was the more appropriate forum. I wanted to flag the issue of possible use of AI in article creation. At Peer review, I came across this, a use of AI in reviewing. That led to this GAR discussion, AI again, where it became apparent that User:Esculenta was also creating articles at a very fast rate.[11] I'm not competent to assess whether or not they are making use of AI, whether it would be a good/bad/right/wrong thing if they are, or whether their actions are in fact completely appropriate. I know the use of AI here is currently a topic under quite heavy discussion although I'm not aware any conclusions have been reached/guidance or policy written. So I wanted to flag it to enable those with the necessary technical competence to have a look. Very happy to flag it elsewhere if this isn't the right place. I have let User:Esculenta know I've raised it. KJP1 (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I am actually more disturbed by Esculenta's refusal to respond to KJP1's queries, per WP:COMMUNICATE. BorgQueen (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

This edit summary is appalling for a collaborative, consensus-based encyclopedia. In the meantime, Cullen328 has blocked Esculenta for a month. — Trey Maturin™ 17:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why Esculenta was unwilling to responds to KJP1's initial query, but I can understand them become less interested in responding after being repeatedly badgered to respond. Esculenta is clearly somebody who drafts article outside of Wikipedia and may upload a series of articles in quick succession. E.g. Verrucaria hydrophila, Verrucaria placida and Verrucaria rosula were each created over the course of two minutes (and were created before ChatGPT was released). Plantdrew (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that is a fair criticism. I should have realised earlier that they had no intention of responding and dropped the stick. I apologise for not doing so. KJP1 (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems that Paradise Chronicle raised similar concerns in March. Their reluctance to answer any questions about their editing is very disappointing (to say the least). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

In their brief discussion with Paradise Chronicle on March 20, they said Eighty-two articles in a single day is my most recent article creation/time period record, but I plan to crush this in the future. Thanks for the nickname "meatbot", I'm gonna start using it IRL. Their refusal to seriously discuss their editing is unacceptable, and they are rapidly removing all messages from their talk page. I will be off-Wikipedia for a while, but will check in later.Cullen328 (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I find it extraordinary that – without any evidence at all of wrongdoing – Esculenta has been banned for a month for creating "AI generated articles". Like many of us, s/he appears to write things off-site. I do this too, when I'm working somewhere other than my house, for the simple reason that I use a VPN while working abroad and can't edit on Wikipedia when I do. S/he was very clear in his/her GA review that AI was used, and pointedly DIDN'T say that AI was used when queried about it a month or so back. It's disappointing that s/he didn't respond when challenged directly (though the confrontational tone of some of those challenges would have put my back up too), but a month ban seems pretty darned extreme. MeegsC (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Does it? I was kind of expecting an indeff. The point of the block is to inspire conversation, if there's a reasonable explanation the block is going to get dropped very quickly. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

"Expecting an indeff?" Wow. For something that's been guessed at but not proven? And therein lies the current problem with Wikipedia. Lots of folks itching to pull the trigger. No wonder we're haemorrhaging editors! MeegsC (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

MeegsC, as I said on their talk page, the editor can be unblocked quickly if they respond in detail to the reasonable concerns that have been expressed about their editing methods. Cullen328 (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@MeegsC: They're not banned. See WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

MJL, I'm sorry, but that's just semantics. They can't contribute for a month; it might as well be a ban! Yes, it's only a temporary ban, but it's more or less still a ban. MeegsC (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, they can be unblocked promptly if they simply explain their editing processes and address the reasonable concerns. Cullen328 (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

"just" semantics?? A block and a ban are diffetent things. Different concepts. With different names. In other words, yes, semantics, without which none of us would be able to make ourselves understood. --bonadea contributions talk 20:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle listed Esculenta as an example of an editor who was doing a good job while creating a large number of articles a couple days after leaving that message on Esculenta's talk page. Requesting permission for semi-automated mass creation of articles has been policy since 2010, but it wasn't until 2022 that anybody actually requested permission to do so. And Esculenta's articles aren't anything I would even consider semi-automated creations. They may be starting with some boiler plate text, but there is quite a lot of additional information beyond any boiler plate. We have an unsubstantiated allegation of using AI to create articles, and manual (non-automated) creation of a fairly large number of articles (sometimes uploaded to Wikipedia in quick sucession, but averaging less than 3/day). What is the problem here?Plantdrew (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

We have, historically, had major issues with mass creation of articles. These issues have always led to other volunteer editors here having to spend time and energy on double checking and clean-up, far more than average human article creation requires. This in itself is unfair on us.

Add to that a habit of ignoring attempts to collaborate in future article creations, using withering put-downs to people who are trying to collaborate, and even just dismissing block notifications with “ok” and a revert… how is this helpful?

I get that there’s a difference of opinion on WP between quantity and quality (we call it inclusionism vs deletionism) but whatever side we’re on, we all agree that communication is the most important thing. And that’s where this rightly went wrong for Esculenta. — Trey Maturin™ 19:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Right, I think we would hardly be here if Esculenta had responded with any rationale whatsoever. "It's not AI, I draft piles of articles offline because [whatever] and then when I have [time/internet connection/a whole bunch of articles ready] I upload forty articles at once." But repeatedly blanking with extremely rude edit summaries (I can't think of what else PFO could stand for in this context other than "please fuck off") tells me that even if this person simply has a weird working process, they aren't prepared to communicate with others on the project, and that's the real problem. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Trey Maturin, can you please provide links to where Esculenta "ignored attempts to collaborate in future article creations" and "used withering put-downs to people who are trying to collaborate"? Thanks. MeegsC (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

This is my read on it too. I can easily understand that the rapid creation of articles in the manner that Esculenta did would provoke concern – on both AI-generation and database-derivation grounds – but drafting articles offline is totally permissible, and I would be troubled to see somebody blocked merely for doing that. Their conduct in our collaborative process, on the other hand, is unambiguously poor. XAM2175 ^(T) 11:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Drafting articles offline is not merely permissible, but strongly encouraged by our current culture of immediately draftifying content in article space that is in the process of creation but not yet a completed article (despite clear instructions in WP:DRAFTIFY that this should not happen) and of capricious denials of AfC requests for drafts that, if an article, would be C-class or below but otherwise unexceptional. Because of these factors, I have long ago moved to offline drafting of all my new articles, and would strongly recommend doing so for all new-content creators.

What makes this case suspicious is not the offline creation, but the rapid pace of creation (beyond any plausible reason for stockpiling and then uploading a set of drafts), the open and admitted use of AI assistance by the same editor in Wikipedia:Peer review/Manila Metropolitan Theater/archive1, and the refusal to respond to concerns that this AI assistance may have been used as well in article generation. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Trey Maturin, while we had major issues with masscreation, MEATBOT, which is within a policy and in my opinion would fit for AI, is hardly applied. I believe with Esculenta it was the first time it was considered. I'd support if MEATBOT will be considered in the future also by other admins, not necessarily for blocks but for that editors apply at BRFA.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328's block

I can see in the history of Esculenta's talk page a testy exchange on the day, with badgering on one side and incivility on the other, which though not reflecting well on anyone involved doesn't seem to go anywhere sanctionable. Once this is at ANI, you'd think we should let people sleep on it and then come back to it after the heat of the moment has passed, so we can all figure out what's going on? But that wasn't to happen: just 16 minutes after the ANI thread was opened, and before almost anyone had had the chance to comment, Cullen328 proceeded to block Esculenta, a long-established and productive editor with a clean block log, for a period of 1 month [12]. The blocking summary is: Unapproved mass creation of articles and another content using ChatGPT or other AI technology. Given the comments on workflow above, and the fact that Esculenta had only created 3 short articles on that day (25 in the preceding week and 123 in the preceding month), there doesn't appear to be any actual problematic mass creation. The use of AI remains an open question, but there's a little bit of evidence against it at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#AI_again, and Esculenta has otherwise been completely open about using AI help in two GA reviews, so I wouldn't presume they'd be guilty by default. So, Cullen328, no matter how I look at the situation, I can't see your block as anything other than an honest mistake. – Uanfala (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

In the sake of accuracy, this matter came to my attention at the Help Desk where it had been reported 18 minutes earlier, rather than here at ANI. I was not aware of this ANI thread until after I issued the block. And I remain open to unblocking once Esculenta provides an explanation. Cullen328 (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Not an admin, but as above I have no problem with the block: blocks are preventative and the user was mass-creating articles, probably using AI, whilst dismissing all attempts to communicate and using nasty edit summaries whilst doing so. Blocks are preventative, and despite others claiming this one was punitive, a block was literally the only thing that could be done to draw the editor's attention to the issue at hand. An indef block would've been more appropriate, except that people believe that indef=infinite, so a month was a good way of heading those complaints off at the pass. Either way, a good unblock request (rather than the editor's choice of a revert with the edit summary "ok") would've been dealt with without drama as 99.9% of unblock requests are. But this is the internet and no good deed goes unpunished here. — Trey Maturin™ 17:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

there doesn't appear to be any actual problematic mass creation. Any mass creation without approval is problematic; considering that Esculenta was refusing to engage with legitimate questions I don't believe a block was inappropriate here. BilledMammal (talk) 10:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

People like talking and assuming good faith—AI is known to have no clue and to make up whatever seems to sound good, and AI uses fake references, but perhaps AI is useful at Wikipedia. Are you seriously suggesting there is a problem with blocking someone who mass creates 123 articles and fails to respond? Johnuniq (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Replying to both of you. The use of AI on Wikipedia is an area of nuances and evolving understanding (WP:LLM). In short: no, it's not banned, but yes, it can be disruptive in many circumstances. The main point though, and one that I guess I need to emphasise is: there's no evidence Escuelenta has used AI for article creation. As for the other point: 123 short articles per month, which is equivalent to 4 articles per day, is not mass creation. – Uanfala (talk) 10:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that WP:MASSCREATE gives only half a definition of what is mass-creation: it does (somewhat) specify a number range (anything more than 25 or 50), but not in what amount of time. Which makes the definition, frankly speaking, less than useless. I could use it to argue that anyone who, throughout their entire time at en.wiki has created 25 content pages on any subject and of any quality—even if they've been here since the mid-noughts, and thus average only a bit over a page per year—needs prior approval before creating any further content pages, or I could use it to argue that someone creating ~600 near-identical, formulaic stubs or underpopulated categories per month every month without prior approval is not mass creating because their daily average is well below 25. As the rule is written, both are potentially valid readings.

Obviously, pretty much no one will see the former case as mass creation, and just about everyone will agree that the latter very much is. But where in between those two extremes the actual difference between "not mass creation" and "mass creation" lies? That's by no means defined. AddWittyNameHere 10:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

163 in March, 51 in April; Quarry:query/73280. And creating this many articles at such a rate, on a narrow range of topics, when there are AI concerns, is mass creation. It might be mass creation that we would support, but that is for a discussion at BRFA to determine. BilledMammal (talk) 11:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

BilledMammal, I believe anyone in this area is aware of your stance on this topic, but the community recently rejected a number of proposals to this effect, so no, Esculenta was not required to go to BRFA before creating 160 articles last month. AddWittyNameHere, the rate of 25-50 creations mentioned in WP:MASSCREATE obviously assumes a small period of time (such as a day), that much is obvious from the old discussion linked in that sentence of the bot policy. Anyway, I'm not arguing that Esculenta's creations don't need scrutiny: maybe they do. If the community wants to debate them, it should, and maybe it can even come up with some sanction. But no-one has so far pointed out any specific problems with those creations, and there are no community norms that Esculenta has violated. What I'm arguing in this section is that the unilateral draconian block was not justified. I'd appreciate it if we could stay on point and not turn this subthread into a proxy re-enactment of battles for general guidelines that we personally believe the community should have adopted. – Uanfala (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Some were rejected, some were approved, and some failed to find consensus either way.

Defining mass create based on a single days activity also doesn't align with precedent; Lugnuts, who indisputably engaged in mass creation, created over 32,000 articles on days he created less than 25 articles, and 70,000 on days he created less than 50. However, even if you do define it as a single day Esculenta exceeded that, with 67 creations on March 30 and 83 on March 15. BilledMammal (talk) 11:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Re Uanfala's "no evidence Escuelenta has used AI for article creation": the evidence is the rapid bursts of article creation and the admitted use of AI for other purposes at Wikipedia:Peer review/Manila Metropolitan Theater/archive1. It may not be strong or persuasive evidence, or enough evidence for a block on those grounds alone, but it is false that there is no evidence. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Large Language Models do pose quite a serious threat to Wikipedia inasmuch as they have a virtually-unlimited capacity to generate superficially-acceptable prose that can be inserted into articles with insufficient scrutiny – even though many of the AI-generated text insertions we've seen so far (to the best of my knowledge) have been not from malicious actors but rather good-faith editors who simply did not understand the limitations of the LLM process. The question of whether such process might one day be useful here is irrelevant to the matter at hand, however, because at the moment I don't believe that anybody has actually found credible indication that Esculenta used AI to generate their articles – only suggested that they might have because they've previously openly used an AI process outside of articlespace, and because of their rate of article creation. The latter might easily be explained by drafting offline, and in all truth I wouldn't have viewed Esculenta's editing as infringing the spirit of the mass creation policy because the articles are not the sort of hopeless database-derived perma-micro-stubs that were the main target of said policy.

