Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1126

(non-admin closure) Gina Felea 88 has been indefinitely blocked by Black Kite. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved from

WP:AN (diff

)

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Edits like this are obviously bad. There are plenty of talk page warnings over the years, which seem to have been mostly ignored. Nothing seems to have made a dent, a

MrOllie (talk

) 02:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

While both bad and very funny, it is definitely not constructive editing and is borderline vandalism. Are there examples of constructive edits by user? Otherwise yeah a CIR block is warranted. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked the user indefinitely. Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

To be honest, the pictures were overkill on the page for one. Two, if the IP truly is Ms. Schick Garcia, then

WP:AUTOPROB would apply here. I'll reach out to the IP as well about this. RickinBaltimore (talk

) 19:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

This seems like a copyright dispute wrapped in a autobiography dipped in

WP:SPIP. and I was trying to watch my WikiCarbs! I like Astatine (Talk to me

) 14:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

Two non-civil comments:

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

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

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

Since 15/04/23, IP has been persistently adding content claiming a non-notable individual is the crown princess of a defunct medieval kingdom.[1][2][3] Cited source is a business website owned by the individual's parents. Upon a cursory search, it appears no other evidence for this claim exists beyond personal social media accounts. IP has been warned 3 times that this is disruptive behavior, twice via edit summaries, once on their talk page.[4][5][6]

Appears to be self-promotion as I suspect IP to be the alleged "crown princess" in question, or at least the manager of the source website. This is because the website made no mention of the claim a week ago (19/04) as per the page archive.[7] I pointed out to them that this was the case on 22/04,[8]. By 26/04, the source website had been amended to include the claim,[9] on which date the IP asserted that this is the case.[10]

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

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

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)

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

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

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

Another possible approach would be a mandatory

WP:0RR restriction with no exception for vandalism. I'm not sure this is a good idea, just noting a possible approach. --Yamla (talk

) 17:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Getting back to User:SilverLocust's point, I never accused User:InvadingInvader of vandalism. Because the drive that goes around Apple Campus is called Infinite Loop, I correctly recognized there is a good faith basis for using that as part of a new title. I criticized the sudden page move of

Apple 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)

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)

Alameda County. So, you were not correct on the content issue and still, you falsely accused the other editor of vandalism. Your contributions are very much appreciated, but if I was you, I would be exceptionally cautious about use of the word "vandalism" going forward. Cullen328 (talk

) 19:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

You're confusing the truth of User:Joe Calder's edit with whether it was supported by the underlying sources. As I just said above, I have never disputed the truth of the edit. But it was not supported by the sources as required by

WP:V

by stuffing words into the cited sources' mouths that are simply not found in the cited sources (which I just linked to above). Under WP:V, the burden is on that user to either add a separate source for that fact or add the fact in a way that doesn't improperly imply existing sources support it (when they do not). The civil approach, as I now realize, would have been to simply point out that the new edit had failed verification.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then I just realized something. Under

WP:AGF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coolcaesar, your contributions are highly appreciated. From the diffs I've seen, the people you berate are often in the wrong. Your attentiveness to verifiability is valuable, as it's one of the most neglected tasks on Wikipedia. But your posts remind me of Linus Torvalds. He was a PITA to his collaborators for more than a decade until someone helped him realize how little it achieved, and how much unnecessary stress it caused him and others. He became less abrasive, and I bet everyone around him breathed a huge sigh of relief. When dealing with

incompetent editors, no amount of berating will help them change. And competent editors don't want the unpleasantness. Is the abrasiveness worth it? I hope you can take the time to reflect on that, as Torvalds did. DFlhb (talk

) 05:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

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

3RR exception for obvious vandalism). InvadingInvader (userpage, talk

) 18:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Dannyzk has been asked multiple times to stop inserting too many roles into biographies by way of the "known for" parameter. Dannyzk has not responded at all to concerns voiced by others—has never used a talk page. The first explicit request on Dannyzk's talk page regarding the "known for" problem was added by Wes sideman on April 15.[11]

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

Dannyzk added one song to the Cathy Dennis biography, as if she is known for only one song.[12] She's known for at least a dozen songs, which is why the "known for" parameter was not used. The same problem may be seen at the Reba McEntire biography, with Dannyzk adding two songs[13] despite the fact that the singer is known for many songs.

