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. Wikipedia: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)[reply]

This is a continuation of a thread on Talk:Edward Said, two threads at WP:RSN [4][[5], 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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

He is removing sources that our policy explicitly says are reliable, and he is edit-warring to do so [6], [7]. 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 [8]. Dont want to repeat the obvious one more time. nableezy - 05:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All previous discussions have endorsed David Gerard's actions

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1081#User:David Gerard

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

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. 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^talk 11:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 Wikipedia is a bizarrely false statement - David Gerard (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia - the bar for removal is very low, and almost all should in fact be removed - David Gerard (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1

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

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

And repeated edit-warring (eg [9], [10]. Claiming that WP:V is overruled by deprecation is likewise an issue. nableezy - 20:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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 Wikipedia is quite small; it's an exclusive group of sources considered so unreliable by the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia to be as unreliable as all of the others David has removed. If anything, David should be commended for his diligent efforts to make Wikipedia more reliable (or at least less unreliable). Jayjg ^(talk) 23:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Ah, got it. I understand much better now; things are often not what they seem in that subject area. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... 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)[reply]
  • ... 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)[reply]
    • 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 ^(talk) 17:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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 ^(talk) 20:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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^{please leave a message...} 10:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        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)[reply]

        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)[reply]

        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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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".

Wikipedia: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 ^(talk) 15:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia? Do you agree that there are not much better sources to find? nableezy - 15:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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 ^(talk) 17:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 [11], [12], [13]). 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia'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 ^(talk) 21:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, is he doing the right thing when he edit-wars against multiple users who are putting the sources he removes back in limited and exceptional circumstances? Like removing a convenience link, reverted by an admin no less, and then immediately re-reverts. Or removing an interview between Ari Shavit and Benny Morris, and then re-reverting. Is an administrator violating both WP:FAIT and WP:EW "doing the right thing"? nableezy - 15:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all Nableezy, let us stipulate and agree that edit-warring is a bad thing, and (except in cases of WP:BLP violations), should be avoided wherever possible. That said, David's original removals of the links in Camp 1391 and Benny Morris were absolutely correct, as the references to original source (Ha'aretz) were already in those articles; WP:CONV is just an essay, and even then see WP:CONV#Arguments against convenience links point 1. As a point of comparison, I regularly find fpp.co.uk used for "convenience links" to published articles, including many from Ha'aretz, and I invariably remove those links. What would your view be on someone convenience linking to this article or this one? Note, I'm not saying that fpp.co.uk and counterpunch.org have anything in common: on the other hand, only counterpunch.org has been designated by Wikipedia as Deprecated. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because we both agree that the two sites are not analogous in any way, and because CounterPunch articles are submitted by the creator and are not likely copyright violations, I dont find the situations comparable at all. And the fact that CP is deprecated and David Irving's website is not is the most interesting part of that argument, in that it informs one of just how silly the argument "but it's deprecated" is. But since we agree edit-warring is a bad thing, maybe tell him to stop doing that? nableezy - 16:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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 ^(talk) 15:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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 ^talk 16:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

  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 ^talk 18:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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 ^talk 20:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  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 Wikipedia at all except in extremely exceptional cases - David Gerard (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  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 ^talk 22:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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^{please leave a message...} 18:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
    • 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^{please leave a message...} 23:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • Indeed, and of the Daily Mail even: [14][15] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• (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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 03:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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 Wikipedia is doing. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 19:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 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). [16]. The timing shows no likely attempt to find replacement sources or use alternate tags. For example, one pulled at random [17] that David removed a Counterpunch link and replaced it wiht a cn, but I found a source in 2 mins [18]. 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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    From WP:V Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] 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.[4] 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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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 Wikipedia, as it also says Deprecation is a status indicating that a source almost always falls below Wikipedia'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Almost a hundred removals today in the span of ~70 minutes. If you're removing likely uncontroversial things like a hypothetical ice-free Arctic Ocean being sometimes called a "Blue Ocean Event" (diff) which I restored (diff) using an academic reference I found from super quick search, you probably don't spend enough time looking what content you're removing. Same with this removal of a prose mention of CounterPunch and the name of an article (diff) which was not even cited to the magazine itself. RoseCherry64 (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, deprecated sources shouldn't be present in Wikipedia in general. Unless you are objecting to all of those claimed 100 edits, then citing the number merely means a backlog of known bad sourcing is being worked on - David Gerard (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And also: CounterPunch is a magazine of radical political activism. Why on earth are you regarding it as in any way an appropriate source for scientific jargon? It should be obvious it isn't, even if it wasn't deprecated - David Gerard (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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^C 08:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 – contrary to the guidance of both editing policy (i.e. WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM) and verifiability policy (i.e. WP:BURDEN) – 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^{please leave a message...} 11:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ToBeFree (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 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) Wikipedia. Please take some measures.Dandarmkd (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Hello, this is the my example [26]. I am going to give examples [27][28] by another users whose edits were undid by Jingiby. Dandarmkd (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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 Wikipedia. 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. Wikipedia 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: [29], and even an old nationalist edit of theirs at: [30]. Please let me know if I missed anything else. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) in Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 ^talk 17:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^talk 17:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^talk 20:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

