Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:26, 30 December 2021

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Johnpacklambert violates his topic ban again

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

Johnpacklambert is topic banned from editing articles about religion and religious figures (broadly construed). He was recently blocked for a week because of a violation of this ban (although he was unblocked after a day). Following that block he made this edit to John McManus "a British clergyman and historian of religion". The image File:Portrait John McManners.jpg appeared in the article at the time. Additionally, he also made this edit to Raymond Lee Lathan "pastor of New Hope Baptist Church in Milwaukee" and this edit to H. Evan Runner " a graduate of Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois, Westminster Theological Seminary". Frangible Round (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Why so long in reporting those? They're days old. Silverseren 22:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Because they are in dispute about something, and FR is trying to find an angle on JPL. -Roxy the dog. wooF 23:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Brand new editor focuses only on a topic ban violation?? Isn't this the 2nd time? Slywriter (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban violations are topic ban violations. If you dispute what I have reported here, let me know. Frangible Round (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed it is. See here. Wikignome Wintergreen 23:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Silver seren: Does that matter? Frangible Round (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of the reporter's intentions, if there's a possible topic ban violation, it should be investigated. It's been made clear to JPL time and again to steer clear from this topic area. clpo13_(talk) 23:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Some observations. (1) OP is obviously a sock or meatpuppet (2) JPL needs to stop making edits that allow those like the OP to keep doing this. Black Kite (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Seriously though, why does nobody want to discuss this? It can't keep getting swept under the rug forever. clpo13_(talk) 23:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• These edits were all mistakes. I had no idea when I made them any dealt with religion in any way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • How many times have you been told to be extra sure you're abiding by the topic ban? This is becoming a time sink. clpo13_(talk) 23:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I am very much trying. The state legislature article only mentioned that in the lead and I found the dates from the info box. I had no idea at the time what his non-political career was. I will be more diligent in the future and review these articles more before saving edits.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

      • For what little it is worth, I can completely believe that the edit to Raymond Lee Lathan was a good faith mistake. The other two, however, are not even close. To me, they represent willful and flagrant violations of the ban. I don't believe there should be any sanction, but please, please, please stop doing that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

      • • • None of these edits were willful violations. The other two edits involved the issue of not using super common nicknames like Bill for William 8n quotes or in other ways lengthening the lead. That is the only thing I saw when I did those edits. I am very sorry that I did not review them further. I thought I had been, and I was not in any way trying to flaunt or disregard the topic ban in these cases. I was only focused on trying to implement the MOS on nicknames. I am very sorry about this mistake and will redouble my efforts to not edit anything that is even close to the line.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
            • In your edit here the article’s got a pretty big lead pic of an guy with a dog collar and the lead sentence that you edited ends with was a British clergyman and historian of religion who specialized in the history of the church and other aspects of religious life in 18th-century France. ??? DeCausa (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• We're not discussing it now because we don't give presents out to disruptive socks. If JPL continues to do this and an editor in good standing raises the issue then we can discuss it again then. Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Who is 'we'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Oh, I don't know, probably those people who are trying to close this section that was started by an obvious sock but keep getting edit-conflicted. Which bit of "obvious sock" is the bit you're having problems with? Black Kite (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm curious what part of "Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy" is confusing *you*. --Calton | Talk 09:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I wish folks would stop using bullet points in non-survey type discussions. BTW: How can an new editor know about ANI? GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Last time this happened I blocked for a violation. I gave them the benefit of the doubt and took their word that they did not understand the nature of the ban, and I removed the block early. I made it very clear to them what the standards are. In my opinion JPL cannot claim ignorance again. I think this topic ban should be enforced with another block and this time they should serve the entire length. HighInBC 23:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oh sorry, my mistake, apparently we *do* now reward obvious socks. FFS. Black Kite (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• These are two separate issues. The sock is blocked as they should be, when they come back we will block them again. Do we give immunity to violations because a sock reported them? The community has created this topic ban, they expect it to be enforced. At least one user in good standing has asked that this be responded to, so there ya go. HighInBC 23:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Fine, whatever. Carry on then. I think it sets a poor precedent, though. Black Kite (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm firmly in Black Kite's corner here. But what do I know?-- Jezebel's Ponyo 00:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• I am not doing anything, I am on vacation right now. I just popped in to dispel the claim that John does not know better. That was their song last time and I made sure there was no uncertainty when I accepted that claim last time. This user has been given a second, third, and fourth chance and frankly I find their claims that this is once again an accident to strain credibility. HighInBC 00:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

What precedent does this realistically set? We deal with both matters as they stand: the sock is duly dealt with as a sock, and the topic ban violation is dealt with regardless of how it came to our attention. Theknightwho (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• On the edit with the man where it said John "Jack" then his last name all I focused on and saw was that Jack is the standard nickname for John and that the manual of style says that we should not put such a standard nickname is quotes inside the name in the lead. That is all I noticed before I made the edit. I only noticed that much and fixing that was all I was focused on. I realize now that I should have slowed down and surveyed the article a bit more, but I saw that and went straight to fixing it. I am very sorry for this mistake. I was not trying to break any rule, I was trying to comply with the common nickname rule. I thought I was surveying the articles before I did so but I was clearly not doing so enough. I am very sorry about this. I will redouble my efforts and make sure to survey articles more before editing. I am very sorry about this mistake. It was no way intentional. I was just trying to comply with the guideline. I will be more circumspect in the future. I am really sorry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

As they say around here, 'competence is required'. It appears that JPL's competence doesn't actually extend to reading a sentence before he edits it. Does he get a free pass for that too? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• • I was editing the specific part where the name with the quotes was. That was a clear non-compliance with what the MOS says about using common nicknames in quotes. My whole focus was on that first part, and so I was just totally ignoring the rest of what it said about the person because I was only focused on the name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• The topic ban is on religious figures and religion, broadly construed. John McManners, Raymond Lee Lathan, and H. Evan Runner are religious figures. McManners' photo at the top is him in clerical garb, so that was impossible to miss. The Raymond Lee Lathan article is only five sentences long, from which JPL derived his birth and death dates, so his various religious degrees would have been impossible for him to miss. In the H. Evan Runner article, JPL edited the sentence immediately preceding the Westminster Theological Seminary mention, and the whole brief article contains the words "Christianity" or "Christian" six times (plus another in the citations). I'd say it's time for JPL to receive a more extensive block, which is not removed early. Softlavender (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • The two articles where I changed shortened name references that is literally all I saw. It was not at all an attempt on my part to edit anything related to religion. I was fully focused on the name reference part and nothing else. The other all I noticed was the opening that only describes him as a state legislator. I was not trying to flaunt any bans by my actions here. These were legitimate mistakes caused by rushing and not paying attention to all the possible parameters. I am very sorry about this. I was not in any way trying yo flaunt any ban. I had no idea that any of these articles involved religious figures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Please re-read what I wrote. It's impossible that you did not know on Raymond Lee Lathan, as you derived his birth and death dates from the article, which is only five sentences long. And you had to have seen the clerical photo in John McManners, because you couldn't have edited the lead sentence without seeing it. To quote HighInBC above, "Last time this happened I blocked for a violation. I gave them the benefit of the doubt and took their word that they did not understand the nature of the ban, and I removed the block early. I made it very clear to them what the standards are. In my opinion JPL cannot claim ignorance again. I think this topic ban should be enforced with another block and this time they should serve the entire length." and "I just popped in to dispel the claim that John does not know better. That was their song last time and I made sure there was no uncertainty when I accepted that claim last time. This user has been given a second, third, and fourth chance and frankly I find their claims that this is once again an accident to strain credibility." (bolding mine) -- Softlavender (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• These were accidents. I am acting in good faith. I derived the birth and death years from a narrow focus on categories, and I did not see the picture. I often do not look at pictures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Latham is in no categories at all related to religion. He is only categorized based on being a politician. So looking at the lead and the categories would lead one to not realize he was in any way connected to religion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose a block. The edits are unobjectionable, the thread is opened in bad faith, and the explanation that one could make these edits without reading the article is plausible. JPL, please find a way to edit that won't let this happen again. --JBL (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I keep trying to post a response on my plans to be more deliberative before editing. I keep getting told there is an edit conflict. I am formulating such plans.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, JPL's contribution history around the times of those edits show him working through articles in Category:1915 births and Category:1916 births at a rate of about one a minute, editing the first sentence to remove some nicknames and/or insert or shorten birth & death dates as (yyyy-yyyy), and adding or correcting categories. It doesn't look as if he chose those articles to edit for any other reason. After doing that task so long, he may have become confident that he was doing something totally unrelated to the scope of his ban. He was wrong in that the task might be unrelated but some individual edits would not be. This meant that after hundreds of edits over a week or two for each birth year, anyone wishing to find breaches would have a good chance of finding them, especially with suitable category-intersection search skills. NebY (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• • I have been trying to avoid conflict edits. There are multiple cases of wrong birth years in those categories I have glossed over because of the ban. There are also multiple cases of common nicknames I have left stand because of the ban. I was trying to avoid any conflict, rushing away from articles with even a little conflict. I did not intentionally include religious figures and was proactively avoiding them, even a few articles that said nothing about religion because I was sure if I dug deeper on them I would find something. However with the state legislator based on the lead and cats I did not bother to look through the short body. With the other two I was so focused on fixing the name reference that I forgot to figure out anything about why they were notable. I am very sorry I rushed so, I was not trying to and I was not trying to defy the ban. There were multiple cases of articles clearly in the wrong birth year category that I just left alone because of the ban. I was trying to abide by the ban. I am very sorry I did not take the time to ensure these articles complied and just rushed in to deal with stylistic issues at the very start. I will slow down and make sure to not do this again.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Block. The edit to John McManners was a particularly blatant violation of a topic ban on religion and religious figures broadly construed. I can understand not looking at the photo, even not registering the dog collar in that photo if one's own religion doesn't use them; for all I know, Johnpacklambert may have a sight impairment. But that article (not John McManus, there's a typo above), when JPL opened the edit window, began: "John "Jack" McManners {{post-nominals|country=GBR|CBE|FBA|FAHA}} (1916–2006) was a British clergyman and historian of religion who specialized in the history of the church and other aspects of religious life in 18th-century France." (And continued, as it still does: "He was ] at the ] from 1972 to 1984. He also served as Fellow and Chaplain of ], from 1964 to 2001." Everything there except the name, the years and All Souls (which a cautious non-Oxonian subject to a topic ban from religion, broadly construed, might be expected to assume was a religious institution) is related to the Christian religion and two Christian denominations. This is in no way an edge case. McManners was not a clergyman and historian of a faith that JPL might not be familiar with or might not have considered included within the purview of religion. If JPL was working too quickly not to notice that, despite making efforts to check for articles that would violate his topic ban, he was not working carefully enough. The topic ban was instituted in lieu of a ban from Misplaced Pages, since indef-blocks for JPL's editing in the religious sphere have been tried and have not worked. (I read the discussion, but I don't believe I participated.) The community determined that this was necessary to prevent further disruption. If JPL is being this careless, the only possible conclusions are that he either is incapable of controlling himself and keeping away from religion (where the comunity has determined he causes intolerable disruption) or that he doesn't consider the topic ban important enough to take sufficient care. Either way, a block is required as the next step. Apologies are all well and good, but JPL also said he understood the topic ban when he was unblocked for his first violation. As to the identity of the reporting party, I'm afraid I consider that a red herring. We all have better things to do than monitor JPL's edits, that's why there was consensus that either a site ban or a topic ban was required. And many editors, I'm sure, try to cut a long-term, well intentioned editor some slack and would rather not tattle about them being naughty. But that edit is a blatant, careless, unignorable violation, so much so that I am afraid there are probably several more. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Yngvadottir here. The John McManners was literally impossible to miss. Just open the editing window and see. The only way for the repeated drama to stop here IMO is for the topic ban to be enforced and not removed early. Either it's a topic ban or it isn't. If it isn't, remove or reword the topic ban. If it is, enforce it. If JPL can't help himself, then he can stop making small rapid edits. Softlavender (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
    • No, it's not impossible: the edit only affects the name (the first three words), and if I were checking for the kinds of errors we're talking about then I also wouldn't read the whole first sentence or look at the lead images. JPL's explanation is completely plausible in all respects. --JBL (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose a block, he adequately explained what happened way up the page someplace, there is no conscious violation here. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose a block as I said above, for at least two out of the three edits in question, I cannot believe that the religious component was unnoticed--and if it was, that's such willful blindness that I hardly find it exculpatory. But, as I believe Cicero said, de minimis non curat Misplaced Pages, and I think there is wisdom in that maxim. I once again implore JPL to be more conscientious. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Deny The banned user is getting their way wasting everyone's time. Start treating their posts as poisoned fruit as it is obvious they are hawkishly watching JPL edits to catch minor mistakes. If JPL makes a real mistake, this board will be the first to know. Slywriter (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• I really did not realize these were problematic when I fmdid them vecause I was so narrowly focused on the issues I was fixing I did not see anything else. I am very sorry about that and will not do it again. Two of them I was focused on the common name rule, this about name variations that are so common or so obvious that they do not need to be explained. I will make sure in the future that will check to make sure I know what the article is on fully in the future before I make any edit related to the name, no matter how obvious or intuitive it is. The other was a simple adding the birth and death years to an article that at quick glance appeared to be one of our myriad of articles on members of the Wisconsin legislature. We have articles on members of the Wisconsin legislature much further back in general than many other states. I did not think to check what his pre and extra legislative career was. That was clearly my fault. I want to make this right. If it will appease people I can go back and reverse the edits. Or I will just stay away. I am going to be much, much more careful in the future. I was not trying to flaunt the ban. I have tried really hard to abide by the broad topic ban. I have avoided editing even categories that may be more ethnic ones than religious ones where there might be any possibility of conflict. I was not trying to flaunt the ban in these cases. I was just so focuses on the narrow issues that I was editing that I forgot to check the whole article. I am very, very, very sorry. I did this totally without any ill will. I was just trying to bring the openings of these articles into compliance with the guidelines set forth in the manual of style of Misplaced Pages. I should have read them more fully before doing say edits. There was no good reason for me not to. I am very sorry about that. I am pleading with people to show forgiveness. I had no realization what the possible conflicts were here. In 2 cases I was just focused on editing the giving of the name at the start of the article that I did not look at all beyond the giving of the name. In the other case I was so focused on the placing of the birth and death years in parenthesis and on seeing that the subject was a politician I thought I was in the clear and did not delve into the life section, just looking through the opening that said he was a politician and the category section that gave his birth and death years. I really was not trying to evade the ban at all. I have been trying to avoid articles that are anywhere near the ban. I am really, really, really sorry about this. I recognize now I was too narrowly focused when I made these edits and apologize for them. I was not in anyway trying to be disruptive or evade the ban. I was narrowly focused on the matter of how the names of the subjects were listed and adding the birth and death years in parenthesis and neglected to consider the whole scope of the subjects. I am very sorry about this and am asking that people please accept my apology and my promise yo redouble my efforts to avoid any possible conflict in the future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Block for violations, or change the wording of the topic ban. These are three clear violations according to the current wording of the topic ban. If JPL is allowed to make small gnomish edits (removing nicknames from lede, adding birth-death dates to lede) to articles on religious figures, then add that wording to the topic ban. If he's not allowed to do that, then block now for clear violations (which he has repeatedly been warned to be careful about) which he did not expend even the slightest effort to avoid, and since HighInBC has already noted that he's already "been given a second, third, and fourth chance", he's clearly not going to do so in the future, because his behavior clearly demonstrates that he could not care less about the topic ban when it comes to his rapid gnomish edits. Softlavender (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oh my gosh , this is a clear violation of his topic ban. When I click on John McManners, I immediately see a portrait of a guy wearing a clerical collar and the first sentences of that biography say a British clergyman and historian of religion who specialized in the history of the church and other aspects of religious life in 18th-century France. He was Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History at the University of Oxford fMy thouhhtdbrom 1972 to 1984. He also served as Fellow and Chaplain of All Souls College, Oxford, from 1964 to 2001. Any assertion by this editor that I did not intentionally include religious figures and was proactively avoiding them, even a few articles that said nothing about religion because I was sure if I dug deeper on them I would find something seems be disingenuous at best and overtly false at worst, since is is glaringly obvious to any uninvolved editor that this is an article about a religious figure. Cullen328 (talk) 06:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Cullen328: Yes but that's because you're clicking on the articles to look at the articles, which is not what JPL was doing. Look at the three problematic edits: none of them extend past the first few words of the first sentence! --JBL (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  JBL, he had to have landed on the articles before he opened the edit field. And click on the edit fields of all three articles and what do you see? What is the very first thing you see here ? And you are completely ignoring Cullen's comment that "Any assertion by this editor that I did not intentionally include religious figures and was proactively avoiding them, even a few articles that said nothing about religion because I was sure if I dug deeper on them I would find something seems be disingenuous at best and overtly false at worst, since is is glaringly obvious to any uninvolved editor that this is an article about a religious figure." -- Softlavender (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Softlavender: Look at JPL's edits, in context: in order to perform edits like that, one quickly scans the first few words of the article. I perform edits like this from time to time -- for example, once I went through every article that contained a link to "e.g." and removed the inappropriate ones. Doing that doesn't involve reading any of the article at all, you just open, hit edit, fix, and leave. Maybe you've never done similar gnome-like editing, but it's really extremely easy to change certain kinds of things without engaging in any way with the text -- and JPL's relevant edits are just like this, mixed in among a lot of other edits that are also just like this. There's a real lack of WP:AGF in this thread: the underlying edits are not problematic, the violation of the topic ban is real but technical rather than substantive, and JPL has offered a completely plausible explanation of the behavior, along with an apology and a promise to do better. Meanwhile, blocking him would serve to encourage the genuinely disruptive OP. --JBL (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  JBL, you are not under a topic ban. Johnpacklambert is -- a topic ban that he has been warned and rewarned and rewarned and rewarned about again and again and again, and that he has already been given a second, third, and fourth chance on. You have also once again failed to address Cullen's statement above. "Any assertion by this editor that I did not intentionally include religious figures and was proactively avoiding them, even a few articles that said nothing about religion because I was sure if I dug deeper on them I would find something seems be disingenuous at best and overtly false at worst, since is is glaringly obvious to any uninvolved editor that this is an article about a religious figure." (bolding mine) Blocking him, without early removal, would actually force him to take the topic ban seriously and avoid the need for ANI threads about him (and endless faux apologies and promises which do not hold up) at every turn. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  What would avoid the need for ANI threads about non-problematic edits would be not rewarding trolls who start ANI threads about non-problematic edits. As for your other point, I'm sure Cullen will be able to determine how my post relates to his, and if he wants to discuss it with me he knows how to do so; but I don't see the point in trying to explain it to you again. --JBL (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Short timeframe block I can totally see how it happened, and I can believe that it wasn't done with intent to violate, but that doesn't change that it is a violation after many warnings. Perhaps a slap on the wrist? Leijurv (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Either block or alter the topic ban. This was a clear violation of the topic ban, as is. If the community is not willing act on it, then the topic ban should reflect that these kinds of trivial edits (so trivial they can be made without reading more than a couple of words in the article) are allowed or that whenever they are reported by sock/meatpuppets they should be immediatly disconsidered. Isabelle 11:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support block: Hell, at this point, what's to say that JPL isn't the sockmaster himself, reporting himself so he can make religious edits with impunity, knowing that people will wave the "poisoned fruit" flag? Alright, that's a bit of a baroque scenario, but there was a topic ban -- and one put in place after many, many warnings. There've also been many apologies, breast beatings and I'll never do this again, I promise, honest to Betsy, really, this time you can believe mes. Cullen328 is dead on in his assessment. Either JPL is too deeply stupid to recognize that he's editing a religious article (in which case this is a CIR issue and he shouldn't be editing at all), or he's playing us, and at this stage it doesn't matter worth a damn who reported him and why. Because think of it, folks: since when does BOOMERANG immunize the target against wrongdoing? Ravenswing 11:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  Christ what a stupid AGF-violating idea, why would you even suggest it? --JBL (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  I don't know about you, but I don't believe AGF to be a suicide pact, and especially not when an editor has manifestly demonstrated his bad faith. The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result. JPL has been down this road over and over and over again. I don't know what you believe "topic ban, broadly construed" to mean, but editors have had the banhammer dropped on them for so much as making tangential mentions on their talk pages. Oh-it-was-just-a-minor-violation handwringing does not bloody cut it any more. Ravenswing 21:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Either JPL needs to change his way of editing or the topic ban needs to be enforced with blocks, because there is no point in having it otherwise. I have little confidence that he will be able to do the former. His edits give the appearance of someone editing quickly and not caring whether it could be on an article on a religious figure, because they are only minor edits and not "willful violations." We are going to be back here time and time again unless something changes. I do not know why, when JPL was let off from his last block early, he did not take extra care to make absolutely sure he was not breaching the topic ban in the future. How many more chances is he going to get?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Block Until the end of 2021 by UTC. I am extremely sorry about this. I thought I was being careful and was trying to be very cautious. I was so focused on the nature of these edits that I did not look beyond them. I propose that because this is a clear, although totally unintentional violation of the topic ban, we block me from editing until the very end of 2021 by UTC. This is well over a week, and seems as good a time to end it as any. I was not trying to evade the topic ban in any way. I was so focused on the small edits in these cases that I did not look at the big picture. I am very, very sorry about this. I was not trying to evade the topic ban, I was just so narrowly focused on the issues of the proper form of giving the correct name and putting (1915-1996) or whatever exact years it was in the lead in the articles at hand that I totally forgot to look any deeper. I feel in this case that a block on editing for 10 days would be reasonable. None of these edits were deliberate on my part, and I have been trying to avoid any edits that would run afoul of the ban, generally not even reading further in articles when I see words that indicate the subject was a religious leader. I am very sorry about this, and was not trying to be disruptive at all. I am hoping a 10 day block of all editing will be enough to satisfy people who want to show this topic ban in enforced. I am extremely sorry about these mistakes. I did not do any of them intentionally, and will be more deliberative in the future. I am hoping 10 days, and blocking me from any more edits for the rest of the year will be considered enough to show that we are serious about the topic ban. I am hoping this will be considered to be long enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose block Seems quite a slim violation, trying to save the man's dignity by removing the incorrect nickname. I think if there was series of them perhaps over several days or weeks perhaps, but it seems such a small thing. scope_creep 13:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment The two edits done related to the names of the names of the people were focused entirely on the names of the people and had no relation to anything else about them. I see now I should have looked deeper into the articles, and I have been doing that on other articles, I am very sorry I was too fast with these edits. One of these edits was to bring article leads into compliance with the Misplaced Pages manual of style guidelines that says use William Henry Gates not William Henry "Bill" Gates. I thought I was making sure that I was not stepping into religious figure ones when I came across them. I can think of at least 2 religious figures that I saw similar issues with and made sure to move on. With articles that have a religious figure title in parentheses, I only click on them because of wanting the whole birth year category to go from blue to purple so I can easily tell I have gone through all articles, and click back off before I even see anything. I guess I was so focused on making the changes in these cases that I got careless and did not check to make sure they were in no way a religious leader, broadly construed. I am very sorry about this. I was not at all trying to evade the topic ban. The other 2 were the fact that if we have a name given as say J. Edgar Hoover we in the opening say John Edgar Hoover and do not further than that explain the common name form. That was the issue involved in the second edit, if you look at J. Edgar Hoover] you will see we just give his name, and do not bother further saying in the lead he was commonly known as J. Edgar Hoover, because it is the article title. That is the issue involved in the second case, and it had no relevance to who the person was, so I unwisely and rashly did not even both trying to figure out, which I am sincerely sorry for. In the last case it is standard practice to put (1915-1996) or whatever exact years someone lived in parentheses after the name. In that case I saw that the person was a state legislator, and I knew their birth date because of the category, and quickly saw the death date in the categories as well. I probably quickly glanced through the article to ensure that the birth and death years were in the article, but I failed to read it in detail because the lead only said they were a member of the a state legislature and all the categories identified them as a politician, or were bare bio facts categories, there were no categories that at all related to religion. I see now that I should have been more careful before making these edits. I was only focused on the very narrow impact, and am very sorry about that. I was not in any way trying to evade the topic ban. I am very sorry about this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • In summary, 2 were focused on issues completely related to the name. I unwisely did not go beyond looking at the name, I see that in the future I need to make sure to do so. The 3rd was a person who the lead only mentioned he was a state legislator. I will in the future make sure to better understand people before I edit the article at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose a block I understand that this is very serious. As I have explained it was accidental. I will redouble my efforts to make sure any edit I do does not in any way run against the topic ban. I am very sorry I rushed these edits and will not do so in the future. 2 of these were 100% focused on the form of the name in the full name giving space, and not at all focused on the rest of the article, and the other was adding (1915-1996) or whatever exact years to an article on a state legislator whose lead only mentioned that role and who was only categorized as a politician. I am very sorry that I did not pause and make sure I fully understood the content of these articles. I was not trying to be disruptive at all, nor was I trying to go against the topic ban. I am asking for people to please be understanding and lenient.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• No block, because:

• OP is a puppet, just as OP was a puppet here two weeks ago, and even if you don't mind encouraging puppets, others disagree so this is an invitation to time-wasting partisan drama.
• I know the guy. It is certainthat these edits were accidental. The editor was not seeking out religious articles, but going thru lists of like articles to make minor improvements, which was suggested and is proper.
• It is pettifoggery to consider these edits as anything but trivial and anodyne and had nothing to do with anything religions. Would you block the editor for removing an extra space or adding a period.
• As the song says "Sometimes I think that this old world is one big prison yard, some of us are prisoners, and some of us are guards". The songwriter was not suggesting that this is desirable. It's not a desirable paradigm for the Misplaced Pages in my opinionSo let's not get into that sort of relationship when it is not necessary or useful, as here. Herostratus (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I am with Herostratus on this one. DFTT, or their socks. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't really know the ropes around here, but from what I can tell the only things changed were completely unrelated to religion. That does not seem like grounds for blocking, but I'm not going to oppose since I don't really know what I'm doing. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  This is an important consideration. The other way is a slippery slope, like judging someone guilty, because they have a topic ban on WWII and edited article on Europe#Geography, and obviously WWII happened in Europe so the t-ban was violated... sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support Block - Anything else would make a mockery of Misplaced Pages's rules and restrictions. Please use the tools the community has entrusted you with and block this serial abuser of our trust and patience. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  serial abuser jfc there is nothing abusive (serially or otherwise) about the edits under consideration here. Blocking for trivial shit like this will be an encouragement to the only person here whose behavior has been problematic (the troll who opened the thread). --JBL (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing everyone here who supports the enforcement of a topic ban. The "sock" topic is a red herring. If a "sock" posts that someone has vandalized TFA with a pornographic image do we kill the messenger and leave the vandalism ouy of spite for "socks"? This is rank stupidity. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  False analogies are not helpful. JPL has not done anything like posting a pornographic image. There is an explanation for the violations, namely that JPL plods through a long to-do list and becomes so focused on their style tweaks that they don't know what topic they are currently editing. The question is, what should happen when no one in good standing noticed a problem and a sock has raised it here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

If the topic ban is not to be enforced, as we've seen from the two times it has been violated recently, then it should be vacated. All I see here are excuses and apologism. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) You have gone from one grossly inappropriate and frankly offensive description to an even less appropriate and more offensive analogy. Well done, I hope you're proud of yourself. --JBL (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Clutch those pearls tightly. 🙄 EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, with some reservations. If someone is doing a pile of edits making sure that the Reader knows that certain persons called “Bill” were actually named “William” or suchlike, they really aren’t editing the topic per se. This sort of editing is often a bad thing itself, of course, leading to heaps of carefully polished turds: bad articles made perfect in grammar and form; and it also allows cranks to form “facts on the groundpage” en masse, but it is an integral part of editing-Wiki-as-it-actually-is. Qwirkle (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• No harm, no foul. The long battle to stop JPL's disruption, injection of religious beliefs, and other unacceptable behaviour is won and done. Editors may have wished him gone during that battle, but it is no longer necessary to eliminate him. A prisoner breaking rocks should not be killed for hitting a rock that was the wrong shade of grey, and we should not crush a man who can and quite desperately will try harder to stay within his precise bounds. NebY (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: I am not an admin so I may be way out of my lane, but this is an inordinate amount of discussion for what should be a quick decision. Why has no one stepped in and either given JBL a punitive ban or closed it as hounding by socks? It's one or the other. From my perspective it is absurd. Are people thinking they are creating a precedent which will make it quicker the future? To this, I say "How?" ... everyone will always argue their case as unique.
Slap on the wrist or serious punishment ? I hope someone will step up and close this. --SVTCobra 02:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose block stop rewarding the socks by wasting time arguing about possible sanctions for good faith mistakes. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I can completely believe JPL's explanation that he was focused on his gnomish edit and didn't look at the entire article. I realize that for some editors who work on content differently, who focus on sentences and paragraphs rather than a word or a date, that seems unbelievable but there was a time I just worked on article categories without focusing on the entire article. There are different ways of editing and different things to focus upon.