That said, Esculenta's conduct in communication and collaboration has been very poor, and it's not without precedent for an editor to be blocked in an effort to force them to communicate constructively. I would have preferred to see the block made primarily on those grounds, with the matter of potentially problematic mass-creation as a secondary reason. XAM2175 ^(T) 12:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

In hindsight, I wish that I had mentioned the communications issues in my block notice. Cullen328 (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328:, so what exactly does Esculenta need to do for you to consider unblocking them? Answer questions about whether they were or were not using an AI to generate articles? They haven't had any previous warnings about incivility. A 30 day block seem excessive for an editor who hasn't had any previous serious warnings about their behavior. Plantdrew (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Plantdrew, Esculenta needs to file a properly formatted unblock request that addresses the specific concerns that several editors, not just me, have expressed. Is the editor using ChatGPT or any form of AI to write or draft articles? What is their workflow that results in dozens of articles being created in a rapid-fire fashion? Is the editor willing to consider taking their techniques to Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group for discussion? Is the editor willing to discuss reasonable questions with their colleagues, as opposed to blowing off their concerns and repeatedly blanking their talk page? Please do not focus on the length of the block. This block can end in short order if the editor responds in a collaborative fashion. Cullen328 (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• I have a simple question. Has any of the articles they've created had issues? False information, copyvios, fake references or just references that don't contain the content they're used for, anything like that? If no to all of that, then there's either one of two conclusions to make: 1) That Esculenta did make all the articles in question by themselves and just submitted them in a short time frame or 2) That they've discovered a method of using AI writing to avoid all the issues we've seen previously with using such LLMs. If the former, then clearly there's no problem here at all. If the latter, then that's incredible and I personally would like to know the method, as I'm sure many others would in regards to helping improve article creation efforts as a whole. Silverseren^C 06:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
  • That is why communication is required. This editor has gone silent. Cullen328 (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• But is there any problem with the articles they've made? Is there reason for this block other than the accusation of using LLMs to make articles? Also, considering there isn't yet policy for that to even be a blocking reason, I don't know if your block stands up to scrutiny on that front. Outside of an actual issue with the articles they made that violates our existing policies, I'm hard-pressed to find an actual reason for any of this in the first place. Silverseren^C 06:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Communication is crucial. Not only did Esculenta mass-create those articles, they also didn't bother replying to multiple questions asked on their talk page relating to those articles. They replied with disruptive edit summaries like "mamma said it's not a good idea to talk to random strangers who ask too many questions" and "PFO". Regardless of the articles' quality, they need to explain themselves when asked to do so; that was really their only major fault. Besides that, it is necessary for us to know whether the articles were written using a LLM before determining their disruptiveness. That cannot be done if Esculenta reverts every question posted at their talk page. Nythar (💬-🍀) 06:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

IMO, three articles in one day cannot reasonably be construed as 'mass creation'. The failure to communicate is problematic, but I'm not convinced there is enough evidence here to sustain a block on the basis of using AI to write articles. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a month, to try to convince them that just a little bit of communication would be a good idea in a consensus-based collaborative encyclopaedia. That month is a very nice olive branch, considering. Someone with less patience than Cullen would've indeffed for the edit summary replies alone. — Trey Maturin™ 18:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I can read. I was addressing the AI aspect, which was all that was mentioned in the original block rationale. And yes, I have seen Cullen's later comment about wishing the block rationale had also mentioned the communication problems. I'm just not comfortable with the idea of blocking this person for using AI to create these articles when we don't actually know if that happened. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It’s not like their talk page is protected. An explanation, via an unblock request for best but in any form, would sort this. But, as they have repeatedly shown, they don’t believe in such things: that would go against their mother’s requirement not to talk to whiny strangers. It’s a bare minimum requirement to communicate here and they won’t. The block rationale wasn’t perfect, but adding shrubbery that requires a perfect rationale before a non-communicative editor is allowed to be stopped from mass-creating what appear to be AI-derived stubs is a bad idea unsupported by policy. — Trey Maturin™ 19:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why several people have assumed that an unblock request is the best way to deal with a unjustified block. If I were in Esculenta's position and found myself blocked for a month on the mere hunch that I may have used AI, then I wouldn't be begging to be let back into the project, I'd be packing my stuff and leaving for good. – Uanfala (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, mother did say not to interact with strangers... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Trey Maturin:, what makes you think that Esculenta's articles appear to be AI-derived? Have you fed any of them into a tool that attempts to detect AI-derived text? I've done that for a few of Esculenta's articles, and the tools reported that they were human-derived (I really have no idea which tools are the best for this) their most recent article, Fissurina amyloidea is human according to [13], and is 3.03% AI (amounting to one sentence) according to [14], 100% human generate content according to [15], "your text is likely to be written entirely by a human" according to [16], and 99% "highly likely to be human!" according to [17]. Esculenta has created articles at a rate that isn't possible by manually typing the text (e.g. 3 articles with ~2,000 bytes in 3 minutes), but that is entirely explainable by uploading articles drafted outside of Wikipedia. Plantdrew (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

For arguments like Plantdrews we will eventually need a regulation concerning the top article creators. Like top 10, or top 20 have to apply at the BRFA or some other venue. Within the top 20 are several article creators of table farms, poorly sourced articles or stubs of a phrase or two. There are also some within the top 20 I recommend as examples to follow their lead. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Silver seren That Esculenta could help us was my idea as well, but they were not really cooperative first with me, then with others as well. If it really works good, that's great and others could learn it as well. I am not convinced we can stop AI generated articles if editors can just deny they use semiautomated tools and get away with it. I believe we need to to support the use of AI and find the ones who use it in the sense of Wikipedia. David Eppstein double checked one article and they were satisfied. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Coolcaesar: Persistent and widespread incivility, disruptive behavior, and calling good-faith edits "vandalism."

Coolcaesar (talk) has been repeatedly admonished for incivility, disruptive behavior, and calling good-faith edits "vandalism." User talk:Coolcaesar#Please change the tone of your posts, Civil tone, February 2015, Personal attack in edit summary at Circle 7 Animation, Walt Disney, Civility, Your tone, Typo, Choosing your words carefully, Don't patronize me, Hostile response to good faith edits, Edit warring, obvious vandalism to "Interchange (road)", Verbal assault, Ongoing WP:CIVIL violations, Your message "Please do not vandalize Wikipedia", Edit-summary snark, April 2022, April 2022 - 1, “Conflict of interest” page.

There are other instances in the archives of his user talk page:

• /Archive1 (22 August 2004-7 July 2006)
• /Archive2 (8 July 2006-29 February 2008)
• /Archive3 (3 March 2008-20 December 2009)
• /Archive4 (21 December 2009 - 28 April 2014)

This has come to my attention because of Coolcaesar's comments at Talk:Apple Campus#Challenging inappropriate page move by User:InvadingInvader.

This has also been brought up at ANI at least once. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096#Coolcaesar and baseless accusations in vandalism.

Users have noted that Coolcaesar contributes many useful edits (e.g., User talk:Coolcaesar#“Conflict of interest” page), but that does not excuse persistent rulebreaking. SilverLocust (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Based on their participation in the previous noticeboard discussion (in response to this false accusation of vandalism), I am tagging @Ymblanter, Pawnkingthree, Cullen328, Praxidicae, and TJRC. Pawnkingthree said there, "Perhaps we should see if they do heed User:Cullen328's warning, which I think should be a final one." Nevertheless, Coolcaesar still characterizes good-faith edits as vandalism (e.g., Special:Diff/1136318748). SilverLocust (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The edit summary at Silicon Valley in the diff immediately above is way out of line, both behaviorally and factually. Effectively arguing that Menlo Park, California and Redwood City, California are not in Silicon Valley is ludicrous and pedantic, and the accusation of vandalism is a falsehood and therefore a personal attack. On the other hand, the diff is nearly three months old. I am unsure about how to best deter Coolcaesar from making false accusations of vandalism. I hope that other editors might have some constructive suggestions. Cullen328 (talk) 06:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I can only think of a block. This is going on for years, although with a low intensity. Ymblanter (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Another possible approach would be a mandatory WP:0RR restriction with no exception for vandalism. I'm not sure this is a good idea, just noting a possible approach. --Yamla (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Ymblanter's swiftness in proposing a block needs to be taken with a grain of salt, since our primary interaction was when I reverted this edit in December 2021 which had reinstated someone else's incorrect edit to the effect that FedEx is based at 35 Hudson Yards in New York City (when it's common knowledge that FedEx is based in Memphis, Tennessee). I have already apologized for my uncivil language in reverting User:Ymblanter's reinstatement of that misinformation.

Getting back to User:SilverLocust's point, I never accused User:InvadingInvader of vandalism. Because the drive that goes around Apple Campus is called Infinite Loop, I correctly recognized there is a good faith basis for using that as part of a new title. I criticized the sudden page move of Apple Campus to Apple Infinite Loop as disruptive because it was made (1) without warning and (2) to a new title that has even more problems than Apple Campus because of how Apple Inc. traditionally uses Apple Infinite Loop as the name for the Apple Store at Apple Campus. This latter issue could have been discovered in 10 seconds by simply searching for "Apple Infinite Loop" on Google, Bing, or their corresponding maps sites. All of them use "Apple Infinite Loop" to reference that Apple Store, probably because it's what Apple calls the store on the store's official web page.

That move clearly needed to be challenged as inaccurate and creating unnecessary confusion. But after refreshing my memory on current WP policies, I acknowledge that my choice of words was poor. Is it irritating that User:InvadingInvader apparently did not run the new title through Google? Of course. However, under WP:AGF, I can see how that was a simple mistake that anyone could have made, especially someone not based in Silicon Valley. And if User:InvadingInvader was therefore unaware of the ambiguity surrounding the new page title, that would logically explain the sudden page move. So I can see how the word "disruptive" might come across as uncivil. So for that, I apologize.

The issue with Special:Diff/1136318748 is that User:Joe Calder inserted an additional factual assertion not in the sources cited, in violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability ("All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material"). (Of course I know the broader definition of the region now encompasses southern San Mateo County, having shot the photos for Sand Hill Road, but the burden is still on editors to make sure that they have sources for their statements.)

There were three books on Google Books which I cited in support of that sentence, by Malone, Shueh, and Todd. All three of them clearly equate Silicon Valley to the Santa Clara Valley, the Valley of Heart's Delight. (Just look at the titles of the Malone and Todd books.) None of them mention San Mateo County in the pages cited.

At the time, my thinking was as follows: The correct good faith approach would have been to either add a citation to a separate source noting that the common definition of Silicon Valley has expanded into southern San Mateo County, or even better, add a separate sentence and either leave it unsupported or mark it with a "citation needed" tag. But it is neither accurate nor in good faith to modify a sentence so that it contains a factual assertion entirely absent from the sources cited. That's where I was coming from when I characterized User:Joe Calder's edit as vandalism.

With the benefit of hindsight, I see the flaw in my logic: I'm jumping to the conclusion that edits that fail WP:V are not in good faith. But the majority of editors lack my deep familiarity with WP core content policies (verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view). So the civil approach would have been to revert with an edit summary merely stating that the edit inserted an additional fact which failed verification against the cited sources and citing WP:V.

Yes, I still jump to conclusions sometimes. But I have significantly improved my compliance with the civility and AGF policies over the past four years, and as you can see from the foregoing analysis, I am getting better at thinking through why my word choices are uncivil when they are brought to my attention. Over the last year, I have been very careful in the vast majority of my cleanup edits to focus on the text itself (that's why I write "Fixing this" or "Fixing this mess") and not other editors.

The underlying problem is that I care deeply about this project. Do I care too much? Probably. I have contributed high-quality photographs to over 500 articles and most of the text and sources in over two dozen significant articles (and contributed citations to reliable sources to several hundred others). I have enjoyed contributing to WP for many years. I was planning to contribute for many more.

However, if you think I've worn out my welcome, then keep in mind that I am the only editor regularly monitoring over a thousand articles (of the nearly six thousand on my watchlist). I've seen the same pattern hundreds of times: an anonymous IP editor sneaks in subtle misinformation or disinformation that lingers for two to five years before I notice it and correct it. If I'm not around any more to catch that, that's on you, not me. Drive away every editor who cares, then no one will. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

CC, you don't seem to recognize vandalism as separate from carelessness, misinterpretation, unclear language, simply being incorrect. Seriously, accusing an editor with hundreds of thousands of edits of vandalism? Maybe you really just shouldn't ever be even using the word here? Valereee (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Coolcaesar, the problem with your reasoning about Silicon Valley being equivalent to the Santa Clara Valley is that the Bayside cities of San Mateo County are indisputably part of the Santa Clara Valley. Read that article and look at the map. Or if local, go to any eastward facing scenic overlook in the southern Santa Cruz Mountains, along Skyline Boulevard for example. You can easily see that it is one big valley, partially under the San Francisco Bay, stretching from San Francisco International Airport all the way to northern San Benito County, and also including the Bayside cities of southern Alameda County. So, you were not correct on the content issue and still, you falsely accused the other editor of vandalism. Your contributions are very much appreciated, but if I was you, I would be exceptionally cautious about use of the word "vandalism" going forward. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

You're confusing the truth of User:Joe Calder's edit with whether it was supported by the underlying sources. As I just said above, I have never disputed the truth of the edit. But it was not supported by the sources as required by WP:V. As I mentioned, I personally shot the photos of Sand Hill Road and I am well aware that southern San Mateo County is widely considered to be part of the Silicon Valley region. Rather, I used uncivil language because I was incensed at how User:Joe Calder had apparently violated WP:V by stuffing words into the cited sources' mouths that are simply not found in the cited sources (which I just linked to above). Under WP:V, the burden is on that user to either add a separate source for that fact or add the fact in a way that doesn't improperly imply existing sources support it (when they do not). The civil approach, as I now realize, would have been to simply point out that the new edit had failed verification.

As for User:Valereee, I think that might be a good point. Since I keep getting chewed out for uncivil word choices, I probably should just eliminate the words "vandalism" or "disruptive" and find less strong language to express my irritation at unconstructive, uninformed, or incorrect edits. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I fear that you are sinking into pedantry now, Coolcaesar. The three sources said that it is equivalent to the Santa Clara Valley, and much of the heavily populated parts of San Mateo County are in the Santa Clara Valley. You have have absolutely no reason to be incensed on this matter. Cullen328 (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I see where we're talking past each other. You're using the vague geological definition of "Santa Clara Valley" as set forth in the Wikipedia article to contend that User:Joe Calder's edit was therefore adequately supported by the three books cited (because of how they refer to the Santa Clara Valley) and therefore my anger at the edit was unjustified.

The part of that article claiming the Santa Clara Valley starts at San Francisco didn't link to the relevant report, but it looks like it's citing to this page in this USGS land subsidence report from 1985.

Having grown up in the Valley, I can tell you that the vast majority of Bay Area residents treat the Valley as ending at the Santa Clara County boundaries at San Francisquito Creek (on the west side) and Scott Creek (on the east side). They do not commonly perceive southern cities in San Mateo County or Alameda County to be part of the Santa Clara Valley. Silicon Valley, yes. But not the Santa Clara Valley.

For example, the map of the Santa Clara Valley in a 1999 USGS report on land subsidence shows that its northern end is at Palo Alto. As does the title of this book from 1991. Notice how the 1999 report is careful to state that the Valley is part of a trough, while the 1985 report defines the Valley as the trough itself.

All three books I cited in the Silicon Valley article were published after 2000 and therefore it is more likely that the authors were using the common meaning of the words "Santa Clara Valley" as equivalent to "the valley dominating northern and central Santa Clara County" than the older, more obscure geological definition of "the valley running southeast from San Francisco." So it was up to User:Joe Calder to make edits consistent with that common meaning.