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 ^talk 06:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^talk 19:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^talk 16:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 ^talk 19:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

""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 Wikipedia, 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 ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 ^talk 16:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{Jéské Couriano} 07:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. 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^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{Jéské Couriano} 10:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

I have opened a further SPI under that editor, citing G and the IP as potential socks. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{Jéské Couriano} 02:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{Jéské Couriano} 11:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{Jéské Couriano} 12:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is pretty illuminating. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 13:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{Jéské Couriano} 11:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{Jéské Couriano} 13:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{Jéské Couriano} 13:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is is considered gauche

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

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

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

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)[reply]

Hello again

User @Qızılbaş:'s user page is rather interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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/w/index.php?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/wiki/Category:Armenian_terrorism) - devoid of absolutely any consensus. (contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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/wiki/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)[reply]

• 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/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_15#Category:Armenian_terrorism).--217.149.166.11 (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 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. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia's consensus about this issue.

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

  @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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• OP blocked for edit warring after AN3 complaint by Edjohnston. Sennecaster (Chat) 14:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

• 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)[reply]

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). [31] After nearly a year of Æthereal's editing, the article had a total of 117 mentions of Epstein in November 2021. [32]. 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 [33] (used to attack Andrew Cuomo for associating with Epstein)
• David Rubenstein [34] (used to attack Les Wexner for associating with Epstein)
• Vicky Ward [35] (used to impugn the Queen of England for supposedly associating with Epstein)
• Chelsea Clinton [36] (stressed that Epstein's girlfriend attended Chelsea's wedding)

• When questioned on the talk page regarding the Epstein references, Æthereal's defense [44] 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 [45] (used to criticize Miller's reporting)
• Janet Napolitano [46] / [47] (used to criticize her management of DHS)
• George Soros [48] (George Sorоs’ right-hand man was accused of BDSM crimes in his sex dungeon)

Category 3 - highlighting family ties and other connections

• Eileen Donahoe [57] / [58] (used to criticize her husband's running of Nike with China, fails to even mention her ambassadorship)
• Edgar Bronfman, Jr. [59] / [60] / [61] (stresses family relations due to family's connection with sex cult NXIVM, plus Epstein)
• Edgar Bronfman Sr [62] (see edit summary, adds sister purely because she supposedly enabled a murderer)

Category 4 - very questionable edit summaries

• considers [73] / [74] this list of think tank members the "Mean Girls Club" / "Naughty Boys Club"?!
• Larry Summers [75] 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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^(TALK) 20:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  An admonishment is appropriate, the more so in that he's pushed this anti-Epstein fluff into other articles [78]. 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)[reply]

  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 [79] / [80]. How is this acceptable? starship.paint (exalt) 14:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  ... 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

• 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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• It's not only surprisingly pervasive Epstein; here is a similar treatment of a different subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Barnard_College_people&diff=1057955321&oldid=1057954419 Lindenfall (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This pattern of edits is not reflective of someone here to build an encyclopedia. Sennalen (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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 [81] and multiple topics involving living people including Black Lives Matter [82], Washington Post and its Pulitzer prizes [83], Communism [84] and China [85], 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. Naturally as proposer I support this. starship.paint (exalt) 07:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  @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^✈hello 05:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

  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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

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 - Wikipedia: 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 [ride.infinitedegrees.xyz this site]. 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 Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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

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 ^{T C} 12:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@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 [87]. 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)[reply]

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 ^{T C} 14:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[88], here[89], and here[90]. Grutness edits. Pinging- @Rikster2:, @Jweiss11:, and @Ɱ:....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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" [sic] will disappear, surely halting now will simply leave it longer before those categories are removed. Grutness...wha? 14:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

For Everyone's information There is a parallel discussion[91] to this taking place on Grutness talk page....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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[92] 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)[reply]

Yeah, I'm comfortable with calling that assertion bullshit. His last 500 edits to Wikipedia talk pages [93] 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 [94] 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)[reply]

Have you included the times WikiProject members contacted me, both on Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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" [sic], but no-one seems to have addressed that. Given that, I've stopped my work entirely. Grutness...wha? 03:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football on a related question about categories (see [95]). 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)[reply]

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

Grandmaster is engaging in constant Wikipedia:Casting aspersions and Wikipedia: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 [96], [97], [98], and many more.

Grandmaster does not contribute to Wikipedia 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/wiki/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/wiki/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/w/index.php?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)[reply]

Edit: I should also mention that according to Grandmaster, knowing what Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:^Bite 18:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 ([99]). 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) _{^{(The Alternate Mako)}} 16:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. [100] 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)[reply]

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) _{^{(The Alternate Mako)}} 07:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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) _{^{(The Alternate Mako)}} 11:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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) _{^{(The Alternate Mako)}} 14:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• And again _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oh dear. That went bad quickly. Mako001 (C)  (T) _{^{(The Alternate Mako)}} 14:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

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

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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

• User:Adoring nanny (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Diff of sanctions notification: [101]
• Diff of final warning: [102]

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 [103], 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: [104] VQuakr (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a different point. I encourage the community to participate in the RfC.[105]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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