THAT SAID, it was a minor topic ban violation and didn't deal with the substance of what the topic ban was concerned about and I would support a short, limited block. I think there has to be a compromise between those editors who see this as a small slip and those editors that seem to be advocating an indefinite block. This was an incidental and minor slip but it was a slip and there should be some consequences. But, please, keep the errors in some perspective...it's not as if he was creating articles on religious figures, he was making small MOS corrections. And the irony here is when we have been in the same discussion, I am almost always on the opposite side of the discussion from JPL....but I don't think small errors should incur mammoth penalties. In every thing, proportion. Liz 05:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: See WP:NOTPUNISH. Also, I think you meant JPL instead of JBL lol –MJL ‐Talk‐ 08:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, see WP:CONFUSED (currently entry 68). --JBL (talk) 12:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha, sorry about that. I struck and replaced a few words. Cheers, --SVTCobra 15:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose anything more than a very brief block of one to three days. JPL and I often disagree but I have followed his work since the T ban and it’s clear that he is trying very hard to avoid controversy while still contributing to the encyclopedia in a positive way and on a daily basis. JPL needs to take more care to steer clear of religious figures, even when making gnomish edits, but a lengthy block would be disproportionate given the inadvertent nature of the violations. Cbl62 (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Block indef The sheer length of this discussion, and the editor time involved proves that, despite enormous effort, we cannot craft a topic-ban to which JPL can adhere. The topic ban was only imposed in lieu of an indefinite block, and this leniency has not worked. There are no signs that it is likely to work, or that JPL will ever understand it, or keep his word, so the only sensible option left is to reluctantly abort this admirable experiment in leniency and impose an indef-block.

We've done our best here, but JPL isn't playing. He doesn't think he needs to comply because compliance is never enforced. It might seem cruel, but it would be more cruel to keep stringing him along when any fool can see an indef is the only place this ends up for an editor who can't, and repeatedly won't, comply with the simple options to avoid an indef which have been given. As the old ANI adage goes: enough. Begoon 13:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Un-archiving this was a terrible idea, particularly to !vote for something completely ridiculous like this. --JBL (talk) 14:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you've made your position clear repeatedly.

This was, however, my first post on the subject, so let's see what further comments ensue. Do you think I'm not entitled to feel that such a long-running issue deserves resolution rather than a drift to obscurity? Odd thing to think, if you do...

There's nothing ridiculous, by the way, in suggesting that it might be a good idea for JPL to realise what is actually at stake here, rather than very unwisely viewing it as just the latest episode in a saga he can always argue his way out of. You're doing him no favours there... Begoon 14:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

This thread was dormant for four days and, as far as I can tell, you are the first person to call for an indef. I sympathize with your desire for a resolution, but this seems a little excessive. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• Here's a novel idea, ask JPL to self-revert his violations. If he refuses, block. If he does not refuse, move on. And require any new report of a topic ban violation to include a request to JPL that he self-revert prior to it being reported here. Any argument about well I didnt know or skating at the edges would be grounds for increasingly long blocks. But if your concern is the edits then asking that they be self-reverted should be enough. If your concern is JPL has been very bad and he must be punished, well that seems more like something ANI need not concern itself with. Would make the sock reports less likely, would ensure we dont have these pointless time-sucks, would enforce the topic ban (albeit circuitously). nableezy - 21:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose block- fruit of the poisonous tree. I weigh up the options: do we grief someone for gnomish edits and let a zero-effort troll sock puppet laugh and laugh, or do we behave as though our IQs are above room temperature? Reyk _YO! 02:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose block - I figure this would probably be enough to shake up one to make sure they don't make a mistake again. I do like the self-revert idea suggested by User:Nableezy. (JLP - please stick with the topic ban. You make a lot of valuable contributions to the project and I'd hate to see a block.) Missvain (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose block per Herostratus. Just fugeddaboudit, they were minor edits. There's no point in blocking Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the work is extraordinary. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

User:David Gerard violating Misplaced Pages:Deprecated_sources#Acceptable_uses_of_deprecated_sources

David Gerard, upon reading a challenge to the removal of an academic expert writing in a deprecated source, has proceeded to go on what I can only describe as an editing rampage removing on sight any link to that source he can find. Misplaced Pages:Deprecated_sources#Acceptable_uses_of_deprecated_sources specifically says Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately. In the span of 20 minutes David Gerard has removed over thirty references to Counterpunch, including ones written by the subject of the article (explicitly allowed by WP:ABOUTSELF). He has said that only by reversing a deprecation decision can any Counterpunch article be cited. That is expressly opposed to be our deprecation guideline, and I ask that he be restricted from indiscriminately removing any source he has not examined. nableezy - 22:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a continuation of a thread on Talk:Edward Said, two threads at WP:RSN , and now a fourth thread here (edit: and now a fifth thread at WP:RSN), where the editor is attempting to edit-war in a deprecated source, with personal attacks on the multiple editors objecting.

I am indeed continuing to clear our backlogs of deprecated sources - that is, sources that should not be used in Misplaced Pages. As always - I've done this for a while - every edit was done and reviewed by hand, and for the most part they're obvious - David Gerard (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

You going to claim you reviewed this edit????? You removed an article written by the subject, and removed a Nation article, and replaced it with a cn tag. You reviewed that? Really????? Diff to any edit-warring or personal attacks, or strike the accusation too. nableezy - 22:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

So this is actually about a single use of the deprecated source as a reference, which is already under discussion at WP:RSN? This is WP:FORUMSHOPping - David Gerard (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

No, it is about you violating WP:DEPS which says Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately. You are removing sources indiscriminately at a rate that belies any claim that you are examining them by hand. And this one example shows you are doing so recklessly, violating several policies, and as such I am asking you be made to stop. We wouldnt be here if you didnt remove 30 sources you never looked at in fifteen minutes. We wouldnt be here if you followed our policies. nableezy - 22:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

David is also removing sources in green and replacing it with citation needed tags. I am unaware of any edit-warring, or personal attacks for that matter. David's editing here violates WP:DEPS which requires each usage to be examined, and I again ask that he be restricted from continuing his current spree of policy and logic violating removals of sources he has not examined in the slightest. nableezy - 22:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:DEPS is an "information page", and specifically not even a guidance page. WP:BURDEN, however, is policy: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Counterpunch is not a reliable source, it is a deprecated source, and should be removed and not restored. You literally have a reliable source for the particular claim you wanted to make here - David Gerard (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Jesus christ, if WP:DEPS is not even a guidance page then you cannot rely on it to rule out sources. How is that circular logic working for you? You are attempting to make deprecated in to blacklisted, and you are further violating WP:ABOUTSELF when removing material written by the subject of the article. And you are doing it indiscriminately. And you are literally removing other reliable sources. nableezy - 22:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming DEPS does the deprecation. It does not - the RFCs deprecating each source did that. That's why it's an information page - it's a list of the sources that were deprecated - David Gerard (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

When people say to deprecate a source they are saying to have it follow what WP:DEPS says. And again, you are editing without looking, and making basic errors in doing so. You are very specifically damaging our articles. Unrepentantly at that. If an IP made that edit they would be reverted for vandalism. nableezy - 22:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• I tend to agree that this practice has been carried out by editors (not just David) a bit too haphazardly. While this is not the place to propose broad policy changes, I do think that there should be an orderly procedure of first tagging the references as is with a {{better source needed}}, and then waiting a few weeks before removing the source altogether to replace it with a {{citation needed}}. BD2412 T 22:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

No change is needed, WP:DEPS already prohibits the indiscriminate removal of sources purely based on their being deprecated. David's editing violates that. It also violates WP:ABOUTSELF, and it further is evidence of careless editing when he removes other sources and replaces it with a citation needed tag. That garbage edit still can be self-reverted for the record. nableezy - 22:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

DEPS is an information page, and not even a guidance page - it doesn't prevent anything - David Gerard (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The trouble is that that proposal has been raised before - most recently in a broad general RFC at WP:VPP a few years ago - and rejected as a violation of policy - Aquillion has written on it previously (some applicable insights at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_164#Discussion_on_Proposal_3 - '"We want to deprecate this source" does not mean "we want to provide special protections for existing usages of this source"'), and can probably elaborate. This process would protect deprecated sources - the worst of the worst - in ways that merely bad sources are not protected. When a source has been found by broad general consensus to be broadly unusable in Misplaced Pages, it would be perverse to thus grant it special protections that less-bad sources don't get - David Gerard (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

more specifically, as Aquillion wrote there: "WP:RS is core policy and not subject to consensus; therefore, you can always remove an unreliable source on sight with the reason of "unreliable source", no matter what, without exception" - though actually WP:RS is a guideline included by reference in WP:V, which enforces that. An RFC can't actually find against that, and a discussion on ANI that isn't even at RFC stage can't find against it. Your proposal would require a policy change to enforce, or at the least an RFC to alter all previous deprecation RFCs ... - David Gerard (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

One more time, you are indiscriminately removing sources that are very specifically allowed. You are removing sources written by the subject of the article (here, here, here, here). WP:ABOUTSELF says all of those are reliable sources for what the subject says about themselves. But your indiscriminate rampage caught them all up. You are removing other reliable sources (here you removed The Nation and replaced it with a citation needed). nableezy - 23:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

You are failing to distinguish "can find an excuse" from "should". Your understanding of good self-sourcing is being questioned in detail, with policy cites, in the fifth thread you just started about this single citation, on RSN - David Gerard (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Um, you said an RFC needs to be opened to overturn the last one. And now you complain about me opening an RFC? Are you for real? nableezy - 23:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The user continues to violate WP:ABOUTSELF, removing mundane details such as a person being married sourced to their own column on Counterpunch. This is absurd, and if an IP was doing this they would be blocked for vandalism. nableezy - 23:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Forum-shopping a talk page discussion in progress - David Gerard (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

No, your continued editing that violates our policies is a behavioral issue. You cant just say "forum shopping" when somebody raises your poor editing. nableezy - 23:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I knew I'd read all this before. This thread was about the same issue with the Sun and Dailymail, and this one was about RT. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • David Gerard has definitely been here before, as they have a specific take on the word "deprecated" to mean "banned/blacklisted" (and thus taking onus on themselves to remove all references to said sources without doing cleanup after themselves), where WP:DEPS and most others that have talked about this take "deprecated" in the computer-science sense (that we should avoid and should strive to remove them but not in a manner that is disruptive). This seems to be yet another rout of disruption to remove deprecated sources as quickly as possible, which is not an outcome of any RFC on these sources marked deprecated. (If anything, the only RFC that had "take action immediately" would be Daily Mail wrt to BLPs). There's no problem if they want to go around and tag deprecated sources to let others fix them, or do the work of looking for alternate sources, or making sure that removing the source also removes material connected with the source that they can't find sourced elsewhere, but these past ANI trips have shown that they prefer outright removal than avoiding disrupting, which is not acceptable on WP. --Masem (t) 05:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

He is removing sources that our policy explicitly says are reliable, and he is edit-warring to do so , . Again, any other user would be blocked for doing so. He still has not corrected his disruptive removal of other reliable sources here. Any other user would be blocked for doing so. He is introducing basic errors in to our articles, eg . Dont want to repeat the obvious one more time. nableezy - 05:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

All previous discussions have endorsed David Gerard's actions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1028#User:David Gerard and The Sun sources

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1045#Editor David Gerard and the Daily Mail

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1066#Indiscriminate removal of deprecated sources

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1081#User:David Gerard

nothing to see here 103.203.133.250 (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

No, they haven't. At least the one I initiated (the third one) ended without a closure with many editors agreeing with me that such indiscriminate removal is not okay.

I think that adding better-source-needed tag before removing (if it's not BLP) is a good practice and deserves to be a guideline. Alaexis_¿question? 06:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:DEPS exists for the purpose of explaining what it means for a source to be deprecated. Without WP:DEPS, the formal concept of deprecation disappears from Misplaced Pages. So it is bizarre indeed to claim that one can remove sources due to them being deprecated and at the same time claim that WP:DEPS can be ignored. David Gerard is not entitled to this logical fallacy, and not entitled to merely brush aside explanatory statements like "Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately." Zero 11:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I think adding the better-source-needed tag is usually pointless because I doubt that in many cases anyone new will come along and replace them. And if a terrible source has been used multiple times, I wouldn't put the burden upon anyone of tagging them, making a list somewhere of what was tagged and when, and then later remove them. Doug Weller talk 11:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

We know from trying it that it's usually pointless. It stays there for months, untouched. It doesn't work. By this stage, the suggestion is an attempted end-run around deprecation, and nothing more - David Gerard (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Deprecating is not blacklisted, despite your repeated attempts to make it so. nableezy - 16:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Your lack of understanding of what an "information" page is is not a "logical fallacy", and Without WP:DEPS, the formal concept of deprecation disappears from Misplaced Pages is a bizarrely false statement - David Gerard (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Where exactly is deprecated defined as removed on sight? nableezy - 16:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I am less than enthusiastic about any kind of auto/semi auto removal of sources and don't think we should be doing that.Selfstudier (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • You'll be glad to know that there is neither automatic nor semi-automatic removal going on, every edit is by hand. If you can show auto/semi-auto removal, feel free to do so. However, note that for deprecated sources - sources that, by broad general consensus, should almost never be used in Misplaced Pages - the bar for removal is very low, and almost all should in fact be removed - David Gerard (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• The indiscriminate removal of sources that policy explicitly says are reliable is ongoing. I understand David Gerard is a popular one around these parts, but in the span of 12 minutes David removed 24 CP articles (plus added a disambiguation link), among them a listing that the subject had published there (ABOUTSELF), an interview with the subject (again ABOUTSELF), multiple ABOUTSELF sources here. Each of those edits is against our policy, and it continues unabated. Why should he not be blocked here? nableezy - 18:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

• I don't see the problem with what David Gerard is doing here. Coretheapple (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

How about repeated removal of RS and WP:FAIT editing? nableezy - 20:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

And repeated edit-warring (eg , . Claiming that WP:V is overruled by deprecation is likewise an issue. nableezy - 20:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

If nobody is willing to deal with an editor disruptively editing to remove reliable sources in an indiscriminate matter please close this down and I can proceed with going to ArbCom. Because this disruption, by an admin no less, continues, with this admin edit-warring to remove sources our policy says are reliable, and Id like that dealt with or at least paused while this discussion is ongoing. This is the very definition of WP:FAIT editing, and it is behavior unbecoming an administrator. nableezy - 20:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm always happy for action to be taken against users who are either administrators or otherwise "getting too big for their breeches," but in this instance I look at what is being complained about and I see a big, fat nothing. I do see a lot of boomerang potential. Coretheapple (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

You could certainly do that. I would suggest you would do better doing either or both of first (a) seeking further support for your position - the support that you admit here that you lack (b) understanding why you have failed to gain support for your position - David Gerard (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

For example - in that last example, you appear to have misread WP:ABOUTSELF - it is about literal self-publication, e.g. on a personal website, or about dubious sources talking about themselves (e.g., the Daily Mail talking about itself). It does not cover a published article in an edited magazine, as you are attempting to use it for. Your claim is not supported by your impassioned words - David Gerard (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I should also note that the WP:FAIT was when the source was deprecated. At that point, there was broad general consensus that CounterPunch was a source so unreliable it should not be present in Misplaced Pages, and thus should be removed. I realise you don't like this outcome, but that was in fact the strong consensus - David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

People not wanting to deal with a problem administrator violating policy is not my lacking support. Again, you are edit-warring, removing reliable sources, and engaging in WP:FAIT editing. Youre also just making things up WP:ABOUTSELF is not about literal self-published sources. Otherwise it would not say Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves. And no, there was consensus it should be deprecated. And there are valid uses for deprecated sources, and your claim that WP:DEPS means something other than what it says it means is likewise in the realm of making things up. And you should be stopped. Since you refuse to stop yourself, you should be blocked. If there is no resolution, and given the recurrent issue with you and deprecated sources, then yes I will be doing that. I await to see if anybody wishes to deal with this first. nableezy - 22:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

If you think "I can find no administrator willing to act on my claim" is a case for arbitration, I expect I can't stop you. You probably won't take my advice, but (per the instructions at WP:RFAR) be sure to have worked through all of WP:DR first - David Gerard (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• While David's removal of depreciated sources can be criticized as haphazard (with BD2412's suggestion being the safer way to methodically remove these, keeping WP:DEPS in mind), it isn't necessarily incorrect, as depreciation exists for a reason. However, depreciation ≠ blacklist, so there is no harm in slowing down the process. On the other hand, it's fair to say that nableezy is definitely WP:BLUDGEONing this thread. This thread has become so inundated that it may be worth separating claims of edit warring into another part, perhaps to WP:EWN. Curbon7 (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Perusing David's contributions, it is clear he has been removing deprecated sources from hundreds of articles for years, whether it's the Daily Mail, Crunchbase, The Sun (United Kingdom), WorldNetDaily, Global Times, Republic TV, Unz Review, Zero Hedge, LifeSiteNews, NewsBlaze, The Epoch Times, FrontPage Magazine, Press TV, The Mail on Sunday, Telesur, Voltaire Network, and no doubt others. The list of deprecated sources on Misplaced Pages is quite small; it's an exclusive group of sources considered so unreliable by the Misplaced Pages community that not one word published in them can be considered reliable (regardless of the author or circumstances). As such, I can't understand why one would ever want to cite them on Misplaced Pages, or why one would object to their removal. Nor do I understand why there is such a fuss regarding this particular source, which has been deemed by Misplaced Pages to be as unreliable as all of the others David has removed. If anything, David should be commended for his diligent efforts to make Misplaced Pages more reliable (or at least less unreliable). Jayjg 23:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Nor do I understand why there is such a fuss regarding this particular source. It's because of WP:PIA. Mlb96 (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Ah, got it. I understand much better now; things are often not what they seem in that subject area. Jayjg 15:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
    • ... now I fully understand why the Counterpunch defenders are so incredibly combative, and in this style - David Gerard (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
  • ... not one word published in them can be considered reliable (regardless of the author or circumstances) – This is not a correct understanding of deprecated sources. For instance, the Daily Mail can be a usable source historically (I'm talking 1910s, not 2000s), and even modern articles can be usable in very rare (often primary or WP:SPS) circumstances, as David Gerard gives two examples of below (one if you don't count an EL). — Bilorv (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Bilorv, those are, no doubt the extremely minor and rare exceptions that prove the rule. The only exception stated in WP:DEPREC is "for uncontroversial self-descriptions". I doubt the underlying incident that prompted this whole kerfuffle was about that. Was it? Jayjg 17:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
      • They're not "exceptions" to any rule that exists, whether WP:DEPREC or anything else. They are examples that conform with the meaning of "deprecated". You've linked to a phrase that says "rule of thumb", expressly not relevant to any attempt at full classification; nor is WP:DEPREC, "The source is considered generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited" (emphasis mine). Rather than me try to explain to you what caused this ANI thread to start, you would be better to read the context for yourself. — Bilorv (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
        • Thanks Bilorv. I'm quite familiar with our content and sourcing policies, and think it's pretty clear that they are, in fact, exceptions to the general rule. Someone else has explained to me (above) the actual reason this has suddenly become a big deal. Jayjg 20:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Once again, someone is upset with David Gerard, and once again, mutually contradictory opinions will be aired about the right way to remove these garbage sources. Sheesh. What he's doing is fine, necessary, and overdue. XOR'easter (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Also, help is absolutely welcome! Here's the list - pick 10 and have a look. Usually removal is pretty obvious - remarkable claims with no other backing, gratuitous ELs, hagiographic WP:RESUMEs, etc - David Gerard (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
    • If people were willing to put half the effort they're willing to spend on drama into cleaning up these "sources", then we wouldn't have the drama in the first place. XOR'easter (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
      • These deflection tactics are misguided at best. If those removing depreciated sources put any effort whatsoever into looking for alternative sources, or didn't regularly remove valid content along with the depreciated source, we wouldn't be here (again). DG needs to either seek consensus for wholesale removal of these sources or start exercising considered judgement, which takes time and effort. _wjemather 10:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

        Sorry but this is nonsense and contrary to policy, it's not other people's responsibility to find sources for material which fails verification. The responsibility lies on those who want the material included. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

        Doing the literal minimum required by the letter of policy is often not a good way to proceed, especially en masse and if the justification is "the letter of the policy requires no more than this". From a common sense point of view: the list of pages that cite e.g. the Daily Mail is easy to find and navigate, half filled with nonsense that needs removing but half filled with useful information that just needs a better source. Removing the information or using {{cn}} to make it the 16,875th entry in Category:Articles with unsourced statements from December 2021 removes it from this easily traversable list and means the content will never be improved. You could instead take 60 seconds to type into a search engine something that may produce a good source saying exactly the same facts as the Daily Mail, and cite that source—or if there isn't one then don't spend any longer, {{cn}} tag it or whatever. Bot-like actions are almost never the best way to proceed. Clearing one backlog (citations to the Daily Mail) by piling it into another backlog (unsourced statements) is not a solution. Nor is clearing a backlog with a flamethrower (removing useful information that could be easily sourced). This advice isn't about breaking policies, but about building an encyclopedia in the most productive way. — Bilorv (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

        This is going about it the other way around, it is not a minimum, it is the standard. The bare minimum is that one should not be insisting that the burden to find sources for material that is unsourced or poorly source lies on the those who want to remove such material. It directly contradicts policy and is in fact recognised as disruption.

        If we are going to appeal to common sense, a {{cn}} tag is much more visible and recognisable as a problem (to the point that it is so even for the average reader) than a citation containing an unreliable source. Going through 1000s of articles is tedious work while most editors edit articles on topics that they are interested in and address any issues specific to particular articles instead of looking for specific kinds of issues to address, and hence are much more likely to address visible issues. But if you really think that it has no impact on how fast a backlog is addressed and that there is no real distinction between either, then what's the fuss over again? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

This framing of a noble pursuit to rid the encyclopedia of citations to sources that not one word published in them can be considered reliable (regardless of the author or circumstances) is a bald faced run-around what deprecation actually is. If you mean to change deprecated in to blacklisted, in which not one single word of it may ever be cited, you need more than an RFC at RSN on a single source to do so. A user is inventing a policy here, and is violating existing policy to enforce it. Where exactly Jayjg does any single policy, guideline, information page or even local consensus support the idea that deprecated sources may not be used at all? Because WP:DEPS says exactly the opposite. It would be great if people could actually answer why that is being ignored. nableezy - 03:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Deprecation was "meant to" mean removal. From the first deprecation RFC on the Daily Mail: its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited ... There are multiple thousands of existing citations to the Daily Mail. Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate. I'd have thought generally prohibited was pretty clear in its intent. Do you understand that the deprecation of a source, such as CounterPunch, is meant to mean that it is generally prohibited? That's a yes-or-no question - David Gerard (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

That is again not what I asked for. This is not the Daily Mail. What policy, guideline or anything else supports your attempt to force through a major policy change? And edit warring to do so, again. nableezy - 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Deprecation literally means general prohibition. That is what it was intended for, and what it is used for. You are claiming novel exceptions that don't exist, and trying to use text on an information page as a claim of policy. Read the actual deprecation RFCs - David Gerard (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Deprecation literally means general prohibition. We need to make the information page into a policy to prevent what is happening? It says at the top "except in special cases" and later it says "Deprecation is not a blanket retroactive "ban" on using the source in absolutely every situation, contrary to what has been reported in media headlines.". Selfstudier (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Nableezy, in answer to your question directed to me, WP:DEPS is an information page, not a policy or guideline, and even it says "Citing the source as a reference is generally prohibited".

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources lists four levels of source reliability

• Generally reliable in its areas of expertise: Editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise. The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team.
• No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context.
• Generally unreliable: Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content. Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person.
• Deprecated: There is community consensus from a request for comment to deprecate the source. The source is considered generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited.