And then I just realized something. Under WP:AGF, it was entirely possible for User:Joe Calder to be acting in good faith if he's not from the Valley and was relying on the defective definition in the current Santa Clara Valley article. I have to concede that's where my anger was partially unjustified: the real issue here is that the Santa Clara Valley article has the wrong definition. So yes, I see that's why the civility policy is so important. Sometimes we just need to cool down and think things through.

Anyway, let's get back to the point of all this. To be reasonable, I propose that one way to handle this is for an admin to scold me at length on my talk page, advise that this is my final warning and that I am prohibited from using the words "vandalism" and "disruptive editing" to characterize other editors' edits for all but the most truly extreme situations (as in article blanking or sudden replacing of entire articles with clearly off-topic nonsense), that I am to find less harsh language to describe any edits which are merely unconstructive, uninformed, or factually incorrect, and that any admin is welcome to block me for a week or two if I continue to keep losing my temper and using uncivil language. Is that fair? --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Or possibly any admin will indef you the next time you lose your temper or use uncivil language or baselessly accuse someone of vandalism. Valereee (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's a rather harsh approach, but I can see how some admins might feel that way.

I just traced the underlying issue with the Santa Clara Valley article that led to this situation with the Silicon Valley article. User:Binksternet made major revisions in 2021 which I hadn't closely paid attention to until now. The edits are clearly in good faith as a fair restatement of assertions in the 1985 report, but it looks like User:Binksternet did not recognize the source is an outlier. The correct approach would have been to note that the 1985 report has an unusually broad definition and that other sources define the Santa Clara Valley as starting farther south at the southern end of San Francisco Bay (the previous definition in the article), including this one, this one, this one, and this one. The last one is particularly important. The ATF explained in a 1989 rulemaking document that they determined the area north of the boundary with San Mateo County is not locally and/or nationally known as part of the Santa Clara Valley and therefore would not become part of the Santa Clara Valley AVA. So I will have to take that up on that article's talk page. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Not harsh at all. When faced with To be reasonable, I propose that one way to handle this is for an admin to scold me at length on my talk page, advise that this is my final warning and that I am prohibited from using the words "vandalism" and "disruptive editing" to characterize other editors' edits for all but the most truly extreme situations (as in article blanking or sudden replacing of entire articles with clearly off-topic nonsense), that I am to find less harsh language to describe any edits which are merely unconstructive, uninformed, or factually incorrect, and that any admin is welcome to block me for a week or two if I continue to keep losing my temper and using uncivil language. Is that fair? [emph mine] what I see is someone not taking this seriously. An indef isn't punishment. It's requiring you to deal with your issues. Valereee (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, I am trying to take this seriously and talk through these issues in good faith. It's not working.

As long as WP admins will allow me, I'm going to focus on what I do best: taking photographs of interesting buildings and things and adding them to articles. And I'm going to cut back on everything else.

In an earlier edit (the one where you just reverted yourself), you said no one cares about the Santa Clara Valley. You're absolutely right.

As I have just explained, we have an article using an outlier definition of its subject matter that is largely disconnected from actual real-world usage and most published sources. But I'm not going to fix any of that, or many other issues from now on. Because no one cares.

I have tried very hard for over 15 years to help build a more accurate encyclopedia. It is abundantly clear my efforts are not appreciated. So I will focus my text edits on a small number of articles I love the most (the ones where I wrote most of them), and I promise to keep my edit summaries for those articles terse, anodyne, and civil. And if even in that limited sphere, I again cross the line, feel free to indefinitely block me. That's the best I can do. Coolcaesar (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Coolcaesar, Sorry, didn't make myself clear: no one at ANI cares about any content dispute, including about the Santa Clara Valley. Wikipedia cares. ANI does not. Valereee (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Coolcaesar, your contributions are highly appreciated. From the diffs I've seen, the people you berate are often in the wrong. Your attentiveness to verifiability is valuable, as it's one of the most neglected tasks on Wikipedia. But your posts remind me of Linus Torvalds. He was a PITA to his collaborators for more than a decade until someone helped him realize how little it achieved, and how much unnecessary stress it caused him and others. He became less abrasive, and I bet everyone around him breathed a huge sigh of relief. When dealing with incompetent editors, no amount of berating will help them change. And competent editors don't want the unpleasantness. Is the abrasiveness worth it? I hope you can take the time to reflect on that, as Torvalds did. DFlhb (talk) 05:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I personally agree that Coolcaesar should not be labeling content disputes as disruptive unless he can clearly demonstrate that a user has actually been disruptive over a period of time. Undiscussed moves are free to be challenged, though unless there is evidence of a move war, I shouldn't be tagged for disruptive editing. Noting that there has been a pattern of this, but also considering that Coolcaesar has done a lot of good work for the project, I would recommend that Coolcaesar be formally prohibited from labeling edits as vandalism or disruptive unless it's obvious (maybe as described under the 3RR exception for obvious vandalism). InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Srich32977 and FAITACCOMPLI

Srich32977 believes that ISBNs should be formatted as 0123456789 or 978-0123456789, and has been mass-converting correctly-hyphenated ISBNs to this form (e.g. [18][19][20][21][22][23][24]), despite guidance in WP:ISBN to "Use hyphens if they are included", and {{cite book}} that "Hyphens in the ISBN are optional, but preferred." Often the rationale given for the edits is consistency; the changes invariably aim at consistent use of the above format. Between December 2016 and now, many editors have asked Srich to stop these edits ([25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]) – most recent attempt here.

Certainly the content issue is somewhat arcane and opinions will differ, but that is best discussed elsewhere, e.g. WT:ISBN, where Srich has not succeeded in getting support for his position.

The issue here is WP:FAITACCOMPLI: attempting to force his preference on others with mass edits over years, ignoring contrary guidance and the objections of many editors. I ask that he stop making these edits (removing correctly-placed hyphens from ISBNs) until and unless he can show consensus for them. Kanguole 12:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

What is the rationale for removing the hyphens? Doesn’t seem to make sense. Hyphens are used as standard in ISBN composition. Makes no sense and doesn’t benefit the project in any way. Don’t usually comment on ANI cases because I am not an administrator but this one just appears very odd. MaxnaCarta (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kanguole: mis-construes what I "believe". Out of my many edits, 7 recent examples are selected where I've taken a mix of ISBN hyphen-citation styles and established a consistent style. Were ISBN-hyphenations "correct" or "proper" before or after my edits? In a sense, yes – all the "checksumss" verified that they were valid. But were the citation-styles consistent? No. (And Consistency is one of the "5 Cs" that copy-editors cherish.) Moving along with another example, todays' Featured Article (Renewable energy in Scotland) has 7 references with ISBNs. One of the 7 comes from an edit I did — the expand-citations bot/tool added an ISBN-13 with no hyphens. (Later it was manually hyphenated to 978-1234567890.) My point? This is an FA with a consistent/established citation style and that style involves ISBNs with either 0123456789 or 978-0123456789. Should all WP articles have this sort of ISBN hyphenation? NO WAY. It is too big and clumsy to impose that sort of MOS. Again moving along – a few editors have admonished me. Kanguole is one, another admonishment is for a typo I did. Another recognized that the issue was one preference verses another. But is this "many"? No, in fact I've received "Thanks" and Barnstars for my ISBN-hyphen-related edits. So I will thank Kanguole for noting that my edits are invariably adding consistency to individual WP articles. And I will give even more thanks when Kanguole uses available tools to add consistent hyphen-citation-styles to references. – S. Rich (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems fairly self-evident to me that where a number of Wikipedia documents show a consensus that hyphens should be used, the reasonable thing an editor should do to improve consistency is to ensure that all ISBNs use hyphens. XAM2175 ^(T) 17:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The presence or absence of hyphens makes absolutely zero difference to the meaning of an ISBN (I won't write more on that matter here, but see my posts at Wikipedia talk:ISBN#Hyphens in ISBNs). Therefore, adding or removing them is a purely cosmetic change. If done on the grounds of consistency, I would point out that WP:WIAFA#2C says nothing about ISBNs; it links to Wikipedia:Citing sources which basically says that ISBNs can be provided if available (it stops short of requiring their use), but says nothing about how an ISBN should be formatted. To my mind, if it's good enough for FA-Class, it's good enough everywhere. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

​I'll dispute that the hyphens make "absolutely zero difference to the meaning". They make no difference to which book is meant by the ISBN but they indicate whether the book was published by a large publisher (small registrant element) and is potentially more reliable, or a small publisher (large registrant element) and is potentially self published. The inconsistency of component length, and hyphen placement, is a part of the system. Where the hyphens are used incorrectly their removal is good. Where they are used as assigned their removal is a removal of information based on a misconceived idea of consistency. Cabayi (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem here is the mass changes to impose the preferred style, despite the objections of many editors. Kanguole 06:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

There is little functional difference between converting all the ISBNs on a page to your preferred format, e.g. [35], and performing the same conversion when there is variation, e.g. [36]. In the latter case the ISBNs were uniformly correctly hyphenated until a bot introduced a single unhyphenated ISBN, which you took as licence to convert the others to your preferred format.

In any case, consistency is not a sufficient reason to override the existing guidance and the objections of many editors.

However, there need be no conflict: you can achieve your stated aim of consistency by subst'ing the newly-resurrected {{Format ISBN}} template to correctly add hyphens to ISBNs that lack them. Kanguole 09:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

ISBNs with hyphens are more informative than without, as they indicate, roughly, whether the book is from a major or minor publisher. Information is lost if hyphens are removed. Yes, an article may look inconsistent if ISBNs in one article are in a mix of hyphenated and non-hyphenated, but a partly-hyphenated set of isbns is more useful than a totally-non-hyphenated set, so the hyphens should not be removed in pursuit of consistency. If the inconsistency worries anyone, they can fix it by searching out and adding the correct hyphenation. Otherwise, just walk away. PamD 09:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Wow, I've just read more carefully the above post: {{Format ISBN}} seems the answer. Perfect. PamD 09:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The template "{{Format ISBN}}" is a very good answer. But there is only one configuration that solves the problem – "{{ISBN|{{Format ISBN|9780631184287}}}}" renders as "ISBN 978-0-631-18428-7". That gives the reader the Book Sources magic link and hyphens. The Format ISBN template instructions need clarification. E.g., the examples are non-linking-examples or they are parameter-error examples. But this Book Sources-linking version should be encouraged. I intend to use it. – S. Rich (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

A note that {{ISBN|{{Format ISBN|9780631184287}}}} was changed by a bot to {{ISBN|978-0-631-18428-7}} almost immediately. I don't know if that means anything. — Trey Maturin™ 16:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

That's expected; it was noted in the parallel discussion at Wikipedia talk:ISBN § Hyphens in ISBNs that [the] template is auto-subst'd by AnomieBOT. XAM2175 ^(T) 17:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Cool. We now return you to talking with people who are less technically incompetent than me ;-) — Trey Maturin™ 17:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, the bot works fast! – S. Rich (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

{{Format ISBN}} should be subst'ed – then there's no need for the bot to clean up. That is, you use

{{ISBN|{{subst:Format ISBN|9780631184287}}}}

if you're not using citation templates, and

|isbn={{subst:Format ISBN|9780631184287}}

inside citation templates. Then the formatting happens when you save the edit, so these are saved as

{{ISBN|978-0-631-18428-7}}

and

|isbn=978-0-631-18428-7

respectively. Kanguole 18:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem with that is that when either of these is used between <ref>...</ref> tags, substitution doesn't work. This is phab:T4700, and having been open for almost eighteen years, doesn't look like it'll be resolved any time soon. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

One for the next version of the Community Wishlist, perhaps. In the meantime I've added a comment there on phab: perhaps all other interested parties should do so too, just to show those interested that this is a real issue of concern to current editors. PamD 07:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Srich32977: Since we now have a workable method (namely {{Format ISBN}}) to obtain consistency without removing hyphens from ISBNs, will you agree to not remove them going forward? Kanguole 19:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Do we have an unapproved bot?

[37] and dozens of similar edits? I mean, the edits are not necessarily bad (no opinion on this), but I thought if they are marled like a bot they must be a bot? And, to be honest, I do not know what do we usually do in this case (on Wikidata, where I have somewhat more extensive bot knowledge, I would block). Ymblanter (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Since this user appears to own a couple bots on the Russian Wikipedia (see for instance ru:Участник:TextworkerBot), I can only assume they either accidentally used their bot tools here or are unaware of our local bot policies and how to ask for approval. I don't think blocking is necessary at this point, but would like to see them acknowledge the issue and stop editing in such a manner. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 16:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The user resumed editing Wikipedia without reacting to this thread or the message at their talk page. Ymblanter (talk) 05:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Volgabulgari's disruptive editings in Tatar confederation

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

These claims below were originally posted in Tatar confederation's talk page (though I've also minorly modified them for here).

• Here Volgabulgari changed the wording

  • The name "Tatar" was first transliterated in the Book of Song as 大檀 Dàtán (MC: *da^H-dan) and 檀檀 Tántán (MC: *dan-dan) as another name for the Rourans.

    to:

  • The name "Tatar" was first transliterated in the Book of Song as 大檀 Dàtán (MC: *da^H-dan) and 檀檀 Tántán (MC: *dan-dan) also used as another name for the Rourans who were of Proto-Mongolic Donghu origin.

  • The reason why the original wording had been:

  • The name "Tatar" was first transliterated in the Book of Song as 大檀 Dàtán (MC: *da^H-dan) and 檀檀 Tántán (MC: *dan-dan) as another name for the Rourans.

  • was because in the original Chinese wording in Songshu, vol. 95 is:

    • 芮芮一號大檀，又號檀檀

      , which, when translated to English, is:

    • Ruìruì [aka Rouran], one appellation is Dàtán, also called Tántán

  • Songshu, vol. 95 did not claim that 大檀 Dàtán and Tántán 又號檀檀 were "also used as another name for the Rourans"
  • It's very apparent that Volgabulgari cannot read Classical Chinese. From the article's edit history, Volgabulgari wrote these:

    • Tatar name also used for Rourans but it's not necessary to add Proto-Mongolic. Because "Tatar" here are not the Rourans.

    • atar confederation here is not same with Rourans. Not the same people.