Another warning Dannyzk received was for adding both the "alma_mater" and "education" parameters,[14] though the infobox instructions say that only one of these should be used. Dannyzk has not responded to any talk page messages. Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Incident started with

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

User Mcdynamite had been notified of this ANI incident on talkpage [29]. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I may offer background? kwami and I first encountered (as far as I know) in late March^＊ when he was changing numerous China-related articles –

WP:NPA, etc. As you saw, he's "rv. troll"'d them, and come here. I've just learned today from this page's archives that edit-warring is not recent behavior on his part. Apparently he lost at least one user-rights bit over it. That might be useful context. – .Raven  ^.talk

16:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

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

I think .Raven leaves some important context for the greater issue, and it does look like they are doing the right things with regards to dispute resolution. That being said, .Raven: if you haven't seen it before, please read

dispute resolution. If they don't want to interact with you, fine. Find someone else to review the matter and give a neutral assessment. At no time should you be spamming a user's talk page with warning templates, especially not when they are currently in an active dispute with you. It comes off as rather rude. So yea, if your summary is accurate with regard to starting discussions on the talk pages, you did that part fine. That doesn't excuse hammering Kwami's user talk page with pointless templates. Start a real conversation next time, at the minimum, and if that isn't received well, then just don't. --Jayron32

16:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

N'Ko alphabet), to delete citation of an RS which contradicts him – commenting "rv: this is an ongoing discussion -- wait for the result". But the "ongoing discussion" is Talk:N'Ko script#Requested move 10 April 2023

, a page move request, which is not (that I ever heard) reason to stop editing the article text. He's deleting valid info I added, using a bogus reason.

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

Likewise this edit by kwami on 'Bassa Vah script', deleting three refs and fouling up two others. This seems to be reversion for the sake of reversion, as if he

owns these articles. – .Raven  ^.talk

23:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Per the above gentle hint about

he owns the page. – .Raven  ^.talk

05:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Now what kwami has reverted (with the comment "rv. chronic POV warrior") included my adding the sign for comma in Bassa Vah with a ref to

WP:PROVEIT; a fully relevant external link to Omniglot; and my making the Defaultsort actually include the full article title, three short words – of which he deleted the middle one. kwami himself has refused when asked to cite RSs supporting his edits. – .Raven  ^.talk

10:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

@

WT:NCWS#Help with POV-warring. It has become impossible to do so much as add and document a Bassa Vah comma sign, fix a malformed link, or wikilink another article. 2012's report leaves me thinking this is just history on endless repeat. I should have taken that hint and just stayed away from the quicksand, even when he moved an article I'd been working on. Doing so now, despite the info still lacking or broken on multiple articles. – .Raven  ^.talk

15:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

So to add on, this former admin is

personal attacks

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

Not to say .Raven has been perfect in this, which they've acknowledged, but I'm starting to suspect a

WP:BOOMERANG may be appropriate. Hey man im josh (talk

) 18:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Drat, I was going to avoid interaction, but some of this has to be addressed:
  • "... insisting that we wait for the outcome of the NCWS discussion before we start implementing our preferred version of it." – So
  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)

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

• "Raven engages in bad faith edits and arguments when they don't get their way" – Funny thing, I've never accused kwami of "bad faith", due to

WP:AGF. – .Raven  ^.talk

23:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

☖

17:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@

Theban script

, which is a slightly different rationale and had been requested earlier.)

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

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

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

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

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

Per

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

02:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

> "if you improve content in the same edit that re-introduced disputed material" – But kwami has insisted over and over (even above) that these were "uncontested points"; kwami's point seems to have been merely that footnotes must not be in the lede. The last paragraph of

I've cited and quoted that sentence to kwami, who has continued to disregard it. – .Raven  ^.talk

01:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

By the way, the so-called "duplicate move requests" were to return "alphabet" articles to that status quo ante, after kwami had BOLDly moved them to "script" titles without discussion or consensus (and against even the

WP:FAITACCOMPLI, which seems to indicate otherwise. – .Raven  ^.talk

18:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

... and I have now come across

WP:BECAUSEISAYSO, which seems to sum up kwami's !RS !citations. – .Raven  ^.talk

23:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

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

JSTOR 107302

. (Specifically, pp. 109-116, in the Collected Works version linked there, cover the extraction of the metal he calls magnium from – and its subsequent oxidation into – the white powdery material he calls magnesia: [p. 115] "It sank rapidly in water, though surrounded by globules of gas, producing magnesia, and quickly changed in air, becoming covered with a white crust, and falling into a fine powder, which proved to be magnesia.") When will these unjustified deletions, using false edit-comments, cease?

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

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

You are not going to get your pound of flesh here.

Stop beating a dead horse. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

17:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

WT:DTS#On the other hand... – .Raven  ^.talk

21:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

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

What was that utter nonsense of a post supposed to convince us of? Frankly, this is getting

tendentious. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

17:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

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

> "They continue to make OR edits that contradict their sources" – you haven't found a contradiction yet, merely reverted or marked {fv}{cn} when it was clear you hadn't read them, viz.

WP:OR. – .Raven  ^.talk

19:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Is discussing the

WP:LEGS#On the other hoof... wrong? – .Raven  ^.talk

02:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. --128.164.177.55 (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

When you put it like that... okay. – .Raven  ^.talk 14:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Do you deny saying locke cole has been consistently vandalizing this page, misusing wikipedia guidelines, goading people into edit wars? You shouldn't because I literally linked to the diff of you saying that. So since you made those multiple claims of misbehavior, do you have any evidence of that to back those claims up? Because if you don't, that's exactly what

WP:3RR. Nobody forced you to do those reverts. The only reason you weren't blocked was because you ended up self-reverting. I don't know that I'd call that a "good reason" when you had all the reason in the world not to revert the 4th time already. —Locke Cole • t • c

15:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As to your accusation of being a

WT:MOSBIO about deadnaming of deceased trans and non-binary people, there are also mainspace contributions to a pretty wide array of topics. Sideswipe9th (talk

) 17:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

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

And now Tekrmn has upgraded to

WP:GRAVEDANCING with this edit, knowing that InedibleHulk (talk · contribs) is currently blocked and unable to respond, they've decided to respond to a nearly week old comment of theirs. —Locke Cole • t • c

05:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Thank you for confirming you don't know what aspersions are or what

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

17:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

you attempted to get me permanently banned from editing

WP:AGF is not a death pact. And maybe you missed it, but we're all volunteers here: I'm not going to invest significant amounts of time when you initially refuse to engage. —Locke Cole • t • c

05:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

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

) 09:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Asked and answered. I note with interest that the comment that precipitated this, calling me a vandal and stating that my edits are vandalism, is still active and you've yet to provide any evidence to support your

aspersions

. Some more examples of you accusing people of being vandals either collectively (for not agreeing with you) or directly:

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

Can you please provide evidence that your claim that I'm a vandal is valid? Can you provide evidence for the last two bulletted diffs above that show

call people names without any repercussions? —Locke Cole • t • c

04:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

after looking at

Internet troll

, vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if they are not. Remember that the apparent test editors have the potential to be tomorrow's editors. By giving a polite, honest and noncondemning answer to newcomers, you have the opportunity to teach them Wikipedia policy. By being calm, interested, and respectful, you do credit to your dignity, and to our project."

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

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

There were several tone issues (1 2 3) and two cases of borderline

WP:BURO where I now realised they might be right (1) and another where I'm unsure but think they're wrong. (2 calling this discussion

'nuanced' and drawing out the RFC)

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

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

WP:CPUSH

.

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

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

Your first diff is a Jim Michael2 comment? The other two are... to quote someone above, nothingburgers (let the "tone" sink in there). Regarding the alleged badgering, it's also a reverse

WP:FRS? Closing an RFC after a handful of days doesn't allow those who were solicited to respond... As to tone issues, I guess taking issue with being told I'm not civil is a problem, but it's perfectly fine for someone to to say I'm a vandal and I should be "removed" from the article? Help it make sense, please! —Locke Cole • t • c

19:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disclaimer, am involved with the article, as are many of the editors above. It is quite stark with regard to four different editors so far (InedibleHulk, NewImpartial, Tekrmn, Locke Cole), the battleground lines have been drawn for the shooting and at

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)

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

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

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

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

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

In this comment, implied that another editor concluded neutrality is now optional if we don't want to offend people when they changed an erroneously placed {{

WP:IDHT

behaviour.

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

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

re:Ss9 - There was no closure of that discussion that indicated that there was a consensus. It is also disputed that the tag was erroneously placed. Changing the tag without a closure could certainly have been seen in a bad light. starship.paint (exalt) 13:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

As

WP:CLOSE states, not every discussion needs closure for there to be a consensus. While there is no consensus on what tag should have replaced the NPOV tag, there was a rough consensus that the NPOV tag was not the correct one to place for the issue at hand. Sideswipe9th (talk

) 13:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Right, so you’ve changed your claim from “the consensus” to now “rough consensus”. However, the whole purpose of the discussion was so that a clear consensus can be developed from this thread, as the opening statement stated. Thus, by the metrics set by the opening statement, the discussion was not over. Plus, you participated in that discussion, so this is a self-declaration of victory. I now realise that FormalDude was the first person to vote in that discussion. Given that FD unilaterally took action to change the tag despite obviously being aware of the discussion, that very well explains LC's reaction. starship.paint (exalt) 14:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not really commenting on the propriety of the tag replacement, but doesn't

WP:IDHT" wasn't close to proportionate.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk

) 14:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

JFD - read it again, LC did not say you were acting in bad faith. Now that I read LC's comment, I see he does have a point in the first sentence. You didn’t want to interact with him, you’ve come here to complain about it, yet you did go and interact with him again. This could certainly be frustrating. starship.paint (exalt) 14:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

1. I requested a wikibreak from each other, which LC made explicitly clear he wouldn't honor. I kept to that break for a week, and then I decided I was ready to converse with him. 2. That said, you're right—he didn't use the words bad-faith! Just that I was displaying "classic

WP:IDHT" and "wikilawyering" ... and he previously asked me, "Do you think you can just break rules as long as you announce you don't want anyone to interact with you that might call you out on them?" ... which is inherently an accusation of bad faith.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk

) 14:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

IDHT and wikilawyering and not necessarily bad faith activities. Could be done by the misguided. Now, that previous comment - yes, but this comment - no, not on you, at least. starship.paint (exalt) 14:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

That whole section began because @

WP:TE, pure and simple. —Locke Cole • t • c

14:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Genuinely—and obviously this advice is grain-of-salt territory—I think both you and others working with you would have a much better time if you avoided speculation about bad-faith motives and invoking pages like

WP:TE. There are times that I've strongly disagreed with you, and there are certainly times I've felt you were being a bit evasive as to a certain point, but, as I said above, I don't think your points are ever inherently unreasonable. Still, if there's one thing this thread makes clear, it's that more than few editors think your tone escalates far too quickly. I realize talk pages can be contentious, and sometimes people make mistakes in the heat of the moment or just feel compelled to vent. But if you avoided accusations of bad-faith motives or the kind of rhetorical flair discussed here, I genuinely think your points would be stronger.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk

) 14:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

We're here because I volunteer my time to try to contribute productively to an encyclopedia: I don't volunteer my time to be called a vandal repeatedly, to have editors question whether I'm trying to cause harm to transgender people, or to in other ways engage in appeals to emotion at the expense of my personal character (because apparently trying to follow our sources makes me a "bad person"). —Locke Cole • t • c 14:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, I understand talk pages can be contentious, and sometimes frustration that builds up in one portion of a conversation can spill into others. But let's be clear: I have not called you a vandal, suggested that you're trying to cause harm to transgender people, or ever said you were a "bad person".--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

LC, I think the other editors do have some point. Just like you don’t like to be called a vandal, similarly, I’m sure they don’t enjoy having their faith questioned. They did bring up a bit more evidence than what was originally presented, so since I recommended a warning for Tek, I’d also recommend a warning for LC for reacting a bit too strongly. Neither needs to be topic banned, and what everyone should really do is treat this a bit less of a battleground. starship.paint (exalt) 14:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

^ I absolutely agree that no one needs to be topic banned. When I originally posted, my only point was that Tkrmn's comments should be considered in the context of the ton of the talk page, a tone that, I think, some of LC's accusations contributed to. I jumped in to clarify a point once I was brought up by Sideswipe9th. Originally, I said I didn't think any action needed to be taken, and I'm not totally convinced anything needs to be done now, but I do think a warning to both parties might be justified.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Aradicus77 and IPs from the general area of Manchester, Leeds and Blackpool in the UK have been greatly expanding articles related to the Texas band

Aradicus77 first edited on September 20, 2021, adding a trivial fact to The Parable of Arable Land to bring a famous name, Jimi Hendrix, into the article.[30] The cited source even describes the fact as "superficial" and insignificant.[31] This edit set the tone.

Aradicus77 inserted the Red Krayola band into the noise rock article,[32] which I reverted because of poor sourcing. Aradicus77 restored this material and more. Aradicus77 also pushed Red Krayola into the goth rock article,[33] though they are not mentioned at all in any source writing specifically about goth rock.

Aradicus copied text from a cited source directly into the Red Krayola article back in June 2022, and the material was revdeled. The very next day Aradicus77 returned some too-close paraphrasing to the article.[34] Aradicus77 and the IPs have violated

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

Dude, why are you listing stuff from 2021, in 2021 I wasn't too knowledgeable on how to edit on wikipedia, since then I have learnt what is allowed and what isn't, I haven't added anything to goth rock or whatever genres, because that would be original research, now I understand that critics have to assess these bands in that regard for them to be added as precursors on genre pages, I'm not being malicious, your suspicions are baseless. Aradicus77 (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I haven't put them as being critically important to the development of noise rock? All I did was add what Mark Deming said, I removed the image I added. There's no info on Red Krayola on the noise rock page besides one sentence, I have no relation to the Krayola at all. Aradicus77 (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The article is currently protected by User:El C for "Edit warring / content dispute: maybe launch an WP:RFC to conclusively decide...? Just sayin'!" [36], with no clear indication that a discussion about the dispute is taking place at the talk page. Yes, it's true that whole situation in the article has become a mess with edit wars and such, but I don't agree with a sudden increase in full protection without a clear explanation why it is necessary. I have no prejudice against El C and others involved in the dispute. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

So...

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

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

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

It's not intuitive for an uninvolved reviewer to parse that from the edit history, so the protection request did look sound. It's possible that

WP:ECP for the duration. El_C

08:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @

WP:EW. The duration was maybe a bit long (even a few hours would have saved as a helpful "truce") and an explanation in the talk page would have helped to make the reasoning clearer. I arrived at the discussion after the protection and the reason behind it wasn't immediately clear and might have "alarmed" some editors. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk

11:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• endorse full protection per WaltClipper, and I see no indication that a shorter duration would have been effective.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Samuel Bierfield talk-page.

And on the Third-Party System page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Note that I have blocked Harry Sibelius for reasons explained on their talkpage and (gently) warned WikiCleanerMan for their role in the battleground atmosphere. I haven't taken a look at the latter's article-space editing and therefore my warning should not preclude from further action being taken by any admin. Pinging @Valereee: as a heads-up. Abecedare (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

And now because Springer has died (the timing of this thread is eerie) we have the usual 'it no longer exists' vandalism, even though we have the concept of videotape and hard drives allowing it to still be distributed; thankfully protection has not been needed so far. Nate • (chatter) 23:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)