It takes a lot for a source to be actually "Deprecated", and only a very small number of sources have actually reached that "elite" status. There are tens of thousands of highly reliable sources available for use on Wikpedia, I so can't see any reason why we should have any source that has actually been "Deprecated". And I haven't heard any good arguments for keeping a Deprecated source that doesn't sound like special pleading. Even if we kept one such source, it will be inevitably challenged as coming from a Deprecated source; why don't editors themselves simply move on, and find a better source? Jayjg 15:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you think there is no difference between generally prohibited and in which not one single word of it may ever be cited? As far as good reason, the obvious one is when pieces by established experts that are repeatedly cited in other reliable sources (like peer-reviewed journal articles and books published by university presses) so much so that they themselves are arguably notable, we should be able to cite them. In another instance David removed an attributed view of Benny Morris in another article, calling it extreme fringe non-RS. Are you of the opinion that calling Benny Morris "extreme fringe" or "non-RS" is a. not a BLP violation, b. not among the silliest things youve ever read on Misplaced Pages? Do you agree that there are not much better sources to find? nableezy - 15:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Nableezy, regarding your question about Benny Morris, I have on occasion disagreed with David Gerard's removal of sources, but never objected when it has come to Deprecated sources; if the information is reliable and DUE, then it can (and should) be found in a reliable source. Regarding your other question, I think the main difference between generally prohibited and not one single word etc. is exactly what Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources states about Deprecated sources: "a Deprecated source may be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, although reliable secondary sources are still preferred." I haven't looked at the underlying incident that prompted this specific AN/I, but in my experience, when someone is trying to use a deprecated source, it's almost always because they want to use the specific sources in a specific article to make some controversial (or at least non-obvious) claim, not an "uncontroversial self-description". In your initial disagreement with David Gerard, was it about an "uncontroversial self-description"? Jayjg 17:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Jayjg, I think you know I think you're a very smart person and while we disagree on um some issues I generally have a high regard for your view on sources. So please, look at the specifics here. Yes, some of them are indeed non-controversial self-descriptions. Like a person being married (note that David removed that, was reverted due to ABOUTSELF, and removed it again). Others are scholars writing in the area of their academic experties, whose specific column is referenced repeatedly in other reliable sources (here). That was, along with a bunch of other careless mistakes, meant to remove this piece by this noted expert, a piece repeatedly cited in other reliable sources (eg , , ). Do you really think Id be raising this big a fuss about not being able to cite random crackpots for controversial facts? nableezy - 17:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy, thank you for your kind words! I'm not saying that every single removal David has ever made was correct, but I am saying that Misplaced Pages's default position should be to remove them all, and only allow them back in on an individual, exceptional, extremely limited basis, so I think David is doing the right thing. Also, I don't think we should quote a subject matter expert when they're writing in an unreliable (much less Deprecated) source, particularly where they are writing about anything controversial. The key here is not the individual themselves, but rather the editorial oversight - even experts require proper oversight. Instead of fighting to keep Deprecated sources, we should be expending that energy looking for different, reliable sources. Jayjg 21:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• I fully support David edits to rid our articles of depreciated sources they should be used only in very limited circumstances as per WP:DEPS --Shrike (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• I know David but he's wrong one this, as are others. It's supposed to be more subtle than this - purging doesn't help as sometimes the sources are good for the point we need. I can think of a glowing puff piece in the Mail about a dodgy company - one of the human bots removed that and they absolutely shouldn't - showing the hype is good. I've had others remove a link to a Russian source which was confirming what western sources were saying - again useful. If it was intended to be remove all then it would be done by bot. There's no nuance here. Secretlondon (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
  • See, I don't get this rationale; if you have reliable Western (or any other) sources already, then there's absolutely no need for a Deprecated source, Russian or otherwise. Jayjg 15:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
• The process of mass-removing deprecated sources, and then discussing individually the specific cases where their (re-)inclusion may be warranted is a pretty good one, I think. It's also consistent with the "presumption" that deprecated sources should not be used. JBchrch talk 16:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• I think we do have a problem here, in that it is abundantly clear that we do not have agreement as a community as to what deprecation means. We have informational supplements that unequivocally state that deprecation does not mean "remove on sight", that it doesn't even mean "uniquely bad source", and we also can clearly see from the above exchanges that David Gerard, among others, are treating deprecation as precisely that. My semi-involved view here is that we either need to enforce the current wording (which would mean, at a minimum, handing out warnings for repeated haphazard removal of sources, such as the ABOUTSELF and verifiable subject-matter experts), specify a more correct way of dealing with existing citations to deprecated sources (per BD2412) and then enforce that, or start an RfC to actually settle what deprecation means at a guideline level. For as long as we continue to have such open disagreement about what an active and far-ranging labeling of sources actually means, we're going to continue to have disruptive editing from well-intentioned editors. _signed, Rosguill 16:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  I agree about the confusion, but Rosguill, can you explain to me where the subject-matter-expert comes in? I just now re-read WP:DEPREC, WP:DEPS, WP:NOTRELIABLE, WP:V and Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources#Deprecated_sources multiple times, and it nowhere says that verifiable subject-matter experts are an exemption (only WP:ABOUTSELF uses are permitted).

  I just don't see a rule about subject matter experts anywhere outside of WP:SPS. I'm really not trying to wikilawyer here, I want to understand our guideline wrt deprecation and unreliable sources. As far as I can see, unreliable sources may only be used for ABOUTSELF, even if the subject is an expert. Mvbaron (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  Mvbaron, I land on that interpretation based on my understanding of WP:V's general requirement that sources be assessed based on context. I think that the result of a holistic approach to the sources would hold that a relevant SME would be reliable unless published in a source with a reputation for outright misrepresentation of its/its contributors' own work (which was not the basis for CP's deprecation), except perhaps in the case of BLPs (and even there, I think there's room for discussion of the relative relevance of the SME's claims and whether or not it courts actual problems in a BLP on a case by case basis). _signed, Rosguill 18:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  I see, thank you very much for your clear and detailed response :) That makes sense. Mvbaron (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  For what sort of material would it be justified to keep material published by CP? Selfstudier (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  Was that directed at me? If yes, I don't know. From what I understood, only ABOUTSELF - but Rosguill here makes a good point. And if that's correct, then I guess there is not much difference between deprecation and generally unreliable sources, as in that one has to always look at how the source was deprecated exactly. I have genuinely no idea at that point, I guess it always comes down to local consensus... Mvbaron (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, it was:) Sometimes the indenting...This still leaves the removals question, a bot can do auto remove, doesn't need an editor, is it beyond our wit to say, post up a notice in a section of the talk page of an article that uses a unrel/deprec source and asks the users there to form such a consensus. Easy to say, might be hard to script, idk.Selfstudier (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  There's a tangential problem which is that confusion over what deprecation means is rampant even in the actual discussions to deprecate sources. This certainly appeared to be the case in the discussion that resulted in Counterpunch's deprecation, where editors provided arguments as to why CP should be considered unreliable, but did not clearly establish why deprecation was necessary, with many editors !voting for deprecation purely on the basis that it is not reliable, without further elaboration. I briefly challenged a first attempt at closing but backed down after it received informal endorsements as I did not feel like I had the personal capacity to argue my case at the time. I do think, however, that the case could be made that closing that discussion as deprecation instead of simply GU was a case of vote-counting rather than an assessment of arguments presented. Reaching such a conclusion would provide a Gordian way out of the current dispute, although it would probably require just as much wikidrama and would leave unresolved underlying issues that would pop up next time someone tries to clear a deprecated source from the site, so right now hashing the ANI case out and reaching general clarity on deprecation seems like a more productive way forward. _signed, Rosguill 20:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  As the eventual closer there, I strongly disagree with your assessment and consider it a mischaracterisation. It was not merely unreliability, but fringe, conspiracist and fabricated content, and an editorial position favouring said content - a clear case for deprecation; which has, as I've documented above, always meant that the source doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages at all except in extremely exceptional cases - David Gerard (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  Eh, I don't think the distinction between "unreliable" and "fringe, conspiracist and fabricated content" is meaningful (in other words, I don't disagree with those elements of the characterization), but find said summary to ignore the counter-arguments which claimed that it frequently publishes articles by verifiable and relevant SMEs. There's also a problem when arguments to that effect get shut down in the deprecation RfC with the argument "well you can still cite it in those cases" only for editors to run into stonewalling in those self-same cases. Ultimately, neither side in that discussion went beyond cherrypicking and superficial analyses, and I don't think it was appropriate to jump to deprecation without a methodical analysis of the publication's output, ideally with reference to RS. Also, having forgotten that you were the one that closed that discussion, I am a bit troubled that you did so considering that you have an understanding of deprecation that is at odds with what has been documented as being its definition. To do so and then take dedicated action to remove all instances of citations, over and past disputes with individual edits made during this process, strikes me as taking a few too many bites from the apple. _signed, Rosguill 22:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Add voting in the next RFC to the number of bites. Who would have thought "uninvolved" had such an elastic meaning. nableezy - 22:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• It seems clear that David Gerard is pursuing a largely indiscriminate purge of all depreciated sources due to apparently interpreting things like "generally prohibited" to mean "totally prohibited" (it doesn't) and "deprecation literally means general prohibition" (it doesn't). DG is wrong here and his actions are contrary to WP:DEPS in its current form and should stop. _wjemather 18:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I reviewed hundreds of David Gerard's edits the last time this came up. "Indiscriminate" was the last thing I would call them. XOR'easter (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
  • "Indiscriminate" is a word that fans of a deprecated source use to attempt to poison the well in discussion of any removal of the source whatsoever, in my experience - David Gerard (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Let me help you out here. Indiscriminate – without careful judgement. This seems (to me) to accurately describe how you have approached removal of depreciated sources. Careful judgement requires more than the few seconds it takes to select text, hit delete, paste an edit summary and click save; for example, how could this removal, which could very quickly and easily have been referenced to any number of other sources, happen if careful judgement was being exercised? Surely careful judgement would involve establishing if the information could be alternatively referenced? Note: this is the only one of a dozen such edits in a randomly selected 10 minute period that I checked, but I have encountered exactly these kinds of indiscriminate removals by you previously. Incidentally, I do not think your response here reflects well on you (AGF, maybe?); it would be better to address the concerns rather than attack those raising them, or suggesting they want to keep unreliable sources – for my part at least, you can be assured that couldn't be farther from the truth. _wjemather 23:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• I have no idea whether User:David Gerard's removal of deprecated sources is indiscriminate or not, but it should be possible for him to clear up the issue. David, can you point to any cases in which you have discriminated in favour of retaining such sources? These may not show up in any edit history because they could involve a decision not to edit. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Indeed, and of the Daily Mail even: These were adding archive links in fact, to ensure the preservation of the content (because we know that dailymail.co.uk literally can't be trusted as to the contents of the Daily Mail) - though the second of these has since been removed by another editor.
    When an editor who likes a particular deprecated source complains of its removal, they always seem to claim the removal is "indiscriminate". This happens no matter what the action is, if it involves any removal whatsoever of their favoured source. Similar is claiming "bot-like" editing with no actual evidence of bot-editing or non-consideration in the editing process. Such claims should be ignored as attempts to poison the well.
    They also tend to personal attacks - see the editor who brought the present action claiming violation of, er, an information page that explicitly isn't either a policy or even a guideline, has posted about half the words in this entire section, and absolutely cannot restrain themselves from repeated personal attacks, here or in the multiple other threads they've started to defend CounterPunch - David Gerard (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Except evidence has been provided in your edits. You removed by blanket reverting an ABOUTSELF link, an article by a noted expert that is referenced in the other, non-CP, source you likewise removed. Between 15:34 and and 15:38 today you removed sources from 10 articles. You telling people you looked at all 10 sources in the four minutes you spent editing? Between 20:40 and 21:16 you removed CP from 54, including multiple ABOUTSELF links. You telling people you looked at all 54 articles in the 36 minutes it took to remove them? I am unaware of a single personal attack I have made, and your claim that I am attacking you is nonsense. nableezy - 22:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

That's much more process than is required, and is a spurious demand on your part. CounterPunch is deprecated so is presumed bad - because it's deprecated. The usage can then be assumed not to support the claim. So look at the claims the bad source was supporting. Does it look plausible? Is this unsupported by any other cites? Is it a remarkable claim with no other sourcing? Act accordingly.

You cannot demand that a deprecated source be inspected in the manner of a reliable source - because it's a deprecated source. It's presumed bad. That's what deprecation is for: to save precisely the sort of arguments you keep trying to draw others into, in your efforts to treat a deprecated source as if it is not deprecated - David Gerard (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I can, when you are removing obviously usable sources. Deprecated does not mean blacklisted. WP:DEPS says this very clearly. You are attempting to make a new policy here, and doing so through edit-warring. You cannot claim that it is not indiscriminate in one breath and then in the next say oh Im not spending the time to look at the source. And it also ignores you removing ABOUTSELF links to mundane details like a person being married. nableezy - 22:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• David, I still haven't looked into the ins and outs of this, but wouldn't it have been better to stick to the facts that you provided in the first paragraph of this post? I'm sure that someone could provide a counter-example to show you that "always" is wrong, so why say it? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

• Is there any recommended proposal on behavioral issues? Otherwise, this should be closed so that they can bicker in an appropriate forum where a resolution of policy can be reached and some of us can be saved from it clogging their watchlist. Slywriter (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that David Gerard stop removing sources indiscriminately, in violation of WP:FAIT when multiple users are saying his editing should at the least slow down, and if he refuses that he be blocked. nableezy - 22:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm well aware of positions staked out and re-affirm my statement that this is not the place for a dispute over interpretation of policy.Slywriter (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• (Somewhat) uninvolved editor here. I found this discussion while reading an article about TrueCar, clicking the history tab out of curiosity, noticing that Gerard removed a deprecated source from that article, and looking at his contributions out of blatant curiosity (I had encountered him in the past and wondered what he is up to these days...). I am also aware that he has been in some kind of trouble for unrelated matters that ended up being covered in the press, though I can't recall the exact circumstances. I can relate to being frustrated with nonsense sources repeatedly being introduced into articles as I personally have removed references from Rational-Wiki, Conservapedia, social media sites, and even other Misplaced Pages articles on a regular basis (frankly, Conservapedia ought to be deprecated due to being an open wiki, and Rational-Wiki, which Gerard is ironically heavily invested in, ought to be more than deprecated due to being an open wiki that has tolerated two people who have been the subject of WMF trust and safety office actions on Misplaced Pages using R-W to post further attacks on Wikipedians including doxxing and threats of off-wiki attacks, with one of those being a former board member there... I can go further on that in the proper forum at another time). To be blunt, bad sources are a direct threat to the encyclopedia's integrity and, with some common sense exceptions, they need to quickly removed along with any bad information obtained from them. However, without looking deep into this situation with the source to render an opinion as to whether it should be kept or removed, David Gerard knows better than to try to remove all traces of sources he does not like, and it is my opinion that a Wikipedian with the experience Gerard has should know better than to violate WP:NPA by calling someone an "idiot" in an edit summary. I would support a WP:TROUTing of Gerard and some topic bans if he can't stay out of trouble. If he violates those, blocks are on the table. PCHS-NJROTC 03:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
  • The "idiot" remark was made in reverting Talk page vandalism by a now-blocked vandalism-only account, so I honestly can't find it in me to get too upset about it. XOR'easter (talk) 04:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I'd place this comment in the same category as comments from some I know off-wiki who think that petty criminals deserve to get killed by police... I don't care about what the blocked user was doing, I care what an administrator on the English Misplaced Pages is doing. PCHS-NJROTC 19:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
• And now, while an RSN RFC has concluded that Counterpunch is now deprecated, David continues to act by FIAT in mass removal of Counterpunch (see recent contributions as of today). . The timing shows no likely attempt to find replacement sources or use alternate tags. For example, one pulled at random that David removed a Counterpunch link and replaced it wiht a cn, but I found a source in 2 mins . This is disruptive behavior, particularly in light of this ANI thread and discussion about reviewing what deprecated means. Yes, David is doing something within policy, but not in a manner that the continuity fully agrees is the right approach - the same problem with had with BetaCommand around NFC and which we blocked him for. Being in the right in regards to dealing with poor sources does not mean being right in practice, and this is basically enforcing David's view of deprecation by FIAT. --Masem (t) 18:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
  • "fully agrees" is doing all the work in your statement, in that there are editors such as yourself who have consistently disagreed with removal of deprecated sources, and consistently advocated for hindering such removals on spurious grounds. Thank you for finally conceding that it's fully within policy, however, even if you don't like it - David Gerard (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

    I think you need to stop what you are doing right now until there is community wide consensus for it. My 2 cents.Selfstudier (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

    There has been for a few years now, with repeated threads in ANI finding so. But if you can swing a change to the meaning of "deprecation", that might change the community wide consensus. I also urge you to review WP:V, which is policy, on the necessity of reliable sources, which means not leaving unreliable sources - David Gerard (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

    There is an RFC running, where if my counting is correct, the position that CP articles be treated as SPS is currently in the majority.Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

    From WP:V Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. WP:V doesn't say "must", the reading you are going on, and goes against the wording of DEPS. Now that you are aware that there is discussion to review DEPS and determine what deprecation means and how deprecated citations should be handled , continuing to act on your stance of the read of policy is a FIAT violation. --Masem (t) 02:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Would welcome closure of this so that a RFAR may be filed. nableezy - 18:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable sources can only be used as sources on themselves. The burden to produce reliable sources lies with the editor who wants to restore material that was supported by these sources. This is policy, i.e WP:V. Deprecated sources are unreliable sources where the practice is that the policy is actively enforced. The practice is already supported by policy and enforcing policy is not disruption, couldn't get any simpler. If anything, the addition of citation needed tags, instead of outright removal of the material that such a source is being used to support, is quite generous. Most of the opposition either comes from those who disagree that a specific source should be deprecated or from those who are opposed to the process of deprecation itself. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Looking at this from the outside for the last couple of days, it seems highly unusual that David Gerard should continue to make these removal edits. Shouldn't this be stopped, either by courtesy of David Gerard or by standard practice of disputes until this is resolved? Regardless of who prevails in this dispute it would seem best practice to stop editing. Especially in light of the simultaneous RSN discussion about CounterPunch. I am obviously not a heavy hitter here, but some of this seems crazy to me. Cheers and Merry Christmas to those who celebrate. --SVTCobra 02:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think there's anything wrong with what DG is doing. People have been complaining about the ambiguous nature of WP:DEPS and WP:DEPREC, but TBH I think they clearly support what DG is doing, and indications to the contrary are from overly polite language instead of any actual guideline. Or at least, I don't know how to read use of the source is generally prohibited in any other way but "remove this source almost everywhere". WP:DEPS is more diplomatic, gesturing towards the reliable sources guideline instead of speaking explicitly, but agrees on this point: deprecated sources are also unreliable in almost all situations, and per WP:RS unreliable sources shouldn't be used. It also says that uses of the source must fall within one of the established acceptable uses, implying that uses that do not should be removed.

WP:DEPS says Deprecation is not a blanket retroactive "ban" on using the source in absolutely every situation but only because of the specific and small exceptions listed. It also says Deprecated sources should not be considered to be either unique or uniquely unreliable but in context this is in reference to the universe of junk sources, not relative to the RSes usually cited on Misplaced Pages, as it also says Deprecation is a status indicating that a source almost always falls below Misplaced Pages's standards of reliability and its very first line is Deprecated sources are highly questionable sources. Deprecation is not "super unreliability" but it IS "consistent unreliability". Loki (talk) 20:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

So where is the evidence for consistent unreliability here? All I see are score of diffs, googled from over 70,000 articles, cited to claim that CP is a conspiracy-mongering, holocaust-denialism urging, anti-Semitic genocide-favouring website. Were the non-wiki world of scholarship and journalism aware of that several scores of ranking scholars and researchers, many Jewish, would never have allowed their articles to appear there. All I see so far is evidence a random group of anonymous editors know much more than what its staff and contributors know about its hidden agenda which is, according to whom you pick, to promote the far-right or the far-left.Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this comment helps to stress what the issue is. Ignoring any time factor, and looking at how sources are being remove from sources labeled deprecated, there doesn't seem anything wrong with these actions from DEPS and othe policy. However, what is not being considered is the time factor. That DG turned around immediately after Counterpunch was made deprecated is the problem. If tomorrow CNN was made deprecated, would it be reasonable to have editors rush to wipe all CNN sources from WP in a few days time in a bot like fashion? No, that would be disruptive to the work; we would expect editors to spend time find alternate sources give how prolific CNN had been used. Hence why we nearly always use grandfathering approach when content polices are changed to avoid disruption and give editors time to correct properly, before going for the slash and burn approach to bring articles to compliance. That is also consistent with DEPS. The speed and clear lack of human review in these removals is what is the problem in wake of extremely recent changes to source status. Either we should have grandfatering in place or ask those removing to use better human judgment on removal options, and not just go for removal.--Masem (t) 21:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Continues today, and if nobody is going to stop him and he will not stop himself from removing entirely easily sourceable material reprinted in a number of sources, then I again ask that this be closed to allow for an AC case to be requested. nableezy - 22:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

This is your second admission that no admin will act on your lengthy claims of malfeasance. There are a number of possible explanations: 1. I have a hold over the entire admin corps; or 2. your claims aren't evidence of malfeasance. If you think you have an arbitration case because no admin will act on your claims of malfeasance, I mean, nobody can stop you - David Gerard (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

(p.s.: I do not in fact have a hold over the entire admin corps, and many admins have told me I've been wrong and dumb in the past.) - David Gerard (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Multiple admins have said there is a problem here, you have just ignored them. That you appear to be one of the WP:UNBLOCKABLES doesnt change that. I get nobody is going to block you, I knew that from the start of this thread. But we are required to pursue lower DR methods prior to opening a case request, and so I did. Now that you continue to ignore the multiple admins who have told you to stop with your WP:FAIT violating editing, Id like to proceed with the final step of DR, that being requesting an ArbCom case. nableezy - 22:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

ah, you're literally claiming that I have a hold over the entire admin corps. I note you aren't even objecting to any particular edits, but to the mere fact of removing a deprecated source today - David Gerard (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

No, if I were literally claiming that I would have literally said that. Maybe dont put words in my mouth. And no, I very much object to individual edits, including this removal of a convenience link, this ABOUTSELF removal, and several other inexplicable removals. nableezy - 22:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

There are also other edits listed in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Deprecated and unreliable sources.Selfstudier (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Violation of the 1RR on both Benny Morris and Tel Rumeida by David Gerard doesn't matter? Huldra (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure there isn't such. Can you show two reverts in 24 hours? If there is, I will certainly self-revert as the first step - David Gerard (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

No diffs for your claim? OK - David Gerard (talk) 09:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Why was The Nation source removed as well?

No one seems to have addressed that above when nableezy pointed it out. This edit has David Gerard removing not just the CounterPunch sources, but also a source from The Nation, which doesn't appear to be addressed in the edit summary given. Was that an accident? I don't see anything on the talk page saying anything against that source in question. Silverseren 08:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Uninvolved and want to remain so in this incident but just leaving a clarification about this. The Nation piece is mostly a shorter introduction to the David Price article by Alexander Cockburn, editor for CounterPunch. On the RSN, I wrote this which might explain the reasons for David Gerard removing it:

In this particular example, the suggestion that CounterPunch is unreliable, but it's fine to cite a piece by an editor of CounterPunch (Alexander Cockburn) that is basically a shorter introduction to Said's article that directly advertises the full article because it's in the Nation instead is kinda absurd. Anyone writing an academic work would cite the actual article instead of a summary. RoseCherry64 (talk) 10:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Doug Weller talk 11:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree too. Both sources should stay in this case. --Andreas JN466 13:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

More agreement from me. That David Gerard thinks The Nation source here is fine but Counterpunch is not is a sign that something is going wrong in his interpretation of "deprecated source" (no doubt a mainstream interpretation). — Bilorv (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it was an accident - the Nation source should stay - David Gerard (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

It was removed because, in violation of our policies, David Gerard is editing carelessly and is not examining his edits. He merely wholesale reverted a number of changes. Again, any other user would be blocked for editing in such a manner. Any other user would be blocked for repeatedly removing reliable sources (ABOUTSELF sources are explicitly reliable per WP:V), and edit-warring to do so. This user should be blocked and/or restricted from continuing to edit in such a manner. Something he is doing once again today, removing sources at such a rapid clip that it belies any claim that he is examining each edit. Oh, he still hasnt fixed his errors. Again, any other user would be blocked for such editing. This one should be. nableezy - 16:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:AGF is policy. What is the possible good-faith interpretation of the action? It is policy that you should interpret it that way - David Gerard (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Not a suicide pact. Ive noted several errors, basic errors that an IP making would lead to a vandalism block. You have yet to correct a single one. You instead continue with your editing rampage, removing obviously reliable sources and material that no reasonable editor would challenge. Like a person being married. You claimed to be examining each edit manually, but are proceeding at a rate that would be impossible for any human being to do without blindly and indiscriminately removing material. It took 14 hours for somebody else, note not you, to fix this basic error. So yes, AGF until proven otherwise. nableezy - 23:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I have too made the same WP:AGF mistake while removing counterpunch and removed a good source.Such things can happen--Shrike (talk) 05:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

This continues, with David Gerard removing sources that are not deprecated, and edit warring to do so. See here. Note that is not CounterPunch, it is Gush Shalom. This is disruptive and tendentious editing, and it continues despite the obvious lack of consensus for it. nableezy - 17:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

And here where he removes Bleacher Report on a boxing match, not even pretending to pay attention that it was not the Daily Mail reference he removed. And then says the blind behavior is on the other end. nableezy - 18:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, this looks like replacing a terrible "source" with whatever else came first to hand (the Bleacher Report story is the first Google hit after the Misplaced Pages article). That's indiscriminate editing. And it's not the way to find the best sources. XOR'easter (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

You can not like the Bleacher Report as much as you like (the same arguments could be presented against almost any source), it isn't depreciated, and so DG had no business removing it and the associated content (without discussion). By using rollback, it makes it even more obvious that he didn't bother to check before clicking, which is also a CIR problem. He also didn't even bother checking after being questioned, which is inexplicable, especially when this discussion is ongoing. As has been described by many here, DG is acting without due care and it needs to stop. I don't think anyone is contesting the justifiable removal of depreciated sources, it's the total lack of effort in doing so that is the problem, which results in indiscriminately removing good easily verifiable content, permitted depreciated source use, and worst of all, leaving potentially bad unverifiable content (with a cn tag). _wjemather 11:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Good removal I don't know how can any add such source to WP:BLP Shrike (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

This is not a cheer/damning face off, Shrike. Give a rationale. That DG doesn't even care to examine the sources he is removing,- that he indeed claims he doesn't have to because one 'presumes' anything and everything with a CP origin is automatically invalid source, that he doesn't check the diff quality of contributors to deprecation he approves of, that he can't recognize the name of a superb reporter or scholar and doesn't care who they may be, has been shown in detail below. It's blind, blanket reverting, and, in that sense faith-based, not empirical or even, given the equivocations in policy readings here, grounded I n clear policy. The persistence while challenges to his rampage are being discussed, looks like provocative recalcitrance. Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

If anything here is needlessly "provocative", language like "rampage" surely qualifies. XOR'easter (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I said I did not want to be involved here, but I did notice this diff, where the name CounterPunch and the name of an article was removed with the same justification. I restored this because it feels incredibly weird to remove prose mentions of deprecated magazines, when the title of Reed's article and where it was published is mentioned in The New Yorker and other places, and is used as background information about Reed's own work. RoseCherry64 (talk) 11:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the title of another Reed article for CP is still included in his revision, as well as a reference to a "second critique for the magazine" which doesn't make sense when the name of the magazine is removed. RoseCherry64 (talk) 11:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Can we decide what the heck "deprecation" means, or alternately, use a different word?

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

I have noticed a bunch of people here seem to have completely different ideas of what it means for a source to be deprecated. The word itself, in a literal sense, means "to ward off by prayer" (deprecari). In colloquial usage, it can mean anything from "disliked" to "strongly and officially advised against". In programming, a "deprecated" feature or method generally means one that you're advised not to use when writing new code. Sometimes this is because a better or more secure feature has been introduced, sometimes this is because supporting the deprecated feature is an inconvenient timesink, and sometimes this is because a haphazard system is being streamlined into something simpler. In some of these cases, it makes sense to go through old code and rip out every instance of the function (say you're upgrading a system from Python 2.6 to 3.5 and a bunch of the old shit will literally stop working). In other cases, the situation is more lenient (legacy code will continue to run fine but it's a good idea to use the better thing if you are writing new stuff). At any rate, the fact that something's "deprecated" doesn't make any definitive case for what action you should take regarding it. People saying that it "literally" means one thing or the other are... well, it literally means to avert disaster by appealing to the gods, so I don't think we are talking about literal definitions here.

I think that this discussion (which we've had several iterations of by now) would go a lot better if we came up with some clarifying language for what it meant, or perhaps used a different word, like "blacklisted", "forbidden", "censored"... or, alternatively, "non-recommended", "superseded", "obsolete" or "not very good". jp×g 22:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support The above is a policy disagreement and community should resolve policy by discussing policy, not the behavior of two editors with entrenched positions.Slywriter (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• Relevant discussions: Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources § Deprecated sources section of WP:RS; Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 164 § On the use of deprecated sources JBchrch talk 22:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Note: I've undone @ScottishFinnishRadish:'s NAC on this section because it has only been a couple of days and there've been a variety of rumblings about different actions. I'm not confident that any consensus will emergy, but it seems too soon for a definitive close. jp×g 23:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• Frankly, I don't think that swapping out the terminology will stop people from getting upset that their favorite sources are being removed, which is what most of these arguments typically arise from. We can bikeshed the jargon all we want, but the underlying psychology will remain the same. XOR'easter (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure that this is an accurate summary of what's going on. It seems to me like, in this discussion as well as the previous ones linked, there is a concrete disagreement about what "deprecation" actually means. That is to say, we are uncertain of what actions editors actually have consensus to carry out based on an RfC closing as "deprecate". If everyone who commented on the RfC supported "discourage its use and remove it if bettter sources exist", and people actually editing the encyclopedia are interpreting it as "remove at all costs wherever found", there is a problem, and the actions are not supported by consensus. Conversely, if RfC commenters agreed on "go through Misplaced Pages with a chainsaw and rip this website out of every page you find it on", and editors are interpreting this as "we ought to reduce the use of this source somewhat", this is also a problem.