• Here Volgabulgari asserted that: "He [i.e. me, Erminwin] is using a Britannica source where it says Tatars originated between Lake Balkai and Manchuria. Same source also says Original Tatars (Nine Tatars) are a Turkic-speakers unlike Mongols." when in fact the source I cited for that is "Note 144 on "The Kultegin inscription" in Türik Bitig. Russian original: " Otuz Tatar – кочевые племена монгольского типа. В китайских источниках их называли «татань, дадань». Проживали на Байкале и маньчжурии." rough translation: "Nomadic tribes of the Mongolic sort. In Chinese sources they were called 'Tatan, Dadan'. They lived between Baikal and Manchuria."
• Volgabulgari also asserted: "When I added "Original Tatars associated with Turkic peoples" he keeps deleting without saying anything most of the time." I did delete "Actual Tatars, the Nine Tatars are associated with Turkic peoples. They might be related to Kipchak and/or Cuman peoples." from the section "Name and origin" because it is a repetition of "they [Tatars] were proposed to be Turkic speakers (e.g. by Encyclopedia Britannica or Kyzlasov apud Sadur 2012) related to Cumans and Kipchaks." in the very next section "Ethnic and linguistic affiliations", where the Nine Tatars' ethnic and linguistic affiliation/association would be relevant. I even wrote here "No need to repeat same claims by same sources too many times." to explain why I deleted "Actual Tatars, the Nine Tatars are associated with Turkic peoples. They might be related to Kipchak and/or Cuman peoples."
• Volgabulghari themself edited then deleted one whole section [EDIT: "Legacy"], even though the claim "Turkic-speaking peoples of Cumania, as a sign of political allegiance, adopted the endonym of their Mongolic-speaking conquerors, before ultimately subsuming the latter culturally and linguistically." in that section is sourced.
  • The source is Pow (2019). On page 563, Pow clearly wrote:

    • If we accept this statement regarding self-identification within the military-tribal confederation that arose in the steppe, then Mongol ethnic identity was at least partly a creation of Chinggis Khan and his immediate successors. Carpini’s “Mongols whom we call Tartars” had once been Tatars – whom we now call Mon-gols. A Mongolian linguistic and cultural identity existed before Chinggis Khan but the specifically “Mongol” national identity and predominant ethnonym must be products of Chinggis Khan’s empire-building project. If so, this only confirms what has long been said: Chinggis Khan is the father of the Mongolian people. Regarding the Volga Tatar people of today, it appears they took on the endonym of their Mongol conquerors when they overran the Dasht-i-Kipchak. It was preserved as the prevailing ethnonym in the subsequent synthesis of the Mongols and their more numerous Turkic subjects who ultimately subsumed their conquerors cultu-rally and linguistically as al-Umari noted by the fourteenth century [32, p. 141]. I argue that the name “Tatar” was adopted by the Turkic peoples in the region as a sign of having joined the Tatar conquerors – a practice which Friar Julian reported in the 1230s as the conquest unfolded. The name stands as a testament to the sur-vivability and adaptability of both peoples and ethnonyms. It became, as Sh. Marjani stated, their “proud Tatar name.”

• On their talk page Volgabulgari even told Nishidani "Kys (very likely standing for Kill yourself, 1, 2)" when critiqued by Nishidani for "editing a top class 4 article with virtually no prior experience as an editor" and "ignoring standard rules."
• EDIT: and many more actions... as can be seen on the Tatar confederation's page revision history

Erminwin (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• A report by Volgabulgari about this was closed on AN as a content dispute, which is what it appears to be. The advice there was to discuss it on the article talk page, which I reiterate to Erminwin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• It might be unrelated to this thread, but User:Ermenrich and I had a bizarre encounter with User:Volgabulgari in Talk:Hunno-Bulgar_languages, where they tried to defend the notability of a POV fork with entirely made-up "citations" allegedly taken from diverse scholarly works. Having access to these sources, we quickly exposed the "citations" as fabrications. I posted a hoax warning[38] on their talk page, which was reverted. I haven't given a thought about it because @Volgabulgari self-reverted their POV fork back to a redirect—case closed. But upon seeing this report now, I wonder if User:Erminwin can spot similar "put-on" attempts in their interactions with @Volgabulgari. If not, I will be happy to acknowledge the bizarre incident in Talk:Hunno-Bulgar_languages as a singular misstep. Otherwise, the interaction reported here might turn out to be more than just a "content dispute". –Austronesier (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  https://www.britannica.com/topic/Tatar

  "The name Tatar first appeared among nomadic tribes living in northeastern Mongolia and the area around Lake Baikal from the 5th century CE. Unlike the Mongols, these peoples spoke a Turkic language, and they may have been related to the Cuman or Kipchak peoples. After various groups of these Turkic nomads became part of the armies of the Mongol conqueror Genghis Khan in the early 13th century, a fusion of Mongol and Turkic elements took place, and the Mongol invaders of Russia and Hungary became known to Europeans as Tatars (or Tartars)." Volgabulgari (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  "However, identification of the Tatars of the Orkhon inscriptions with "Dada" from Chinese sources is contested."

  link

  10th century geographical treatise Hudud al-Alam mentioned Tatars as part of Turkic tribal federation called ToquzOghuz.

  Golden, P. B. (1992). pp. 155–157 (Source repated in page, original citation did not given by me)

  "From the 10th to 13th centuries, Shatuo Turks joined Tatar confederation and became known as White Tatars branch of the Tatar" (Repated in Shauto page)

  "Actual Tatars, the Nine Tatars are associated with Turkic peoples. They might be related to Kipchak and/or Cuman peoples."

  lnik Volgabulgari (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Austronesier: When I demonstrated that User:Volgabulgari had bald-facedly lied about me, this is their response : "Flatheartism [sic] is better for you." Erminwin (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't say about lie. I said for the guy who really believes I'm getting paid for Tatarstan government. He really believes that. Volgabulgari (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Volgabulgari: "[Erminwin] the guy who really believes I'm getting paid for Tatarstan government. He really believes that." When I wrote: "There's this Vietnamese idiom: chưa đánh đã khai 'already confessing before getting beaten'." I was being sarcastic. Erminwin (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  Salty irony then. I'm really tired of speaking nonsense that leads us nowhere. You trying so hard to ban me. You reported all history and I explained myself. So, case closed. It's administator's decision. Volgabulgari (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  Lol it is you HAHAHAJSJADHAHS. Volgabulgari (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

References

• Comment While I agree there is something strange going on with this editor - the use of faked sources mentioned by Austronesier was very odd, although to their credit Volgabulgari did revert their additions once it was clear that they were unsupported by the sources used - I'm not sure that this particular ANI thread is shedding any fresh light on the problem. Erminwin, can you show any places where Volgabulgari seems to be making things up (possibly while claiming they are supported by sources)? Otherwise, I'm not sure there's much to be done at the moment.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I apologize. As soon as I realized that the resources provided to me by the website I used were fake, I deleted them when you two checked them. I didn't create these resources myself, and it would have been unnecessary for me to have the intention of producing fake sources while you two were monitoring and evaluating me through "Talk" section. I was looking for all academic websites in internet for Hunno-Bulgar languages in few hours, so, i came acrossed with some Bulgarian fabricated sources. I even added quotes to them for readers to find it. Volgabulgari (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: *

Erminwin, can you show any places where Volgabulgari seems to be making things up (possibly while claiming they are supported by sources)?

No. Yet I've encountered this one instance which involved User:Volgabulgari misinterpreting a source and then insisting on making a source-misinterpretation-based claim. Let me summarize:

• There's this Classical Chinese quote in a primary source: Book of Song, vol. 95: "芮芮一號大檀，又號檀檀"; my rough translation: "Ruìruì [aka Rouran], one appellation is Dàtán, also called Tántán". From this one may conclude that Songshu's compilers thought that Datan & Tantan were other names of the Rourans.
• a secondary source, Turkologist Peter Benjamin Golden's 2013 article "Some notes on the Avars and Rouran", contains this claim on page 55 "Datan may refer to the Tatars."
  • From these, one may conclude that the ethnonym Tatar was possibly transliterated by Songshu's compilers as 大檀 & 檀檀, which they thought to be merely other names of the Rourans.
  • However, User:Volgabulgari changed the wording of this sentence "The name 'Tatar' was [possibly] [I think the word "possibly", absent in the sentence's original version, should be included] first transliterated in the Book of Song as 大檀 Dàtán (MC: *daH-dan) and 檀檀 Tántán (MC: *dan-dan) as another name for the Rourans" based on those two sources to "The name "Tatar" was [possibly] first transliterated in the Book of Song as 大檀 Dàtán (MC: *daH-dan) and 檀檀 Tántán (MC: *dan-dan) also used as another name for the Rourans"; as if User:Volgabulgari implied that Songshu's compilers also used the word 大檀 / 檀檀 (transliterations of *Tatar) to transliterate the name Tatar of another people (whom User:Volgabulgari unfailingly asserted to be exclusively Turkic), even though the text did not indicate that at all.
  • While in almost all likelihood User:Volgabulgari cannot read Classical Chinese, I do not think it excusable that they again changed the wording to "also used for [sic] another name of the Rourans", then to "also used as name of the Rourans" in the Tatar confederation's latest version; as Wikipedia:Competence is required.
  • Another user, Folly Mox (who can read Classical Chinese), also wrote in here:

    • Having had a look at the Song Shu source, I agree that the wording "as another name for the Rourans" reflects the source, whereas "also used as another name..." misrepresents it, since this is the only context in which the term appears in the source.

Erminwin (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content at Contract theory

Hardly seems worth edit warring, but some help will be appreciated. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I've started a discussion for you at Talk:Contract theory#April 2023 Edits. Yes, User:Wenbro should have done this, but they're new and likely didn't know to do that. I doubt that any admins will take action here until you've exhausted all of your options—which should nearly always start with communication at the Talk page. Woodroar (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Woodroar. I wasn't expecting administrative sanctions against the user, which at this point would be overkill, but I did want more eyes. Will comment at article talk page. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

WikiCleanerMan: disruptive editing, vandalism, accusations of NPOV, refusal to discuss his edits or accusations against me on talk-pages

@WikiCleanerMan has made a number of edits in which he has added or re-added unsourced material which I have deleted. He has also often accused me of NPOV-violations in his edit-summaries. In nearly every case I have attempted to discuss his additions and reversions on the talk-page of the article in question. In every case, he deleted the topic from the talk-page, without responding to me. I tried bringing it up with him on his talk-page, twice. He deleted those, too. Now he is trying to build-up an SPI investigation on me. Time will tell if he will respond to me there, but so far, he has never engaged me directly, not even once, and has deleted any evidence of my attempting to reach him.

The following is a pretty representative example of WikiCleanerMan's nonsensical style of editing:

"Know Nothings are occasionally referred to as an antisemitic movement due to their zealous xenophobia and their religious bigotry; however, the movement was openly hostile towards Jews because its members and supporters believed that Jews did not allow "their religious feelings to interfere with their political views." The Know Nothing Party, prioritizing a zealous disdain for Irish Catholic immigrants, reportedly "had nothing to say about Jews", according to historian Hasia Diner. In New York, the virulently anti-Catholic Know Nothings supported a Jewish candidate for governor."

Not only is this wrong in the sense that it's not backed-up by the sources, but it's internally incoherent. He seems to be saying that the movement was openly hostile towards Jews because they had nothing to say about Jews, and supported a Jewish candidate for governor.

I'm not sure whether I'd consider that a POV-edit, because I can't even really understand what thought he could possibly be trying to convey, if any. Would this edit be closer to vandalism? It cannot be considered a simple typo, because the previous revision was also by him; he went out of his way to remove the word "not"; even without having read the sources, as he seems not to have, (they don't back up his interpretation, and are in fact totally contrary to it) it should be clear to anyone who is basically literate that this causes the entire sentence to become self-contradictory and therefore nonsensical.

Aside from on his own talk-page, here are some other examples of his attempts to avoid defending his edits:

On the Samuel Bierfield talk-page.

And on the Third-Party System page.

So far, there has never been an occasion in which he has responded to my attempts to talk with him. The only topics I have made involving his edits that he has not attempted to delete regarding him so far have been this one, and the one on my SPI investigation page, and we'll see how long that lasts. Harry Sibelius (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan, I see you've seen and removed the notification of this discussion at your user talk, along with advice that you should really show up here. That advice was good, communication is required.

I'd especially like an explanation for your two removals of another editor's questions on article talk pages. Valereee (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I recommend an admin to close this thread because for the simple reason that somehow I'm building a case against him when another user has started the case and what I said at the SPI case page is supported by the evidence of sockpupptery. This user has been battlegrouding with actual NPOV violation edits. Why would he defend an IP edit on the Third-party system article when it's clearly his way of of trying to avoid taking accountability for his behavior and subverting editing policy. I can remove any message on my talk page by any user which does not violate any policy. So I don't have to talk to a user on my talk page if I don't want to. However, as frivolous as this report is, this constant back and forth by HS is clearly meant to cause chaos than to build any substantive material of improving article subjects on controversial topics. When I was reverted by another editor on the Know Nothing article, I didn't revert the editor because of his clear explanation in the edit summary. But when a user who has been accused of sockpupttery and where I have provided of his disruptive IP edits with similar editing patterns, it's clear this report is not meant to be taken seriously. As for talk pages, if he can't provide evidence to support his edits and just attack editors, it's meant to be taken with a grain of salt. But I will respond on talk pages to help keep the peace next time. But we should ask ourselves, should Beyond My Ken be accused of doing the same thing of reversions on the same articles and explaining of his edits in the edit summary or the fact that Ken was the one who opened the SPI case against HS and "building evidence" due to the same disruptive patterns of editing behavior, should that be subject to an ANI report? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Also Nythar had opened an thread on here about the editing patterns of this user not long ago and has commented on the SPI page and Hs has not provided evidence he didn't or hasn't socked. Nythar can be accused of "building a case" by expressing concerns as if the case against him somehow violated policy of editing which it hasn't. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

"As for talk pages, if he can't provide evidence to support his edits and just attack editors, it's meant to be taken with a grain of salt."

. . .because you've been deleting my attempts to do so from the talk-pages, which is why you're here.

I'm not really sure how I could go about proving to you that I'm not a sockmaster, but even if I were one, it's not really relevant, because you were already deleting my talk-page topics and edit-warring with me before you ever claimed that I was a sockmaster. This seems to be a post hoc rationalization for your behavior.

Again, as I have said many, many times, I would be willing to discuss your accusations that my edits are POV. Obviously, from my perspective, it is your edits that are POV. You often seem to take an ideological or racial line that is absent from the source, or contrary to it. I don't disagree that you have the right to remove whatever you want from your talk-page, but you also remove content from article talk-pages, too, so I don't really see a way to hold you accountable for your edits other than posting here.

