Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

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)[reply]

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: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)[reply

]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

you attempted to get me permanently banned from editing

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)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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

call people names without any repercussions? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

• 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: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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

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.
• 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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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

Well, I was told by

Major

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

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

.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)[reply]

.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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 –

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)[reply

]

＊ 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oh, and now that I've had time to check, I see kwami has once again reverted me on

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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

he owns the page. – .Raven  ^.talk 05:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

I'm disappointed that Kwamikagami hasn't commented further on this discussion and is now involved in an edit war with this user at

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

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)[reply]

@

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)[reply

]

So to add on, this former admin is

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

• 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
  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

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.

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)[reply]

• "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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

I know I'm going to regret weighing in here...
@

☖ 17:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

> "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

I've cited and quoted that sentence to kwami, who has continued to disregard it. – .Raven  ^.talk 01:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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:FAITACCOMPLI, which seems to indicate otherwise. – .Raven  ^.talk 18:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

... 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)[reply

]

Now kwami has deleted from 'Alchemical symbol', as "false claims", a source copied from

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)[reply]

... 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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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

]

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

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

> "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.

WP:OR. – .Raven  ^.talk 19:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It seems that

☖ 17:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@

☖ 18:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • That is why communication is required. This editor has gone silent. Cullen328 (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

ErceÇamurOfficial has been told to stop nominating redirects at

• blocked for 31 hours. I was not sure whether a p-block from Wikipedia space would stop them from nominating, or if they'd just create broken ones so this is a full block, but short duration. If any admin feels this needs adjusting, feel free. Star Mississippi 22:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For what it's worth, I'm not sure if 31 hours will be enough since their editing frequency is so sporadic ... since I hear we can do partial blocks these days, maybe the prolonged block from the "Wikipedia:" namespace may honestly be preferable? (But then they couldn't respond here.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm inclined to agree with Steel here but I don't think a partial block to the Wikipedia namespace would fix the

  WP:CIR problem (especially since most of this user's edits are in namespace and are on BLP articles). If you look at this user's contributions and filter them by edits that have been reverted, you can see a concerning amount of reverted edits compared to their total amount of edits (which is 528 edits). Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 23:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  with the p-block, they can still tag a page for RfD, they just can't create the discussion I think. My concern was whether that wouldn't lead to broken noms. I'm about to log off for the evening, but if another admin feels that's the answer-feel free. My goal was stopping the immediate disruption. Star Mississippi 01:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I read that, but I've seen "Wikipedia:" space bans (before namespace blocks were possible) done anyways for reasons that I would have to guess were because the collateral damage was still less. Not sure, but anyways, thanks for taking action. Steel1943 (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  and @Yamla declined an unblock. We'll see if they understand the issue coming out of the block, and we can always block longer if needed. Star Mississippi 16:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  At this point, I would support an indefinite block. There are clear CIR issues here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• 7 July 2006
  )
• 29 February 2008
  )
• 20 December 2009
  )
• 28 April 2014
  )

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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 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

.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

Over at Order of operations, user Rick Norwood has repeatedly (five times) restored an edit that has no consensus on the talk page, with every other editor participating disagreeing with his edits.

I have repeatedly advised him to reach consensus on the talk page before restoring this edit, but he keeps re-inserting the edit, which as other editors have noted mis-represents the cited sources. He has provided no sources to support his edit.

Initial edit: [18]

First revert: [19]

Ensuing diffs: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25].

Talk page discussions: [26], [27]

I'm not going to violate the three revert rule, so the non-consensus material remains part of the article for now.

Perhaps someone could explain consensus and

Here is what Mr. Swordfish said on the Talk page of that article earlier today: "See https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Precedence.html and https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Parenthesis.html, in particular "Parentheses are used in mathematical expressions to denote modifications to normal order of operations.""

And here is what the current version of the article which Mr. Swordfish objects to says, "According to Mathworld, "Parentheses are used in mathematical expressions to denote modifications to normal order of operations."

As you can see, I'm doing my best to satisfy Mr. Swordfish, while keeping the article mathematically correct.

I have been editing this article, off and on, since 4 June 2019 and I always treat other editors with respect. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not your position is true is irrelevant. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Let's not muddy the waters here. When the article in question was created over 20 years ago , the very first version included four items in the "definition". In the ensuing 20 years, those four items were retained and reliable sources were added that support the four items.

A week or so ago, Rick Norwood deleted item #1 without providing any reliable sources to support the change. This edit was quickly reverted with early consensus disagreeing with that edit. He has repeatedly re-inserted the edit without a) reaching consensus on the talk page or b) providing any reliably sourced material that supports the edit.