As for "favorite" sources, I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't know how relevant it is. My personal opinion of Vice, for example, is that it has gone utterly to the dogs in the last few years, but I'd still object to someone removing it from hundreds of articles if I didn't think there was consensus for its removal. I think the psychology here is more that people disagree on an issue of fact, and some people think it is one way, whereas some people think it is another way. jp×g 23:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I can only call it as I see it, and that's my take-away from many, many arguments on Talk pages, at RSN, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I've explained elsewhere that given WP has computer-savvy user bent, that the choice of using "deprecation" for sources reviewed in an RFC (like Daily Mail) may have been a poor choice due to the fact that in comp sci, deprecation is more a warning that such material will no longer be supported and should be removed in time. Indeed, the reading of WP:DEPS supports this concept and the issue with these removals is that they violate that principle, treating the sources as blacklisted and thus can be removed without worrying about the mess left behind. That said, I am all for a discussion to be clear if we can support "deprecated" as a lower rating of a source below "generally unreliable" but not as low as "blacklisted" and if we need another level for sources like The Daily Mail, Breitbart, or RT that are to be avoided outside ABOUTSELF circumstances. Once that's clarified, the past RNS RFCS on specific sources should be reviewed just to know how to classify them. --Masem (t) 00:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• From reading the archived discussion on this topic linked by JBchrch, it seems like there's never been a clear consensus that deprecated sources should be a priori treated differently from other sources in an article. _signed, Rosguill 23:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Indeed. And as such, this ANI will end like all the others; inconclusively. I don't really think David Gerard's removals are in line with deprecation as defined by the DM1 RfC. They're indiscriminate. But DG has been quite clear that he won't stop, and there's enough policy ambiguity for the community not to step in on DG individually. I think the way forward is to construct an actual guideline for deprecated sources. I would do it either through drafting phases to construct the proposed guideline page, and then RfC, or as a two-part RfC; the first, to create a Misplaced Pages:Deprecated sources guideline on the relatively uncontentious parts and then a second part to deal with more contentious parts. I think the key issues that need to be addressed are: the guidance on removing sources after they've been deprecated, and what it takes for a source to be deprecated (as distinct to the spam blacklist or just being generally unreliable), specifically what kinds of evidence. Finally, some formal clarification on accepted usages of deprecated sources. I think this is urgently needed, because deprecation is inconsistent. While we're at it, a more accurate term like Misplaced Pages:Discouraged sources might be better than software lingo like 'deprecated'. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
    • The fact, though, is that there is currently no protection for unreliable sources - for the most part, it is completely normal and acceptable to go through and remove unreliable sources just like depreciated ones. There's perhaps a somewhat higher expectation that you'll be cautious, search for reasonable replacement sources, avoid removing text for which it's reasonably likely an acceptable source could be found, etc., but part of the reason depreciation was created was because the Daily Mail, as an unreliable source, was supposed to be getting phased out after the numerous discussions agreed on that point; and that was happening far too slowly (in fact, its numbers kept increasing) because people kept adding new citations to it. Every proposal I've seen to slow the removal of depreciated sources has seemed ass-backwards to me because it would set the bar for removing depreciated sources higher than the (currently nonexistent) bar for removing unreliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 08:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes, this, exactly. Building up an extra barrier around deprecated sources, like by requiring an intermediate step with a {{better citation needed}} tag and a waiting period, just makes it harder to remove deliberate disinformation and state propaganda from our encyclopedia. XOR'easter (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

That isnt what is happening here. This is removing an exceptional source (see Sara Roy). This along with a whole bunch of other careless mistakes, is removing an exceptional source (see David Price (anthropologist)). Stop pretending that what is happening here is the removal of deliberate disinformation and state propaganda, it is a fabrication. nableezy - 20:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Deprecated sources do indeed include deliberate disinformation and state propaganda. Putting extra regulations on how deprecated sources should be removed is protecting exactly that kind of material. XOR'easter (talk) 04:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

The sources being removed as deprecated that are under discussion here do not include deliberate disinformation and state propaganda. They include actual scholars writing in the area of their academic expertise. It is entirely fabricated that anybody is arguing for protection of deliberate disinformation and state propaganda. If you are going to apply this label to a whole host of things you cant just justify your actions based on the most extreme part of a wide ranging set. nableezy - 04:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

No, people are talking about DG's entire project of removing deprecated sources. And, indeed, they are coming to judgments based on the most extreme part of a wide ranging set, i.e., a few examples out of thousands where he maybe, maybe, messed up. XOR'easter (talk) 05:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• As I've said repeatedly, if you object to that you ought to be challenging the depreciation of the source directly (ie. start a new RFC.) Yes, there are occasional exceptions, but exceptions are exceptions because they're, well, exceptional, rather than being the sort of thing the source publishes regularly, and as far as I can tell you've argued repeatedly (and the crux of your objection here) that Counterpunch generally publishes stuff that is reliable because of who the author is. If there are generally applicable exceptions that allow a source to be used, then the source can't even be called generally unreliable and isn't suitable for depreciation, so that's an argument you ought to make in an RFC about the reliability of the source. But right now, if there were a consensus that the high quality of authors there kept it from being generally unreliable, then it would be yellow at RSP and not red. --Aquillion (talk) 08:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support and establish a best-practices standard operating procedure for deprecation. Perhaps we need a separate label and category of sources that are actually prohibited and should be mass-removed. BD2412 T 23:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support The term deprecation is a computing/IT term, for something that was in use and is no longer, meaning there was a period when it was functional, correct and useful but it is no longer, so it out of use. It is really the wrong term, and shouldn't be changed. We need something much much more accurate and instantly recognisable. They have always been junk sources. For example, they're has never a time when the Daily Mail wasn't junk, except perhaps during WW2. Infowars is slightly different, its almost disinformation and was never anything else. So the new term needs some flexibilty and be recognisable. All the disinformation that is on the go, since we are the truth. I hope that helps. Its late. scope_creep 02:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
  • That is not quite correct. In computing, a deprecated feature is one that should be avoided for new projects but which still works and is still supported although it probably will be removed in a year or two. It is not necessarily "out of use". Johnuniq (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support This may be as simple as formally adopting Misplaced Pages:Deprecated sources, although the Acceptable Uses section may need a bit of a cleanup as it contains patently absurd statements such as "editors are also expected to use common sense and act to improve the encyclopedia." Deprecation is something that we just sort of started doing after the Daily Mail RfC; the definition varies depending on how each RfC was closed and which little caveats the closer decided to include. I think that in general the intent of each close is the same, for example WP:ABOUTSELF is applied fairly consistent across the board even though some closers mentioned it and others didn't. A set definition would help clear up any confusion and wikilawyering. –dlthewave ☎ 05:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I don't much like the concept of deprecation at all. A lot of the problem comes from the deeper issue of what a "source" is. When a magazine publishes an article, is the magazine the source or is the article the source? Unfortunately, the official answer is "yes" and this enables people who don't want an article to be cited to attack a weaker point instead. Rather then arguing directly that an article is unreliable, they attack the publisher on the grounds that it published other articles which everyone agrees are unreliable and nobody would consider citing. "The magazine published crap article A, so we will deprecate the magazine and now you can't cite article B even though it is authored by a highly respected expert in the field." Since nobody would even dream of citing article A, the motivation must be to eliminate article B. So deprecation becomes a convenient tool. (I believe that is an accurate description of the current case.) The community is perfectly capable of deciding "article A is crap and we won't cite it, while article B was written by a subject expert and is citable". Zero 07:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
  • The contrary argument would be that the fact that crap article A was published at all means that the source has such low standards for fact checking that we can't trust anything they publish. Even experts need to be peer-reviewed. Mlb96 (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

    That makes no sense, if the expert had published it on toilet paper we could use it but because he has published it in CP we can't? CP don't fact check anyway.Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, at least without a more specific proposal. The original purpose of depreciation, as I recall it, was that the Daily Mail, despite repeated and clear consensuses that it was unreliable, continued to be used across much of the encyclopedia, in part because of new people adding citations to it. The current terminology and implementation of depreciation has largely resolved that problem; while there may be some individual sources whose categorization or usages are worth quibbling over, overall, depreciation is working. Misplaced Pages's sourcing since we depreciated the Daily Mail has generally improved sharply in quality, and in fact we've gotten significant coverage from outside sources as being one of the few places that managed to find a way to deal with the era of "fake news", despite being a user-generated encyclopedia. There might be room for a few refinements or clarifications around the edges, but I'm completely opposed to anything that would substantially change the terminology or the way we handle them, per WP:DONTFIXIT. --Aquillion (talk) 08:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral - WP:DEPREC lists the differences pretty well: use of the source is generally prohibited. But I don't really understand what the point of deprecation is if we can go on and use a deprecated publisher for more than ABOUTSELF (contra DEPREC). If we allow deprecated to be used for more than ABOUTSELF, then there is no difference to generally unreliable sources. Per WP:NOTRELIABLE: Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on themselves, i.e. generally unreliable sources already have the highest bar for acceptance (but here we may be more lenient with e.g. texts by experts). If - contra WP:DEPREC - deprecation is allowed for more than ABOUTSELF, then we might as well get rid of it altogether. The clarification RFC needs to be about what the difference between generally unreliabe and deprecated is - if we don't want to follow WP:DEPREC --Mvbaron (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose making any decision here; it would probably be better to use different language altogether that cannot be misinterpreted, either by good or bad-faith actors, however discussion on the way forward should be at an appropriate forum, not ANI. Accordingly, I suggest closing this sub-thread. _wjemather 10:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

  You know, that looks like what some of the "support people are saying. We need to make a decision, but not here. Doug Weller talk 10:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• How about creating an RfC subpage (Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Deprecated sources)? Clearly some brainstorming is needed and there are various questions and concerns, so maybe that’s a good place to start ironing out details before a guideline proposal is put forward? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

  MvBaron has a valid point I think. The RFC product should spell out the difference between generally unreliable and deprecated (including how they are dealt with) so maybe title it Deprecated and unreliable sources.Selfstudier (talk) 12:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Selfstudier: I created a draft RfC before I saw this, but the "Criteria for deprecation" section was intended to address this issue (as I agree it is an unresolved problem). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, to be clear, what I propose is that an RfC be opened somewhere else, perhaps a dedicated subpage (and advertised on WP:CENT) -- not that we try to draft a new guideline on the fly in the middle of an AN/I thread, which would be a grotesque shitshow. It's probably worth noting that in this very subsection about the ambiguity of "deprecation", there are eight instances where someone said "depreciation" instead... jp×g 13:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it is, I added the draft to cent just now. maybe some notifys on pump, V etc?Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I removed it for a bit. I want to get some thoughts first to make sure it's the right structure and we're asking the right questions before it goes live, since it's poorer form to modify a live RfC that's in-progress. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

You marked it DRAFT? I'll go remove it again :) Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, you did already, lol. I thought it was fine as was but OK, if you want a pre pre RFC, we can do that:)Selfstudier (talk) 13:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per the WP:DONTFIXIT argument of Aquillion. What we're seeing are the inevitable edge cases of (a) a very small set of cases where reasonable people can disagree on the best course of action, and (b) wall-of-texting in favor of sources that some people really, really don't want removed. These are not sufficient reason to tamper with mechanisms that help keep Misplaced Pages a significantly less awful place than most of the Internet. XOR'easter (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

  Ultimately the issue is a mixture of policy, and whenever people attempt to clarify what the consensus on the policy is, certain editors derail the discussion with bludgeoning/battlegrounding/etc (see Wikipedia_talk:Deprecated_sources#Proposed_clarification_of_deprecated_sources_guidelines, for instance). Heck, the last time we were here (Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1066#Indiscriminate_removal_of_deprecated_sources) we had an admin closing the discussion after 4 hours (ultimately reversed). It's valid for the consensus to be "all is fine", although I doubt that's actually what the consensus is per the reasons we discussed last time this was at ANI, but we can never actually have that discussion. So no progress can be made either on the behavioural front, or the policy front. Tbh I agree with nableezy's idea of just taking it to ArbCom, since I'm at a loss for ideas at this point; the behavioural element prevents progress. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Strenuously disagree that there are behavioral issues here. The issue, to me, is this. Before the depreciation RFC, IIRC, we had something like 12,000 cites to the Daily Mail, and similar numbers for many other high-profile depreciated sources. Now we have something like 14. I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that there are enough places the Daily Mail could legitimately have been cited under WP:V to get us anywhere remotely close to those 12,000 citations. That means that anyone who wants to change how we handle or enforce depreciation needs to answer two questions - first, do they agree that we ultimately needed to drastically cut the number of citations to a source like the Daily Mail, and that 12,000 citations to it was almost certainly indicative that of many violations of WP:V / WP:RS? And second, if they intend to slow down or prevent mass removals, what's their alternate route to get us to those low double-digit numbers for sources like that? Because it feels to me like people are beating around the bush of those fundamental questions; if someone thinks it would still be acceptable for us to cite the Daily Mail 12,000 times, then in my view they're fundamentally challenging either the consensus that it's generally unreliable (not just the depreciation; we should not be citing a source like that so heavily), or they are fundamentally challenging WP:V. Either way, focusing on DG is a distraction because I don't think anyone can articulate a way to get from 12,000 citations to 14 without it looking, basically, like what he's been doing; to me, depreciation was an agreement that we needed to drastically cut those 12,000 citations, and DG's actions have mostly been a good-faith implementation of that consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 03:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I doubt anyone is saying it was okay in the long-term for WP to be citing DM 12,000 times post-RFC. But, outside of BLP articles, there was never any deadline suggested by the RFCs nor in general WP:DEADLINE that those DM cites had to be removed post-haste. Because some had been in place for years, it would be reasonable to develop a consensus-based grandfathering practice (as done in most similar situations) to give editors the chance to remove and replace the DM cites with more reliable ones or remove material otherwise unsourcable over, say, a six month period, after which it would have been 100% fair game for David or others to strip out DM cites without impunity. (This again is commonly an approach taken with "deprecation" in computer science and other areas) That's a non-disruptive approach to deal with long-standing content, and standard practice whenever we have changed a content policy or guideline that would affect a fairly large number of articles. But the issue stems from David taking it on themselves to strip DM citations without trying to seek alternate sources or non-disruptive remedies, which is basically against WP:FAIT. Of course, I will assert too that we have a consensus-disagreement on what deprecation means and we need to resolve that first, but that David continues to remove sources in a disruptive manner is still a problem. They may be doing the right thing per WP:V and other policies, but the method of doing it is causing problems, and we have blocked editors for doing that in the past. --Masem (t) 03:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Long-standing content doesn't become good just because it's long-standing. Should we dally with removing a hoax if it was extant for ten years? I'm sorry, but this just sounds like imposing a rule that the worse a source is, the harder it should be to remove it. In my view, the disruption is the existence of deprecated sources in Misplaced Pages articles in the first place. That is what degrades the quality of the encyclopedia. The root cause of the issue isn't DG taking the mission on himself, it's that nobody had taken it up before. But whatever; this kind of bullshit is why I'm probably quitting soon. XOR'easter (talk) 04:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

It is not that the content was good that it was long-standing, but that many of these deprecated citations have been in place for years, and we should give editors some reasonable amount of time to do whatever corrections they can with the change in standing of the source. Remember that before the DM RFCs, it should have been taken that the use of DM as a citation was done in good faith on the idea it was a reliable source; the sudden change to make DM deprecated should not be invalidating the past good-faith assumptions that editors were adding appropriate content. If there was a community-set need to have these removed as quickly as possible, that would have been a result of the RFCs, but the only situation on that is DM on BLP being an absolute no-no. Every time in the past where a content policy or guideline has changed in a manner that affects many hundreds+ articles where the change cannot be done by a bot, we have always used some type of grandfathering approach to give time to transition and avoid outright disruption. Same here: given that most of the DM cites prior to the RFC were added in good faith, we should be giving time in good faith to fix them, and, as per DEPS, not wholesale removal or disruption. The ultimate goal is to remove the DM links outside the few ABOUTSELF allowances, but we should not be massively disrupting article content created in good faith to get there, and that's the behavioral problem here, particularly as David is well aware these actions are contentious with some editors and that there's motions to resolve PAG in a way to be clear what should be done. (To wit, any DM links added after the RFCs can be presumed to be done in bad faith and can be removed on sight, but that's not what is basically being talked here). --Masem (t) 04:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

...and we should give editors some reasonable amount of time to do whatever corrections they can with the change in standing of the source. On average, the rate at which such corrections actually happen is never. The bad content sits until an editor's hand is forced. If there's a better way to force those hands, well, good luck finding it, because this kind of time-and-energy-wasting drama that throws a shield over bad content and provides covering fire for trolls has just about succeeded in getting me to stop caring. XOR'easter (talk) 04:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this. Anything cited to unreliable sources, anywhere on Misplaced Pages, should eventually be fixed; this isn't some new controversial statement, this is core policy. There was broad agreement that the Daily Mail was unreliable for a long time before it was depreciated, and in all that time, progress at reducing our reliance on it was nonexistent. Arguing "well, it's generally unreliable, but you can't remove it too fast" amounts to either challenging WP:V or challenging the consensus of its general unreliability. I also disagree with the premise that the removals are disruptive - as I say below, I feel a {{cn}} tag is generally preferable to a citation to an unreliable source, since it warns the reader that the text is unverified and encourages anyone reading it to either verify it or, if they decide it can't be verified, rework or remove it. It is better to fix it completely, but a cn tag is generally an improvement - arguing otherwise, again, means challenging the consensus that depreciated the source. --Aquillion (talk) 04:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

That's why I've said that this is a limited period for grandfathering, something like six months. After six months, any links to DM or RT or whatever source would then be in the clear to be removed without having to supply an alternate source or the like (that would even mean not having to leave a cn). Such grandfathering is standard practice when a change of PAG affects long-standing content, and not considered to be disruptive nor forcing hands (as long as the grandfathering is announced at places like VPP and CENT) No one seems to be asking for never removing these citations, just that the means to remove them should be handled in a non-disruptive way. And it is important to stress that there is no deadline to fix sourcing, outside of BLP-related content. Grandfathering like this is a balance of that lack of deadline with the need to remove deprecated sources in a reasonable timely manner. --Masem (t) 16:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Excellent. Same principle can be applied to GU sources as well, which are essentially the same thing as deprec. Write a script that flags them all for x months auto deletion if still extant. All the expert opinions will be gone as well, though, and then perhaps people will be a little less inclined to class sources such as CP as GU in future.Selfstudier (talk) 17:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

The reason those are called "generally unreliable" is that there are still cases they can be, and thus should require human review before removal (particularly when several GUs are only for specific topics, like Fox for politics and climate change, or Rolling Stone for politics). "Deprecated" are where ultimate we want no links at all to those sites outside ABOUTSELF or where other factors come into play, and thus there's less need for human review of each instance. --Masem (t) 17:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I understand that but I do not see any practical difference, that's essentially what we are asking now for deprec. Like I said, I don't object to mass removal if that's what the community really wants. Be careful what you wish for applies.Selfstudier (talk) 17:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

There's a massive difference between generally unreliable sources and those deprecated. In general, because "generally unreliable" may be reliable in some context, non-human removal is a problem. Deprecated sources are known to only be allowed in very limited cases, and thus, ultimately, should be placed on editing blacklists (as to warn editors) and should be removed wholesale by bots - but only after giving editors a chance to reticify their use. There's no such rush to remove those considerd generally unreliable. --Masem (t) 17:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is a rush to remove either and neither do you, thus grandfathering suggestion. But that same grandfathering equally allows human review of unreliable sources and so I maintain my view that there is no practical difference. We can play with x, 3 months for deprec, 6 months for gu, or whatever.Selfstudier (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Somehow we always end up back at the Daily Mail, but just to discuss your example situation: He replaced 12,000 citations to Daily Mail with {{cn}} tags, while leaving the content in, and not checking if the content was true or false (presumably, otherwise he would've either removed/replaced it or added a better citation). So, content cited to an unreliable source known for disinformation went from a tracking link of Daily Mail citations and is now lost within the millions of articles within the general "unsourced content" tracking category. The behaviour is fundamentally incomprehensible. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually, he's cut out the content completely in, e.g., , etc. XOR'easter (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Its almost like those who remove deprecated sources do in fact apply editorial judgement and add {{cn}} tags for content that looks benign or more likely to be verifiable and cut out the content which appear promotional, extraordinary, etc and are less likely to be verifiable. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

This is not benign? A person is not a reliable source for who they are married to? nableezy - 06:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Depends on the family. :-P But, more seriously, if the only source that has paid attention to a fact is deprecated, then including it is almost always WP:UNDUE. XOR'easter (talk) 06:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

You really think it is UNDUE weight to include in a biography of a person that he is married? Do you not see the circular logic here? And do you not agree that WP:ABOUTSELF links are definitionally reliable for information on themselves? nableezy - 06:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Uh, yes, if reliable sources don't discuss a person's marriage, we don't need to talk about it. Many academic biographies exist because their subjects pass WP:PROF and we can write about their work, but information about their families is basically non-existent. XOR'easter (talk) 16:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

That's a dead link to a deprecated source on a BLP, effectively unsourced. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Um, look at the history of the article. See the link fixed. Dead links have never ever meant unsourced. See WP:DEADREF. nableezy - 06:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

The point was that there were too many red flags in that case. It wasn't removed after you fixed the link, so what's the issue?

Its use is also dicey even in this state, it complies with WP:ABOUTSELF only if you consider Counterpunch to be equivalent to a blog source and consider the article to be entirely authored by them. This is not clear at all, the last paragraph, "Debbie Dupre Quigley is an oncology nurse. She and her husband Bill Quigley, who is a law professor at Loyola University New Orleans, spent four nights and five days in a hospital in New Orleans before they were evacuated. They can be reached at ...", reads like a statement from the website about the authors. This is also a BLP so it probably should be removed, at the least, till the new discussion at RSN on whether to treat it as an SPS is concluded. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

lol wow. Both people are co-authors of the piece. And no, a dead link is not a red flag, and no, that is not why it has not been re-removed. It was not re-removed because another editor restored it as clearly permitted by WP:ABOUTSELF. The issue is despite your contention that David is discerning and only removing content that is not mundane that he is indeed removing basic biographical facts about people entirely. nableezy - 07:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah they are the co-authors and the ending bit reads like a blurb about the authors from the website, not unlike those present in newspaper op-eds. It's not a red flag solely because of the dead link but because it is also from a deprecated source and is in a BLP, not to mention the ending part of the same sentence is literally unsourced which doesn't bolster confidence. When one is going through a list of articles and encounters something like this, they would most likely identify it as a poorly sourced BLP and will be inclined towards removal. In the end, even basic biographical facts in BLPs need to be properly sourced, treating them as not mundane and removing the entire sentence is still reasonable. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• I feel that having a {{cn}} tag is, on the whole, generally better than having an unreliable source. It alerts the reader that the cited text is not verified, and it increases the chance that someone reading the article (who probably has at least some interest in the topic) will edit it to add a citation. A CN tag itself is, already, a warning to the reader that "this text may be false, since it lacks a citation"; without that, anyone skimming the article is unlikely to notice that the citation is to an unreliable source, and will therefore take it at face value. I don't think he just indiscriminately replaced every single citation, but the fact is that it required moving quickly and making a lot of changes, because with the sheer number of citations a source that requires the step of depreciation can accumulate, doing it slowly will (given the limited number of people actually interested in that cleanup) not get anywhere in an appreciable amount of time. I'm not seeing any of the vague alternatives people are suggesting as workable - the Daily Mail was widely-agreed to be generally unreliable for years, many people repeatedly pointed out that we were citing it too many times, and while there were token efforts to replace some of them nobody made a dent in it until it was depreciated and efforts were stepped up. Again, I feel that anyone who objects to DG's methods needs an actually practical proposal for how we can drastically trim the usage of an unreliable source in a reasonable timeframe - preferably a demonstrated one (since it's easy to say "oh, let's just go slowly and replace them bit by bit", which is the one method we know did not work for years on end.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

  Again, I feel that anyone who objects to DG's methods needs an actually practical proposal for how we can drastically trim the usage of an unreliable source in a reasonable timeframe Use a bot and replace all these citations with a variant of {{better source needed}}, or ? That way you don't lose the link, and you can still track that it's a DM cite so a volunteer who actually wants to review the cite can do so, and there's still a warning to readers (not that the purpose of cleanup tags is to be a warning, supposedly). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

  We don't need an editor to do what a bot can do. If all we need or want is strip all the sources David Gerard and the others are surplus to requirements.Selfstudier (talk) 15:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Then instead of Daily Mail and Russia Today links sitting around for years, we'd have {{better source needed}} or {{deprecated inline}} tags sitting around for years, and we'd still be pointing readers to the Daily Mail and Russia Today. That doesn't really give a reader a clue what's wrong, and it doesn't really offer editors any help, either, since the links to those sources could already be found via in-text searching. And requiring such a step is instruction creep that acts to protect the worst "sources". If someone wants to make a bot that runs around tagging footnotes with {{deprecated inline}}, that's fine, I guess, but it seems to me like wallpapering over the fundamental problem. XOR'easter (talk) 16:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I think you misread what I said there. I have no objection to a bot tossing (indiscriminately) all the sources if that's what the community agreed to. Btw, what do you think is the difference between an unreliable source and a deprecated source? Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I was replying to the comment above yours. I'm not sure what your question is getting at; I mean, I could quote Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Legend, which seems to summarize things fairly well? XOR'easter (talk) 16:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

generally unreliable, then follows a list basically repeating the same things y'all keep saying for deprecated. Then for deprecated it says "The source is considered "generally unreliable". I get it, a deprecated source is a generally unreliable source. The only difference in practice is that there are editors going around removing the source en masse. To repeat what I said just before, if the community agreed to that, then fine, script a bot and get on with it and do all the generally unreliable ones while you are at it because they are the same thing. Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

For deprecated, it says The source is considered generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited (emphasis added). The difference in practice is that deprecation is a harsher judgment. Any discussion at RSN that concludes in a deprecation indicates this. XOR'easter (talk) 05:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• Close this subthread, this is a distraction, that too with a largely superficial focus on name changing. ANI isn't the place to make policy suggestions. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
  • No, I think this is a useful discussion that should not be closed yet, and I largely agree with Aquillion. A "citation needed" tag is better than a link to a deprecated source for plausible assertions. Contentious assertions cited to deprecated sources should be removed entirely. Who gets to decide what is plausible and what is contentious? Individual editors acting in good faith. In the end, the core content policy of Verifiabilty reigns supreme, and we should never use deprecated sources in an attempt to verify contentious assertions. Misplaced Pages editors should not be expected or required to function as a "de facto" editorial board for deprecated sources, determining which of their output is reliable, and which isn't. That's a path (one of many) to madness. Cullen328 (talk) 07:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

    This is an unfocused subthread at this point, but yeah essentially agree with what you and Aquillion are saying and I have said the same in the main thread. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• I don’t know David Gerard from a bar of soap. Checking, I see he is a highly productive, indeed valuable editor, with a good many here who recognize and respect his work, on solid grounds. They take it that his recent actions must be okay. He's generally a good editor in the round.