You say that you didn't edit-war with other editors who disagreed with your interpretations on Know-Nothings because they left clear explanations in their edit-summaries, but the content of my edit-summaries wasn't substantially different.

"I recommend an admin to close this thread because for the simple reason that somehow I'm building a case against him when another user has started the case and what I said at the SPI case page is supported by the evidence of sockpupptery" I'm not sure what any of that sentence means.

As for the idea that it is unfair to single you out for criticism, and that, by my logic, I should also include in this post the other editors that you mentioned, all I can say is that, while I may have my issues with those editors, you are the only one of them who has declined every attempt I have otherwise made to discuss your edits with you. Harry Sibelius (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Harry Sibelius Please stop messing with font size and bolding. You're actually making it harder to read and therefore less likely anyone will read it.

@WikiCleanerMan, you can absolutely remove comments from your own user talk. But you can't remove other people's questions from article talk, and you can't refuse to communicate about article edits you're disputing. (Re: the accusation about you building an SPI -- honestly my attention just skipped over that; of course you can do that.) Valereee (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying that his being on the other side of the SPI itself can be considered here as some sort of infraction, and I know here isn't the place to defend myself, but it's relevant to mention when making a complaint about Wikicleanerman that he's involved in a complaint against me. It's also relevant because he has used the allegation that I am a sockmaster as justification to revert my edits. Considering the fact that I've never been found to be a sockmaster, and that he was behaving basically the same way before he had ever accused me of being a sockmaster, I see it as a post hoc rationalization for his behavior, and the accusations as retributive in nature. Furthermore, when he has reverted edits of mine with the excuse that I'm a sockmaster, he has done so on articles that have not even been edited by any of the alleged sock accounts anyway. Harry Sibelius (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

This is the article I was referring to, in which he reverted me for allegedly using socks (even though the only edits to that page in 2023 have been his and mine, meaning my sockpuppet would have to be WikiCleanerMan himself.) Harry Sibelius (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Valereee, you can now see that HS is bludgeoning by making false assertions and this was never meant to be serious from the start. If you're admin just close this. HS' edit behavior with the IP's is evident on the SPI report page. You can see that this just to battle ground than to actually prove anything. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

You were the one who made the assertion that my socks were editing Samuel Bierfield, not me. And the only other editor editing Samuel Bierfield is you. So, if you are telling the truth, the sock would have to be you. If you're not telling the truth, then you're lying. You've caught yourself in a Catch 22. I obviously don't think that you're my sockpuppet, so the only other possibility would have to be that you are lying. Harry Sibelius (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

NOTHERE at Talk:Armenian genocide

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

---

95.12.115.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Talk:Armenian genocide (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

• IP has posted another thread disputing the Armenian genocide Talk:Armenian genocide#The events of 1915 as a period of inter-ethnic conflict.
• It was responded to by another editor and I closed and archived the discussion.
• IP has reverted the close [39] and restored the post [40]

Since disputing the Armenian genocide is a frequent problem and I do not wish to violate 1RR, I bring it here for discussion.  // Timothy :: talk  08:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I've restored the closure. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right that allows us to express our opinions, share information and demand a better world. Freedom of expression is enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in many other international and regional treaties. It protects not only commonly accepted opinions but also those which may be considered unpopular.

However, freedom of expression is not absolute. It can be legitimately restricted when it violates the rights of others, incites hatred, discrimination or violence, or threatens national security or public order. Moreover, freedom of expression does not mean freedom from responsibility. We have to be mindful of the historical, political and cultural contexts in which we exercise our right to speak, and we have to respect the dignity and diversity of all human beings.

One of the most controversial and sensitive issues that challenges the freedom of expression is the interpretation of the events of 1915, when millions of people suffered and died during the final years of the Ottoman Empire. The Armenian side claims that these events constitute a genocide, a crime defined in international law, perpetrated by Turks against Armenians. The Turkish side rejects this term and argues that these events were part of a larger tragedy that affected many ethnic and religious groups, including Turks, who were also victims of war, famine, disease and violence.

I say that the events of 1915 have to be understood in their historical context, when the Ottoman Empire was fighting for its survival against foreign invasion and internal rebellion. I acknowledge that some Armenians suffered immensely during the relocation process ordered by the Ottoman authorities to prevent their collaboration with the enemy forces, but I disagree that there was any intention or plan to exterminate them as a group. I would like to also point out that some Ottoman officials who committed crimes against Armenians were prosecuted and punished by the Ottoman government.

The events of 1915 are a matter of historical inquiry and scholarly debate, not a political judgment. Turkey has proposed to establish a joint commission composed of Turkish and Armenian historians to study the events of 1915 in all relevant archives and to share their findings with the public. Turkey supports dialogue and reconciliation with Armenia and has signed protocols in 2009 to normalize relations and establish diplomatic ties. However, these protocols have not been ratified by either side due to various obstacles.

I respect the freedom of expression of those who have different views on the events of 1915, but expect the same respect for my own views. I view the removal of my comments as a violation of my freedom of expression. I hope that one day, both Turks and Armenians will be able to overcome their differences and grievances over the events of 1915 and renew their friendship based on mutual understanding and respect. I believe that this is possible if both sides are willing to engage in an honest and open dialogue, without prejudice or preconditions. 95.12.115.214 (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

You have no rights on this privately operated website, see WP:FREESPEECH as an example. The right to expression means that you can stand on a street corner and speak your views to anyone who will listen, or write a letter to the editor of your newspaper giving your views, but it doesn't mean you can force your views onto a privately operated website.

The Turkish government indoctrinates its citizens about its views on the genocide and doesn't give the opposing view(even making it illegal to do so, I think) because it undercuts the reasons for the existence of the current Turkish state. If you want to believe what your government/the Turkish government wants you to believe, that is your choice, but we don't do that here.

Your editing is disruptive and needs to stop. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@331dot That's a merely an interpretation of American law. Turkish constitution gives the right to all citizens to reply to false statements about themselves (article 32). I provided valid, academic sources arguing that massacres and relocation of Armenians cannot be labelled as genocide. Furthermore, it is not illegal to say in Turkey Armenian genocide happened; far-left academicians, journalists and politicians do it all the time and they are not prosecuted. You have a completely biased and prejudiced opinion against Turkey. Indeed, it is you who are silencing others by denying me the right to present my sources. Please continue your expressing racism against Turks under the guise of 'genocide'. 95.12.115.214 (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

We're not subject to the Turkish constitution. You do not have a right to post whatever you want on Wikipedia's talk pages. Also, your comments toward 331dot are not only assumptions of bad faith, but outright personal attacks. I suggest you retract them immediately. — Czello ^(music) 10:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I suggest a temporary block for the IP. Accuse one of racism is not nice. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

15. The Federal Court has itself admitted that there is no unanimity in the community as a whole concerning the legal characterisation in issue. Both the applicant and the Turkish Government cited numerous sources – which have not been contested by the respondent Government – attesting to diverging views, and argued that it would be very difficult to speak of a “general consensus”. The Court agrees, and would point out that there are differing views even among the various political bodies in Switzerland: whereas the National Council – the lower house of the Federal Parliament – has officially recognised the Armenian genocide, the Federal Council has repeatedly refused to do so (see points 4.2 and 4.5 of the Federal Court judgment in paragraph 13 above). In addition, it appears that to date, only about twenty States (out of more than 190 in the world) have officially recognised the Armenian genocide. In some countries, as in Switzerland, recognition has not come from the Government but only from Parliament or one of its chambers (see in this connection the declaration of 24 April 2013 by certain members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, paragraph 29 above).

116. The Court also agrees with the applicant that “genocide” is a clearly defined legal concept. It denotes an aggravated internationally wrongful act for which responsibility may nowadays be attributed either to a State, in accordance with Article 2 of the 1948 Convention (see paragraph 18 above), or to an individual, notably on the basis of Article 5 of the Rome Statute (see paragraph 20 above). According to the case-law of the ICJ and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (see paragraphs 21-23 above), for the crime of genocide to be made out, it is not sufficient for the members of a particular group to be targeted because they belong to that group, but the acts in question must at the same time be perpetrated with intent to destroy the group as such in whole or in part (dolus specialis). Genocide is therefore a very narrow legal concept which, moreover, is difficult to prove. The Court is not satisfied that the “general consensus” to which the Swiss courts referred as a basis for the applicant’s conviction can be relied on in relation to these very specific points of law.

117. In any event, it is even doubtful that there can be a “general consensus”, particularly among academics, about events such as those in issue in the present case, given that historical research is by definition subject to controversy and dispute and does not really lend itself to definitive conclusions or the assertion of objective and absolute truths (see, to similar effect, the Spanish Constitutional Court’s judgment no. 235/2007, referred to in paragraphs 38-40 above). In this connection, a clear distinction can be made between the present case and cases concerning denial of crimes relating to the Holocaust (see, for example, the case of Robert Faurisson v. France, determined by the UN Human Rights Committee on 8 November 1996, Communication no. 550/1993, doc. CCPR/C/58/D/550/1993 (1996)). Firstly, the applicants in those cases had not disputed the mere legal characterisation of a crime but had denied historical facts, sometimes very concrete ones, such as the existence of gas chambers. Secondly, their denial concerned crimes perpetrated by the Nazi regime that had resulted in convictions with a clear legal basis, namely Article 6, sub-paragraph (c), of the Charter of the (Nuremberg) International Military Tribunal, annexed to the London Agreement of 8 August 1945 (see paragraph 19 above). Thirdly, the historical facts challenged by the applicants in those cases had been found by an international court to be clearly established. 95.12.115.214 (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Paraiyar

• Paraiyar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There have been some recent edits to Paraiyar that seem problematic, particularly this edit seems problematic but I was unable to undo it. -- 2001:16B8:A8:2900:9DBF:117C:7333:A20C (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't able to do it either without also reverting the script edits after the vandalism. Unfortunate, but that's a price worth paying to have a vandalism free public-facing version. Courcelles (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

IP repeatedly adding unsourced content on Jerry Springer (talk show)

An IP recently added unsourced content to the article 1 After I reverted them for it 2 they still keep reinstating it and seem hell bent on adding it 3 4 5 without providing a source for it.

What makes it worse is that there are two citations at the end of the sentence so by adding this text it implies the content is found in those sources, which it is not. So this is completely inappropriate. --2607:FEA8:101E:A026:B596:996B:A7D4:46EA (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I've issued a warning for adding unsourced material, let me know if it persists. Excuse me while I take a shower after having to deal with anything related to Jerry Springer. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Reading the line sperm theft and that we have an article on the concept? (runs for a scalding shower 😫) Nate • (chatter) 16:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

IP claiming to be person

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/37.169.46.112

This IP user claims to be Emmanuelle Schick Garcia, and removing pictures of the connected wikipedia page. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 19:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, the pictures were overkill on the page for one. Two, if the IP truly is Ms. Schick Garcia, then WP:AUTOPROB would apply here. I'll reach out to the IP as well about this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Aye, looking at then, they seem to fit better on Instagram than Wikipedia. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 19:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

If it is the person in question, then looking at the information for image in c:File:Emmanuelle Schick Garcia-1.jpg, it was uploaded by JPS Films; as best I can tell, she IS JPS Films - so it does raise the question of whether Wikipedia really ever had a valid licence for the image. There's other images in c:Category:Emmanuelle_Schick_Garcia; some of which indicated that she contributed them herself, as c:User:GrassHerd, which also exists here as GrassHerd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - which has only ever edited Emmanuelle Schick Garcia. Is she really notable enough to have an article? Nfitz (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a copyright dispute wrapped in a autobiography dipped in WP:SPIP. and I was trying to watch my WikiCarbs! I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Gonna notify GrassHerd, make sure they know about us talking about them. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Astatine ... for some reason it crossed my mind after I went to bed, that I should have done that. Also, do we normally notify accounts on other projects - like Commons - that they are being discussed too? Nfitz (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't believe so if they have an on-project page. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

User:PBnJGuitarist23

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

---

User has severe WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE issues. They were warned not to make POV edits to Matt Walsh (political commentator) and responded with a bizarre pseudo-legalistic defense before immediately resuming. They also rudely lashed out at a user simply for informing them their draft was non-notable and have expressed hostile views towards trans people. I’m not going to bother providing diffs because literally their entire edit history and talk page encompasses these incidents. Dronebogus (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Probably not done enough to merit a block, so far. Only signed up to plug a book (theirs I presume), and most likely to find something better to do elsewhere now they've had their rant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll make new accounts and keep editing 🤷‍♂️ PBnJGuitarist23 (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

And you'll be blocked for doing that. So don't do it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I already indeffed. The edit warring and promotional draft followed up with a threat to sock was enough to make them convince someone with an unblock request that they can contribute constructively. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I tried to warn them...RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Pakistani IPs and talk pages

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

---

As someone who patrols talk pages searching for WP:NOTAFORUM violations to remove, I have encountered IP addresses from the range of 39.42.0.0/16 on multiple occasions. They post all-caps text that clearly violates NOTAFORUM (even though I don't fully understand what they're trying to post) and don't stop.

Here is a list of talk pages they frequent:

• Talk:Supreme Court of Pakistan
• Talk:Chief of Army Staff (Pakistan)
• Talk:Niaz Ahmad Akhtar
• Talk:Prime Minister of Japan

IPs from this range need to be blocked and/or watched. The pages they target may be monitored as well, especially after the block expires. Zoe Trent Fan🎤💍 16:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• You got it--holy moly. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Drmies Thanks for the long range block. Zoe Trent Fan🎤💍 17:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

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

They're still adding said material to own their talk page; see here. — SamX [talk · contribs · he/him] 02:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

User editing on IP address to carry out WP:HOUNDING

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

---

This user appears to be the same individual as @Acaunto:, who was blocked for a week for edit warring.

They left a racist message on my talk page after I removed content they added to the Scythians page which was not backed by their cited sources.

Their tone and the racist content of their message both correspond to those of the ones they left in response to @HistoryofIran:.