That is the issue here. Whether his edit is "mathematically correct" or not is irrelevant at this point - he may be right, but we need to follow the process of finding reliable sources and reaching consensus.

I have tried to explain that major changes to an article need to be discussed on the talk page with a consensus of editors agreeing before restoring a "bold" edit. Perhaps someone could do a better job of explaining that? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few points:

1. Whether parentheses/brackets should be listed as an "operation" on that page has not been agreed-upon for 20 years. Special:PermaLink/986278545 (from October 2020) does not include this.
2. Both Mr Swordfish and Rick Norwood were editing this article in 2020, so this is clearly a very long and slow-moving conflict.
3. Mr Swordfish is definitely edit-warring with diffs like Special:Diff/1151100825, restoring (as explained in the Mnemonics section of this article, PEMDAS is the mnemonic) to the text of the article a day after he made a change "rewording" that indisputibly-awkward language.
4. Neither editor can demonstrate consensus for their position on the talk page, because the discussions there clearly have not found consensus. Any claims an editor makes that there is a clear consensus supporting their position must be viewed as an argumentative tactic rather than a statement of fact.
5. Why is this here and not at
   WP:ANEW
   ?

• Maybe I'm just delerius with fever, but sounds to me like they both need a
  partial block from that article?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Just want to point out that both could be true: that you are delirious with fever and they both need partial blocks. <g> Feel better, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I mentioned the disagreement at WT:WikiProject Mathematics#Order of operations in the hope that other people will offer an opinion. Meanwhile it would be a very good idea for the edit warring to stop. Johnuniq (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the statements above, someone who signed himself 2601:18f:107f:e2a0:7142:367:472:ca68 has restored Mr. Swordfish's version of the article.Rick Norwood (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Norwood's (last?) version has two major issues that makes it unacceptable in Wikipedia. Firstly, it presents Mathworld as an authoritative issue ("According to Mathworld, ...) although it is a tertiary source, whose use for sourcing should be cosidered with care. Secondly, the removal of the first item makes makes the section "Definition" incompatible with section "Mnemonics", where all mnemonics begin either with P for Parentheses of B for Brackets.
  As far as I understand, Norwood's concern is that parentheses are not an operation. This is true, but this is easily solved by recalling that "order of operations" is a shortcut for "order in which the operations must be performed". If this is clearly stated, there is no more problem to include parentheses in the list. I'll clarify this in the article. D.Lazard (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

Walt Yoder

,

Thank you for providing valuable context that corrects a misunderstanding on my part. I was under the impression that this issue had long been settled and that the recent edits were "new". I did not find it discussed in the talk page archive, but since I did not extensively review the edit history I was not aware that this has been a long-term item of contention. Realizing this, I should have been more circumspect in my reverts.

You are correct that consensus has not been established on the talk page. I had assumed that there was an

implied consensus

, but that assumption was incorrect. I stand corrected.

Moving forward, the proper place to resolve this is the talk page of the article. (Perhaps an rfc is in order, but I'll leave it to someone else to create that.) It appears that we are making progress there, so I'll withdraw this complaint.

Thanks again for your help, and also the other editors who took the time to look into this. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am delighted to have you work on the article. I'll move this discussion to the talk page of the article.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2023_April#Hindu_terrorism

• Oriental Aristocrat on 18 April votes to endorse an RM which was largely opposed at the time.[28]
• Nooruddin2020 posts a comment on 18 April to endorse it, but his comment has nothing to do with the RM.[29]
• Ameen Akbar also votes on 18 April to endorse it.[30]
• War Wounded votes on 19 April to endorse RM.[31]

None of these accounts have any history on Move review or the article that is being discussed. Another user,

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-China terrorism in Pakistan

• Nooruddin2020 starts AfD against a notable subject.[34]
• AfD starts moving towards "keep".
• Oriental Aristocrat jumps to vote for "Delete".[35]
• Ameen Akbar also votes for "Delete" on the same day,[36] despite no votes in any AfD for over 6 months.[37]
• Cheel, an account with only 50 edits, makes his first ever AfD vote to support deletion.[38]

Thebiguglyalien also pointed out about the "unusual activity" in the AFD.[39]

Talk:Pakistani_Taliban#Requested_move_11_October_2022

• War Wounded voted support the move.[40]
• Ameen Akbar also voted support on the move.[41]
• Cheel also voted support on the move.[42]
• Oriental Aristocrat also voted support on the move.[43]

Similarly suspicious activity also happened on Talk:Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir where Oriental Aristocrat is involved in content dispute,[44] but Ameen Akbar jumped to help Oriental Aristocrat[45] without having any previous history with the article or its talk page.[46][47]

Clear off-wiki canvassing is going on. I request an admin to strike/collapse !votes by these users in the ongoing discussions. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a participant at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-China terrorism in Pakistan, I agree there are strange things going on, with several editors trying to censor the subject. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a clear off-wiki canvassing is going on. See for example:

1. Aman.kumar.goel and CapnJackSp are the only two editors except a blocked sock and an IP (with both of its edits on the same AfD) to vote Delete.

2. CapnJackSp's first ever edit to 'China' article was to revert @BSMRD: and restore Aman.kumar.goel's five edits.

3. CapnJackSp and Aman.kumar.goel then gang up on 'Talkpage:China'.

4. Aman.kumar.goel's first edit to 'Talk:Pakistani Taliban' is to vote Oppose on the RfC. CapnJackSp too votes Oppose on the same RfC.

5. Aman.kumar.goel and CapnJackSp back each other up on 'Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948' against @Cinderella157:.

6. Aman.kumar.goel and CapnJackSp remove the same content on 'Violence against Muslims in India'.

7. Aman.kumar.goel and CapnJackSp both comment on the same discussion at 'Talk:Murder of Kanhaiya Lal'.

8. Capitals00 initiates the Move Review for Hindu terrorism following which CapnJackSp and UnpetitproleX comment to Overturn it.

9. CapnJackSp removes the same content as UnpetitproleX and then Capitals00 joins in to edit-war at 'Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir'.

10. Aman.kumar.goel twice reverts the same content on 'Terrorism in Pakistan' that is then removed in their first edit to the article by CapnJackSp. CapnJackSp then continues to edit-war multiple editors (incl. @

CENSOR

the article.

11. Aman.kumar.goel votes Keep on the 'Anti-China terrorism in Pakistan' AfD. More influx of Keep votes is expected from editors of that certain country.

This post is simply a

CABAL (more to follow). Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

See whataboutism. What is quoted by you is common edits between editors who have thousands of edits in a similar space, most of them unrelated. What is quoted by me is editors with very low edit counts consistently vote stacking with no significant contribution to the discussion.

This comment itself highlights your

WP:CANVASSING

, where you have pinged only those who opposed the edits of Aman.kumar.goel, UnpetitproleX, Capitals00 but didn't ping Aman.kumar.goel, UnpetitproleX, and Capitals00.

Your short editing history, where two pages had to be ECP protected ([48][49]) due to edit warring by you, clearly shows a case of

WP:NOTHERE and your baseless counter-allegations against established editors confirms this further. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

To everyone involved, remember that

WP:CTOP restrictions. Basically, if your editing and comments always support India or always support Pakistan, don't be surprised when the community gets annoyed with you and you get banned from the topic. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thebiguglyalien, what nationalist editing? I don't use Wikipedia too much and only came to occasionally edit. I see an article that makes no sense to me and vote to delete it and even explained my reasons. I don't know why this person is suddenly making accusations at me. Cheel (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. [50][51][52][53][54][55][56]), 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 ([57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66]) – 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

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)[reply]

@

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

There is little functional difference between converting all the ISBNs on a page to your preferred format, e.g. [67], and performing the same conversion when there is variation, e.g. [68]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

The template "{{

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

{{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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've partially blocked them from Kansas SB 180. You're also very close to edit warring, @Des Vallee. Hopefully you two can discuss it on the Talk page. Star Mississippi 21:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Star Mississippi I just want them to understand the basis of primary sources, and understand this especially for someone this new, they have no clue what they are talking about, and immedetely jumped towards "Your being biased, I am assuming good faith but you look biased" anti-insult. I will try my best to discuss things, on the talk page. I understand and I will try my best to do so. Many thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. Just one reminder, being potentially "right" doesn't give you license to edit war. Not being able to edit the article should help them understand the role of talk pages and consensus. Hopefully. Star Mississippi 21:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"articles need to based off secondary and tertiary sources" is a misrepresentation of Wiki policies. Policy does not prohibit factually presenting primary source information, so long as it is not interpretive (which it was not). It was well cited with the highest level of Verifiability (direct government documents), yet they completely reverted it.

"continuously removed sources" Explanations were given on the talk page and never addressed.

Reference is for a Yahoo News article given to prove factual information (that the bill was vetoed) which would be best represented with primary sources.

Reference is misrepresented and the context within the article misleads transpersons into believing they have federal protections that have not yet been ratified.

Reference is a poor source and only mentions SB 180 in a singular sentence. The claim it makes is controversial which needs more citation, and such a controversial claim should not be in the first implied "About the Bill" section.

Reference is literally a paywalled article that the public doesn't have access to.

@Star Mississippi Can you please explain what I am being partially blocked for? Literally no reason was given.

Have you reviewed the article as I've proposed? I'd be happy to incorporate Des' new information, but as I've stated on the talk page, most of the information prior to my rewrites was not salvageable or could be surmised in the Controversy section. Can you please tell me specifically why it is justifiable to delete my entire rewrite, instead of adding information onto it?

Also as far as blocking, I would like to point out that I made material revisions to the article, not just petty reverts. So again, I would like to know on what grounds a block would be given. PhenomenonDawn (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is not a place for content dispute. As for your actions, while the discussion thread was active, you've continued to revert Des Vallee. BRD actually refers to reverting the original edit in question, which was done by Des Vallee. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 22:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Callmemirela,

I'm not intending to discuss content, but show that I provided numerous examples of issues that were never addressed. Rather than attempt to preserve any of my work, my edits were wholly discarded.

Even though I completely rewrote the article to meet the absolute highest standards of Neutrality and Verifiability, you are saying I "reverted," which implies simply clicking an Undo button, rather than the hours of work I put into the article.

Could you please clarify for me: Are edits not allowed on a page til the prior editor has approved them on the talk page? Because again, I did not merely revert articles and instead expanded this one.

Now I'm being blocked, which gives me the impression that an original editor of an article has a form of ownership over it. PhenomenonDawn (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is never appropriate. Cullen328 (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello @Cullen328. Does the need for consensus apply both ways? Or is it just whoever touches an article first must give consensus? I keep being referred to the same page which doesn't explain why my hours of work were discarded wholesale without cause and with no attempt to to integrate them into the article. PhenomenonDawn (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PhenomenonDawn, consensus is required to change an article if the proposed changes have been challenged. I do not know how I can explain it more clearly. Editors do not "give consensus". Editors build consensus through discussion and negotiation. No consensus means no change. It is therefore incumbent on you to persuade the other editors interested in the specific article that your proposed changes are an improvement. That is how Wikipedia works. Cullen328 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time @Cullen328. Building consensus implies that all views are considered. I hope you can understand why I'm struggling here, because "no consensus means no change" implies that I must gain consent from one editor, while they do not need to gain consent from me. Simply because they were "here first." PhenomenonDawn (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @Cullen328 and thanks again. I wasn't trying to imply there aren't other methods of dispute resolute, just that the "first line" seems inequitable when two parties are involved. It would have seemed equitable if we had followed a process of through editing embodying the spirit of "Explanations are especially important when reverting another editor's good-faith work." Instead my work was reverted because I "have no clue what [I'm] are talking about," as evidenced in their comments above.

In any case, I truly do appreciate your time here, and don't want to take up any more of it. I will draft a thorough talk page and request third opinions and comments. Cheers! PhenomenonDawn (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 2600:6C48:767F:80B3:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2600:6C48:767F:5518:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 97.84.158.92 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rishabisajakepauler

Someone using the IP Special:Contributions/97.84.158.92 and the range Special:Contributions/2600:6C48:767F:80B3:0:0:0:0/64, all of which geolocate to Saginaw, Michigan, has been edit-warring to restore contributions from sockpuppets such as Ppok ll and Sahbabi04. These sockpuppets were part of an investigation into 556greentip, but then the 556greentip case was seen to intersect with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rishabisajakepauler from Texas. The nearby range Special:Contributions/2600:6C48:767F:5518:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked twice for block evasion.

Here is a sequence of edits at

Another example is 556greentip creating the article Just Wanna Rock from a redirect, which was reverted. A Texas IP (certainly Rishabisajakepauler) restored the article, and more editors worked on it including some sockpuppets. Saginaw IPs edited it in early April and late April, edit-warring to restore their preferred version.

A third example may be seen at

Since this sockmaster has used two related /64 ranges, I propose we block a larger range that includes them both. Binksternet (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, meatpuppetry is going on here. Agletarang (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a vandal in the IP range Special:Contributions/2600:4040:5E51:5400:0:0:0:0/64 that has a strange obsession with adding that someone was "brutally beaten" in articles. I first noticed such an edit some months ago and came across it again now. See for example these recent edits: [71][72][73][74]. Mainly these are just unsourced changes that look like plain vandalism.[75][76] Most of the edits get reverted but some slip through as some are not so obvious and probably some more need to be reverted. Mellk (talk) 10:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[78] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

ANI is not one of the available locations for an appeal, will talk to David about his options. Involved close so revert if you must, but this does not belong here. nableezy - 00:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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[79] 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  "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" ^[1][2] (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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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