He barged into an area widely regarded as one of the most difficult thematic zones , and in a few days achieved more than what more than a hundred socks managed in decades, impoverishing numerous articles by erasing important sources by ranked authorities. His warrant for this was a finickly stringent one-sided reading (contested by many highly experienced editors here) of deprecation with regard to anything sourced to CounterPunch. Over 15 years, on a rough calculation, I’ve read 1 article a week in it and of these, perhaps I’ve cited a score or two for the I/P area. The criterion I use is status of authorship in the field, competence in the subject matter, etc. Most of the articles are of no encyclopedic value: but, as I listed, over 54 scholars and writers of recognized standing choose to write occasionally for it. So, in summing up, let me quote some remarks here.

WP:V's general requirement that sources be assessed based on context. Rosquill.

You cannot demand that a deprecated source be inspected in the manner of a reliable source -because it's a deprecated source. It's presumed bad. David Gerard.

Rational-Wiki, which Gerard is ironically heavily invested in, ought to be more than deprecated due to being an open wiki that has tolerated two people who have been the subject of WMF trust and safety office actions on Misplaced Pages using R-W to post further attacks on Wikipedians including doxxing and threats of off-wiki attacks, with one of those being a former board member there. PCHS-NJROTC.

"fully agrees" is doing all the work in your statement. David Gerard

David in this erase CP activism is being lazy. He doesn't care to work on contextual merits. Editing Misplaced Pages for encyclopedic ends means reading numerous sources for background perspective and content and, when we have borderline cases, closely evaluating the quality of the contribution in terms of its author’s scholarly or professional competence to see whether a general rule about deprecation or even non-mainstream sources has, case by case, grounds for exceptions to retain and use or not. That is laborious, requires deep familiarity with the topic, and careful judgement in context. Editors who, like David, just jump at deprecation listings to zoom through wikipedia erasing at sight the source used are examples of energetic laziness when they do this kind of mechanical weeding. They admit they don’t feel obliged to read the source they erase. For, by virtue of deprecation, they can ‘presume’ it's bad. I can understand it with the Daily Mail. But major scholars don't write for that rag: they do for CP.

How does this work, this carelessness? Well, to cite just one example,in the deprecation RfC, Lord Swag set forth a diff-rich j’accuse list of ‘proofs’ CounterPunch approved genocide, holocaust denial, antisemitism. Patently dopey. It was froth, and I ignored it, expecting editors to check the tirade’s 'evidence' as I had. No, actually many editors quoted with approvgal Swag’s swag of pseudo proofs. Then Gerard chimed in and cited the evidence mustered in the original RfC (where Swag’s material dominated) as proof that CounterPunch merited deprecation. So, I sat down and analysed Swag’s influential ‘case’. Result? Pure trumpery. David just ‘presumed’ at a glance Swag’s evidence was cogent, rather than a mugged up heap of misdirections.

Exactly what is he doing with his energetic removalist indifference to the quality of what he is erasing?

What you appear to get in short is a practice of (a) not needing to know the topic area and the history it deals with (b) indifference to checking what you elide: suffice that it is deprecated, ergo weed out on sight (c) ignoring all the ambiguities of deprecation (as many editors have noted) (d) taking blindly on trust, without scrutinizing the diffs, what colleagues write.

Everything is based on appearance, trust in those you trust, distrust of those you don’t know. The result is serious damage to the encyclopedia, since David can’t recognize a notable name, a scholar of major standing in the field and stop to reconsider and stay the itchy trigger figure. The impression is of hyperactivism whose main effect, regardless of his intentions, which I have no doubt are genuinely sincere, is to ratchet up an indeed impressive edit count, whatever the collateral damage might be to the ambitions of wikipedia to achieve encyclopedic ends, i.e. comprehensive scholarly coverage. Encyclopedias are not only a congeries of articles requiring bot-like checks, monitoring etc: the content is mostly written by people who take the trouble and effort to spend sometimes hours on each particular edit, checking any potential author’s competence and background, reading up several other sources to see if the claim or viewpoint is fringe or not, and examining all these things in context. David’s approach - insouciant to the efforts of content editors- thinks none of this is necessary. There is a law, it allows no exceptions, erase at sight, and snub talk pages where those who differ with his ultramontane legalism, and actually read the topic closely, give solid reasons, case by case, for retaining an reference within the framework of the broader wikipedia guidance principles.

The solution is simple. Ask him, in the light of serious concerns at the collateral damage his mechanical rampage of elisions is causing, to desist.Nishidani (talk) 14:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

The above screed is laboring under the various personal attacks ("puritanical", "lazy", "hyperactivism", etc.) used to describe David Gerard. I'd suggest withdrawing this, Nishidani. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I like many other editors dislike sloppiness, disattentiveness, especially if melded to zeal. By writing screed you are saying that the evidence provided (justifying those adjectives) needn’t be examined or answered. This is precisely what happened with Swag’s evidence and DG’s acceptance of it. No evidence given was checked or examined. If you dislike the adjectives, then I’ll replace thjem with ‘stringent/fundamen talist’, ‘otiose’ and ‘over-energetic’, but the substance of my documen tation is there. Ignore it by all mean s. Much of the original RfC for deprecation consisted of editors ignoring any significant control on diffs, and opinionizing instead, and I get the feeling the same unempirical impressionism will win the day here as well. Rather than look into the substance, one challenges the tone all too often. The tone innocuously reflects exasperation at the amount of work controlling sources takes for serious content editors, all evaporated by rapid mechanical rollbacking sight unseen, which we see here. That's very I/P-ish. A content dispute is 'resolved' by ignoring the content dispute and complaining about manners, even at AE/ANI.Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• If you've created a situation where an interview with Edward Said is considered unreliable for use as attributed support for the views of Edward Said you've created a really stupid situation. This also illuminates how wooden and childish many of the rules are around "reliable sources." In the specific case of Counterpunch while in recent years it has published a fair amount of, in my opinion, batshittery, it is not a hoax generator. If they publish an article under the name of a scholar or researcher, or claim an interview with someone of note, the claim of authorship should be treated as ironclad reliable. Then, as with many journals of opinion, you really need to consider what era of the publication an article is from if there are concerns about reliability or slant. But that would require an immersion in both general epistemological questions and a particular field, the ebb and flow of its controversies over time, and recent scholarship. Aint nobody got time for that. This is Misplaced Pages, after all.Dan Murphy (talk) 17:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Wholesale removal of citations published in mass-circulation mainstream publications, particularly citations dealing with the arts, such as reviews of films, stage performances, books, art gallery exhibits, museums, etc, especially when such reviews are otherwise unavailable or difficult to find, is unacceptable and harms Misplaced Pages and its users without any tangible benefit in improving Misplaced Pages's reliability. I would also support the establishment of a review board where complaints can be submitted regarding indiscriminate deletion of specific reliable citations, even if such citations come from publications that have been accused of recent unreliability, but have a vast archive of valuable historical reporting. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 10:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

  We definitely do not need another notice board. Either this board or RSN should suffice. Doug Weller talk 10:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• Close thread and start a new discussion at a more appropriate noticeboard. This is the Administrators noticeboard/Incidents and this thread is not about taking Admin action. Doug Weller talk 10:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Jingiby reported by Dandarmkd

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

This ethnic Bulgarian user(s) (this account is used by few people, it is noticed at his different writing expretions) is abusing his wikipedia rights and is focuced against Macedonian editors and he tracks their edits. Everything he dislikes, he re-edits or reverts it and simply labels as vandalism. Recently I edited on the article Ali Riza Efendi, then he reverted and insultingly labeled my edit as "common North Macedonian vandalism". His contribution page is a proof. Pure abuse of power. He can not be objective, but some Macedonian editor to be subjective. I have never noticed a user that propagates so much, especially not a foreigh language (hence he/they are Bulgarian) Misplaced Pages. Please take some measures.Dandarmkd (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dandarmkd, please provide evidence in form of diff links. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Always off to a good start with nationalist ranting about the Balkans... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

"This ethnic Bulgarian user" not the best way of starting a report. Super Ψ Dro 18:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, this is the my example . I am going to give examples by another users whose edits were undid by Jingiby. Dandarmkd (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone. First of all, I would like to express my regret that someone has judged my edits so negatively. However, I would like to apologize if this is indeed the case. Now some explanations specifically on the charges against me. In the first case, I reverted an edit that is a typical manifestation of Macedonian nationalism. The case concerns the biographical article on Ali Rıza Efendi (1839–1888). There was changed some information about his birthplace. Today it is located in Thessaloniki, Greece. The name of this city was changed from Greek to Macedonian, and the name of the state of Greece was replaced by the irredentist term Aegean Macedonia. In Greece, this terminology is considered offensive and a manifestation of extreme Macedonian nationalism and even of territorial claims. In the same article, other information was added that the subject was of ethnic Macedonian descent. The first historically known person to present the thesis of the existence of a separate Macedonian ethnic group was Georgi Pulevski. He did this in 1875, but by the end of the First World War his thesis was supported only by a handful of intellectuals. This makes such a claim again some kind of nationalist whim. The sources cited in the article on this issue mention that his origin is from the local Slavs in Macedonia, speaking Serbo-Croatian or Bulgarian, but logically there is no mention of any ethnic Macedonian background. This rather controversial redaction was made without any edit-summary, without explanatory discussion on the talk page, and without adding any source supporting these changes. It was simply marked as a minimal change, which was obviously not true. That's why I removed it. For the other two examples mentioned above, these were also article-changing editions, without any explanatory editorial comment and without adding any sources in their support. The edits I reverted were more than controversial. The first claimed that the Serbs were particularly close to the Macedonian Muslims, which is more than strange and rather dubious. Serbs are Orthodox people, and their language is part of the Western South Slavic languages. Macedonian Muslims speak Eastern South Slavic dialects, with the Islam being their main identification mark, that makes this edit far from neutrality. The second edit I reverted again deals with Macedonian nationalism. It is about the biography of the politician Dimitar Vlahov. The same person was described before it as a Macedonian Bulgarian, which is evident both from the article's content and from the sources in it and the quotations from them, cited below. The word Bulgarian in the term "Macedonian Bulgarian" was just removed here without any hesitation from an anonymous IP, which is a typical style for some Macedonian nationalists. In conclusion, I consider that the complaint against me is a typical case of lack of neutrality and there is no objectivity in it, which is why it is per me unfounded. The accusations that several people use my profile to edit here are complete nonsense. The editor who made these allegations, without any evidence shows unacceptable behavior. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: From the very start, Dandarmkd's report stinks of a nationalist tone. Commenting or bringing up an editor's ethnicity is a frowned practice in Misplaced Pages. Looking at the Contribution logs of both editors I can't help how they are vastly different to each other: Jingiby's edits are moderate and modest while Dandarmkd's are not. Dandarmkd's edits are reminiscent of Macedonian nationalism and are doing a number of Page moves that are clearly against consensus. The filler should be reminded of WP:BOOMERANG and their questionable edits/page moves reverted. And as for the other editor, I believe there is absolutely no reason for action to be taken against Jingiby. Misplaced Pages should protect modest and moderate editors and discourage such kings of reports by editors who seem to be driven by nationalist sentiments. Edit: I reverted the problematic move by Dandarmkd at: , and even an old nationalist edit of theirs at: . Please let me know if I missed anything else. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ 12:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello again. I'm sorry, but I will report Dandarmkd. For about two weeks now he has been creating a series of new articles about houses located in North Macedonia. Although the name of the country has been changed since 2019 in this way, he refuses to accept this reality. He was warned about this a year ago on his talk page, but in vain. He was explained today that per Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Macedonia) in Misplaced Pages articles the country is referred to by the name North Macedonia. I warned him on his talk page to stop this nationalist practice, for which I link here to our conversation. As a result, he tried to humiliate me ​​by saying he felt sorry for me. After all, he has just created another new article under the name House of Slavko Brezovski, where again he does not use the name North Macedonia, which is the constitutional name of the country. The refusal to accept the country's new name is a typical hallmark of Macedonian nationalism. I think that such a practice should be stopped by the administrators. Jingiby (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, a look at Jingiby's edit summaries displays his sentiments toward a group of people around which the bulk of his edits are focused. "North Macedonian", for those who do not know, is considered offensive by Macedonians and never used by them to refer to themselves. Jingiby is aware of this but chooses to go out of his way to clear the auto-generated edit summary and paste in his signature "common North Macedonian vandalism" slogan. A blockable offense? Probably not, but it should not be any surprise that Macedonian editors come here a few times a year to report Jingiby. --Local hero 17:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I also think SilentResident has mischaracterized and dramatized the reporting user's contributions. I'm not seeing a whole lot of problematic editing. --Local hero 17:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Silent Resident. Dandarmkd's opening sentence regarding Jingiby's ethnicity is a typical battleground comment, indicative of a nationalistic editor. Dandarmkd's changes to referenced information, at Saint Naum, additions to referenced information at Ali Riza Efendi both without edit summaries or even attempts at using either article talk pages, presents us with a clear view of their POV editing. The follow-up comment on Jingiby's talk page reeks of a silly attempt to personalize the issue instead of addressing their changing of referenced information. In my opinion, Admins should seriously consider WP:BOOMERANG in this case. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, not a great job in articulating this by the reporting user.

I think we are also, however, presented with a "clear view" of Jingiby's POV. In addition to the "North Macedonian" slogan I described above, he has an extensive block log (to the point of being permanently banned for years), and he has recently been shown, for example, to have falsified a source to support his POV. --Local hero 20:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Local hero, looking at this, I don't think "North Macedonian vandalism" statement is made in an ethnic context but in a political context. A look at the nature of these edits, is enough to understand that they are not mentioned in an ethnic context but political. Anyways, ethnicities in Misplaced Pages are irrelevant, and the disputes/disagreements are of political nature. Considering the politics of North Macedonia, I am finding Jingiby's "North Macedonian vandalism" to be completely reasonable if not justifiable, especially from the moment the edits borderline characteristics of far-right propaganda by nationalist elements in North Macedonia. That's my take. If I have missed something here, please let me know. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ 20:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Local hero usually I use the sentence Undid revision common North Macedonian IP vandalism. related to the location of the IPs disrupting systematically different articles related to the Macedonian issue. This was an exception because the destructive edit was done by a registered user from North Macedonia, not by an IP. I really didn't mean to offend anyone. I apologize if this is the case, but I really won't use this sentence for registered users anymore if it does. Also, please find here a scientific article published by Cambridge University Press on 03 April 2020 written by Matthew Nimetz. Nimetz clarifies that: it should be remembered that this usage (Macedonian or North Macedonia's as per the Prespa agreement) applies solely to official usage; what people use in unofficial contexts is a matter of ordinary use of language. Local hero, why don't you say that a few days ago you personally thanked me here for the # 2 edit I was reported, but you take the things a years ago. Didn't you? Regards. Jingiby (talk) 04:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

PS. By the way, it is aware that articles related to the Macedonian issue have been the target since years of systematically organized destructive IP attacks. Another time it was a question here of holding online webinars organized by the United Macedonian diaspora, where instructions are given on how me to be reported in order to be banned from editing on Misplaced Pages. This report now is really not the first but in the last cases as for example here, the reporters were banned, not me. You can look again at WIKIPEDIA WARRIORS: THE NEW FRONT LINES IN THE BATTLE FOR MACEDONIA, especially after 5:30 min. to see how the instructions against me are going on. Jingiby (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

For someone as well-versed in Macedonia topics as yourself, you'll have to excuse me if I don't believe that you are labelling edits as "North Macedonian" without the intention of offending Macedonians. Again, you have to go out of your way to, first, check the IP user's location, then clear the auto-generated edit summary, and paste in your patented slogan. Matthew Nimetz doesn't decide what terms are offensive to Macedonians. Not even Zoran Zaev, the guy who imposed the new name, has or would ever use the term "North Macedonian". And you know this.

Yes, I did "thank" you for that edit. Your edits can be good ones and sometimes I acknowledge that. I just find it frankly laughable that SilentResident is describing your activity as "moderate and modest" when my personal experience with your editing style (should I choose to pursue a change counter to the Bulgarian POV) is a swift revert from you followed by days of talkpage discussion that may or may not go anywhere.

Also, I don't think the reporting user (account created in 2012) is related to the video you linked. --Local hero 06:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

A referendum on changing the country's name took place and 91% of voters voted in favour of this change. On 11 January 2019, the Macedonian Parliament approved the constitutional changes for renaming the country to North Macedonia with a two-thirds parliamentary majority. Jingiby (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

With a 38% turnout as a result of a massive boycott. Don't pretend to be naïve and we're getting off topic here. I'll just summarize this point one more time: Jingiby knows Macedonians are offended by "North Macedonian" but uses it anyway despite it requiring extra unnecessary effort on his part. --Local hero 19:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

It would never occur to me to speak for all members of a country (even a small one like North Macedonia) -- perhaps you should reconsider basing your argument around others accepting at face value your ability to do so? --JBL (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

To be precise, I'm speaking on behalf of the dominant ethnic group of the country, not the whole country (though you'd be very hard-pressed to find even the Albanian parties using "North Macedonian"). There are essentially two main viewpoints in the matter: SDSM which is responsible for the name change to North Macedonia and VMRO-DPMNE which largely opposed. Not even SDSM uses "North Macedonian" and has even issued media guidelines explicitly stating that "North Macedonian" is incorrect. So, yes I can comfortably say I am speaking for all Macedonians in the country (and diaspora) as well as most if not all of the ethnic minorities. --Local hero 16:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, at least you make it easy to decide whether or not to treat your arguments as essentially reasonable! --JBL (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment There is nothing substantial here to justify a report. Disagreements are a daily activity in the Balkans area, and it is part of human nature to make new controversies from old ones. I suggest this report is closed by an admin and editors focus on improving articles. Many of the important ones have major issues to be addressed. Best if long discussions are made on how to solve those issues rather than to accuse each other of doing this and doing that. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm struck at the incongruity of Jingiby being castigated for using the term of phrase "North Macedonian IP" when Dandarmkd's OP calls him an "ethnic Bulgarian." If the one is irrelevant as something at which to point fingers, the other should be as well. He is also correct that the legal name of the country is North Macedonia -- whether or not the residents care for it -- and that Misplaced Pages naming conventions are quite clear as to when and how the term is to be used in articlespace -- whether or not the residents care for that. As against that, there isn't a single guideline or policy dictating when (or not) the term is to be used on talk pages, edit summaries or the like, and if in an edit summary he wanted to use the term "IP from the Grand Pontificate of Whackdoodle" ... well, it'd be weird, but nothing enjoins him from doing so.

  That being said, Jingiby has a history -- if not so much in recent years -- of edit warring in Balkan topics, and a long block log of the same. Were I in his boots, I'd be pretty chary of raising questions of illegitimate nationalist bias in my edits. Ravenswing 10:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

The difference is that "ethnic Bulgarian" is how Bulgarians self-identify, while "North Macedonian" is offensive to Macedonians. I do agree the reporting user didn't need to say it, especially in his opening sentence. Again, I'm not sure these edit summaries justify any particular action against Jingiby, but it would perhaps be a good idea from him to read WP:ESDOS and avoid making "snide comments" such as this within edit summaries. --Local hero 19:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

""North Macedonian" is offensive to Macedonians Perhaps it is offensive for you to be a citizen of North Macedonia. Or/and perhaps it is offensive for you that the country is called North Macedonia instead of Macedonia. That's respected. But I know this isn't true for everyone and that also is respected. However, here, for the context of Misplaced Pages, the reality remains as is: regardless of what the personal views of the editors are, "North Macedonian" here doesn't refer to in an ethnic context but a political context. After all, the state is North Macedonia, and so its politics are North Macedonian. In this context, "North Macedonian IP" is not offensive by no means for Wikipedic purposes to say. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ 21:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

In order to stop this dispute over my edit-summaries, it is not a problem for me to stop uing the term North Macedonian IP, despite it has not an ethnic connotation. Moreover, this is already a fact. However, I'm not sure if this may become a rule on Misplaced Pages. For example per the Unite Conferences Portal which is the gateway to online service of the United Nations Conference Services the adjectival reference to the State, its official organs, and other public entities as well as private entities and actors that are related to the State is "of the Republic of North Macedonia" or "of North Macedonia" and "North Macedonian" and "Macedonian" may not be used, but are not forbidden. That designation is used for example by Euronews and even in Misplaced Pages articles - North Macedonian passport. On the other hand editors from North Macedonia here insist on using only Macedonian and even avoid to use of North Macedonia which is unacceptable. Jingiby (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

For further clarity, SilentResident, I would not consider "North Macedonian" offensive if used by someone with no knowledge on the matter. It is offensive in this case because Jingiby knows it offends Macedonians. That's why he goes out of his way to use it in situations where it's wholly unnecessary and even requires extra time for him (like in an edit summary). --Local hero 16:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Silent Resident and Local Hero, I have apologized above if I had offended anyone and explained that I would no longer use this term, although there is no an official or unofficial ban on it. I further have explained that I used it in political aspect, not ethnically. Please stop arguing about this. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Possible AfD LOUTSOCKing

I suspect that 76.1.101.199 (talk · contribs) may be a IP sock of Godsentme1 (talk · contribs), who's got a history of Gish-galloping and otherwise trying to make as frustrating as possible any discussion where he has skin in the game, including making spurious and vexatious policy-divorced arguments, accusing people against him of being sockpuppets of me (and accusing me of being a sockmaster), appeals to emotion, and (in at least two discussions, one on- and the other off-wiki) attempting to chill discussion with barely-veiled legal threats. The AfD in question is WP:Articles for deletion/AJDaGuru. I would ordinarily leave it be given the fact I'm the one who filed the AfD, but (1) if Godsentme1 is the IP it's LOUTSOCKING, (2) the aforementioned history of bludgeoning, and (3) the IP made a legal threat, which was collapsed on the AfD (in the same post he also accused everyone arguing for deletion of being racist). —A little blue Bori v^_^v 07:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

It is worth nothing that Godsentme1, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by AJDaGuru for their contributions to Misplaced Pages. appears on the user page of the putative sock master. The behaviour is typical of a frustrated paid editor who has just discovered their invoice suddenly has $0.00 as a real world value.

Should an SPI be opened, @Jéské Couriano? I realise that it may become superfluous, but it is a formal route to the checkuser team. Where socking has taken place once it will take place again. Frustrated paid editors have a Hydra-like way of coming back. Fiddle Faddle 09:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

A checkuser won't do anything - Even if there's a match, acting on it would out Godsentme1's IP, and this isn't serious enough to warrant breaching the privacy policy for. We'd have to make the connexion on behaviour. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 10:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

A draft about the same musician was created by a confirmed sockpuppet, Audreyhamilton36, and deleted a few weeks before Godsentme1 created the draft of the article which is now in AfD. The SPI for that sockfarm is Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Fatima.Innovative. As for Godsentme1, on 9 December they promised not to make any more personal attacks like the ones they had made here. I am not too impressed by this, in light of that promise – it's not just a frustrated article creator lashing out in the heat of the moment. --bonadea contributions talk 10:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I have opened a further SPI under that editor, citing G and the IP as potential socks. Fiddle Faddle 20:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Given the SPI results, is it possible that Fatima.Innovative was fired or otherwise pulled from the project and Godsentme1 was hired/assigned it instead? That seems the most logical explanation here, since comparing the sock and Godsentme's contributions shows polar opposite approaches to this (The sock at least attempted to follow policy, ask for assistance in good faith, etc). —A little blue Bori v^_^v 02:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Godsentme1 has said that they are the article subject's manager. That is pretty likely, or the article subject himself/a family member who is acting as the article subject's manager, given the current edits being added. It's paragraph after paragraph of early life bio. Just on and on and on, a level of detail we literally don't have for Springsteen. —valereee (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Can we just block this user for their endless WP:IDHT and wasting the community's time in general? This is getting ridiculous. And SALT the page title until someone can convincingly demonstrate the subject actually qualifies for an article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

And as I was typing the above comment, an admin blocked them. Great minds think alike it seems. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Pretty clear IDHT

So I've been talking with him over the past hour or so because one of his sources he's asked to have added to the article turns out to have had significant alterations to it very recently, and his responces have been.... suboptimal, to say the least. It's Godsentme1's latest holiday album, "Silent Night", with such hits as "Prove I Ordered 'Em" (I never made such a claim) "Got a Witness On Da Phone" (His last "witness" was him in a paper mask and was used to issue a legal threat; even if this is true said witness, who he claims is the subject himself, needs to go thru VRT), "They Ain't All Doctored" (I never made such a claim, and restricted it to the two sources I know have been fabricated; User:Valereee made similar claims about at least one other source), "Nobody Works on Christmas" (Not true), "Every Website Dressed Up" (Conflating cosmetic CSS edits with the addition and wholesale editing of webpages on the domain), and "Greatest Hits" (argumentum ad nauseam). If this is how he's going to discuss matters, I don't think there's much future for him here; he's just unwilling to take any sort of valid criticism. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 11:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I've been peripherally aware of this situation for a while; most recently, I had to revdel some personal information off of the article talk page. I feel like we are to the point of either reinstating the indef or at least adding the article talk page to the pblock (the difference will probably be academic in the end). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

At their talk page when asking for an unblock (see here) they gave the impression that they weren't going to further bludgeon discussions about the article, or otherwise expend valuable volunteer time. Looking at the article talk page it seems they've gone back to doing just that, and so I would also recommend either restoring the indef (first choice) or adding the article talk to the partial (second choice). firefly ( t · c ) 12:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd favour the indef, simply because he's likely just going to do the same things if he's hired by a different client. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 12:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Support adding the article talk to the block. This is going nowhere. This person simply refuses to listen. —valereee (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

This is pretty illuminating. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 13:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Good grief. Yeah, that's not okay. Someone needs to just indef this person. I'm involved and after that, Primefac probably doesn't want to block either. —valereee (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Not thrilled at the idea. Two days left in the AFD; if they're not indeffed before then, will they actually attempt to be constructive or just disappear entirely? I feel like an indef to prevent future disruption (which seems to have tailed off now that it's been made explicitly clear that they're not getting what they want) is a bit much, but apparently I've been feeling generous lately. Primefac (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

And yet more bludgeoning/Gish galloping, this time making a WAX claim. As if on cue, the IP from a few days ago has returned, making an identical argument. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 11:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

And they're now claiming harassment, merely because we're responding to and refusing his claims. Enough is enough. Can we get the indef reinstated before this escalates? —A little blue Bori v^_^v 13:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I suspect no one wants to shut this person up at the article talk when they're already blocked at an AfD that can probably be closed in a few hours now. The COI editor has basically said anyone responding to them is harassing them and should stop. Let's take them at their word. It's a time sink. —valereee (talk) 13:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

If they're that willing to pull out the harassment card, what's to stop them from doing this after the AfD is deleted? I don't buy, given his obstinancy, that the end of the AfD will be the end of it. After all, he sounded a defeatist tone yesterday, only to come back today on the warpath. This is likely going to continue until he's blocked or he's driven editors off the project. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 13:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Is is considered gauche

...to beg for an AfD closure? Asking for a friend. —valereee (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Today is the 28th, it is too early - though it looks like a no-brainer.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

And for the time being, I would suggest to stop responding to them.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I've been trying so hard. Every time I try to get out, they pull me back in. :D —valereee (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Qızılbaş, "Armenian terrorrism," and the issue of open ultranationalism

Hello again

User @Qızılbaş:'s user page is rather interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Qızılbaş. It shows nothing but the map of Whole Azerbaijan, a concept that says that all of Armenia and half of Iran is part of "historical" and "ancient" Azerbaijan, even if they are not and have never been inhabited by Turks.