Antiquistik (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Antiquistik (Non-administrator comment) Looks like they have already been blocked by ScottishFinnishRadish. In the future, be careful when calling additions to a page "vandalism"; that only applies to intentional attempts to damage Wikipedia, which the diff you cited was not uncontroversially so. You can simply put in your edit summary "Reverting unsourced content" instead, unless further evidence that said unsourced content was intentionally added arises. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 22:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300: I referred to it as vandalism because that user appeared to be intentionally inserting dubious information on various articles that they claimed pertained to Kurdish history. Although, thanks for the heads up, I will be careful about the issue in the future. Antiquistik (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

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

User WikiEditor9599 at article G. B. Pant Engineering College, New Delhi

WikiEditor9599 (talk · contribs) is a WP:SPA who has added and re-added large amounts of content to G. B. Pant Engineering College, New Delhi. If I revert again I could be open to accusations of edit warring, so could an admin intervene? Aside from possible page protection, there is an apparent WP:COI leading me to suspect WP:PAID issues in need to administrator review.

The added content is poorly referenced and badly formatted, but the COI concerns are the most egregious: the images look like architects' promotional drawings and the text is both spammy and/or written in the first person (example: Today to name a few, we have our proud alumni in Apple India, Oracle USA, Nike USA, ISRO, Indian Navy etc).

Link to page prior to changes: [41]; link to page after changes: [42].

Many thanks.

Dorsetonian (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

A copyvio from https://dseu.ac.in/okhla-i/ Most likely a student. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 19:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The use of we and our makes it clear that its obvious COI at least. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely pageblocked WikiEditor9599 from editing G. B. Pant Engineering College, New Delhi. They are free to make well referenced, policy compliant edit requests on the article talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Cullen, the content has been cleaned up and merged into an existing section at Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University, so the page block may also be needed on this page.

Re: I think the copyright issues have been cleaned up, at least as far as the merged material. Here is the Earwig report, in case I am wrong.  // Timothy :: talk  09:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Uncivil behaviour

Incident started with User:Mcdynamite over Peter Yu's BLP article. Initial attempt by me to merge the same years into a single cell, removing WP:CHINESECHARACTERS beside wikified articles, merging both English and Chinese titles into a single column here with a lazy edit summary of cleanup. It was subsequently reverted by Mcdynamite with edit summary of nope, you're not [43]. I reverted his revert with an explanation of the policies involved [44]. Subsequently I written a clearer explanation of the policies on his talkpage [45] which he claimed not to flout in his reply [46]. Mcdynamite was subsequently partially blocked for edit warring [47]. Edit warring ANI link. In between he was mostly uncivil and cast aspersions, quoting him You aren't contributing new content and you don't own wiki either. Learn how to respect the editorial ways of other users. Thank you! [48], Now I understand why hardly anyone is contributing to Singapore entertainment articles. That is because of a certain few autocratic editors who never contributes new content but only is keen on reverting edits.[49]. Another uncivil occasion on saying Onel5969 causing mischief for drafitfying his created articles [50]

The latest incident is on Yao Wenlong where Mcdynamite changed the role name from Hanyu Pinyin to dialect[51] which I reverted on a note that I am not sure there is a dialect translation of the names of the role. this need a reference[52]. (Note the official plot by the network only indicate role names in Hanyu Pinyin [53]) Mcdynamite reverted claiming I'm just following the Chinese wiki which I'm sure the editor got it from the subtitles on Malaysia's Astro channel [54] which I reverted that it is WP:OR[55]. Mcdynamite replied Whatever feeds your ego, i'm not going to waste time arguing with a fussy user who never contributes but only RUDELY REVERTS [56].

Note that the conversion of role names are partially across the cast of the television show Your World in Mine. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 07:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

User Mcdynamite had been notified of this ANI incident on talkpage [57]. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Evidently from the editor's user page, they are not willing to be communicative with other editors. – robertsky (talk) 08:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Burhan3456

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

---

Burhan3456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user has a conflict of interest towards Soundarya Sharma plus there's WP:PAID violation. Diff where the user accepted themselves to be a role account used by a professional PR team. ManaliJain (talk) 09:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Partial-blocked indefinitely from Soundarya Sharma, since they have ignored at least two warnings. Black Kite (talk) 11:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Since they've admitted to being a role account, shouldn't we indef across the board? Canterbury Tail talk 12:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose we probably should. I was hoping they might be able to assist on the talk page, but it was a long shot anyway. Indeffed. Black Kite (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Disruptive User/ user:Gina Felea 88

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

---

Moved from WP:AN (diff)

I noticed the user user:Gina Felea 88 making continious disruptive editings at International recognition of Kosovo article. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 10:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Not any more. The uploading of a fake map (File:ESC 2022 Semi-Finals draw.png) which shows Kosovo to be part of Serbia was the last straw. Black Kite (talk) 10:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• They also appear to be doing the same at es.wiki, if anyone with better Spanish than me wants to tidy it up (or draw their administrator's attention to it). Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, i can do it. Thanks for noticing! RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

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

SpaceX Starship

The article is currently protected by User:El C for "Edit warring / content dispute: maybe launch an WP:RFC to conclusively decide...? Just sayin'!" [58], with no clear indication that a discussion about the dispute is taking place at the talk page. Yes, it's true that whole situation in the article has become a mess with edit wars and such, but I don't agree with a sudden increase in full protection without a clear explanation why it is necessary. I have no prejudice against El C and others involved in the dispute. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that the page is fully protected because several editors kept edit-warring after the page was semiprotected for the same reason. Generally speaking, when multiple editors are edit-warring, protection is preferred over blocking everyone involved, though that is also an option. The discussion of the dispute seems to be at Talk:SpaceX Starship#Success or Failure 20-Apr-2023, and it looks to be a long way from resolved. El C's action seems perfectly reasonable and I would not reverse it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, I am not "involved in the dispute," as the OP seems to claim. The page was protected in response to this protection request, one of several dozens I've attended to yesterday. El_C 15:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm absolutely onboard with the full protection. It's not against Wikipedia principles to stop edit warring; it's not against Wikipedia principles to reach a consensus in a centralized discussion; it's not against Wikipedia principles to stop a page from becoming a battleground over differences in point of view, and it wouldn't stay that way forever if people just went and did a formal RFC. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

So...

1. 13:42, 20 April -- Jrcraft Yt updates the ibx adding failure
2. 16:33, 20 April -- 81.34.6.138 changes failure to partial failure
3. 17:08, 20 April -- CactiStaccingCrane reverts back to failure
4. 19:27, 20 April -- Full Shunyata adds reference for failure
5. 23:40, 20 April -- 120.18.150.63 reverts addition of reference while not contesting that it was a failure
6. 23:48, 20 April -- Fyunck(click) reverts the revert
7. 03:57, 21 April -- Full Shunyata changes the reference to the one that more explicitly supports the ibx claim
8. 15:11, 21 April -- 2a02:2f04:d60c:d700:d90a:f074:f609:f587 changes failure to success
9. 15:20, 21 April -- That Coptic Guy reverts
10. 23:40, 21 April -- Flat lime changes failure to success
11. 23:44, 21 April -- Materialscientist rolls back
12. 14:56, 22 April -- Redacted II changes failure to partial failure, removing the reference
13. 15:16, 22 April -- Fnlayson reverts (failure)
14. 16:17, 22 April -- Redacted II reverts (partial failure)
15. 16:23, 22 April -- Fnlayson reverts (failure)
16. 16:38, 22 April -- Redacted II reverts (partial failure)
17. 16:44, 22 April -- Redacted II adds a CNN ref ("SpaceX Starship’s explosion is not the failure it appears to be, experts say") to support the partial failure claim (Fnlayson then edits elsewhere in the article)
18. 05:39, 24 April -- Osunpokeh changes partial failure to failure, removing the aforementioned CNN reference (followed by the nth bout of unconstructive editing / vandalism since 20 April, not specifically related to the infobox)
19. 18:44, 24 April -- Widr adds semi-protection
20. 17:05, 24 April -- Redacted II changes failure to partial failure
21. 17:07, 24 April -- Redacted II reads the removed CNN reference, completing the revert
22. 18:20, 24 April -- GajusPieknus reverts Redacted II, changing back from partial failure to failure (from this point onward this revertable content becomes the easily identifiable 293 byte change)
23. 18:27, 24 April -- Redacted II reverts (partial failure)
24. 22:31, 24 April -- Jadebenn reverts (failure)
25. 23:39, 24 April -- Redacted II reverts (partial failure)
26. 23:46, 24 April -- Jadebenn reverts (failure)
27. 23:52, 24 April -- Redacted II reverts (partial failure), says Jadebenn is "ignoring the result of the Talk Page"
28. 00:10, 25 April -- Sub31k reverts (failure), says "there does not exist a "result of the talk page""
29. 00:36, 25 April -- Redacted II reverts (partial failure), says "Given that the status quo is "Partial reuse", it should remain until a new consensus is reached."
30. 01:26, 25 April -- Sub31k reverts (failure), says "please see talk page, there are users proposing a compromise resolution"
31. 03:13, 25 April -- Fyunck(click) tags the 'failed' claim as dubious (a few hours later El C adds full protection)

Redacted II has 78 edits as of my making this comment. Fnlayson, Osunpokeh, and Jadebenn are extended-confirmed. I don't think full protection was necessary. —Alalch E. 17:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

There's no RfC and there hasn't been an RfC yet because editors are working out how to make the best incremental step from stating that the launch was a failure to stating that the test launch was a partial success. This is not a "dispute" of such kind that someone needs to test their ready-to-go proposal in an RfC—it's a brainstorming process (but the concrete result seems to be close), and when it's figured out it won't even be contentious, so that it would require an RfC. During this, one new editor has not been completely getting it, and has been enforcing an essentially irrelevant alternative that they believed corresponds to the general drift of the discussion. But the editor eventually got it, and was constructive on the talk page in the final hours.—Alalch E. 18:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not intuitive for an uninvolved reviewer to parse that from the edit history, so the protection request did look sound. It's possible that Redacted II doesn't even know that WP:EW is a thing since their talk page has no warnings or notices that inform them of it (i.e. {{uw-3rr}}, etc.). Anyway, I'll downgrade to WP:ECP for the duration. El_C 08:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Non-civil AfD comments from 2402:3A80 range IPs

Two non-civil comments:

• from 2402:3a80:1eb3:4ad5:0:3f:32a7:9901 on 19 April
• from 2402:3a80:1b86:9e4a:0:4b:1d80:b201 on 26 April

Neither conducive to constructive debate. AllyD (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Probable self-promotion

• 185.3.86.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on :Isa Khan

Since 15/04/23, IP has been persistently adding content claiming a non-notable individual is the crown princess of a defunct medieval kingdom.[59][60][61] Cited source is a business website owned by the individual's parents. Upon a cursory search, it appears no other evidence for this claim exists beyond personal social media accounts. IP has been warned 3 times that this is disruptive behavior, twice via edit summaries, once on their talk page.[62][63][64]

Appears to be self-promotion as I suspect IP to be the alleged "crown princess" in question, or at least the manager of the source website. This is because the website made no mention of the claim a week ago (19/04) as per the page archive.[65] I pointed out to them that this was the case on 22/04,[66]. By 26/04, the source website had been amended to include the claim,[67] on which date the IP asserted that this is the case.[68]

Since this appears to be a static IP, I've temporarily blocked them from editing this page. Hopefully that will encourage them to make use of talk. RegentsPark (comment) 16:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Yeah good call, I completely agree. Thanks for the prompt action.
Alivardi (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

IP being WP:NOTHERE

190.43.228.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been saying "you're fired" on their talk page edit summaries. When blocking, remove TPA as well. It's all contained on their talk page. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 17:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Reblocked for a month, no talk page access. This has been on going for a while. ~ GB fan 17:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

DePiep breaking Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#DePiep

DePiep (talk · contribs) is subject Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#DePiep which impose immediate sanction for any failure to assume good faith on the part of another editor, or uncivil remarks. He is currently engaged in editor-baiting at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers and has gone on to make a remark at User talk:XAM2175 (diff), which I believe goes directly against the editing restriction. I believe his comments to EEng (talk · contribs) in the MOS discussion are also in contravention. --10mmsocket (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § ENGVAR controls big L or little L for litres/liters? to be slightly more precise, starting from EEng's line NebY: before I unleash the mob to pummel you into submission... I wouldn't describe DePiep's conduct as editor-baiting, but rather exceptionally-obstinate civility policing where only the faintest shadow of a civility problem originally existed. I had hoped that my message would be read for the DROPTHESTICK suggestion I intended it to be, but alas it wasn't, and their referring to my message as one-way whitewashing in their post on my talkpage is bad faith in abundance. XAM2175 ^(T) 17:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  To clarify, by editor-baiting I meant that he has deliberately joined in several days after the fact to have a direct pop at EEng, i.e. baiting him, using a pointy stick to get a reaction. Apologies if that causes any confusion and detracts from the very obvious poor behaviour. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  Ah yes, I see what you mean now. No worries. XAM2175 ^(T) 18:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Could we have some diffs, please? Makes everything easier to assess. Black Kite (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  1. EEng's original post on 4 April: [69]
  2. DePiep's reply on 21 April: [70]
  3. (skipping a few more back-and-forth exchanges, still visible in the page currently, then)
  4. My interjection this morning: [71]
  5. DePiep reverts a further reply from EEng: [72]
  6. DePiep is reverted by Dondervogel 2: [73]
  7. DePiep leaves Dondervogel a talkpage message objecting to the revert: [74]
  8. ... then leaves me a talkpage message chastising me for not reverting EEng : [75]

  XAM2175 ^(T) 18:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

In which universe is this kind of remark acceptable? [76]

:Too bad cluelessness and unintelligibility aren't pillars -- you'd be the undisputed God King Emperor of Wikipedia. EEng 10:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

What some might consider to be 'just wikt:banter" – especially when directed elsewhere, a reasonably dispassionate viewer would have to interpret as an ad hominem attack and bullying. It seems to me that DeP has been remarkably restrained in the circumstances, in merely deleting it. WP:boomerang time. I suggest. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It is unquestionably inappropriate, yes. XAM2175 ^(T) 18:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

XAM, what "It" do you refer to? DePiep (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Got it, it is about the 10:49 EEng quote (not a post). -DePiep (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed if any editor baiting is being done, it certainly looks to me like it is DeP who is being baited into breaking the civility sanctions. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

(ec) reply by DePiep (1/n):

- 10mmsocket did not provide diffs, nor in 2nd post (17:47). That's very unspecific then, and still cause for misunderstanding.

- XAM2175's list of diffs leaves out EEng's posts ("skipping"), thereby hiding essence. For a judging editor, this does not look balanced. I will (have to) provide these, annotated, when I have time for this.

- Re XAM2175's #8, I object to "chastising" as characterisation. Since XAM2175 stated Further discussion here will be completely unproductive (#4), that should be the final post in the indents. I respected. To my surprise, EEng continued (omitted by XAM here) and so I asked XAM to maintain (enforce) their DROPTHESTICK statement (#8). It has not been explained to me why that did not happen. As for "one-way whitewashing": that refers to XAM's multiple judgements in #8, exonerating EEng, which I was probibited to challenge. For the dispute-solving editor role XAM took, this does not look balanced.

As said, later more.

DePiep (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I omitted those diffs because I judged a diff-by-diff playback of the entire incident to be excessive. Nothing has been redacted or even substantially modified at any point, so it's easy to read the comments visible on the page before the diff in question. In retrospect it may have been better to simply insert an anchor at the correct place on the MOS talkpage and link to it, but that didn't occur to me at the time.

I characterised your message to me as chastising because it seemed obvious to me that it would be inappropriate to remove another editor's talkpage posts for the simple reason of "enforcing" my suggestion that the discussion should be ended. I am backed in this interpretation by WP:TPO.

I did not prohibit your challenging my "exoneration" of EEng – I very clearly stated that you were welcome to challenge it here at AN/I, the appropriate venue.

For the further avoidance of doubt, the root cause of us being in this position now is that your reply to EEng on the 21st was unnecessary. EEng's remark was not uncivil, so you did not need to reply to it, and you should not have replied to it. You especially should not have replied to it after seventeen days had passed. You are the person I was telling to drop the stick because you refused to see that you were making a tiny insignificant problem bigger, and I wanted to help you avoid taking it any further. But I do not particularly wish to see you blocked for continuing, nor I am not attempting to provoke you into responding badly. Just please acknowledge that you made a mistake and that it would probably be best if you left civility policing to other people.

All of that said, this should not detract from the fact that in the course of converting this molehill into a mountain EEng has latterly been unwise and made at least one remark that actually is uncivil, as opposed to just irreverent and flippant as usual. XAM2175 ^(T) 19:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• I realize there are people that have trouble grasping social situations, but such people usually come to understand that fact about themselves and exercise circumspection in injecting themselves into others' interactions. Not DePiep! For almost 20 years he's been not only taking umbrage at random innocent things others say to him, but sticking his clueless nose over and over and over into conversations among other editors for the sole purpose of acting the incompetent civility cop. In an hour I could give you a dozen examples; here are a couple (in addition to the one already described by the OP):
  • In 2019 I said somewhere: Just a note in passing that whoever came up with the idea of separate WP: and MOS: namespaces should be shot. Naturally DePiep got right to work defending innocents from my "aggression": WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1018#EEng_agression. A dozen editors told him to drop the ol' stick, but nooooooooooooo, DePiep kept Mrs. Malapropping himself into a deeper and deeper hole. At one point someone said:

    I had a friend once ... who was literally incapable of understanding hyperbole, jokes, or other non-literal forms of speech. It was very amusing telling him things that we all understood were not literally true but he didn't, watching him react, and then letting him know that it was not true so that he'd be in on the joke as well (as he was a friend and we wanted to laugh with him, not at him). This somehow reminds me of that, except for the part about being in on the joke once informed that it was a joke, and also the part about ending on ANI instead of in laughter.

Did DePiep get the hint? Noooooooooooooooo. Here we are years (and several similar ANI threads) later, and he's still prattling on with the same nonsense.

• In the very ANI thread in which DePiep get his editing restrictions slapped on him, I happened to mention as an aside:

  the single-letter template names are a rare and precious resource not to be squandered. The idea of wasting Z on something about chemical elements is appalling, and whoever appropriated {M} for earthquakes should be boiled in oil

(I have to admit -- I seem to have a lot of fantasies of doing bodily harm to my Wikipedia colleagues.) And sure enough, we've got DePiep scolding me about this, not to mention spouting gibberish about the admin habit to not wheelbarrow easily [77], whatever the fuck that could mean (and that right after asserting that his English comprehension isn't part of his problem).

One of DePiep's editing restrictions is that he's subject to immediate sanction (including blocks) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, or personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. And like it says WP:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack?, it's a personal attack for him to make Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. So I'm telling you now, DePiep, for the very last time: stay out of my fucking business, or the next time you call me uncivil when the actual problem is that you don't understand human behavior, I'm not going to bother reminding you to get a clue. Instead I'll just have you blocked.

Actually, here's another idea: can I please have a one-way interaction ban against this pest? Then I wouldn't have to waste my time with him and he won't have to get blocked. I'd really appreciate it. EEng 04:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

If I might add a comment from someone not involved in any of the original discussions…

DePiep is subject to previous sanctions issued at ANI, as listed above. They have been to ANI multiple times for this same issue. They replied to a two week old comment by EEng which had a gentle jibe inside, and took that miniscule problem and blew it up beyond all proportion, which is exactly what they have been told not to do in previous ANI discussions and in their sanction.

While I do not condone EEng’s behaviour in response to DePiep, surely some action must be taken given the latter’s obvious disregard to their existing restrictions? Danners430 (talk) 10:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, see below. Accusing me of gaming the system is a failure to assume good faith. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

10mmsocket: report reject

OP report lacks diffs, therefor causes misunderstandings & speculation. Cannot be a base for discussion. Due and careful process broken.

The 10mmsocket (talk · contribs) initial report here lacks diffs for its accusative remarks (which are unspecific otherwise too). Cause for misunderstanding and so projection, which is inexcusable in the ANI process [78]. No diffs added in 2nd post either [79]. Nor after explicit request for diffs [80] (1st). Their second post, 10mmsocket has disappeared.

Given the unspecified report, and the reluctance to provide diffs, I conclude that the report is useless and not worth nor deserving replies. Every response would imply assumptions, speculations, and failed process. So I will not, can not reply thoroughly to the 10mmsocket report/posts. Treat as nullified, not present.

Throwing mud to see what sticks, and then let others deal with it, is gaming the system. The ANI community & processes are failing due proces here. I propose and take for granted that the contributions of 10mmsocket are not part of the considerations.

One could also consider disallowing 10mmsocket to interact with me or with ANI in a wider sense. ​ -DePiep (talk) 09:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Sigh... Diffs were provided subsequently so I saw no need to add anything further. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Incivility in talk and edit summaries from MrOllie, ultimate result is disruptive editing.

I've been IP editing since yesterday under 142.115.142.4 and 66.207.202.66. I have declared this since first I was using both [81].

Editor MrOllie has been uncivil in the short interactions with me and a brief look into his contribution history and talk page history shows a very similar interaction with another user running concurrently with me, and similar behavior going back. MrOllie accused me of pushing a POV [82] after a revert with the edit summary "no" [83], which is apparently in reply to my edit summary "see the talk page", which is in reference to this detailed talk message [84].

I would have let it go, but MrOllie's history shows a pattern, not just this instance. So I added a talk page incivility message. MrOllie almost immediately reverted it[85] with edit summary "Rv more nonsense". I realized that I was on the other IP he had not seen yet, so I thought he might have mistook me for spam/trolling. I posted another talk message to clear that up. It was also almost immediately reverted with the edit summary "take a hint" [86]. I have taken the hint: MrOllie has no interest in civilly discussing my edit and his revert of it, in clear violation of WP:Civil and WP:BRD.

Another IP user made a reasonable edit and was equally mistreated in almost exactly the same way: Message incivility [87] and Edit summary incivility:[88] [89] [90]. MrOllie has been uncivil since the start with this IP, just as he has with me. Some other instances that looks similar at first glance. [91] [92][93]. Thank you. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

MrOllie accused me of pushing a POV. No, he accused you of having an obvious POV. It's possible to have a POV and still edit neutrally. And if you are going to put a news outlet's Pulitzer win in scarequotes it's a bit rich to come and complain when someone suggests that you might have an obvious POV!

MrOllie could have been less brusque with you, but I'm not seeing any sanctionable incivility here. Nor do I see it wrt the other IP – when you reinstate a message on an editor's talkpage that they have removed, after they have told you not to edit their talkpage, an edit summary of "rv harassment" is about what you should expect. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

You are equivocating two senses of "POV". You are suggesting MrOllie merely criticized my personal and reasoned perspective, rather than accusing I'm violating WP:NPOV. I'll admit my perspective, and reject the accusation at the same time: the NYT is not a reliable source for history, as the 1619 project page shows. How they decided it won the Pulitzer is questionable and part of the controversial nature of topic. Every historical authority is shaking their head about this.

But so what? MrOllie is terse and disruptive. He reverts and doesn't discuss. He actively tells those he reverted to go away, but will revert again if you edit. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

"the NYT is not a reliable source for history, as the 1619 project page shows"...consider yourself very lucky you haven't blocked yet. Nothing actionable, and MrOllie warned you appropriately for obvious POV editing and was terse because of removal of well-sourced content. I'm going to be even more terse here; knock it off, now. Nate • (chatter) 21:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I didn't remove any content from that article. Do you have a diff that you're referring to? 66.207.202.66 (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

As for the other IP edit..."Morris is not a medical doctor but has authored over 100 academic papers"...he's not a doctor, and again, reverted appropriately and we don't template regulars with sarcasm about civility. Nate • (chatter) 21:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

we don't template regulars. I can remember that. But I can assure you, there is no sarcasm here. I'm dead serious about MrOllie's behavior. This is my first ANI submission, but not the first time I've endured this kind of abuse. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it's the IPs conduct here rather than MrOllie's that is the real concern. They are engaging in tendentious POV-pushing against the talk-page consensus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Which preexisting talk discussion do you think is giving consensus that my initial edit and talk post address? And if you'd like to address how the message of my small edit is contrary to the existing article message (since it is a lede edit), I'd love to hear it on the article talk page. The fact is, the article is very critical of the topic, since that is the prevailing opinion among historians. The 1619 Project is and has been resoundingly criticized, and the leading sentence should reflect this, just like all other heavily expert-criticized topics. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The honorable IP needs to educate themselves very, very quickly on WP:RS if they want to continue having an editing career on Wikipedia. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 22:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I understand the RS policy. You should educate yourself on the topic and perhaps read the diffs I provided.

I understand Wikipedia puts NYT as WP:GREL. I also understand sourcing is evaluated on each individual case. I also understand that grel doesn't mean infallible, and that despite this many regular Wikipedians will argue "but it's grel" like that does confer infallibility. The NYT left a big mess in the bed on this one, and the Wikipedia article shows this. It is filed with heavy and aggressive criticism from history experts, and virtually no positive responses (because none exist). See my above reply for more info.

But like I said, you should educate yourself on the topic and perhaps read the diffs I provided, since the grel status of NYT and sourcing in general is irrelevant to this issue. It hasn't even come up! This is about MrOllie behaving incivilly and ultimately editing disruptively. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, when multiple editors are bringing up a concern, even if it's not the one you started with, it's usually a good idea to listen. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Sound advice. However, the responses here are not giving a unified message. I also have doubts they've looked into the topic. But if they want to make this about POV, then they can take it to the NPOV notice board, then we can come back and settle the ANI. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be trying to use this complaint at ANI to recruit assistance in a content dispute. We do not do that. We address behavior. Multiple editors have expressed concern, with varying degrees of asperity, that you are pushing a POV against consensus. That appears to be the primary issue, not MrOllie's conduct. Your conduct here only reinforces that perception. Acroterion (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

No, I said the exact opposite. If they want to discuss the POV of the article, then do so at the article or the NPOV message board. If they really want to double down, put an ANI on me for POV pushing. I talked about behavior. One admitted MrOllie is terse, but it's apparently ok because he thinks I'm POV pushing. I don't have much faith in his assessment, since he also thinks I deleted sourced content. I didn't delete anything from the article. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

What you think you're doing and what you're actually accomplishing are two different things. When many people advise that you're doing something wrong, it would be wise to consider that they have a point. ANI is a bad choice of venue to try to direct an outcome to your specification. Acroterion (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

It's your actions that are being scrutinized and not what you said. Honestly, I suggest you do yourself a big favour and drop it. M.Bitton (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

IP, I will refer you to WP:BOOMERANG, but for your convenience, it says: A common statement on noticeboards is "this isn't about me, it's about them", as if discussion is restricted to the original complaint, so that discussing the behavior of the original reporter would be "changing the subject". But that isn't the case: any party to a discussion or dispute might find their behavior under scrutiny. A reporter whose behavior is or becomes out of line may find themselves be bludgeoned with their own boomerang. I would take M Bitton's advice. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, MrOllie's user Talk page (what he hasn't reverted of it), unfortunately is overflowing with petty bickering with other users. Much of it seems to spark from a pattern of behavior: reverting entire edits and refusing to discuss, often antagonizing users who attempt to engage with him. I politely pointed out that these practices are bad practice and noted that this erodes civility on the platform.

This kind of behavior absolutely merits addressing with sincerity, not yet more bickering and finger-pointing. 2604:4080:13F8:8320:D972:8646:9B07:D794 (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you really think that coming in as a meat/sockpuppet in an attempt to make it seem like your POV has support is going to work here? It's more likely to earn you rangeblocks. Ravenswing 03:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• If you ask me, all three of these POV IPs need a time-out from editing in order to fully understand Wikipedia's policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Uncommunicative editor continues to add too much stuff to infoboxes

• Dannyzk (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Dannyzk has been asked multiple times to stop inserting too many roles into biographies by way of the "known for" parameter. Dannyzk has not responded at all to concerns voiced by others—has never used a talk page. The first explicit request on Dannyzk's talk page regarding the "known for" problem was added by Wes sideman on April 15.[94]

Dannyzk added three films to the infobox of Rosalind Russell, a very accomplished actress who was nominated for major awards for ten TV, film and stage roles. Listing ten productions in the "known for" parameter is too much (the template instructions say "brief description") which is why the parameter was not used previously.

Dannyzk added one song to the Cathy Dennis biography, as if she is known for only one song.[95] She's known for at least a dozen songs, which is why the "known for" parameter was not used. The same problem may be seen at the Reba McEntire biography, with Dannyzk adding two songs[96] despite the fact that the singer is known for many songs.

Another warning Dannyzk received was for adding both the "alma_mater" and "education" parameters,[97] though the infobox instructions say that only one of these should be used. Dannyzk has not responded to any talk page messages. Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

User continually moving articles without prior discussion

TankDude2000 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has, over the past several months, been conducting numerous page moves on various war-related articles, never with prior consensus and rarely with discussion. A look at their logs shows just how many they've conducted, and their talk page is littered with warnings and requests to not do so without prior discussion.[98][99][100][101][102][103][104] They appear to be motivated by PoV beliefs on the use of the word "dignity" in some of these articles. In particular, after a failed move request at Revolution of Dignity they started another discussion immediately afterwards, saying As the Syrian and Yemeni revolutions now have “Dignity” in their titles - the problem is that TankDude2000 was the one who moved both of those articles (without any discussion on their talk pages) in order to support a move of Revolution of Dignity. Aside from being outright disruptive I also find it to be a case of gaming the system.

I left several warnings on their talk page[105][106] afterward. Despite this, they continued moving articles without discussion, as can be seen by the log, which led to Super Dromaeosaurus also leaving a final warning on their talk page.[107] Nonetheless, they have continued moving articles today, again without consensus. One of the moves was again moving the Syrian revolution article[108] for a second time (the first being mentioned above), despite being warned for move-warring. At this stage I count nine different comments which ask this user not to keep moving articles, the last one from Super Dromaeosaurus being a final warning. I do not see them stopping at all, so I'm bringing this here. — Czello ^(music) 20:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly support sanctioning. TankDude2000 more than clearly lacks WP:COMPETENCE to edit Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 20:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support sanctioning - I had reverted such a move at Peruvian protests (2022–present), which was a very high visibility article as it was linked on the main page at the time. TankDude has been warned numerous times over the past few months about their behavior and clearly has not heeded the warnings. I support sanctions to prevent any further disruption. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  • Don’t sanction - Please, don’t sanction me, I’m a new user! I just have problems. I just wanted to be nice. I didn’t do these edits to threaten you or to upset you. Plus, you are being very mean with me. I guess Wikipedia’s admins have become too authoritarian. And if you’ll sanction me for saying this, then you will make yourselves look bad, just like some dictators.

  TankDude2000 (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  Need I say more? - ZLEA _T\^C 03:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not an anarchy; we have policies and guidelines all editors must follow. Since it seems that your "problems" include you either being incapable of or unwilling to follow these rules, take instruction or heed warnings, you seem to be a poor fit for Wikipedia. Upon examining your record, I likewise support a t-ban against page moves at the very least. I see on your talk page that you complain that Wikipedia is "too strict," and that you want to know if there's a "fun version" out there. I wish you luck in finding one. Ravenswing 03:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

In lieu of moving the article itself, TankDude2000 is now piping links in order to display their preferred article name. This is after they commented above. — Czello ^(music) 09:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Noting they have been alerted that some edits fall under WP:CTOPICS before this tendentious editing, perhaps a topic ban might be appropriate there. This doesn't cover all their edits, but it seems to be the core area of issue. CMD (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Since when is piping links illegal? TankDude2000 (talk) 10:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Single purpose account

Jeffhardyfan08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - appears to be a single-purpose deletionist account. Has nominated numerous articles for deletion - mine within three edits of creating it - without due diligence or checking. Various other serious issues about this user have been flagged up on their User and Talk pages within days of the account being created. Jack1956 (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

You are required to notify the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Now done. Jack1956 (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Personal attack

Hi, sorry to bring this triffling stuff to you, but an editor has started making personal attacks, I've asked them to stop. I've tried to keep it friendly, but they are not interested, so sadly I'm here asking for them to be warned and to have the personal attack struck through and/or removed. diff here of most blatant personal attack https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tambor_de_Tocino&diff=prev&oldid=1151919074 Thanks in advance. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

That isn't a personal attack, which is defined at WP:WIAPA. Cheers! VQuakr (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes it is, you're accusing me of vandalism. I've been contributing in good faith. You are being antagonistic towards me for no good reason. I'm not going to comment any further, I'm sure the admins will be fair. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not being antagonistic, I'm reverting vandalism. Yes, disrupting articles to make a point is vandalism. Observing that it is such is not a personal attack. The examples given in the actual policy, linked above, are far, far, far more extreme than that. VQuakr (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

What, I'm not trying to make any points? I don't even know what you are on about. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Also, there was a general agreement to restore the status quo at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Far-right_politics in the "Lead image removal" discussion...there's an ongoing discussion and VQuakr has been repeatedly restoring his preferred version, against the developing consensus. Several of the other editors agreed to restore the status quo and VQuakr is ignoring this fact, making personal attacks and being generally disruptive. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

No, they didn't "agree to restore the status quo". That's a WP:POINTy removal that you admit you don't even agree with. I don't think this is WP:BOOMERANG material, but you need to knock off the antics and wikilawyering. VQuakr (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

What, you're just sledging me, why are you being so uncivil and unreasonable?

• Now VQuakr is removing my comments https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFar-right_politics&diff=1151923460&oldid=1151922339 This is becoming very unpleasant. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

You have a WP:AOHA vio immediately followed by a link to your own WP:TPG vio above. Mate, you need to take a breath and focus on content on the article talk page. Not running to admin boards and shooting yourself in the foot, and not wiping content from articles. Nobody has it in for you, the disruption just needs to stop. VQuakr (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

what disruption? I've been editing in good faith and discussing in a civil manner. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing any disruption from Tambor de Tocino, and VQuakr needs to read WP:VANDALISM again, as TdT's edits cannot be in any way construed to be "vandalism".
  I am seeing a general informal consensus on Talk:Far-right politics to remove the lede image until there is a formal consensus for which one of two candidates is preferred - or some other image. No image is the WP:STATUSQUO state of the article, since a lede image was added only recently. I say this as someone who favored both images at one time or another, and who does not favor the article having no lede image - but that's the most recent status quo which TdT's edits have acted to restore. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you, BMK...I felt like the whole discussion was going really well, it was reasonable and collegial, friendly even - despite disagreements - that we were all working well together towards some kind of consensus in a civil manner, then suddenly this one editor started attacking me personally and making all kinds of aspersions, edit warring etc...I was quite shocked to be honest, the hostility went from zero to a hundred in seconds, and I can see no reason for this discussion to get so heated. I did try to calm the conversation down, to no avail. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  I did notice a bit of nastiness earlier in the discussion and this too was coming from VQuakr, accusing another editor of gaming the status quo - I'm not sure if that was directed at me or another editor, but it was uncivil. Perhaps they are too invested in this subject. I mean it's only a photo, no need for anyone to be attacking other editors like this. It's certainly not civil and it's unpleasant to be subjected to aggression and incivility like this. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  And yes, I'm opposed to the status quo also, but I honestly thought we agreed to restore it until the discussion had reached a consensus (I made a mistake at one point as to which version was the status quo, perhaps that is what has made VQuakr decide I'm a vandal and everything else he's accused me of, I dunno?). Tambor de Tocino (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

So you're just throwing out vague WP:ASPERSIONS now? Stuff like this and this needs to stop. No one has "attacked" you. VQuakr (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, perhaps I'm missing it, but I'm not seeing any personal attacks in either of those diffs. If an editor thinks another editor's comment is uncivil, saying that it's uncivil is not a personal attack. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: agreed, those diffs weren't links to personal attacks and I don't believe I've described them as such. VQuakr (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Then I'm confused. What did you intend for them to illustrate? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

First one, poor use of article talk page derailing an attempt to move on and refocus on content. Second one, vague handwave at "nastiness" with no backup. I don't think either of these are actionable, but I would prefer the pattern of needling to stop. VQuakr (talk) 08:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Wow, aspersions? Now that's the pot calling the kettle black. Fine I'm a vandal and all that, you got me. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Go get the noose and string me up. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• VQuakr, labeling a Tambor de Tocino's edits as "vandalism" without evidence to back it up is in fact a personal attack, or at the very least an aspersion. Please review WP:NOTVANDALISM. El_C 08:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed,pointy removal is disruptive not vandalism, thank you for the reminder. VQuakr (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

VQuakr, you need to stop digging. El_C 08:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Heard. VQuakr (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I contest that personal attack too, I've been contributing in good faith in a civil manner. I now want some kind of sanction a this point, this is just bullying. I've even tried to make peace, and I'm still being attacked for no good reason.Tambor de Tocino (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

It isn't a personal attack, and you need to dial it down, too. Comments like Go get the noose and string me up are too much. El_C 08:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Karlfonza

Karlfonza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) needs to be blocked and have their edits reversed, promptly, before more damage is done. They have been warned innumerous times over at least seven years against adding random photos they have taken into articles like Ice cream, Square, and Gym, articles that are already well illustrated. Karl's photos are usually not of great quality, and are not very relevant to these articles he adds them to. It needs to stop, and I can't keep manually reverting him as he comes back over the years. See also my complaint 5 years ago, yet it is still taking place. ɱ (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Edits like this are obviously bad. There are plenty of talk page warnings over the years, which seem to have been mostly ignored. Nothing seems to have made a dent, a WP:CIR block may be warranted. MrOllie (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Armando AZ

Armando AZ has been making questionable edits more recently and I opened a sockpuppet investigation due to WP:DUCK (it was nothing personal). However, this edit on my talk page by Armando AZ not only brought the topic of race into my talk page, but a threat. Reading WP:PA and WP:ZT, this is concerning to me, so I have brought this to the noticeboard.--WMrapids (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

This was the last thing I wrote, it was never a personal attack. I just wanted to be direct with the matter at hand. As can be seen here, I am only warning him for his bad behavior: For example, the one indicated in this article here created by him by other users. Armando AZ (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

As well as giving me the message of him complaint to me in a defiant and disrespectful way. Armando AZ (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Armando AZ: Respectfully, that is what the ANI template says.--WMrapids (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@WMrapids Since you are answering me: In a template you can add text that reduces or reinterprets the language that is used, but it can contain an aggressive tone (that would be a matter for those who make the templates). The issue is why mention the pending complaint that I have? That is not solved by putting between parentheses "it was nothing personal"; precisely you are denouncing me for my "bad behavior". Armando AZ (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Err ... am I missing something here? The diff you posted of this purported "defiant and disrespectful" notice is the standard notice template for ANI complaints. Did you have something else in mind? That being said, yeah, it's pretty uncivil to infer that there's something suspect about an "American" or "Anglo-Saxon" making edits in South American topics. (You wouldn't, I expect, appreciate us telling you that there must be something suspect about a native Spanish speaker contributing to the English Wikipedia.) That, if you will, is bad behavior. Ravenswing 03:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know much about Wikipedia, much less in English, I'm simply clarifying why I gave it a warning (I admit not in the best way) since it is a recurring behavior in them. Armando AZ (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ravenswing For example, the articles Protests in Peru 2022-2023 and Ayacucho Massacre have neutrality alerts precisely because of their editions. Armando AZ (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Nice try, but c'mon. YOU put the tag in on the first article, and the tag on the second went in after disputed edits from another editor. That being said, you have not yet addressed the OP's charge that you were being racist, and having seen your original comment, I would myself like an answer from you. Ravenswing 04:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

What's wrong with having put a bias alert? As if that wasn't everyone's duty on Wikipedia (besides, you didn't see how the article was before to put it). Lastly, and answering the question, never use a race criterion, I simply saw his Wiki historial and discovered that a few years ago he did not edit anything or little about Peruvian articles (which is my born country), which made me suspect what is What calls so much from a country to put biased information towards one side of the conflict? You can see for yourself that after the self-coup attempt, his interest in Peru skyrocketed. Armando AZ (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

In fact, looking for the exact date, since July 12 of 2020, their interest in Peru began, before They only edited articles related to the United States. Armando AZ (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

(Sorry in advance if I use wrong pronouns its hard for me sometimes and sometimes i also use google translate to help me). Armando AZ (talk) 04:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I think if you're using Google Translate but your English isn't good enough to know its output is bad, then there's a WP:CIR problem. Bon courage (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

It may be, that's why I don't plan to edit many articles from then on, I feel that the main issues in which I saw controversy have been resolved in one way or another (and I've liked contributing to it). Armando AZ (talk) 07:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Don't know about Peru, but this editor has recently arrived at COVID-19 lab leak theory and has been bombarding the page with borderline-incoherent and WP:PROFRINGE comments, most recently removing[109] one of mine that raised this. The vibe is not good. Bon courage (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  We have already resolved this issue. There will be no consensus until better evidence is presented by those who support the theory. The reversion I did was precisely because I thought that everything I had written there did not make any sense. Armando AZ (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Sock confirmed

• Well, it looks like we can confirm that Armando AZ has been using sockpuppets throughout the project, per the verification page on Portuguese Wikipedia. Starting to look like WP:NOTHERE.--WMrapids (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Non-neutral inflation of importance: Houston–London avant-garde band Red Krayola

• Aradicus77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.6.217.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 88.105.67.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 92.12.198.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.242.107.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 92.9.57.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Red Krayola (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Parable of Arable Land (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mayo Thompson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Frederick Barthelme (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• God Bless the Red Krayola and All Who Sail With It (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Coconut Hotel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hazel (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Live 1967 (Red Krayola album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Noise rock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Aradicus77 and IPs from the general area of Manchester, Leeds and Blackpool in the UK have been greatly expanding articles related to the Texas band Red Krayola which decamped to London in the late 1970s. By itself, this expansion action is admirable, but Aradicus77 and IPs have been pushing too far, puffing up the importance of the band to make them seem more central and influential. I keep removing the excesses, but Aradicus77 and IPs have been edit-warring to return over-large quotes and tons of trivia. Aradicus77 appears to be intent on changing the band from being semi-obscure with low sales, to critically important to the development of noise rock. I'm seeing WP:NOTHERE behavior.

Aradicus77 first edited on September 20, 2021, adding a trivial fact to The Parable of Arable Land to bring a famous name, Jimi Hendrix, into the article.[110] The cited source even describes the fact as "superficial" and insignificant.[111] This edit set the tone.

Aradicus77 inserted the Red Krayola band into the noise rock article,[112] which I reverted because of poor sourcing. Aradicus77 restored this material and more. Aradicus77 also pushed Red Krayola into the goth rock article,[113] though they are not mentioned at all in any source writing specifically about goth rock.

Aradicus copied text from a cited source directly into the Red Krayola article back in June 2022, and the material was revdeled. The very next day Aradicus77 returned some too-close paraphrasing to the article.[114] Aradicus77 and the IPs have violated WP:MULTIPLE by edit-warring disputed material back in to the Red Krayola article.[115] Binksternet (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

(NAC) Comment. Very clear cut case of a concerted effort to promote a small band. Whilst the band may pass GNG (barely, if this article were sent to AfD a delete would not be surprising) the egregious and promotional editing based on my observation is highly reminiscent of the hundreds of MySpace bands in the early 2000s that had pages (past tense as I have seen many PRODed). I would suggest a chance for the registered user to explain themselves first. More than suggest, really, its imperative before they get page-blocked. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 07:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)