The user then proceeds to call Operation Nemesis, a mission by Armenians to eliminate the perpetrators of the Armenian genocide which killed 1.5 million Armenians (which Azerbaijan denies), terrorism. (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Category:People_assassinated_by_Operation_Nemesis&oldid=1061759765)

Further, Qızılbaş rapidly adds dozens of articles into the category Armenian terrorism (https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Armenian_terrorism) - devoid of absolutely any consensus. (contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Qızılbaş) There exist no categories named Turkish terrorism or German terrorism, even though events falling into the categories obviously exist. In fact, the discussion here (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_10#Category:Turkish_terrorism) declared that ethnic-based terrorism would be biased and problematic as its own category.

What is even worse is that Armenian terrorism is an open state-sanctioned tactic by the Turkish and Azerbaijani governments to label any action of their common neighbor as terrorism and to demonize them. Azeri documents like this (https://www.mfa.gov.az/files/armenian-terrorism.pdf) or this totally not propagandist one (http://www.supremecourt.gov.az/en/static/view/15), proclaiming that "THE ARMENIAN REPUBLIC SUPPORTS TERRORISM", complete with Heydar Aliyev and a 1999-looking "Karabakh is Azerbaijan!" slogan, should say everything.

Qızılbaş is engaging in hyper toxic ultranationalist behavior, adds pages to highly contentious "categorisation" and does so without consensus or sourcing. Pls do something about this.--217.149.166.11 (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oh and btw, look at this discussion from almost 15 years ago establishing Armenian terrorism or any other ethnic-based category for terrorism should not be used on here. (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_15#Category:Armenian_terrorism).--217.149.166.11 (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
• i also share the same worries as the IP user, looking into his contributions, Qızılbaş is rapidly and WP:TENDENTIOUSly populating that biasedly named category, some of added subcategories and article aren't even considered as acts of terrorism and are added on a whim without sources or discussion or consensus. This is premium POV-pushing. - Kevo (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi.

• This map is not political issue for me, this is just map which mainly populated by Azerbaijanis (or Azerbaijani Turks). Also, because I am semi-Iranian, this map is about my personal past. I respect the territorial integrity of Armenia and Iran. I ask you to withdraw this baseless accusation.

• It is the job of the state to deny or accept genocide, and the state can only speak on its own behalf, not mine.

• So, now I see that any kind of terrorism could not equate with nation or state (actually, this was not my intention, I just made a mistake in the general naming.). Today I did research and learned about this. Before that I do not know Misplaced Pages's consensus about this issue.

• About "Karabakh is Azerbaijan!" slogan - yes, so what do you mean? --Qızılbaş (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Qızılbaş: The map is a bit inflammatory. It doesn't mention population centers, and you don't have any context for it on your page. I agree with the IP user on that point at least. Please, just change it to something more neutral. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 03:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• I dunno, writing from the cheap seats, I am quite sanguine about mass assassination being described as "terrorism," however "justified" you feel it might be -- no doubt just about any terrorist would hotly argue that their depredations were justified. Ravenswing 14:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
• OP blocked for edit warring after AN3 complaint by Edjohnston. Sennecaster (Chat) 14:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

And now explain to me what this had to do with this situation - what is the connection with this user and my ban?--217.149.166.11 (talk) 08:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

OP reblocked by Bbb23 for the same reason. Sennecaster (Chat) 03:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

MJL, I see you, so the map was deleted by me.--Qızılbaş (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Sustained WP:COATRACK behaviour

• Æthereal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Members of the Council on Foreign Relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have grave concerns about Æthereal's editing at the list article Members of the Council on Foreign Relations as pertaining to WP:COATRACK, as first noticed by Lindenfall. This article lists the members of a public policy think tank. starship.paint (exalt) 09:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Before Æthereal got to the article in January 2021, sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was mentioned only twice in the article (because he was a member of this council). After nearly a year of Æthereal's editing, the article had a total of 117 mentions of Epstein in November 2021. . A deeper dive into the article history upon Æthereal's arrival reveals more problems beyond Epstein associations. I have divided the problems into four categories below.

Category 1 - specifically highlighting Epstein associations

• Mario Cuomo (used to attack Andrew Cuomo for associating with Epstein)
• David Rubenstein (used to attack Les Wexner for associating with Epstein)
• Vicky Ward (used to impugn the Queen of England for supposedly associating with Epstein)
• Chelsea Clinton (stressed that Epstein's girlfriend attended Chelsea's wedding)

• When questioned on the talk page regarding the Epstein references, Æthereal's defense is that Epstein was described as an “enthusiastic member” of the CFR in the 19-year-old (i.e., legal) magazine piece that was one of my refs. His connections still figure prominently with many current members. Says Epstein references that other editors are welcome to pare it down, although I would request that you “nuke” strategically, not apocalyptically, please. Unfortunately, I do not think Æthereal realizes the magnitude of the problem here.
  

Category 2 - specifically including irrelevant quotes or references for criticism

• Judith Miller (used to criticize Miller's reporting)
• Janet Napolitano / (used to criticize her management of DHS)
• George Soros (George Sorоs’ right-hand man was accused of BDSM crimes in his sex dungeon)

Category 3 - highlighting family ties and other connections

• Eileen Donahoe / (used to criticize her husband's running of Nike with China, fails to even mention her ambassadorship)
• Edgar Bronfman, Jr. / / (stresses family relations due to family's connection with sex cult NXIVM, plus Epstein)
• Edgar Bronfman Sr (see edit summary, adds sister purely because she supposedly enabled a murderer)

Category 4 - very questionable edit summaries

• considers / this list of think tank members the "Mean Girls Club" / "Naughty Boys Club"?!
• Larry Summers Epstein sidekick Summers sampled sugardaddy’s sweet succor shamelessly.

In my view, these are serious, serious issues worthy of sanction, though I'm not sure what. Would an Epstein topic ban be enough? A BLP topic ban? Or more? That is up to the community to decide. starship.paint (exalt) 09:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• Well, let's start with something more basic; that the whole article needs some work. I just stripped out some redlinks from the long, long list of "notable" names, but the biggest flaw is this: we just don't need the CVs of everyone listed, especially when one can just click on the link if you want to know more about a person. Why do we need to know, in the text of this article, that Priscilla Presley is the former chairwoman of the board of Elvis Presley Enterprises? Why is it important to know here that Brent Scowcroft was the Aspen Strategy Group founding co-chair? Do we need to know, here, that Robert Kagan is husband of Victoria Nuland, brother of Frederick Kagan, son of Donald Kagan? And never mind that of all the things Herbert Hoover did in his life, the important thing this article cites beyond him being POTUS is that he appointed Eugene Meyer as Fed chair 1930–1933? I'll start tackling that now, but for pity's sake, what's the value in all this debris? Ravenswing 13:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

  That's great, Ravenswing, but this is WP:ANI, not the article talk page... I think we're probably here to discuss the editors' behavior and whether or not sanctions are required rather than to improve the article in this specific venue. AlexEng 20:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

  One might consider it context to know that the entire article is a mess, and that one editor putting in Epstein comments -- which, after it was mentioned on the talk page, have been both stripped out and not readded -- does not appear to have been a full-on edit war worthy of ANI's attention. But, of course, you do you. Ravenswing 04:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Ravenswing: - does it need to be an edit war to warrant ANI attention? These additions are already beyond the pale. This editor used an list entry for Mario Cuomo to attack his son Andrew Cuomo for associating with Jeffrey Epstein. Are we going to excuse this without even a warning? starship.paint (exalt) 05:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

  An admonishment is appropriate, the more so in that he's pushed this anti-Epstein fluff into other articles . But we're also not talking a drastic situation. Æthereal is not edit warring to add this edits back in. He is not being uncivil in the exchanges. He's not posting unsourced lies. Obviously he needs to stop treating list articles as biographies -- something he does do a lot -- but I'd recommend slowing your roll. Why does this bother you so intensely? Ravenswing 13:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

  He's done far more than treating list articles as biographies. He's weaponized our list article into attacks on living people, even if these people are not members of the list themselves. Eileen Donahoe's entry, which failed to describe her actual profession, was turned into an attack on her husband John Donahoe / . How is this acceptable? starship.paint (exalt) 14:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

  ... that's what you call an "attack?" The worst example you could throw up was a public statement quoted in a BBC article? It's certainly unnecessary, and it's certainly superfluous, but Æthereal Delenda Est!! and rhetoric like "weaponizing" a list is over the top. This is the hill you want to die on? Ravenswing 14:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

  The superflous information came about from either incompetence (WP:CIR) or malice/some misguided sense of justice (WP:NOTHERE) or both. That disturbs me, but it clearly doesn’t disturb you, or it hasn’t occurred to you. The encyclopaedia needs to be protected from both. starship.paint (exalt) 15:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

  I will rephrase this as simply as I can, and please feel free to ask if any of this is unclear: yes, these are problematic edits. Yes, they should not have been made. Yes, Æthereal should make no more of them. Yes, Æthereal should be warned against doing so. (Hey, that's already happened, and they even promised not to do so.) Yes, these problematic edits should be reverted. (Whaddyaknow, I've been in the process of doing so.) And yes, I've already said all of that above, and I'm rather at a loss as to how you could have ignored my prior comments.

  Got all that? Hope so. But no, I do not go from any of that to suggest that Æthereal should be defenestrated, burned at the stake, community banned, or whatever else extreme measures that one can infer you desire. Æthereal has a clean block log, there's only one other warning in their talk page history, and they've been steadily editing since March without hitherto running into significant protest. This is not -- yet -- a situation where shrill and strident calls to man the ramparts are at all called for or necessary. It is not that I don't comprehend what you are saying. It's that I don't agree with your conclusions. Ravenswing 09:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Ravenswing, where exactly did Æthereal "promise" to stop making these kinds of sly coatrack "defamation by impiclation" edits? I couldn't find that comment. Jayjg 22:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• I very much support the remarks made here by Starship.paint. "Beyond the pale" was my exact reaction at first encountering this bulging coatrack, quite beyond any I'd previously seen. I saw an extensively woven pointed point-of-view agenda at every turn, so turned to Administrators for input, seeing that this is no one-off, nor an off-week, unfortunately. This editor's actions would seem to now require on-going scrutiny, were they allowed to proceed on Misplaced Pages. I expect that sanctions would be called for, and await the wisdom of experienced Administrators to see to that. Lindenfall (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
• It's clear that Æthereal should be indefinitely topic banned from editing any article with mentions of Epstein or his associates. Is something more needed? An indefinite WP:BLP topic ban? Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• It's not only surprisingly pervasive Epstein; here is a similar treatment of a different subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Barnard_College_people&diff=1057955321&oldid=1057954419 Lindenfall (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• This pattern of edits is not reflective of someone here to build an encyclopedia. Sennalen (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• They've been unusually clever about how they went about it, but WP:NOTHERE. There were a series edits (key points 1 2 3) made to The Washington Post article that linked news coverage of the 9/11 attacks to a 1980 journalist scandal. There's plenty of other bad edits like this and this as well. --RaiderAspect (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 1: indefinite BLP topic ban (Æthereal)

In light of the additional evidence presented above by Ravenswing, RaiderAspect and Lindenfall, that this disruption is prevalent over multiple lists/articles and multiple topics involving living people including Black Lives Matter , Washington Post and its Pulitzer prizes , Communism and China , I propose an indefinite BLP topic ban for Æthereal. This will leave them the opportunity to edit in historical/non-human topics in the meantime to demonstrate that they are indeed HERE to build an encyclopedia, and with six months of this maybe they can appeal the topic ban to lift this. However if they instead continue to disrupt in other topics, then we can proceed with further sanctions. starship.paint (exalt) 07:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ravenswing, RaiderAspect, Lindenfall, Sennalen, and Johnuniq: - notifying commenters above. starship.paint (exalt) 07:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support Coatracking muck (similar to WP:ADAM) is the wrong approach to developing BLP articles. I looked to see when Æthereal last edited their talk. It was in 25 February 2019 in response to a complaint regarding this edit which used a reference that failed to verify the claim. Johnuniq (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring at East Frisians, etc.

• East Frisians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• West Frisians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• English people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Alssa1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 50.100.221.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, can someone take a look East Frisians and West Frisians where there appears to be the makings of an edit war between User:Alssa1 and 50.100.221.36. This is a known controversial topic which I have tried to resolve by starting a wider discussion at Talk:English_people#Germanic_and_Frisian_links and in which User:Alssa1 has already participated, so I'm not sure where to go with this. Bermicourt (talk) 17:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC) Ah, English people appears to be another long-running battleground between User:Alssa1 and other editors. Can someone signpost the way ahead and explain which edit revision we should go back to while the discussion is taking place? Bermicourt (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a little bit unreasonable to call it a battleground don't you think? And in relation to the editor in question, I reverted and left a message on their talkpage, as is the normal method of dealing with editing disputes. Alssa1 (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's fair; perhaps "dispute" might have been better. But there have been numerous occasions when essentially the same text has been added and reverted. I'm not judging who's right and, indeed, I note that several of the involved editors have not registered usernames so could be the same person/people. Either way, the debate should be happening on the talk page with the aim of reaching a consensus, and not in article space. Bermicourt (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The way you've phrased this report suggests that I've engaged in an edit war, which I don't think is fair. I've engaged at length with every discussion on the topic, and when User:50.100.221.36 reinserted his content, I put a warning on his page reminding him of the need to follow the BRD policy. Alssa1 (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

The IP is now edit-warring at Australo-Melanesian - Arjayay (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

The IP has now been blocked. Alssa1 (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

As we speak the reversions and re-versions between Alssa1 and others continue unabated at East Frisians, so the problem is far from resolved. At the very least, involved editors should not be making edits on this topic while the issue is being addressed here. Bermicourt (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: Since you have linked me to this thread on my talk page: I have started a discussion in Talk:East Frisians and hope it can be solved there without having to resort to high-level escalation. I don't think that User:Alssa1 and I are in major disagreement about content, quite unlike the disruptive IP whose POV is at odds with modern scholarship. –Austronesier (talk) 12:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: You raised this in regards to an edit-war by a now blocked IP. Given the fact that the Admins have blocked the offending party, does this not mean the issue is resolved? Alssa1 (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, if edit-warring continues I will block other parties as well. Please try to resolve the issues at the talk pages and not by reverting each other.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Alssa1: No, that was just the latest skirmish at the time (skirmish = multiple reversions failing WP:BRD but maybe falling short of the 'edit war' definition). There is a history of such skirmishing centring on the topic of whether English peoples are related to Germanic peoples and Frisians. Other editors involved include User:Mutt Lunker, User:Sterling99, User:Franklin Benjamin 123, User:TheRealVinny24, 2603:7080:9301:A7D:8871:589E:7BFF:9FD3 and 2605:A601:A900:F700:E117:7BD3:3404:3B8D. I don't have a view either way and have tried to resolve this reversion battle by starting a debate at the link above; but editors are ignoring the discussion and continuing to fight it out on the article page(s). Bermicourt (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Since I've been mentioned I'd say that my involvement in this current dispute is peripheral at best and largely consists of reversions of dubious, POVy, unsourced or ill-sourced edits at English people, various in nature and not just on the specific matters under discussion here. As far as I remember, these have largely been by IPs, new or newish users. It so happens that Alssa1 and I have contested some content at the English people article some months ago but, not to advocate their current edits or otherwise, I do not believe I have been in dispute with them recently. The disruptive editing that I have been dealing with has been from other parties. I am not au fait with Alssa1's editing at the other articles under discussion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

CreecregofLife

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

I am a new user from America and by the time I posting this, I wishes to lodge a report to this user after seeing both his talk page and a few of other talk pages that relate to his edits, I suspect that the edits were not just WP:TPE and disruptive (the talk page speaks for itself, it was clearly evident; that user had poor attitude), but also giving plenty of excuses, edit warring and when the user undo many of the edits that other editors had done. I am only a new editor and I am not aware on this incident until one user from the game show forums informed me about this (and also suspected trolling due to removing an actual information). One of the topics saw on the talk page told that he was an experienced editor but I suspect it was a Freudian excuse because he only joined one month ago, and I also suspecting a sockpuppet for the IP address, 141.157.254.24, due to similar editing patterns.

This report should have clearly all the evidence that I be lodging for. Talk pages, backlog, and everything. Clearly need a punishment or lesson to mete. Thank you. JoanHeart (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I don’t understand what the crime is. I’m not a sock puppet. Aren’t users encouraged to make accounts on this website? So that they can have all the benefits of being registered? Why is this user trying to punish me when I’ve not done anything worth severe sanctions?--CreecregofLife (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the OP as a  Confirmed sock of TVSGuy.-- Jezebel's Ponyo 01:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Assistance requested with cross-wiki vandal

I recently took administrative action on Wikidata to deal with a problem user. Their precise agenda is unclear, but it seems to involve revealing The Truth about cosmology. Their response to my action is apparently to follow me to other projects and dispute my content changes. They also appear to be users of certain BADSITES. To avoid involvement, I'd appreciate some assistance.

• Hispar Valley
• 197.41.245.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 156.195.214.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• d:Topic:Wmxzmkqfn8z86giq
• Logs for Talk:Q59151
• d:Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Talk:Q59151

Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• I blocked the two IPs for a week. Let me know if there are further problems here. Johnuniq (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Johnuniq: IP 115.135.27.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has now reverted the changes at Hispar Valley – likely the same user. The editors reverting this user on Wikidata had identified the user as WP:LTA/GRP. –FlyingAce 05:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, I reverted them and blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, it is indeed GRP. I've been dealing with his drivel for a few months now, and the behaviour is characteristic of him. As his local IPs all seem to be blocked for the long term, he now uses a proxy service to vandalise Misplaced Pages. I'd suggest that any administrator who comes across GRP's disruption should hardblock the IP with talk page access revoked as the banned LTA has posted abusive content on talk pages. Additionally, I also recommend a revdel of all edits and edit summaries containing links to other websites; GRP often links to various blacklisted attack/hoax sites containing unsavoury material. There's a whole lot of WP:BEANS here too that I cannot discus onwiki, but will be willing to do so in a more private location, such as email. Thanks! JavaHurricane 18:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Uncivil editor

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

The editor User:Hammersoft has repeatedly been abusive and uncivil in discussions on Peace Cross talk page. We disagree about some things (see below), but that's not the problem. Because we disagreed, I attempted, multiple times, to try to understand their viewpoint. I echoed back paraphrased versions of what they said and asked if I was correct. No response. I asked clarifying questions. No response. Instead, their wrote as if I'm an idiot for not agreeing. This is, by definition, uncivil. They accused me of trying to "force" something into the article, and threatened to "push back" on me if I made any assumptions on their failure to respond to my questions, and to have me blocked. I think that Hammersoft should be appropriately sanctioned for this behavior.

I don't like filing this, but I am doing so at Hammersoft's suggestion. (I'm guessing they thought I wouldn't.)

Example: One point of contention is a citation to the media site pantheos.com, which is cited in 425+ articles on Misplaced Pages. They claim that the site is a blog and that it is not appropriate to cite it on Misplaced Pages. I asked what they knew that the editors of the 425+ other pages that cite it don't. This is not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. It's a serious question. No response, of course. If Pantheos was cited on one other page, or a dozen, it might be reasonable to say "all those citations are wrong — Pantheos is a blog which should never be cited". But it's not one or a dozen. It's more than four hundred! Is Pantheos ok? Or not? Or is it only ok to cite Christian information from Pantheos and not any section which reports on a religion like The Satanic Temple?

Honestly, I don't know why Hammersoft feels so strongly that this bit of information which is directly tied to a significant Supreme Court case shouldn't be in the article. They may have valid arguments, but it is hard to tell when they refuse to actually discuss the topic and their position is that the information cannot possibly belong in the article, no matter what. (Note: I moved it from the first paragraph to later in the article; I made sure it was presented as NPOV, etc. No change has satisfied them.)

RoyLeban (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

As I've made a comment on the discussion, I think this is more RoyLeban not understanding the sourcing and undue weight problems behind trying to push the name that one group wants to call the Peace Cross (in response to the SCOTUS decision that the Cross had secular and not religious purposes). Hammersoft has been trying to explain the problems with trying to include what one group wants to name the cross as calmly as Hammersoft can, and this use doesn't seem to understand these points. Certainly nothing that I would call uncivil. --Masem (t) 04:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

ANI isn't really the place for content issues, you really should be seeking help elsewhere like WP:RSN. But since you're here, you should take a read of WP:PATHEOS. Patheos which I assume is what you mean by Pantheos, should indeed not generally be cited as a source. As a WP:SPS there may be limited cases where it's acceptable when the specific blog you're referring to is by a subject matter but these cases would be rare. Hammersoft is correct that what matters most is our policies and guidelines and while the are meant to be descriptive and not prescriptive, it's still the case that it's perfectly reasonable that even 1000 articles may be just wrong so concentrate on understanding our policies and guidelines and how they're applied rather than just assuming "400 articles do this so it must be fine". Nil Einne (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I've been editing Misplaced Pages since the beginning (originally under an anonymous account, abandoned 12 years ago). I understand the rules very well and I am not anonymous because I believe that anonymity is one of the very worst things about Misplaced Pages. If Hammersoft had actually been trying to explain what they (and you) think I don't understand (and you're wrong), they would have answered my repeated questions. They haven't. That's not civil and not reasonable. If treating me as if I'm stupid and refusing to explain themselves or answer questions is as calm as Hammersoft can be, they need to work a lot harder.

In response to Hammersoft's argument, there are millions of pieces of information on Misplaced Pages with a single source. There are hundreds of citations to Pantheos. So neither of the arguments that (a) more sources are needed and (b) Pantheos is unacceptable hold water. If Hammersoft is aware of some special reason that Pantheos is acceptable elsewhere and not here, they are free to explain. Believe me, I've asked for such an explanation without getting a response. Lacking a response, my conclusion is that they are incorrect.

I'm not trying to "push" the name. It is obvious that The Satanic Temple, by themselves, can't change the name. But the fact that they held a ceremony to rename the monument after the SCOTUS decision (they say encouraged by the SCOTUS decision) which was written about on Pantheos is notable. I think it would be notable without the article, but Misplaced Pages needs secondary sources. Hammersoft has a different opinion. Neither is a fact and I don't need to be educated about anything. Maybe I erred with calling it a "naming controversy". I have no problem removing that, but that doesn't affect notability, and Hammersoft's opinion carries no more weight than mine.

Finally, this is not about the article edits. It's about Hammersoft's treatment of me. Even if it was the case that I needed education (and I clearly don't), their treatment of me is not acceptable. And, yes, it interferes with reasonable editing. RoyLeban (talk) 10:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to address the content issue as it is out of scope to this board, except to say that I have repeatedly asked for the use of reliable, secondary sources to support the claim. I have never and never would insist something not be included "no matter what". To my supposedly uncivil behavior; I never said that RoyLeban was an idiot, nor did I make any attempt to insinuate such in anything I've said. RoyLeban is quite correct that I noted I would request they be blocked, but fails to mention that I did so in response to their personal attacks that " act as if opinion matters more" and that " not being Reasonable". My response to this was "If you persist in personally attacking me you will find yourself reported for it with a recommendation you be blocked." I stand by that statement. If that constitutes a threat, an unvinvolved administrator is welcome to block me for it, as I fully intend to continue behaving in this manner in the future. I do not tolerate and will not tolerate personal attacks, as supported by the Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks policy. If there's something I'm misinterpreting about that policy, then I'm all ears. I didn't guess RoyLeban wouldn't make a report to WP:AN/I. I told them the appropriate course of action as I noted with " As to my supposed threats; if you believe that informing you of your blatant violations of the no personal attacks policy and my intentions as to what to do if it continues constitutes a personal attack, please by all means feel free to report me to WP:AN/I." As to the supposed threat of my intention to "push back"; RoyLeban again fails to provide context. I've no problem with whatever assumptions they care to make regarding my supposed lack of response. The problem I have, as I noted on the talk page of the article, is if they would act on those assumptions. WP:NOTSILENCE applies, and I would act...within policy...to prevent the inclusion of inappropriately sourced content. Finally, RoyLeban is correct in stating " opinion carries no more weight than ". To that end, I recommended they commence a request for comment. If RoyLeban believes they can convince the community that using primary sources and a blog proves notability, they are welcome to lay out such an argument in an RFC. I will respond to such an RFC and note (for the SIXTH time) that we need reliable, secondary sourcing to support it. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@RoyLeban:, where you say: ...this is not about the article edits. It's about Hammersoft's treatment of me if you think you've been treated so poorly, why have you not included a single diff of an objectionable statement? There's a huge bright yellow notice that says: Also, please provide links and diffs here to involved pages and editors at the top of the edit page, something an editor as experienced as yourself surely should have noticed. I have asked this question because I went to that talk page and read the entire discussion and in the entire 5 months that this discussion covers, not once do I see anything uncivil in any of Hammersoft's posts. They have been emphatic, they have refused to accept your sources. they have (quite rightly, IMO) characterized the sources offered as weak or unreliable, they have rejected your arguments as false, and they have noted your intransigence. None of that is uncivil. From WP:CIVIL: ...focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates. I see no reason to state that this is not exactly what Hammersoft has done. You appear frustrated that your POV is not being accepted. This is a content issue and not a behavioral issue. That's what WP:DR is for. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I note that Hammersoft said, "I never said that RoyLeban was an idiot, nor did I make any attempt to insinuate such in anything I've said." I can only admire the restraint shown. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I endorse Eggishorn's assessment of the situation. RoyLeban is treading on thin ice. This whole thing is a non-notable publicity stunt by a guerilla theatre group. Cullen328 (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Bmichigan7 and links to a snowboarding site

Bmichigan7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• infinitedegrees.xyz: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

The user has made 42 edits, most of them in the articles, and all edits in the articles (as far as I can see, without a single exception) add a link to . The site only hosts videos. The edits are of two types: (i) adding this site to external links section example, and adding a sentence or two in the articles about snowboarders that they are capable of making certain tricks, with references to the videos on the site example. To me it looks like at best promotion of an obscure site, and videos as references are certainly not acceptable as they are primary sources. I reverted some of the edits, the user reverted my reverts and went to my talk page. We did not reach any understanding. They claim that the links to the site are treally needed, and video as references are perfectly fine in Misplaced Pages, and that they are not even primary sources. They were not interested in my suggestion to bring the matter to WP:RSN, and on their talk page, they were warned by Chris troutman but again denied that mass link addition to an obscure site is spam. The user says they are not affiliated with the site. Therefore we are here, please have a look. May be I am wrong and this is the most reliable site about the snowboarding in the world, but to me it still looks like spam.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• The site only opened on November 18 (per their Twitter account) and it appears to host videos that are from the official TV coverage of sports (such as X-Games and the Olympics and, therefore, copyright violations). As such, I would remove all of the links anyway. Black Kite (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, just spam to promote the site. I've removed all the links and added citation needed tags where it was being used to source information, which if it's notable should have plenty of coverage in reliable sources. Black Kite (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, let us see what happens next.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• See also MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#Request_to_whitelist_page_on_infinitedegrees.xyz. Pinging Beetstra. Black Kite (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Meh, my WP:AGF goes down the drain here. User:Bmichigan7, having a site that contains good data that may even be allowed per WP:ELYES (ELYES, not ELOBLIGATORYTOADD) is not a carte blanche to WP:SPAM it to every article where it fits. Consider this a final warning. --Dirk Beetstra 12:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Even if the site is full of "good data" it's also full of copyvio videos (as mentioned above) and of copying and pasting from wikipedia, see for example this earwig report . Given that:

• The whitelisting appears to have been requested in bad faith:
• The whitelisting has been abused to spam
• The site is full of copyvios taken from other sites around the web
• The site does not appear to be a reliable source

My inclination would be to remove the whitelisting and allow editors in good standing to request whitelisting of specific articles, if they think they satisfy requirements as a source or external link and they are sure that they do not contain copyvios. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

If the site is full of copyvio material, then the request was not only in bad faith, but it is also at odds with the statement of Bmichigan7, claiming that "Infinite Degrees claims ownership of all video that is being hosted on the site along with the data that is with it (this includes trick names and details, competition names, and athlete names)" (MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#Request_to_whitelist_page_on_infinitedegrees.xyz). I'd like to hear from User:Bmichigan7 regarding these assertions, and unless they get answered I will indeed reconsider the whitelisting (I am not too worried about the 'not appear to be a reliable source', that is not really a concern on external links and reliability is also depending on how it is used; the TLD .xyz was blacklisted under blanket, so we treat specific requests with a rich sauce of good faith). -- Dirk Beetstra 14:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I caution against making the mistake of AGF'ing. Even if Bmichigan7 is a misguided person writing about their fandom, all of their edits have violated guidelines and policies. You don't have to believe they were involved in promotional editing to accept that they are not a useful contributor and should be blocked for abusive editing. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The account's editing behaviour certainly makes this appear to be a concerted attempt to promote a new web site by spamming it into the references and external links to various articles. I arrived here via Talk:Mark McMorris where the editor was petitioning to have the site added afer their addition of the site was reverted. At the time I looked at the site yesterday, the site was registration free. Today, it requires registration to view the contents. As such it is violates WP:ELNO on account of the registration, and the links being added were for search results in the site. So what we have is an editor pushing for the addition of an new, unstable site which hosts potential copyright violations. That is not the behaviour of somebody here to improve the encyclopedia. -- Whpq (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Problems with an editor removing placeholder categories

Hi all - I'm having a great deal of difficulty with User:WilliamJE. I am currently involved in an extremely heavy-going scheme, categorising sportspeople by city. 11,000 edits so far on sports players, an estimated 3,200 to go, and then I start on coaches. As I need a way to tag the coaches until the categories are made, I am leaving the "Sportspeople from Foo" category temporarily in place after adding a specific sports category, in the knowledge that I can use it to tag coaches from the same city later. Despite a thorough explanation of what I'm doing and why I'm doing it the way I am (and tacit approval from several sports WikiProjects), and several pleas from me to stop doing so, WilliamJE has continually removed these placeholders, disrupting the process. Admittedly, he has also corrected a few mistakes I have made (and I have accidentally undomne a coupe of edits of his that I shouldn't have, and reverted my goofs), but his efforts are doing nothing but slow the categorising process down and make considerably more work for the both of is. Is there any way of stopping him from doing this? Grutness...wha? 11:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

This editor has heavily overcategorized Sportspeople category by city. Hunderds of Sports athletes are in both their sport and Sportspeople from Foo. I'm not the only editor who has reverted these edits, see here, here, and here. Grutness edits. Pinging- @Rikster2:, @Jweiss11:, and @Ɱ:....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Erm, yes, I do edit. And as I've explained to you and to others, I leave those categories there as a temporary measure. I've also gained a lot of support from editors who aren't reverting, from various sport WikiProjects, from at least one other admin, and from others who have reverted those category removals. As I have repeatedly said, leaving those categories there saves an enormous amount of time, causes no disruption, and is only a temporary problems for you and one or two other people (and not, it seems, for many others). If you could leave those categories in place and bear with me, then the problem will disappear soon enough (as I pointed out, I have almost completed the sports player part of the process - 12 cities out of around 150 still to go). If you remove them, it will end up with massive undercategorisation of sports coaches, sports officials, sports administrators, and sports journalists. Grutness...wha? 12:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Grutness, could you please explain why you've added Bill Hosket Sr. to Category:Sportspeople from Dayton, Ohio when the article is already in Category:Basketball players from Dayton, Ohio, a sub category of the former? WP:CATDD seems to apply, or am I missing something? Is this typical of the categorizations you've been making? --Hammersoft (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

As I said above, it's a placeholder. If a person is simply a player of a sport, then I remove the sportsperson general category - that accounts for probably 80-85% of cases. It's only if they would fall into more than one category that the general category is being left.Hosket was also a basketball coach, and once the player categories are complete (estimate a week and a half), I will start on the coach categories. Since I'm using the basic "Sportsperson from Foo" categories to locate coaches and other officials, I've left them in the main category there as a temporary maker. Once the players are done, those temporary markers will start to rapidly disappear as coach, executive, official, and jornalist categories appear. I tried doing them simultaneously with the player categories, but it became a considerably slower process (Category:Sportspeople from Minneapolis is an example of one that I tried doing simultaneously). Grutness...wha? 12:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

If the person is in one of the sub-categories then they don't need to be in the parent category any more per WP:SUBCAT. The categories exist to help readers, not editors. I am not going to fight over these edits, but neither was I wrong to delete the "sportspeople" category from Hosket. Rikster2 (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Categories are frequently left as temporary measures to help editors. I'm just doing what other editors have done in the past, albeit on a far larger scheme. And, as pointed out, if you wait a short time, the categories will soon disappear, so what's the harm? Overall, the number of categories on these sportsperson articles is reducing significantly due to my work - have a look at all the minus signs on my contrib page. Grutness...wha? 13:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no guideline suggesting this must or even should happen. Who actually knows if anyone will really go back and create whatever sub-category might be "missing" In this particular case (Hosket), the person is also in the parent category "Basketball coaches from Ohio." You could just as easily work the state categories, but again, the categories don't exist for editors, they exist for readers and having redundant categories just makes the reader hunt for the relevant ones. I create and edit athletes by college categories (example Category:Indiana Hoosiers men's basketball players) and I work from the alumni categories all the time, which is exactly the same thing. Rikster2 (talk) 13:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

"tacit approval from several sports WikiProjects"? 11,000 edits to restructure categorization is a lot of edits to be making with "tacit" approval. I'm not saying the edits are wrong, but with the sheer scale of it I have concerns. I don't doubt your good intentions. Truly, I don't. The problem here is that there is no guarantee you will be able to complete this work, and we will be left with thousands of edits that will need to be corrected/undone. I don't doubt your good word that you intend on completing them. But, you have no way of foretelling the future. Perhaps there is another way to handle this? I think you should suspend doing these edits until this discussion concludes. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

There's no guarantee of anything in life. But when you consider that there are only 12 cities left to be done for the US out of the 160-odd which have over 100 sportsperson articles (an arbitrary limit, I'll admit, but it wouldn't make much sense to divide up very small ones), and given my OCD when it comes to such things, I'd lay you good odds that I will - if I don't get lots of work undone by the likes of WilliamJE. I'd point out that I singlehandedly divided up geography stubs relating to Antarctica a couple of years ago - a project that involved about 16,000 edits. And that was singlehanded, whereas other edits have jumped on board the current work, albeit in a small way - I've noticed so far about 45 editors who have been adding articles to the categories in the same way. As for temporarily suspending the scheme, (1) you clearly don't have OCD. If I stop, I'll almost certainly not go back to it and you will then definitely have a lot of edits to clear up; and (2) given that I am so close to finishing it, and that once I have, the "overcategorisation" will disappear, surely halting now will simply leave it longer before those categories are removed. Grutness...wha? 14:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

FWIW< I'm part way through the Fort Lauderdale category. That will only leave Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Omaha, Rochester, Toledo, Fort Worth, Las Vegas, Madison, Mobile, Fresno, and Little Rock. None of those has over 250 articles; all have over 150. Some of the categories that I have done had over 1000 articles; Chicago had nearly 2000. Given that I'm currently doing close to two complete categories per day, the chances of me finishing are about as certain as you can get in life. Grutness...wha? 14:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Grutness, let me be blunt and direct; do not continue making these edits until this discussion concludes. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Hammersoft that Grutness should stop these edits till this discussion is over with....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

For Everyone's information There is a parallel discussion to this taking place on Grutness talk page....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Did Grutness make a untrue statement above? They wrote- '"tacit approval from several sports WikiProjects"? 11,000 edits to restructure categorization is a lot of edits to be making with "tacit" approval. I write- 'What tacit approval?' They have done these overcategorizing edits to Golfers, NFL football players, and Baseball for three such examples. But he has not come once to any of those WikiProject's talk pages. I know because I am both a participant at all three and I checked for past edits by Grutness there. There aren't any, plus I checked WP:Categorization's talk page. They haven't ever edited there either in the last 13 years. There is the Coolege football WP discussion but Grutness never said how they were going to categorize college football players who were also coaches. Silence to something not even mentioned isn't tacit approval IMHO....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm comfortable with calling that assertion bullshit. His last 500 edits to Misplaced Pages talk pages goes back a full 12 years (which isn't all that much communication for an admin with as many edits as all of that, IMHO). His only discussion with sports projects in that time for any purpose was a perfunctory conversation on the College Football project's talk page in which it would be tough to derive any approval, tacit or otherwise, from the several editors who didn't think it a very good idea. Ravenswing 16:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Have you included the times WikiProject members contacted me, both on Misplaced Pages and via email in that? Because if not, you're hardly in a position to call bullshit. Grutness...wha? 00:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The bullshit here is all yours. You twice made false claims about a WikiProject consensus. Considering that and your attitude above, why should we assume GF now? Maybe it is time to propose a ban from categorizing sports athlete pages for you....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Seriously? The consensus of a WikiProject is done by the project, and pretty much invariably through the project's talk page. You can't possibly imagine that we'd credit purported e-mail in that, nor do I see anything on your own talk page suggesting that an entire project's membership en masse descended upon it. But sure, feel free to provide the diffs showing that you sought such approval from the respective projects, and that they granted it. Ravenswing 03:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

A compromise suggestion. What if I finish the city I'm working on, then go through all the cities I've done doing coach etc categories before continuing. That would remove the placeholders and the work would get done. Would that make everyone happy, or is that asking too much? Grutness...wha? 00:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

You've had multiple editors ask you to stop these edits till this discussion is over. So are you conceding you're in the wrong here?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm making a compromise solution that should keep you happy. I'm simply following normal practice - if it was wrong, then I would have been brought up on it on earlier occasions over the last decade or more. I haven't been, and people up until now have been happy with the results. If you're not happy with a compromise, that's your issue, not mine. Grutness...wha? 03:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Grutness: You say "I need a way to tag the coaches until the categories are made", so why not create the categories as they are needed and add them to the articles as you go through them, instead of doing it piecemeal? As we can see here, this method has caused some users to raise issues. I'd also recommend, for any future project that might affect a hundred pages or more, to explicitly contact all the affected Wikiprojects and ask for the input of their members. As it was pointed out by WiliamJE, it seems you've only contacted one WP, and the discussion could be summed up as "not sure this is the best approach". Isabelle 00:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Isabelle Belato: I tried it with creating them at the same time as the player categories. It took me an entire day to do a third of a category, rather than a couple of hours to do a whole category. Not sure why, but it is a much much slower process. Grutness...wha? 03:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Grutness: the "normal" way of tracking this sort of thing is a list outside of mainspace, or a local database you can use to keep track of it yourself. The article space category system isn't the right tool to be using; you should stop. "It's easier for me this way" isn't adequate reasoning, and the lack of self-awareness to not only fail to realize this yourself but to escalate to ANI over it is concerning. VQuakr (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I am using nine lists outide WP to keep track of changes. Adding similar lists for coaches, managers, executives, officials, and journalists would multiply that by six. It's hard enough juggling nine lists - juggling 54 might be a bit much. Grutness...wha? 03:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, when you (or anyone) is making a large number of changes without an explicit community consensus to make exactly the changes you are making, you should (indeed I'd argue must) stop if someone asks you to do so in good faith. If multiple people in good faith all ask you to stop you do so even if you do have explicit consensus, because it needs to be determined whether your consensus was actually a representative one rather than just a local one. This applies to everyone regardless of what change they are making and why they are making it. If you end up at ANI, have multiple uninvolved administrators asking and then telling you to stop and still refuse, then you really only have yourself to blame if blocks are placed to force you to stop. Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, I have stopped. I suggested a compromise which would enable me to continue work and simultaneously "fix the problem" , but no-one seems to have addressed that. Given that, I've stopped my work entirely. Grutness...wha? 03:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

By the way, since I have stopped, User:WilliamJE has reverted over 25 of my edits. If I stop editing until this is decided, shouldn't he also stop? Or do you think that one party to the discussion should be allowed to continue while the other isn't before a decision is reached? Grutness...wha? 03:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely WilliamJE should stop until this discussion concludes. @WilliamJE: please stop conducting these edits until this discussion concludes. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

My thoughts here...first as for Grutness's claim of "tacit approval", that's not a very strong claim and I don't think we need to litigate whether he lied there. "Tacit approval" just means no one explicitly complained (until now). I've been aware of Grutness's efforts as college football coach bio articles are a focus of my editing. I referenced this effort of his in a neutral (or perhaps even positive) way on December 19 at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject College football on a related question about categories (see ). This sort of thing may be what he means by "tacit approval". As for the editing effort itself, I support Grutness's aim, but agree with others here that his process is sub-optimal. Even if its slower-going, it's better to keep Bill Hosket Sr. out of Category:Sportspeople from Dayton, Ohio if the article has been added to Category:Basketball players from Dayton, Ohio. If he also belongs in Category:Sports coaches from Dayton, Ohio, then that should happen at the same time. Also something to think about here. Imagine Hosket was also a notable badminton player. We are not going to keep him in Category:Sportspeople from Dayton, Ohio until Category:Badminton players from Dayton, Ohio is created, right? Because Category:Badminton players from Dayton, Ohio will probably never have enough relevant articles to warrant that level of categorization? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Grandmaster

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

Grandmaster is engaging in constant Misplaced Pages:Casting aspersions and Misplaced Pages:Edit warring with me and other editors.

Firstly, they have accused me of being a sock puppet on a felt eight occasions - starting with an investigation that did not succeed because he did not have enough evidence, then , , , and many more.

Grandmaster does not contribute to Misplaced Pages in an earnest and benefitial fashion. He leads edit wars on Shusha, Stepanakert, and Lachin and their talk pages. He says that deleting a secondary Azerbaijani name from an Armenian settlement in Azerbaijan is edit warring (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:217.149.166.11_reported_by_User:Grandmaster_(Result:_)), thinks that mentioning a historian's ties to Azerbaijan is irrelevant (https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Armenian–Tatar_massacres_of_1905–1907#Brandmeister_and_Grandmaster), and has tried to paint an assassin as an unbounded terrorist instead of mentioning his motivations (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Harry_Sassounian&action=history; almost 10 edits in only a few days.)

Community action is required. Grandmaster is currently involved in an edit warring investigation himself alongside another editor. He has opened two "investigations" prior to today, all of which resulted in nothing. This is reflective of his faults as an editor and bullying and casting aspersions of me.--217.149.166.11 (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit: I should also mention that according to Grandmaster, knowing what Misplaced Pages rules like "deleting double spaces" are equals sock puppeting! See

his edit warring investigations above.--217.149.166.11 (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks like more information at WP:AN3 where OP has filed as well as other editors concerning same users/articles. Slywriter

(talk) 15:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

OP is now blocked for 2 months for edit warring, but left with this parting taunt indicating they are going to continue hounding Grandmaster. Might this be something for Wikimedia's safety or Legal teams? — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Aidenless

Clearly NOTHERE. Has been messing with the decade pages, making subtle changes against consensus. This mostly consists of changing whether to use year 0 as the first year of a decade or year 1 as the first, and trying to redefine how many years are between 2010 and 2020 (). Then this happens. Typical IP vandalism? Not really, they just logged out, and you can tell, as on User talk:RA0808 there are two identical messages, one by this IP and another 2 minutes later by Aidenless. The real red flag went up though when they removed the two most recent warnings (including the EWLO one) from their user talk, which is not a problem in itself exactly, but with the edit summary as "🐂💩" (correct me if I'm wrong, but I read that as bull + shit) which definitely is a problem if that is what they think of warnings like these. I don't know what anyone else thinks, but this pattern of behaviour so far doesn't bode well for their intentions here. Mako001 (C)  (T)  16:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Advice given re removal of warnings. Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe explain to this user where this consensus is located so they can see it for themselves, rather than saying that there's some policy on the years unable to be seen? Millennia and centuries start on the 1, and I've seen many people who believe that decades also start on the 1. I would presume this issue has been discussed to death somewhere given how controversial yet minor it is. So maybe assume some good faith here? The guy was level 2'd immediately for "introducing factual errors" then gets another notice he's a sock puppeteer for accidentally editing while logged out. Even if they openly said the warnings were "bullshit" that is something I wouldn't really be in favour of blocking for at this stage. Based on the history of their user page & Talk:2020s I'm going to assume they're just immature and needs to work on their reading/writing skills. I don't see why a block or ban is really needed, given that's what ANI is for discussing. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Chess Understood, I may have been a bit bitey there. I wouldn't really have bothered warning them about ewlo if the edit wasn't itself problematic. I've been pulled up for that before. Thanks for the advice. Mako001 (C)  (T)  07:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@The Alternate Mako: If you would do that then we can close this without needing to take any further action. Aidenless, please take the time to familiarise yourself with WP:CONSENSUS. Mjroots (talk) 10:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I presume you mean find the previous place where consensus was established? Would it be worthwhile putting something on the talk pages of some other decade pages to link back to the prior consensus? Mako001 (C)  (T)  11:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@The Alternate Mako: yes, that's if. If you can't find it, then it might be a good idea to thrash the issue out via a WP:RFC at WT:YEARS. Mjroots (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: User:The Alternate Mako/The decade problem How's this? Basically tried to collect every discussion I could find, and give some idea of what all of it seems to have amounted to. This was quite a fun little rabbit hole to go diving down. Even if they have turned out to be nothere anyway. Mako001 (C)  (T)  14:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• Note that Aidenless just attempted to blank this discussion. — Czello 13:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• And again _wjemather 13:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I blocked Aidenless for 31 hours for general disruptive editing. That is including section blanking of this ANI report in addition to WP:IDHT. If any administrator thinks the block length is too short, feel free to change it. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Non-admin here, given that he has once again removed the block notice (again, not against the rules but does send a certain message), along with a disruptive edit summary (and that's even before you get to this edit summary which I take to be anti-LGBT), I have to say I don't think a temporary block is going to have the intended outcome. He's clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and should be indeff'd. — Czello 14:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear. That went bad quickly. Mako001 (C)  (T)  14:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk page editing privileges revoked. There may be a faint hope of avoiding an indef. Let's see what pans out. Mjroots (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

IMHO give them like two years. I doubt they're the age they claim to be on their user page. Let them become an older editor and then see what happens. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 16:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Mjroots: To clarify: blocked editors can remove active block notices, contrary to your suggestion. It is only declined unblock requests they cannot remove: see WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK. ——Serial 15:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

  I've struck the incorrect statement and added an explanation at Aidenless's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 06:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Protection194799

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

Protection194799 (contributions) has three times repeated a personal attack on me:

1. 15:48, 27 December 2021
2. 16:01 27 December 2021
3. 16:05, 27 December 2021 as an edit summary.

Protection194799's 15:48 post was reverted by Venkat TL at 15:55, who explained in the edit summary "Personal attack towards another editor (WP:NPA)". Venkat TL also placed a warning on User talk:Protection194799 at 15:55. -- Toddy1 (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Indianews2122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Protection194799 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Indianews2122 was blocked by @Bbb23 on 7 Nov. Protection194799 was registered a week later. Both have same editing interest. I am smelling sweaty feet. Bbb23, where should I file an SPI report? I have already removed it once and I do not want to be seen as engaging in an edit war with this user, but someone should remove his disparaging comments from the talk page. Venkat TL (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Now back as an IP user Venkat TL (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked Protection194799 per WP:DUCK. Even if not for that, I would have blocked them for violating WP:NPA, despite a warning. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments and veiled threats by editor (who wrote an autobiography that got deleted)

An editor whose autobiography was nominated for deletion has decided to "pick" on me after I relisted (seriouly, all I did was relist a AfD discussion) the related AfD discussion. You can find the information here. I have dealt with harassment for years on and off wiki, and I'm really confused as to why this specific subject would attack me (because I used the word "cruft" when relisting the AfD and they clearly were very offended), when I wasn't even the admin that closed the deletion discussion. Regardless, you'll see in the link I provided that they are now trolling me on Facebook, c'est la vie. But, just hoping another admin can take a look at their account and at least ensure they don't do anything further on Misplaced Pages. I wish there was more I could do about Facebook, but, that's life, I guess. Thank you. Also, I did not tag the offending editor in this post because I'm worried they will up their attack on me. Thanks. Missvain (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry that you have to go through this. I am unsure what is the best way to proced, but I will remove and revision-delete the link now, and also ping @Spartaz:--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Ymblanter. Not much we probably can do, but, just wanted folks to know what's going on. I appreciate your effort! Missvain (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The user has been blocked indef by Cullen328 which is probably the best solution.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I've had the same problem happen to me at least a few times, and you did the appropriate thing here, Missvain. It's always horrible when someone takes their edits or an article's presence or deletion way too seriously to the point of off-wiki attacks, and I feel for any editor who has to deal with this garbage. All I can say is that I hope they do no more, and if you need any help you can come to me, and I'm sure a few other editors will have your back too. Nate • (chatter) 11:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

+1. Ravenswing 12:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Ravenswing and Nate - Thank you. Missvain (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposed COVID topic ban for User:Adoring nanny

• User:Adoring nanny (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Diff of sanctions notification:
• Diff of final warning:

Taken as a whole, this editor's contributions indicate a pattern of tendentious editing. Most egregiously:

• They have created User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely and China COVID-19 cover-up allegations (at the somehow more POV-titled "China COVID-19 Cover-up").
• Most recently they frivolously removed , doubled and tripled down when challenged after their final warning, and continued to 1AM argue the point here and here and here and here.

I think a COVID-19 topic ban is an appropriate remedy. Notified: VQuakr (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

It's a different point. I encourage the community to participate in the RfC.. I am proposing inserting material supported directly by a WP:BESTSOURCE. The community may want to ask itself which is more WP:TEND -- including this material, or leaving it out, even though we include a parallel reason supporting the same underlying claim. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to expand on the above, I have accepted the community's judgment that Frutos should be included in the article. The question then becomes how to include it. I am not going to repeat the blow-by-blow here. You can read it at the RfC. But the bottom line is, we are including one reason Frutos gives for rejecting LL. Given that, how can it be WP:TEND to include two more, with an 8-word summary? Adoring nanny (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

If you are seeking a topic ban due to DS, shouldn't WP:AE be the correct venue? Isabelle 00:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Isabelle Belato: I'm no expert, but I thought AE was for enforcement of a ban enacted under a DS, not enactment of a ban. VQuakr (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@VQuakr AE is the correct venue for both in topics covered by discretionary sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, you can still request community bans, for which this is the correct venue. But WP:AE guarantees the section won’t be archived without closure, and sectioned discussion prevents excessive derailing, so it’s usually a bit better when you have it as an option. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, RE: guarantee — unless yours truly forgets to double back... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 09:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Pretty much all of the user's edits are righting great wrongs in the COVID-19 topic area, and it's not a secret that "if a person edits Misplaced Pages largely or solely to promote one side of a contentious issue, then the project is almost certainly better off without them". Based on comments like Special:Diff/1056312056, Special:Diff/1032520195, Special:Diff/923340717 and Special:Diff/833001259, I would even support banning them from the English Misplaced Pages in its entirety rather than a single topic area. Kleinpecan (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Their userspace essay is a self-indictment of WP:NOTHERE, as are their comments pointed out in diffs above. I can also add this diff of them removing RS content w/o explanation at Chinese government response to COVID-19. They've violated discretionary sanctions enough and if this does not go through I'd probably open an AE. ––FormalDude 17:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

If one looks at series of edits, the sequence here is: Another user removes four sources and some text. I restore three of them and the text . You restore the fourth. I was trying to be polite by not reverting the full edit by the original user. It was simply more convenient to do the restoration as two edits, rather than one.Adoring nanny (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:UOWN says on a user page "Purely content policies such as original research and neutral point of view generally do not apply unless the material is moved into mainspace." so the critiques based on content or POV are not PAG violations, and WP:NOTHERE + WP:1AM are not even PAGs. One of the article edits was merely a removal of one of several cites, to what Misplaced Pages calls a "news and opinion" site, without change of article text, which FormalDude put back without discussion. Calling the others double-or-triple downing is strong language for what look to me like distinguishable attempts to change wording, and there was some possibly biased language to change, e.g. replacing "pointed out" with "said" is specifically required by WP:SAID. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support. This user has a history very supportive of tendentious editing. Point by point:

For all the reasons above, I would assert that Adoring nanny has a history of WP:TE in the COVID-space in particular (and some bleeding into American politics) and for this reason should be TBAN'd from COVID-19, broadly construed. If their disruption in American politics continues, it may be a good idea to TBAN that as well. But, for a while, that disruption has been pretty quiet. No need to TBAN when the disruption is not ongoing, and if the user acknowledges that they should not remove well-sourced content or otherwise violate discretionary sanctions. — Shibbolethink 21:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

My goodness, you certainly have more time to throw things at me than I do to refute them, so I'll pick just one. Is the content I removed at this edit , which you cite, currently in the Flynn article? Should it be? Does my edit summary message that it is "not biographical for Flynn" make sense? Adoring nanny (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose COVID tban broadly construed Apologies for being a broken record, but there are just too many places someone could get into trouble without meaning to if they're editing anything after March 2020. —valereee (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Shibbolethink: above you accompany this diff with the following: <--"Chinese participants in an RfC cannot be trusted".

But the diff shows that Adoring nanny actually said (quoting in part): i.e. "participants from mainland China risk arrest and disappearance if they are too critical of the CCP." Please explain. I want to understand where that first quote is from, if it is even one (which I'm thinking probably not). Thanks. El_C 01:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

yes sorry it's a paraphrase. I will change it to single quotation marks instead of double. When I quote, I typically use greentext as you have done, but I sometimes get lax with double quote marks. If you read the exchange in full, I would consider this the sentiment which this user expresses. — Shibbolethink 14:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose and this is the wrong venue (see WP:COVIDDS). There is nothing wrong their user space essay, which says the same thing the team leader of the WHO-convened study said, as reported by the Washington Post. Said essay was nominated for deletion where most editors voted to keep. This is a politically charged issue that requires experienced editors like Adoring Nanny. LondonIP (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

  Discretionary sanctions do not mean that ANI is no longer a venue for this complaint, it simply opens up additional venues (WP:AE). — Shibbolethink 14:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Simply looking at the diffs in the beginning of the thread (I did not check anything else):

1. What she did in her userspace is not really relevant.
2. There was a cover up of information related to COVID by China as a matter of fact
3. Neither her removal nor insertions look immediately problematic; they are sourced.

I did not check all diffs by Shibbolethink, but looking at first of them, the arguments by Adoring nanny are civil and not unreasonable. My very best wishes (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@My very best wishes:

1. How is a fringe manifesto in their userspace not relevant?
2. There is at the least no consensus on this on Misplaced Pages. Most recently the China COVID-19 cover-up allegations article was redirected for it's fringe POV and COATRACK material.
3. I don't know what to say to this. They're very clearly removing RS material and inserting POV material.
4. If you're going to weigh in, at least have the courtesy and respect to read everything in the discussion first. Other editors have put time and effort into their comments, and you judging them solely off of a first look is not good enough. I imagine that's the main reason why your points here seem so misguided. ––FormalDude 06:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

1 - I consider such manifesto a disclosure of personal bias (sure, there is one!). But this is actually a good/honest thing. Everyone has biases. It matters what they do in mainspace of the project. My very best wishes (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

2 -It does not matter. The stonewalling of this issue by China is simply a historical fact. My very best wishes (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

3 - This is a content dispute. And no, in the first diff, she removed strong opinion, not a factual information. My very best wishes (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

4 - No, a lot of such discussions are tl;dr. One has only an obligation to look at posting and diffs by someone who started the thread. My very best wishes (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

So consensus doesn't matter, nor does reading the discussion you're commenting in. That's a hot take. ––FormalDude 04:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

One has only an obligation to look at posting and diffs by someone who started the thread – I think we have a term for that. Drive-in ... drive-through ... driver's ed ... Wait, I've got it! Drive-by! A drive-by comment. Yes, that's what we call it. EEng 05:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - While the user in question has clearly very strong views on the matter, those views (and user-space essays describing them) aren't in-and-of-themselves an issue. Questions about adherence to WP:PAGs should be the focus, not their personal POV. Hopefully the recently closed RfC the user requested closes the chapter on the potential slow-motion edit-war suggested by the proposer, and if not it seems like a simple case of ignoring consensus. Otherwise, the only topic worth discussing is the potential of WP:TE above. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - having a userspace essay go against the house view here is not a reason for a ban. There some diffs that are concerning, particularly the ones that seek to diminish the view of anybody in mainland China as impossibly compromised, but tell AN in no uncertain terms to cut that out. But the user wanted to make an edit, was reverted, went to a noticeboard, took that feedback and then opened an RFC. That is what is supposed to happen. Being banned for holding the wrong opinion is not how things are supposed to work here. If he or she edits against the consensus formed in that RFC then sure, but until then see nothing so problematic as to merit a ban. nableezy - 15:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

  Absolutely agree re: Being banned for holding the wrong opinion is not how things are supposed to work here. The issue is the particular behaviors of A) removing well-sourced content that opposes the user's POV, and B) repeatedly advancing the same POV arguments in every discussion, venue, or RfC, against consensus and against any policy-based argument. A is against WP:NPOV and B is blatant WP:NOTHERE. And, in combination with other behaviors, makes a case for WP:TE. That's the argument I would advance. Having opinions is the user's right. But what they do with them is another matter... — Shibbolethink 15:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Something being against NPOV is a content issue to be settled on the talk page and then if somebody wants to push it that far to an RFC. Only if they keep pushing after a consensus is settled is it a user conduct issue. As far as I can tell that has not happened yet. If it does, sure, topic ban, site ban, whatever. Right now however this reads like removing the opposition for being the opposition. nableezy - 21:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Just because others don't like what's being reported isn't a reason to ban the messenger. — Ched (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Unless my memory serves me wrong, Adoring nanny’s userspace essay was litigated at MfD and kept, so the community has already decided that the essay is acceptable. As for everything else, is there any evidence of edit warring, incivility, or WP:IDHT behavior? Are most of the user’s edits frivolous? If not, then what’s the problem? Mlb96 (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

  A majority of the user's edits to COVID-19 related topics are examples of tendentious editing, as has been evidenced above by Shibbolethink. ––FormalDude 05:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• What? I think it is bizarre that about half of the comments in this thread are arguing about some userspace essay of unclear relevance to the issue of the editor's conduct. Frankly, I am sick of hearing about this essay. There have already been AN/I threads about this essay. There have already been topic ban proposals over this essay. There was already a gigantic contentious MfD for this essay... in May. And it was kept -- nobody thought it was that big of a deal then, so why would it be a big deal now? Has anything changed? There has to be some kind of limit on how many times the same thing can be brought up. jp×g 20:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

LGBTQIA+ activist?

H-influenzae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing BLP articles with the intention of combating a heteronormative attitude on Misplaced Pages. On Harry Styles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), they believe it is proper to write that Styles is part of the LGBTQIA+ community because he never said he does not identify as LGBTQ. Should this user be editing BLPs when their behavior clearly shows activist tendencies? KyleJoan 04:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be having a dispute with them on the Harry Styles page. And they seem to be actively trying to make the article more neutral on Styles' sexuality. Honestly, this change they've been making and that you've been reverting seems perfectly reasonable. I don't see what is wrong with adding the referenced statement "Styles is famously private about his romantic relationships, saying that he prefers to compartmentalize his personal life and working life." And removing the line "Styles's sexuality has long been a subject of speculation" seems fine, since that does seem worded in an uncouth way about a BLP.

Why are you claiming that these changes are a BLP violation? If anything, they seem to be a positive BLP change from what was there before. Silverseren 04:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The sentence about the speculation stayed removed. As I explained here, the source does not support Styles being famously private, while the compartmentalize line is not very relevant without the first part. Rather than explain the BLP violation and go further into the content dispute, I'll simply say two three other users also found H-influenzae's proposals improper. KyleJoan 04:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The issue is with the specific partial sentence "Like many LGBTQ+ celebrities". Why is it your reverts always wholesale removed the improvements they made to the article elsewhere, rather than just removing that one part if that was the point of contention? Silverseren 04:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

There were multiple points, including the deprecated 'Sun' reference and a line about a formal gesture of coming out. Due to that, wholesale seemed appropriate at the time. I didn't have any issue with the speculation, as it had been there for some time, but I also didn't care that much to reinclude it. Once the violations stopped, I stopped reverting altogether. KyleJoan 04:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

If you think activist tendencies are grounds for a ban from BLPs I'd like you to meet WP:Women in red. Unless you have legitimate behavioural evidence that this person is disruptively pushing a political agenda this one diff from a content dispute isn't enough. ANI isn't here to adjudicate your WP:Content dispute. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Chess: WP:WOMRED says they are focused on reducing systemic bias. How is that comparable to violating policies to write an original narrative that introduces bias? I did not bring up the content dispute, Silver seren did. H-influenzae's other examples of disruption include calling the removal of undue material heterosexism. If that's not enough, then all right. In any case, thanks for your input. KyleJoan 05:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@KyleJoan: Y'know, H-influenzae has a point in those edit summaries. Why is it, exactly, that it's considered encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion when a public figure issues a (sourced) disclosure of a sexuality/gender identification that varies from the standard, but you don't feel it's encyclopedic or worthy of inclusion when a public figure makes a (sourced) disclosure of a sexuality/gender identification that conforms to the standard? Ravenswing 12:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: When I created Evan Mock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), I included him being heterosexual and related his heterosexuality to his most notable role based on the sources cited, so I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I don't feel it's encyclopedic ... when a public figure makes a (sourced) disclosure of a sexuality/gender identification that conforms to the standard. KyleJoan 16:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

You're not sure how I came to that conclusion? Erm ... by reading your words? What possible reason would you have for producing diffs setting forth that H-influenzae did precisely that, and calling it "disruption?" What makes it okay for you to put such a statement into an article, and not for H-influenzae to do so? Ravenswing 18:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The sources I cited–The Cut and the South China Morning Post, both of which are reliable per WP:RSP–make it OK. What sources did they cite and what do these sources actually say? Genuinely asking. KyleJoan 18:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Add: The user who reverted H-influenzae's edit on John Mulaney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) also called it disruptive. Would you like me to ping that user so you could tell them that that description was not OK? KyleJoan 18:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. March right over to that user's talk page and tell them so. Now. If you're quite done with specious games, you're changing your tune. It's not now that those actions were "disruptive," it's that you don't like the sources? (Although in most cases, one might trust a subject in an interview to accurately report her own sexuality, and for a subject speaking in his own special to accurately report his own sexuality.) If so, then citation tag them. I'm an uninvolved editor here, and I have to say here that your "evidence" of "disruption" is pretty threadbare. Digging your heels in and resolving that this is the hill upon which you plan on dying is not convincing. Ravenswing 19:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You believe when there's footage of someone discussing their sexuality, then said sexuality is always due for inclusion? If so, I found this compilation of various television personalities saying they're not gay. Would you like all of their names so you could include in their articles that they are not gay? Because that sounds like the hill upon which you seem intent on dying. KyleJoan 19:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

So what would be permitted to stay in the article that Kyle has been reverting? H-influenzae (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@H-influenzae: That should be discussed at the article's talk page. I don't see anything here that shows a need of administrative intervention, with the opening statement quoting H-influenzae's statement about "heteronormative attitude" out of context to make this seem like something more than it is. I'd recommend H-influenzae and KyleJoan to use WP:3O in case they feel they need an outsider's perspective on the discussion. Isabelle 13:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Isabelle - I concur. I don't see any problems here. Just the need for good faith conversations and reliable secondary sources to be presented to back up claims or concepts. Missvain (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, and the OP isn't doing his argument any favors with this overreaction. Ravenswing 19:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

When other users ask questions I answer them. My bad if that's unacceptable. KyleJoan 19:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

With your block history for edit warring, and the numerous cautions and complaints in your talk page history for incivility and battleground behavior, has it been your experience that dishing out the snark instead of constructive engagement and consensus building wins over any hearts or minds? Ravenswing 22:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if you know this, but people are multidimensional. One can make quips and constructive points at the same time. That said, since you're so interested in my ability in winning hearts and minds, please see a display of my constructive engagement in this discussion, in which hearts and minds were won. Anything else you'd like to know about me? KyleJoan 02:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Competency issue of TrangaBellam

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

TrangaBellam has competency issues as he is engaged in an edit war here and here and they have a tendency of going into in an edit war in past also 14.139.114.213 (talk) 08:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

PrfctSam Trying to Disrupt AFD

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

• PrfctSam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Karishma Sawant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page was created in November 2021 by an unregistered editor in draft space and then submitted to Articles for Creation on 27 December 2021, after Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Karishma Sawant was closed as Delete. The draft was then declined by User:Dan arndt as failing acting notability. PrfctSam then moved the draft to article space, and I nominated it for AFD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Karishma Sawant (2nd nomination).

PrfctSam then moved the article back to draft space, and within three minutes an unregistered editor removed the AFD template. The timing is such that it appears that PrfctSam logged out in the (useless) intention of avoiding scrutiny. User:Spiderone then moved the page back to article space, and a bot restored the AFD tag. (Some disruptive editors apparently think that they can defeat an AFD in this way.)

PrfctSam has two RETIRED banners on their user talk page, also maybe in the (useless) hope of avoiding scrutiny.

Request a block of the registered account and the IP range until the AFD is complete. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd take the 'retired' message with a pinch of salt given that they only joined last week! They seem unusually proficient for a new editor. I do wonder if this person has had other accounts before. Spiderone 17:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I've closed the AfD by speedy deleting the article G4, as it's exactly the same as the one that was deleted by AfD only 10 days ago. Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Gilead Bioscience Dispute with Zefr

I edited the page to highlight the controversy with Gilead and pet medicine. The editor, Zefr claimed there were not proper citations. I then dug up four peer-reviewed citations and added them to clarify the statement and the ability of anti-viral drugs to work on FIP. He then claimed that they were weak sources. As a PhD Chemical Biologist from a top 10 university and an active research program, I can state clearly that the literature cited was not weak, and that there is a controversy as reported on the publication "The Atlantic", all of which was cited.

I do not object to this statement being put under controversies. I do object and wonder how Misplaced Pages can be viewed objectively when properly sourced material repeatedly gets removed. This at the very least should be on their page. Perhaps lower down on the page, but not removed whole-heartedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.189.18 (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Mm, well, this is a content dispute not suitable for ANI. It should be discussed, and settled, on the appropriate talk page. (Which I've done myself, and am unsure why Zefr is fighting the well sourced statements so strongly.) Ravenswing 03:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

SPA and NOTHERE editor User:Argonne73

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

User:Argonne73 This blatant SPA has done nothing besides fight the deletion process at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Argonne Rebels Drum and Bugle Corps, edit war when the AfD closed as redirect , hijack other articles to try and get the text back into Misplaced Pages , and most recently created a fork under a new article title. When I nominated it for speedy deletion , their response was to vandalize one of my article creations . Editor is obviously NOTHERE and should be blocked indefinitely. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

indef'ed by user: GeneralNotability Meters (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Ethno-nationalistic disruption by Irankhani

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

User is attempting to edit war his unsourced ethno-nationalistic changes into various Iran-related articles;

Due to racism and ethnic cleansing by the Government of Iran, the village's name was changed from its original name of Khojamir (Azerbaijani : خوجامیر) to Khusheh Mehr, which is a Persian name.

Due to racism and ethnic cleansing by the Government of Iran, the city's name was changed from its original name of Isti soo (Azerbaijani: ایستی سو) to Ab-e Garm, which is a Persian name. Isti su litterly means "warm water" in Azerbaijani, and Ab-e Garm means warm water in Persian.

Due to racism and ethnic cleansing by the Government of Iran, the village's name was changed from its original name of Palma Yer (Azerbaijani: پلمه یئر) to Pormehr, which is a Persian name.

Due to racism and ethnic cleansing by the Government of Iran, the village's name was changed from its original name of Bayram Bay (Azerbaijani: بایرام بی) to Bahram Beyk, which is a Persian name.

Due to racism and ethnic cleansing by the Government of Iran, the village's name was changed from its original name of Dash Khatin kandi (Azerbaijani: داش خاتێن کندی) to Taj Khatun, which is a Persian name.

Due to racism and ethnic cleansing by the Government of Iran, the village's name was changed from its original name of Gizlan Dash (Azerbaijani: گیزلان داش) to Jezlan Dasht, which is a Persian name.

Due to racism and ethnic cleansing by the Government of Iran, the village's name was changed from its original name of Gungak (Template:Lang-az-Arab:) to Gangak.

He even changed the native name of two Iranian province articles from Persian to Azeri; -

This is not the first time a non-Iranian user with something like 'Iran(ian)' or 'Persia(n)' in his name is making these kind of anti-Iranian edits.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Amortias blocked for 31 hours, but I set it to indef. My block summary reads: actually, setting the block not to expire. User has not used a talk page of any kind, ever. Communication is required. El_C 12:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

90.186.239.156

Probable WP:NOTHERE, possible sockpuppet. Added fake element to Road signs in Germany with an almost convincing citation in German (diff). Changed content at ITA Transportes Aéreos without citation. I gave a uw-disruptive1 caution for the road-signs but they responded by blanking the page and reinstating their change (twice). I have added a uw-unsourced2 for the ITA change and they have done likewise. Obviously if I revert again I will be on a 3RR vio. Intervention requested. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The Road Sign was yesterday together my wife seen at Blankeneser Markt exact at this coordinates. Unfortunate did not made a picture of it. It was for us a surprise but the temporary prohibition sign is there, in order some constructions of place, for example, the stones at floor with differences of appearance, even paid higher, by us here in neighborhood was chosen. During my car parking stop, while wife went buy some carrots, vegetables and flowers were discussed about. 53.560723, 9.811428

About ITA, my also brazilian part together Bruno can confirm, if the englander is in doubt of things this world. But the citation in portuguese language was given.

So there is no reason for the violent englander being aggressive with the reverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.186.239.156 (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Note that the IP in question just attempted to blank this discussion. Not an intelligent move. — Czello 15:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Also worth mentioning possible overlap with the below section. I've reverted to the last stable version for now. — Czello 16:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you but I can't see any evidence of an overlap. Just coincidental timing.

Looks like I need to AGF for now, since it is evident that the IP editor's fluency in English is not great . If they had given that response at the time, either at the article talk page or at the user talk page, then I might have been able to explain that a temporary, non-statutory sign like this one does not qualify for inclusion (although I wrote as much in the edit note, which perhaps they did not see). All due allowances made, to respond by reverting the correction and blanking the caution is not a good way to be taken seriously. However, best pause any further action pending developments. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Ping abuse by user:RogueShanghai

user:RogueShanghai will not stop pinging me even after I told them to stop pinging me and that I would report them on the noticeboard. This diff is my warning, and these are Rogue's incessant pings: 1, 2, 3 and 4. Ronherry (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you just add the user to "Muted users" in Preferences/Notifications?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Didn't know that was a thing. Thank You. Ronherry (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Let's be very clear: you messaged me on my own talk page accusing me of making personal attacks, I replied and defended myself, and showed proof of you making personal attacks regarding my editor status and making attacks accusing me of "not being able to write my own sentences." You avoided explaining why you made those comments, and said if I pinged you again you would take me to this noticeboard.

I replied that you chose to message me on my own talk page, and said that this isn't the first time you showed hostility towards me, where in the past you accused me of "not knowing what an FA is" and "editing without sources or facts." (Both of which are not true, all of my edits try to be sourced reliably.) That's what happened, from start to finish. shanghai. 18:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm torn between the impulse to (a) close this now that the muting option has been explained, in an effort to reduce tensions, or (b) leave it open to examine the feuding between these two editors more generally to see if one or both should be sanctioned in some way, or whether a one- or two-way interaction ban is in order, to not let it fester even more. I see sub-optimal personalization from both editors, and it's not immediately clear whether this is mostly one-sided or not, and if so which side. Thoughts? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• @Ronherry:, talk pages on Misplaced Pages are for communication with other editors, not for soliloquies where you're guaranteed to have the final word. If you send a message to a talk page calling out RogueShanghai, it is reasonable for RogueShanghai to respond. If you send a message to RogueShanghai's talk page, you should expect RogueShanghai to respond. You cannot demand that other editors refrain from engaging with you at the same time you're engaging them. Ravenswing 19:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: I'm well aware of all that and I agree with you but you're quite literally false because the case you are describing is not the case here. I did use the talk page to communicate with them hoping to resolve it. But nah. The argument was going in circles. As soon as I realized that, I requested them to stop pinging me, but they didn't stop. Let me make myself clear here: I read all of their replies patiently and replied them all *before* I made my request to them to stop pinging me. I *stopped* reading the replies and didn't want to engage with them *only after* I made my request, which is valid. The conversation was leading to nowhere, because it was them simply discrediting me, and that means a consensus will never be reached. To put an end to it and not add more oil to the fire, I asked them to stop @ing me. That's it. I would expect you go through the timestamps of each reply (if you want to) and see the truth. But alas, you only read the other person's rant here and decided the fault is on me, when I didn't even type out my side of the story like they did. Anyways, it doesn't matter now. I muted them. Have a nice day. Ronherry (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Ronherry, at the end of your lengthy remark, you say Anyways, it doesn't matter now. I muted them. Why, then, did you bother to compose and post your lengthy remark? If you do not want another editor to ping you, then stopping your own discussion of the other editor is a really big part of that. Otherwise, you are inviting the other editor to talk about you behind your back, and that is a very bad thing. Cullen328 (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, Excuse me? I was asked a question by a third person and I answered them. I had communication issues with Rogue only, not with an admin who is trying to mediate on noticeboard; of course, I will answer them . Now I'm answering you , are you gonna ask me why I'm answering you as well? That's ridiculous. If I don't answer here, then the narrative would be "starting a noticeboard topic but not replying to queries". I'm gonna be blamed either way, so I might as well just reply here just to make myself and my stance clear. If you want me to stop answering here, I will. Because I'm not the person who will ping you if you asked me to stop it. Thanks. Ronherry (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Radford Family "weird" blpminor violations

On the Radford family article, a user appears to be closely monitoring the birthdates of minors (some younger than a year of age) of the children of the articles subject and leaving kinda weird update messages. Examples of personal messages to infants, children, adults. , , (pet name for a 9 year old, creepy, even assuming good faith), Page history is full of this sort of thing. My two asks:

1. Can another editor remove the birthdays of children, as per WP:BLPMINOR, as I can't. I'd normally not take this to Ani, but it involves children, and I have no access to correct it.

2. Can anyone review the actions of this editor. I'm not going to agf when it comes to pet names for kids though. This probably needs explained. Boomerang me on that as needed.

107.115.147.26 (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I trimmed the article and also notified Shmoopdy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) about discretionary sanctions for content about living persons. Woodroar (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

This is definetely concerning. I would recommend an admin REVDEL all of Shmoopdy's edits to that article. ––FormalDude 02:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the editor from editing Radford family indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism on Scooby-Doo page

@EvergreenFir:, hello again. Well, it seems the protection of the page Straight Outta Nowhere: Scooby-Doo! Meets Courage the Cowardly Dog didn't do justice for that vandalizing anonym who does not seem to get the hints. A longer page block or the IP block would be helpful, if it is possible. Thank you in advance. Ромми (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Continued to disruptive edits after 1 month blocked

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

This IP user User:103.144.225.75 (talk) (contributions) still continue to disruptive and adding an unsourced edits at Myanmar Airways International and Myanmar National Airlines after 1 month of blocking. I hope you give this IP address another block or something. Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I blocked 103.144.225.75 for three months. Johnuniq (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Mike Novikoff keeps removing WP:DECOR per template

Mike Novikoff (talk · contribs) keeps removing flags and symbols for Russian oblast templates without consensus. Russian oblasts might be accompanied with a flag and coat of arms, which is similar to country/region infobox. Weeks ago, Novikoff reverts and reveals Ymblanter's name for indistinguishable for trolling, as a personal attack from edit summary to Template:Moscow Oblast.

Since that restored versions for Russian oblast templates might be affected:

• Novgorod Oblast
• Nizhny Novgorod Oblast
• Moscow Oblast
• Pskov Oblast
• Sverdlovsk Oblast
• Ulyanovsk Oblast
• Voronezh Oblast

--49.150.112.127 (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

OMG. So I should have a special permission to implement the MoS, and I should discuss it with every IP user. "Please, IP, will you let me implement it?". Frankly, I hereby ask for WP:BOOMERANG. — Mike Novikoff 07:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

BTW, it's rather suspicious that an IP user knows who Ymblanter is, addresses his first complaint against me exactly to him, and files a properly formatted ANI case then within few minutes. — Mike Novikoff 08:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

You see, MediaWiki nowadays is smart enough to tag some edits with "Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits". Thank you Volker (or whoever does this there now at Fab). Jokes aside, what will you recommend to me? I suppose to start a discussion at WT:MOS, but is it really needed? It will be about "is MoS a guideline, or it isn't". So. While we are at it. Can you please just do something against this very disruptive IP, to save a lot of effort? — Mike Novikoff 09:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Just a placeholder to acknowledge I have seen this, I might react later of needed. May be to specify that the Op clearly means templates such as Template:Pskov Oblast, not the articles. The ANI discussion on Mike Novikoff was closed two weeks ago with a serious warning, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1086#Mike Novikoff and a strange way of edit-warring--Ymblanter (talk) 09:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not doing nor even saying anything against you, so what it's all about? — Mike Novikoff 09:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

But still no consensus for WP:DECOR only for headings, some regional templates has a flag and coat of arms. For example, any regional templates like Template:Kyiv Oblast in Ukraine to accompany with a flag on the top and coat of arms on the right. --49.150.112.127 (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCONTENT is a well-known invalid argument. — Mike Novikoff 10:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

See also this (permalink). All we have is a content dispute started by an ignorant anonymouse who believes that it is recommended to need a flag and symbol per template but cannot support his belief. That's all. — Mike Novikoff 10:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: FYI: Content dispute over Russian oblast templates. --49.150.112.127 (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Having it closed as "content dispute" would be too weak. I'd rather see it as "49.150.112.127 is gone", before they point to my SUL and so on (that is, before they cast aspersions on me). — Mike Novikoff 11:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Please, please save me from this disruption. For almost ten years I only do things prescribed by the written rules, especially by the MoS, and thus strive to avoid any conflicts. So I'm really hurt by these weird accusations by the anonymouse. — Mike Novikoff 11:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Misuse of Talk page

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

Rainer Clark (talk · contribs) has been trying to use the Talk page Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses for preaching/advocacy of the organisation unrelated to discussion of the article. (See the editor’s changes in the Talk page’s edit history for the initial now-removed section.) Two other editors Boba43 (talk · contribs) and Jehovah's Servent (talk · contribs) have also appeared in support of the editor, all identifying as members of the denomination. The first editor has since claimed to be a child and says they have ‘reported’ me to a Misplaced Pages email address. I only currently have access to edit on mobile and providing diffs would be very cumbersome but the edit histories for the Talk page should be sufficient. See also User talk:Rainer Clark and User talk:Jehovah's Servent.—Jeffro77 (talk) 07:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Jeffro77 (talk · contribs) is a Template:Hypocritical about this as he 'misused' the talk page Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses by telling me, Boba43 (talk · contribs) and Jehovahs Servent (talk · contribs) on a public talk page instead of our own which, as I'm only a 11 year old boy, is rather embarrassing and hurtful. I do not whish to be bossed around about my own religion and beliefs, especially by someone who doesn't follow my God, Jehovah's, faith. Thanks Rainer.

Interesting. Last month you said you were 9. Whatever your real age is, if you want to edit Misplaced Pages you should obey the rules.—Jeffro77 (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

There is also now an admission of sockpuppetry.—Jeffro77 (talk) 08:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I blocked all three accounts, we can close the topic.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Sultan.abdullah.hindi

Sultan.abdullah.hindi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Right after his block for edit warring expired, Sultan.abdullah.hindi proceeded to immediately restore his addition to the Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar Khalji, without going to the talk page and reach WP:CONSENSUS, as well as prove the name he wants to add is WP:COMMON NAME. This is clear WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. -HistoryofIran (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not assuming good faith on the part of the other editor involved in this matter at this point. I did not restore my addition but rather only made an edit which is sourced. Blowing this out of proportion is an abuse of the system on the part of this other editor who seems to want to use this to harass myself. - Sulṭān ʿAbdullāh al-Hindi 08:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, repeatedly attempting to use the rules in order to force a so-called consensus on a name already being used multiple times in an article with the exception of the infobox is another basis for my assumptions. - Sulṭān ʿAbdullāh al-Hindi 08:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

You were reverted by an admin as well, who was the one who reported you. Prior to that, you were warned for edit warring by me, which you dismissed as 'cringe' . Now you resumed your edit warring right off the bat, and accuse me of lacking good faith? You might want to reevaluate. Even if it might be listed like that in other articles, that doesn't mean it should be posted in that article, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. You did not restore your edit? What is this then? Is there any major difference between these additions? This is starting to look like a lack of WP:CIR as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 08:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

What you are doing clearly involves WP:HAR and WP:GAME by twisting this matter to suit your ends over a name repeatedly used in the article but not in the infobox. Yes, I accuse you of bad faith gaming using your familiarity with the guidelines in order to portray this matter in the worst way possible. - Sulṭān ʿAbdullāh al-Hindi 08:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:JDL at best. I'll let the admins deal with this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 08:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Your reversion notes of the article-in-point, which have not been brought forth yet, and your repeated attempts at making the worst assumption should reveal the insanity to them. - Sulṭān ʿAbdullāh al-Hindi 08:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat by banned user Boba43

See User talk:Boba43 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demonslayers (talk • contribs) 11:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia's inappropriate edit summaries

When I started editing en:wp around 2010, I took an interest in the FAC and FAR pages. Regrettably, I noticed a pattern in FA stalwart SandyGeorgia's comments about other editors, and how she would create a hostile atmosphere on talk pages. She frequently used hyperbole, invective and personalization to disparage other editor's contributions. I have been on and off the project for the last ten years plus, but this observation still holds true, and it annoys me that no one has taken her to task for it. I don't have time to find all the examples, but I would like to point out that I did try to point out the problem on her talk page a while back. In spite of this, she keeps writing incredibly vile edit summaries, laced with profanity and anger (example). Can someone else tell her that this is not acceptable? Thank you. Nutez (talk) 11:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards