Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

Continued harassment by disruptive Hong Kong IP

A thread was recently opened by Matthew hk about an IP-hopping editor who is persistently harassing and insulting other Hong Kong editors as well as adding uncited content (namely, obscure Hong Kong place names):

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1085#203.145.95.X harassment, personal attack and possible part of off site canvassing behaviours

However, no action was taken. Predictably the IP-hopping editor has gone straight back to their previous disruptive activity.

For one, as I mentioned in the previous thread, they are persistently stalking my edits. Yesterday, I made a significant expansion of the "Kowloon City Plaza" article. Immediately thereafter they peppered it with maintenance tags and added problematic content that has been discussed with them before (e.g. they keep adding obscure land lot numbers to Hong Kong articles). They have a long history of such harassment, with much more evidence presented in the previous thread. Citobun (talk) 06:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Since OhNoitsJamie (talk · contribs) has warned 203.145.95.X for personal attack or groundless accusation, you probably need the actual ip range and which articles with {{la}}. Matthew hk (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. Tuen Mun South extension's semi protection expired one day ago, and the IP is right back to pushing the same obscure place name there. Likewise at Kowloon City Plaza they are continually adding an obscure lot number. At Prince Edward, Hong Kong they are changing instances of the common "Mong Kok" place name to the obscure "Tong Mi". At Tung Chung East station they have changed "Tung Chung" to "Kei Tau Kok". What a headache. I am thinking of opening at page at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse because this obscure-place name-pushing has been affecting Hong Kong articles for a long time.

Citobun (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm really surprised nothing is being done about this guy. This is getting dumb at this point. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 07:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Padgriffin: To be fair. From the edit log of City University of Hong Kong, seems there are more than one guy (203.145.95.X verse 1.64.48.231 verse 124.217.188.X which seems they have edit warring to each other). One of them (124.217.188.X) clearly linked to User:蟲蟲飛 (as evidence on participation on Afd), a globally locked user which linked to CCP. However, they enjoyed collateral damage by your can't tell the harassing is from the same person, just ip hopping using mobile service provider and home ISP, or multiple person that have the same harassing behaviour, as they refused to create accounts. For clearer documentation, i think user:Citobun really need to add the diff links to indicate which ip is actually harassing him recently, and which id keep adding narrow-interest info of land lease lot number , and which ip keep adding obsolete place name. Matthew hk (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the IP from Tuen Mun South extension for a year. I suggest that you make a page at WP:LTA.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, for example, this is yet another ip from HK using yet another mobile phone network CMHK (182.239.122.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)), which adding unsourced trivial Five Big Manmade Climbs" (五大人造爬上), in which does not even have google search result for "五大人造爬上" (Special:Diff/1060049801). I can't tell it is the same guy or not, but they (the ips from different range and ISP of HK) consistently adding unsourced content in non-constructive level. Matthew hk (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

And tracking the page history, the above 五大人造爬上 hoax was also added by 1.36.41.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (zh:special:Diff/69080201) and in ja-wiki (ja:special:Diff/87001909) so that we never able to know it is the same person or not. Or is it the same as 203.145.95.X, or the ip that harassed Citobun, that Citobun fails to add the exact diff and ip number to this thread?) Matthew hk (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

And as mentioned that this thread need proper documentation , Ymblanter blocked 42.200.166.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which clearly not from the same ip range from my last thread (and also not the ip range of my second last thread), so that i really can't tell they are the same person or a cult of toxic people. Matthew hk (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

And And tracking the page history, 42.200.166.X ip range did involved in ip hopping in the past. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China Unicom Hong Kong. Matthew hk (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there are multiple long-term disruptive IPs active on Hong Kong articles (especially those relating to the MTR and border crossings), but I believe that the editing centred on adding obscure place names, uncited geographic/naming trivia, and land lot numbers is one individual (the same person who is harassing me) as the editing patterns are quite consistent. I will soon make a page at WP:LTA as Ymblanter suggested. Citobun (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Update: I have created a page at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hong Kong geography warrior. Citobun (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, regarding the question of whether it's one or multiple individuals – I was scrutinising the earlier discussion at WPHK. While IP addresses like 116.92.226.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 116.92.226.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) were pretending to be different people, it is clear from their editing that they are the same person. They were doing something similar over at Talk:MTR (two IPs were talking to each other pretending to be two different people, but they both have the same narrow editing interests, e.g. "New Kowloon" 1, 2). Although in relation to the Hong Kong border crossings dispute I do believe there are multiple anonymous individuals involved in that dispute. Citobun (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

They are still stalking my recent edits. Citobun (talk) 04:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Omg c'mon have you actually found out how common references to New Kowloon, the Victoria City or land lot numbers are on Wikipedia? Land lot numbers appear in news stories in the press here too. And no I don't think I ever edited the Tuen Mun southern extension article. 116.92.226.240 (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I have observed a long-term tendency of Citobun to disregard entire edits whenever he or she deems something to be wrong. Since Tuen Mun South extension is protected I would use it as an example. In his or her edits[1][2] he or she has repeatedly disregarded changes to the capitalisation of the letter G, addition of the convert template, and disambiguation between the MTR and the MTRCL. This happens over many Hong Kong-related articles and it has been a long-term behavioural or editing style issue. It makes him or her a person particular difficult for other editors to work with. Even worse was that he or she never bothers to go to talk pages.

On the other hand he or she has kept asking for proof that the area was indeed referred to after Butterfly Beach. 42.200.166.13 had submitted references[3] and added some more[4] to fulfil him or her but he or she has never been satisfied. I have reviewed the references submitted and they do demonstrate that the neighbourhood is called after the beach, especially those added on 10 December. But he or she didn't bother to review the newly added sources. And he or she in fact does the same thing all along with many other Hong Kong-related edits - Dismisses whatever he or she doesn't know or doesn't like as obscure, and rejects all references. He or she is using his or her very own life experience to refute reliable sources. Perhaps he or she's too young to know what older people perceive about the geography, topography of this territory or life in this territory, perhaps he or she's living in a particular corner of this territory which hinders his or her knowledge of the rest of this territory in general, or maybe we have been all wrong and he or she's been right all along. No matter what from what I seen the way he or she puts it is discriminatory, antagonistic towards other editors. This isn't helpful to the Wikipedia project. 116.92.226.240 (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Needless to say, this is the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hong Kong geography warrior. I don't want to get bogged down arguing about another one of your made-up names – but: if someone refers to the "World Trade Center area" in a general sense, referring to the vicinity of the World Trade Center in New York City, does it then mean that Lower Manhattan can be called "World Trade Center"? No, of course not. But that's the essence of your argument. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to push your personal agenda. Citobun (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Fellow administrators all you need to do at first is to verify whether what Citobun suggested was true. Land lot numbers are used extensively in Hong Kong.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] They certainly aren't obscure. In older neighbourhoods stone markers aren't uncommon. And in fact there are mentioned in many Wikipedia articles, e.g. Cheung Kong Center, an entry which Citobun's associate Matthew hk had recently edited. ... but: if someone refers to the "World Trade Center area" in a general sense, referring to the vicinity of the World Trade Center in New York City, does it then mean that Lower Manhattan can be called "World Trade Center"? Names aren't made up by me but the locals, and we indeed gotta look at each individual cases. Locations as far as Sugar Street is still referred to by many as Daimaru even though it's a block away from where the department store used to be located. Tai Fat Hau isn't just a name used by the locals. It made its way to be the name of a local council constituency, even though the namesake company had gone many decades ago. Other similar examples may include Tit Kong, Ngo Keng, Tai Hang and A Kung Ngam. And despite his or her WTC example he or she has practically endorsed that same usage with something like "Tuen Mun Ferry Pier area" in his or her edits to Turn Mun southern extension. On the other hand references to New Kowloon (which he or she admitted to be not incorrect) and the Victoria City have been so extensive on Wikipedia that that's an implicit consensus among Wikipedia editors active in Hong Kong-related topics perhaps since the earliest days of Wikipedia. These are easily verifiable and administrators shouldn't hesitate verifying them yourselves. What he or she has been doing is to stick with his or her very own experience and understanding, enforce it in his edits, and use IP editors from Hong Kong (which he probably knows very well why so many Hongkongers don't edit from registered accounts) as scapegoats or human sheilds, that something he or she has succeeded so far. 116.92.226.235 (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@116.92.226.240:, you show up as ip hopper that block evaded? (from 42.200.166.13 ip). You literally borderline personal attack and admit you are involved in adding narrow-interested "official name" of some location (aka land lease lot no) that they never a common name and violate WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT on wikipedia is not a travel guide or a bin of trivial info. Matthew hk (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Matthew hk, 07:01, 15 December 2021: What? How could you come up with something as such? Please read carefully as far as possible. 116.92.226.235 (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

And just checked , Ymblanter has blocked that ip (116.92.226.240) for 31 hours as well. Matthew hk (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Matthew hk, 07:02, 15 December 2021: I'm not informed of the exact reason why I got blocked. But my changes to the Wu Kai Sha station article were reverted, for no reason. 116.92.226.235 (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

You (116.92.226.240 and later 116.92.226.235) are blocked as a suspect of ip hopping from 42.200.166.13 as LTA (and i don't bother to check page history of which ip that rearrange my comments order, but assume it is you). Just create an acoount or don't do the same behaviour as the LTA to received the collateral damage. Matthew hk (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't hop. I think my IP addresses are non-static and are randomly assigned within a very narrow band (most IP addresses here are like this). 42.200.166.13 is a very different band. Haven't checked if that's the same ISP. On the other hand it has appeared to me that the situation may have been inflated or exaggerated in what Citobun has presented in his so-called LTA list. Most people here are behind non-static IP addresses (but only within narrow bands), so the number of IP entries concerned should have been much much fewer whereas there's very little evidence if any that these people are related, given the considerable number of narrow bands he has alleged to be suspicious.

On the other hand, please don't move my remarks in such a way that they aren't responding to the right thing. My edits regarding Lok Wo Sha is referenced and I've so far got no clue why that has to be rejected. 116.92.226.238 (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

It looks like Citobun is now reverting all edits made by non-registered editors as far as he or she is able to spot, regardless of what those edits are about, and regardless of whether those edits are in line with his or her view - to do away with lesser known place names. 116.92.226.239 (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have fallen victim of what Citobun (mis)represented. He argues and edits against whatever kind of reference to New Kowloon for obscure reasons. But now that I got reported and reverted for removing a reference to New Kowloon. (@Scottywong: FYI.) 219.76.24.209 (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the damages are beginning to surface. He or she has made his or her way to mislead administrators. 116.92.226.235 (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@219.76.24.209: How and why am I getting roped into whatever this is? What do I have to do with any of this? Why are you pinging me to this conversation and posting cryptic requests on my talk page? —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Please check the link posted on your user talk page, or click here. 219.76.24.217 (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

OhNoitsJamie has made a good faith assumption that the ip can able to use talk page and other ways to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but once again the ip bomb this thread with wall of text of no meaning and the same can't tell it is meatsock or ip hopping behaviour. And clearly canvassing Scottywong, which Scottywong don't even know what ip want for him. Matthew hk (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:, I am not sure why 219.76.24.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) show up as the ip (or the range) is not mentioned in this thread before, but may be he want to self confess for a block. Matthew hk (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think that a few rangeblocks would help quell things down. From the LTA page created, I calculated these ranges:

• 116.92.226.224/27 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 219.76.24.192/27 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 219.76.63.96/27 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 124.217.189.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 220.246.91.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 203.145.94.0/23 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

wizzito | say hello! 04:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Considering that this behavior started up again, I am still advocating for the rangeblocks here as needed. wizzito | say hello! 12:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I propose that we follow WP:DENY for this LTA and simply revert on sight. We’re long past the point of getting any successful conflict resolution with this user and their persistent IP-Hopping and tendency to invent (rather obvious) alter-egos to stack discussions has shown that attempting to engage with them has and will be completely unproductive. This user has already wasted enough of our time. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I’ve also noticed a pattern with this LTA’s editing style- they seem to have a tendency to first perform an unproblematic edit, then follows it up with another edit introducing a questionable place name or location into the article. Examples of this behavior can be seen on Java Road, Fat Kwong Street and Wanshan Archipelago. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 16:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The IP editor has also seemingly acknowledged their LTA “nickname”, as evidenced by this edit summary. DENY is definitely needed. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 16:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Instantnood?

I just realised this might be User:Instantnood – a user who was very active from 2005 before they were banned in 2007 for disruptive behaviour. Check out their edit history. Their editing patterns and interests are shockingly similar (similar subjects, adding the exact same obscure place names such as New Kowloon and Tai Wo Ping, same fixation on the terminology surrounding Hong Kong/Macau/Taiwan/China). And there have been a lot of suspected Instantnood sockpuppets over the past decade. Thoughts? Citobun (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Huh. Looking at Instantnood's MO, I'm not 100% sure that the IP is Instantnood- they've mostly just been pushing obscure place names and not attempting to promote Hong Kong nationalism in articles. There might be a connection but it's prolly not enough to make a solid link. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 17:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually the IP has been engaged in the same kind of country-terminology debates as Instantnood. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Citobun (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmm... Might be worth further investigation, but I'd wait until we find a concrete link between the two. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

New account – KTKcreator

They have created a new account (KTKcreator (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) to push a place name called Kei Tau Kok, which they had pushed in the past at Tung Chung East station and other articles. I've nominated Category:Kei Tau Kok for deletion. Citobun (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Repeated instances of WP:CANVASS and WP:UNCIVIL by Lugnuts

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

USER:Lugnuts has been pinging all of the Keep !votes (and only the keep !votes) from one AFD related to an article they created into other AFDs: 1 2. When it was pointed out to them that this was canvassing, they responded with groundless accusations (3) of WP:TAGTEAM (an essay which says "Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil"). They have been making the same accusation multiple times over the last few days 4 5 6 7 8 9. Lugnuts has had previous cases at ANI involving canvassing and is well-aware that it is disruptive behaviour.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not in a "tag team" with anyone, do not communicate with any Wiki editor off-wiki, and merely work on AFDs (particularly. Geo AFDs) that appear on the GEO AFD notice board. FOARP (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• When are we going to stop Lugnuts from mass-creating microstubs? We pulled autopatrol, buy they're still doing it [12]. Canvassing AFDs and accusing editors of tag team (without evidence) to defend the microstubs is even worse. This is spam. Mass-creating articles like Harry Oppenheim and Akuşağı, Baskil is no different than spamming. A standalone for every village? For every guy who played one national football game 100+ years ago? Come on. Also, I believe systematically copying thousands of entries from worldfootball.net and other websites onto Wikipedia is a copyright violation or a license violation or a violation of those websites' TOS. I'd be pretty BS if I was running a database website, and somebody was just scraping it to copy everything over to Wikipedia and purport to re-license it for free. One of these days, folks, this bird will come home to roost. Levivich 15:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree that there's a potential database rights issue with importing database entries wholesale that needs more attention. FOARP (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich and FOARP: US law does not recognize database copyright protection. If the information is highly basic as laid out like "Footballer from Australia was born on [date] and played midfielder" then there is no copyright concern. Our copyright policy is based off of US law provisions, except for our fair use which is more stringent. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is however also available in the EU. But as much an issue is the terms of use of websites like Sports-Reference.com whereby users explicitly agree not to use their data to create a competing or substitute service (see 5.j here: https://www.sports-reference.com/termsofuse.html ). FOARP (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

WMF Legal, and by extension, enwp, is only concerned about US copyright law because it is the only jurisdiction where the WMF can be held legally responsible. It does not matter that WP is available in the EU or other sites because the servers are in the US. The concern with sports-reference.com is database rights, which US law and enwiki policy does not recognize. Sennecaster (Chat) 03:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Sports-reference.com’s terms of use are contract-law. If data is transposed directly from their database to Wiki to the extent that people no longer need to use sports-reference.com because the data is all (or in large part) on Wikipedia then their terms of use are broken. Whether Wikipedia or just Lugnuts are liable in that circumstance for breach of contract is very hard to say.

Also we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that Lugnuts said in their previous ANI that they would stop making this specific kind of stub, and was warned about canvassing. He’s now acting as though the consensus of that previous ANI simply doesn’t apply any more. FOARP (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Lugnuts typically posts notifications at WT:FILM in a neutral way and does good work for the project, but this is a clear case of canvassing. It's best to stick with pinging projects and noticeboards with neutral notices than it is to single out specific editors, but if you're going to do that, ping all those involved in a past discussion, not just the ones who agree with your position. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Agreed, and he's been selectively canvassing some more on an unrelated notability discussion [13]. Alright, I get that Lugnuts has made a lot of edits, but he's been warned more than once at ANI already [14] for such antics. Are we really getting back to the days when having enough edits was sufficient immunization against having to follow the rules? Beyond that, his recent exhortations for people to stop posting to his talk page defy the purpose of a talk page, which is to communicate with other editors about (among other things) such controversies, or deletion filings. We would not look kindly at all about a newbie harshly rejecting such communications, and that newbie would be at serious risk of an indef for no other reason. Ravenswing 15:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed particularly on Lugnuts refusal to allow notices on their talk page and their uncivil attacks on people who post necessary notices there, including even the notice that I literally had to post on their talk page in order to raise this ANI notice.

Whether or not Lugnuts is being treated with undue leniency I can’t say. It is clear from their blocklog, however, that they have already made commitments not to engage in uncivil and disruptive editing, commitments which they were explicitly warned breaking would result in a much longer block than their previous blocks.FOARP (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

(... blinks HARD) Hang on. He's accusing you of harassment for notifying him of the ANI action?? Ravenswing 18:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Well presumably the edit summary is about starting a discussion at ANI (not the subsidiary act of notification). This seems to me like an unproductive angle to focus on. --JBL (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn’t assume that at all, as Lugnuts has been regularly doing exactly the same thing to people posting AFD notices and similar on his talk page, and because the edit summary says “RV ongoing harassment” (as in, the notice itself is “harassment” in Lugnut’s view, that they are reverting). These are interactions people literally have to do. They are standard notifications. Communication is a required part of editing on Wikipedia and not something editors can simply opt out of. FOARP (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

If only, JBL, but this is nothing new. We have this diff [15], a notification of an AfD filing on articles Lugnuts created, where his edit summary was "what part of don't post here don't you undertsand?" We have this diff [16], another AfD filing, where his edit summary is "don't post here, rv WP:TAGTEAM." The same here [17], with the edit summary of "and please do not bother me again." From an editor who's been warned and admonished at ANI more than once, and with a pretty impressive block log, this is either a strong case of WP:IDHT, someone who's flipping us all off, or someone who's just going to keep on saying whatever he needs to say at ANI to get off with a stern finger waggling. Ravenswing 19:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• I've been redirecting Lugnuts-created Turkish village stubs to their District articles, since no real effort had been made to improve them over the past 8 months. This has led to multiple conflicts which have escalated due to Lugnuts' incivility and refusal to communicate. Paşakonağı is a typical example: I redirected this version since the only source (besides the unreliable Koyumuz) was a trivial mention about its Kurdish population. Lugnuts reverted; fair enough, this seemed like a good-faith disagreement that could be talked out, but my only choice was AfD since Lugnuts had asked me not to ping them or post on their talk page. The article was then expanded to the point that I actually voted Keep. Great! If someone is willing to expand a stub with reliable sources then by all means it should be re-created.

But then, Lugnuts used that Keep outcome as a reason to keep two other sets of stubs [18][19] that had not been expanded, and called me "disingenuous" and asked me to not ping or post on their talk page after I pointed out their bright-line canvassing violation.

And then we've also got Çaltılıçukur and Büyükalan which Lugnuts un-redirected twice each, again citing that Paşakonağı AfD and suggesting that these articles go to AfD as well instead of actually discussing their objection to the redirect.

It seems like Lugnuts can't handle having their articles deleted/redirected and is fighting it at every opportunity, expecting others to do the work of finding sources and expanding. It's really a shame since many of these articles probably could be expanded, but Lugnuts has little to no interest in doing it themselves and seems incapable of approaching it in a civil manner. It's a struggle and makes this very large cleanup task even more difficult. –dlthewave ☎ 05:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

In this AfD I pinged all the previous editors from this AfD. It appears I've missed ONE person out (Mike). I then copied that same notification, sans Mike, to another AfD. I've asked Dlthewave to stop posting on my talkpage at least twice, following on from this "apology", which I find hard to take sincerely. OK, so that's my issue, the least they can do is simply not bother me. Recent AfDs started by this user seem to come with a very quick follow-up from the OP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

So we're expected to believe, with your history of canvassing, that it was just an accident that you pinged every Keep voter before Mike posted, and every Keep voter after Mike posted, and furthermore you did so in multiple AfDs? Ravenswing 11:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. As I said, I copied the same ping template and omitted ONE name. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

You copied the same ping-template just two minutes after responding to a warning that it was canvassing with uncivil accusations and an edit-summary saying "pot. kettle. black", meaning you knew that it was canvassing, you just didn't care. FOARP (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

And did so AFTER it was pointed out that this was canvassing? Just so we can be clear on the tick-tock here:

• 09:17 20 December - Lugnuts' first instance of CANVASS
• 10:36 20 December - warned that what they are doing is a breach of CANVASS
• 12:56 20 December - responds with an uncivil accusation of TAGTEAM and the edit summary "pot. kettle. black"
• 12:58 20 December - Lugnuts' second instance of CANVASS in another AFD
• 13:13 20 December - Warned AGAIN that this is CANVASS.
• 13:15 20 December - responds again with uncivil accusations.
• 14:40 20 December - Third instance of CANVASS by Lugnuts in a separate RFC.

This was not an accident. This is just Lugnuts doing what Lugnuts has been allowed to get away with for too long. It's high time the community made it clear that a higher standard of behaviour than this is required. FOARP (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

And this is par for the course. It's not just the incivility, it's making uncivil comments instead of engaging. Here are a few more, I suggest folks look closely at what Lugnuts is responding to:

• "When the nom has been asked multiple times not to post on my talkpage, it's probably wise not to do so." Off-topic response to a comment by Ravenswing.
• "RV WP:TAGTEAM" In response to my question about deprods.
• "Please, AGF" This seems to be an implicit accusation of assuming bad faith, completely sidestepping FOARP's actual concerns about sourcing.

I can handle incivility, but Lugnuts' conduct is actively obstructing any hope of a productive discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 16:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Lugnuts is repeating allegations of TAGTEAM, again, and their evidence for this is simply the fact that I regularly look at the daily AFD noticeboard and Geo deletion-sorting board and vote on the AFDs that appear there. This could easily have been explained to them had they been open to communication - or even just asked on my talk page? Instead they just chose to use these allegations as an uncivil insult/put-down in edit summaries and when concerns were raised about their behaviour.
  

Also, it was not just one editor who was missed in their CANVASS breaches, as they failed to ping me also the second time they did it. They also kept doing it after was pointed out to them that what they were doing was CANVASS, more than once (see Ravenwing’s additional example above).

Finally, if Lugnuts does not wish to communicate this is one thing - they can of course just delete notices from their talk page or even put a notice opting out of receiving AFD notifications altogether - but repeatedly making false accusations against people who are posting notices they are required to put on their talk page is quite another. This is particularly the case when people are doing clean-up work necessitated by Lugnuts’ mass-creation of single-source stubs. FOARP (talk) 11:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• I seriously think Lugnuts needs to stop creating articles. I hate to not AGF someone who clearly believes they are doing valuable work, but to me it really seems like the point of all this pointless stub creation is for statistics, and from their user page it looks like the current goal is to simply get credit for as many creations as possible. And I definitely think Lugnuts needs to immediately stop characterizing required notifications as harrassment. That is a clear attempt to dissuade people from complaining (or even from cleaning up after them) by intimidation. —valereee (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  I'd certainly support a tban on Lugnuts both from new article creation and the AfD process. If both elements are so stressful to him that he lashes out at required notifications and resorts to repeated canvassing, no doubt there's plenty of work on Wikipedia he could be doing instead ... like, for instance, working to source the sub-stubs he's creating. Come to that, in the last 24 hours alone, he's created 43 new articles. Not a single one of them is longer than two sentences.

  Postscript: it gets even worse. I just went back over the last month of Lugnuts' new article creations. Of that total, other than a list article, only three are longer than two sentences long. Two of those are three sentences. One is a whopping four sentences long. You have to go back nearly 2000 creations before getting to an article as long as two paragraphs. What the hell? Ravenswing 14:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Multiple other users have patrolled those articles. Is this off the back of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Proposal_for_a_sports_venues_guideline when I questioned your AfDs? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

No, this is off you selectively canvassing to try to get warm bodies to back up your POV. So I popped into your edit history to see which areas you'd "notified," and found that only three of the several dozen sports Wikiprojects were worth your notice. Then your talk page popped out with these glaring incivilities, and it's tutti all the way. And that being said, yes, I'm active at ANI, and see such filings. (Feel free to look over my edit history.) Are you really not comprehending why other editors have problems with your behavior? Ravenswing 15:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I notified three projects I work in, all of which have many active members, to get more comments to your request. Every single one of my notificiations was written in a neutral tone, hardly pushing a POV as you claim. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support sanction - Despite plentiful warnings Lugnuts response above to complaints about their disruptive and uncivil behaviour in literally the only forum in which they will hear them was essentially a double-down on their behaviour combined with a totally transparent excuse given the multiple warnings about canvassing that they had received. They're now compounding that with more accusations. It is beyond time that a sanction was imposed for this behaviour. FOARP (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I missed out ONE NAME from a ping I copy+pasted into two AfDs. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, here's the tick-tock:

• 09:17 20 December - Lugnuts' first instance of CANVASS
• 10:36 20 December - warned that what they are doing is a breach of CANVASS
• 12:56 20 December - responds with an uncivil accusation of TAGTEAM and the edit summary "pot. kettle. black"
• 12:58 20 December - Lugnuts' second instance of CANVASS in another AFD
• 13:13 20 December - Warned AGAIN that this is CANVASS.
• 13:15 20 December - responds again with uncivil accusations.
• 14:40 20 December - Third instance of CANVASS by Lugnuts in a separate RFC.

You were warned repeatedly that what you were doing was canvassing, you responded uncivilly to every warning. Particularly the edit-summary "pot. kettle. black" shows that you knew what you were doing was disruptive, you just thought it was justified by your (entirely imaginary, completely groundless and uncivil) allegations of TAGTEAM. FOARP (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Odd, what's been done to his userpage, or who done it. But, oh well. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay; Bsadowski1, a steward, deleted the page, but since Lugnuts has a userpage on meta, it now appears in its place, that's about the extent of it. If he wants a redlink, he'd just have to ask for deletion of meta:User:Lugnuts. AngryHarpy‍^talk 14:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposed T-ban from stub creation

Closed this section as outcome clear but leaving the rest as there are still conversations ongoing to be had Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Except for articles over X-amount of words (perhaps 500 words? —which is the minimum accepted at WP:DYK so has a precedent). Non-article related behavioral issues can be dealt with by a short preventative block if necessary.

Canvassing, incivility, bludgeoning, spamming: stops right here. The previous ANI established the community's concerns regarding Lugnuts' Fordist approach to article creation bu kicked the can down the road; this ANI can pick t up and run with it. ——Serial 16:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Per above. 500-word minimum could direct their efforts in a constructive direction but it would need enforcing. Lugnuts’ uncivil and disruptive editing is a direct product of his article-creation campaign, so this T-ban does address the problem reported here. Enough is enough. EDIT: also OK with making it time-limited, but lean towards indef with a chance to appeal in 6 months. FOARP (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support a short ban, e.g. six months to see how it goes. I still see Lugnuts as a net positive. Deb (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with this ^^^ Lugnuts can clearly write decent, non-stub-database entries when he choses, so this could provide the focus on doing so. ——Serial 16:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support proposed T-ban from creation, including creating articles from redirects. The 500-word exception seems like good way to encourage constructive article-building. –dlthewave ☎ 16:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support - I would prefer not to have the word limit, and just say indef tban from article creation, come back in no less than six months with an appeal showing non-disruptive editing outside of article creation. But I support this with the 500-word exception as well. For me the tipping point is that since having his autopatrolled removed in April 2021, Lugnuts has made almost 5,000 new articles (that's like 20+ articles every day, 7 days a week, for 8 months), for a grand total over 93,000 articles created... but those 5,000 post-April aren't any different than what he was making before autopatrolled got removed. I do not think we can reasonably trust this editor to create new articles that are policy-compliant. Levivich 17:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I would also support a full tban on article creation. Mass-creating microstubs is, at this point, NOTHERE behavior: he is here to increase his article count, not to build an encyclopedia. These two goals might have aligned in the earlier days of Wikipedia, but now it is plainly disruptive in how much work it causes everyone else cleaning up after him (what percentage of the thousands of "clearly non-notable but technically meets NSPORT" athlete bios at AfD were churned out by him? How many are BLPs that need additional monitoring?). Past warnings have done nothing. So coupled with the bright-line canvassing and incivility the consequences here should be a no-brainer. JoelleJay (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support but it's also time to consider broader sanction as the disruption will just move elsewhere, as the section below notes. Star Mississippi 19:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support: full tban on new article creation. Between the autopatrolled thing, the repeated canvassing, and his comments above, one thing shines through: Lugnuts doesn't think he's done anything wrong. Obviously he believes Wikipedia is some geeky RPG where he's out to win Game High Score, and the canvassing and other antics are to defend the article creations no matter what. He's apologized for nothing, and none of this gives any notion that he can be trusted not to game any half-measures. If he wishes to continue buffing up his edit count, he can start cleaning up his own mess and adding substantive content to his own articles, instead of relying on others to do it for him. [20] Ravenswing 19:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support either this, or full topic ban on new articles. This has been a repeated issue, and at this point doing nothing is the definition of insanity. Lugnuts' behavior is detrimental in creating more work for everyone else for marginal benefit, and the issues with combative responses to reasonable criticism is the cherry on top. I think this needs to start out as indefinite so we aren't back at this rodeo without change. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support indefinitely. And can someone make it clear that making countless pointless, cosmetic edits just to be not only the first but also the most recent editor of articles is disruptive as well? Examples (just some from a long list) from today:
  • [21] (on the same article, they removed the short description less than an hour after another editor added it, then readded the exact same short description less than an hour after another editor made an edit)
  • [22]. Again, an unclear need to be the "current" editor is present, e.g. here, here, here, here, here...
  • [23] (previously this and this)

They seem to have a series of potential "improvements" they use one-by-one when someone else edits the article, to get an edit in. Why? Beats me. Perhaps because these then don't appear on his watchlist (i.e. article hidden when most recent edit is mine), but this is hardly sufficient reason to display such WP:OWN behaviour (and if this is the reason, then it is rather uncollegial towards the editor who made the previous edit and may have the same article on their watchlist). Fram (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support an indef topic ban with a chance to appeal in 6 months. Let's see if they think this through and improve. - Darwinek (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support either this or a total ban on article creation; while I think a word limit would allow Lugnuts to demonstrate responsiveness to community expectations, I am mindful—as colleagues here have pointed out—that similar chances have already been offered in the past. ——Serial 06:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Deb above. I know from experience that Lugnuts is perfectly capable of writing legitimate articles and is a positive to Wikipedia for doing so. A ban on page creation, or on creating pages below a reasonable size (I'm fine with either) would allow him to continue with those activities that actually benefit Wikipedia, while stemming the constant disruption. (I do have some degree of sympathy—we've turned a blind eye to it for so long that I imagine he reasonably assumed that a flood of substubs was somehow what we wanted—but this was never acceptable.) ‑ Iridescent 08:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all! I guess making short articles with one or two sources is no longer the done thing around here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support indefinite ban on creation of very short stubs and articles referenced exclusively to database-type sources only; I see no reason to ban creation of substantial, well researched and referenced articles – Lugnuts is clearly capable and much of their work is productive; they should be encouraged down this path. A stout commitment not to return to factory production methods is needed before consideration should be given to overturning the ban. In addition, I recommend the ban be extended to reverting redirects of existing very short stubs without substantial expansion and improvement in sourcing, since this is disruptive to clean-up efforts and results in avoidable additional workload at AFD. It's unfortunate that, following the ANI several months ago that resulted in loss of autopatrolled, Lugnuts did not get the very clear message and has continued to pursue article creation tally; as such, the only effect of that previous sanction has been increased workload for NPP. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment/Query I don't need a weatherman to tell me it's snowing here, and I can see the issue people have with short stubs produced en masse. I'm happy to stop all stubs like this, including but not limited to BLPs, sportspeople, films, and other similar creations. My main area of work outside of that is for international cricket tours (examples: one, two, three, four). Would people who've voted support here be happy if I only work/create those pages? Every single one of those starts small, and then grows. Hell, I even got a good article out of one of them. Pinging those above: @Serial Number 54129, FOARP, Deb, Dlthewave, Levivich, JoelleJay, Star Mississippi, Ravenswing, David Fuchs, Fram, Iridescent, and Wjemather: I think that's everyone here. If I've missed anyone, please let me know. Merry Christmas. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

  Reply: No. The overwhelming response above points to a lack of trust in your good faith, and the last time -- after many editors expressed deep concerns about your behavior -- you promised not to create any new sub-stubs, you created eight more on the very next damn day [24], three dozen in the next week [25], and over 9000 in the less than eight months thereafter. You want to help build an encyclopedia instead of creating a mirror site for worldfootball.net, you've created many thousands of sub-stubs that you can work on instead to bring them to the point where they are actually viable articles. But we took you at your word in April. You couldn't keep that promise for as much as a single day. Merry Christmas back atcha, but it's a bit much to expect us to place reliance in your good faith now. Ravenswing 11:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Well I've not made any articles today. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

... this, and your next couple comments below, is your response to our legitimate concerns that you've played us in the past and were playing us now? Ravenswing 17:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• You literally just told us you cannot see the difference between a stub created in response to media coverage of a recent death and a stub created from a 1909 lineup for a ballplayer who played a single game, a person so obscure we can't even list his date of death. —valereee (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

See WP:NFOOTY - "Players who have played in, and managers who have managed in, any Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA,[6] in a competitive senior international match at confederation level regardless of whether or not the teams are members of FIFA, or the Olympic Games. The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria" So in your mind, not knowing the date of death equates to being non-notable. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• No. I was willing to accept this commitment back in April and look where this got us: 8 months later you were engaging in uncivil and disruptive behaviour in order to prevent clean-up of the very articles you promised not to create more of. Let's have the T-Ban and see where we stand in six months.
  

I'd also like to make the strongest possible warning that my non-admin self can make against attempting any other gambits of the kind that you have attempted in the past. FOARP (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Basically, at the moment, the more restrictions you get, the better. You don't see any problem with your creations, you don't understand the simplest questions, and you continue to make completely pointless edits just to be top of the editor list on articles (see the above examples, but see also your most recent edit, with a "rv" edit summary: an editor tries to add an image, and removes when this fails: so of course you just need to make an utterly pointless edit[26]. WP:OWN much? Fram (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

If you take a closer look, the person is uploading an image that may not be the subject and is almost certainly a non-free image too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

But then what is the point of the last edit in that series? I would like to take your side here, but your actions really are difficult to understand. Dumuzid (talk) 15:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't bother taking my side. Fram's toxicity has flowed too deep already. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Talking like this (i.e., as though everyone were being controlled by Fram) shows that you are not sincere about improving. Please accept that multiple editors independently see issues with your editing. Article creation is not the only problem, nor even the specific thing this ANI was originally about (that was repeatedly making uncivil allegations and engaging in repeated canvassing even after it was pointed out to you that this was what you were doing), but I support the T-Ban because, like others here, I think mass article-creation may be the root cause of this behaviour. FOARP (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support - As someone who's never created an article in their life I take no joy from limiting those who can ... however .... our readers want knowledge and information .... one-liner articles doesn't really give either. Honestly like those above have said I feel these were created for statistic-sake and not for the sake of our readers. If this doesn't work then I'd support a full article ban but like I said I don't create anything besides dramah so I'd rather again not limit someone who can create articles. –Davey2010^Talk 16:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support Personally I'd prefer to see a ban on article creation. Nigej (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose People who think stubs are useless need to change policy and guidelines to make stubs unacceptable and to make notability guidelines more stringent, not try and force it by making an example of one editor who's working under those guidelines. (Full disclosure: I think the "stubs may have once been necessary, no longer" is an elitist mentality which ignores most of the world. Maybe you can't find topics from America or even Europe but there's millions of articles missing from other regions.) Lugnuts' reasons for what they choose to do is nobody else's business. One productive thing about sub-par articles that the community could actually do is empower WP:NPP to draftify all articles that don't demonstrate notability with sources in the article. Again, making an example of one editor is the exact wrong approach when there are thousands upon thousands of poorly sourced, poorly crafted articles being added every month. There may be other issues with Lugnuts' editing like civility (haven't checked), edits that serve no discernible purpose, or bad moves, which may need addressing, but a topic ban from creating stubs does not do that. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts’ incivility and canvassing (which is documented above) appears to be a product of his pursuit of high article-creation statistics. For this reason the T-Ban does address other issues beyond the repeated sub-stub creation. FOARP (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

What appears to us to be their motivation is irrelevant. Were there documented problems with Lugnuts' civility and canvassing before the dramaboards started admonishing them for creating stubs that meet WP:STUB and WP:N? If not, we can as safely assume that those problems will go away too if we let them be. Regardless, incivility is dealt with by conduct restrictions or blocks, canvassing can be dealt with by topic banning from deletion and/or blocks, after adequate amount of attempted discussions and warnings. Tban from stub-creation could only be a punitive way to address incivility and canvassing. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

There absolutely were problems with Lugnuts being uncivil and disruptive before the community started to focus on problematic sub-stub creation. Take a look at the 10 separate blocks on Lugnuts’ block log, including the near-enough final warning they got in 2018 for uncivil behaviour (“any resumption of incivility, abuse, harassment etc. will result in a far lengthier block”) and then totally ignored. FOARP (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

We aren't seeking a tban for working under the guidelines. We're seeking one for someone serially abusing the guidelines, who's canvassed to protect his actions, who promised to change his ways at ANI back in April in an attempt to dodge sanctions, who broke his word within hours, who's approached these serious issues with battleground behavior, and whose contempt for these concerns is manifest above. Ravenswing 17:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

This is an overly broad and overly vague characterisation. What exactly were those abuses of guidelines? Two stubs were mentioned above; one meets NFOOTY and the other likely meets NGEO. Yes, there's some incivility and conspiratorial thinking, but that seems completely understandable, if wrong, when one finds oneself suddenly getting in trouble for what was not a problem before and at the verge of being topic-banned for some vague reasons that suddenly seem to supersede long-standing notability guidelines. On this very page, a long-time contributor has said "sorry" 25 times in the past couple of days; is that what we want from editors in trouble now? Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh for pity's sake; there are dozens of links in this ANI filing, and a whopping lot of some very specific reasons, as well as links to a long, long ANI filing back in April, with its own sets of evidence, as well as the research into Lugnuts' article creation history, which you ought to be just as capable of looking at yourself as I was. Perhaps you've already made your mind up, and have little wish to be troubled by the facts, but kindly don't insult our intelligence. Ravenswing 07:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware a lot of people have a lot of problems with a lot of things Lugnuts has done. No, I am not going to support topic-banning someone from creating stubs because "there are a lot of problems with their edits that everyone can investigate for themselves". So far as I know, there has been one non-vague problem with their stubs which is that a batch of them was created using what was later determined to be an unreliable source. All the rest just reads "I don't like how lax the SNGs are but I can't get them changed because the SNG guidelines are watched by editors of respective WikiProjects who will oppose such changes, so I am going to make those SNGs useless by sanctioning any editor who creates articles based on them from ANI where those editors don't comment." The fact that SNGs are what they are is proof enough that there is community consensus for stubs Lugnuts creates based on them, no matter how many people who feel comfortable to comment at ANI think different. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support a ban from creating stubs, or any article, would do a lot to cut down on the disruption and drama that we're seeing from this editor. I'm not against creation of stubs in principle, but this editor has shown that their efforts to do so are detrimental to the encyclopedia. (t · c) buidhe 17:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Lugnuts has deleted their user page with the message “bye”. Anyone who was involved in the previous ANI will recognise this behaviour. For this reason I absolutely still think we should go through with sanctioning. FOARP (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

  I hope he doesn't start creating socks. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

  Agree 100%. A classic diversionary tactic. I'm now of the view that a permanent ban on article creation would the correct way forward. If and when he returns, this can all be discussed again, with his input, to determine a way forward. Nigej (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

  Quite. The acceptable response would've been "Alright, I hear what you guys are saying, I'm going to take my medicine" and to ask for the question to be revisited after six months. I doubt anyone here would rejected such a response. Instead, he's counterattacked, canvassed, tried to fob us off, snarked at us again when we didn't bite at the lure, and is now pulling a ragequit stunt. Short of posting IDHT in giant 72-pt red letters on all of our talk pages, I don't think he could make his point more clearly. Ravenswing 17:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support It is very clear that the community does not appreciate tens of thousands of one-line stubs sourced only to databases. Doesn't matter if the bullshit NSPORTS provisions cited supposedly support it, that gives a benefit of the doubt to one-off pages where further coverage is truly expected, not tens of thousands of people who played a single game of a sport. If lugnuts wants to continue the obscene bias Wikipedia has in favor of athletes, he should put in the actual work himself with significant sources and not spam the project with utter junk that will never be improved. Would love to see bulk redirection of unimproved pages to the relevant team or event or whatever, because a database entry without additional substance does not in fact meet our notability standards. Reywas92^Talk 05:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  This is exactly what troubles me. Dramaboards becoming the "consensus of the community" even for matters that were explicitly proposed and failed to gain consensus in the proper venues. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts’ chose to simply not engage with any discussion about his articles and to respond to any attempt to discuss them with incivility - even when the communications were those that editors are required to make. He also chose to try to disrupt clean-up of his articles with canvassing, even after being warned that that was what he was doing. He left ANI (this “drama-board” as you call it) as literally the only place where these issues could be addressed. He chose this forum. FOARP (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support In English Wikipedia, it's different than other wikis that bots creating new articles are strictly prohibited. As we think, we can create an article (very small) in other wikis, you can do that in Cebuano Wikipedia or small wikis, if you know the language. But 95,000 articles are too much (no problem if DYK or GA-wise). However, enwiki has grown into an extensive level of articles and sometimes, we have to put the quality > quantity. So I suggest an indefinite ban against article creation (appeal after 6 months); all new articles must go through an AFC process (which could take a very long time) and it's hard to spam (can't manage more than 10,000 declined drafts as they would delete by 6 months of no editing) Thingofme (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Lugnuts must clean up their mess

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

---

In the March ANI, Lugnuts avoided further sanctions by promising to clean up Koyumuz-sourced stubs:

• "The Turkish gov. website has details of each village/neighbourhood. Happy to replace the existing source with that, and remove the population stat as I go."
• "Thanks - I've started work on changing the reference, so down from 4,452 (quoted above) to just 4,396 to go. Some of them using Koyumuz won't be articles I started, as the ref had been used way before I started to use it."
• "It was a geninue response to the claim made by that editor. I could say X source isn't reliable for a source they've provided, and get slapped with "you're not WP:AGF!" in reply. The alternative, which I'm now working on, is to replace cites to Koyumuz. I've removed about 150 today alone. I'll work on the rest and have that down to zero."
• "For each new article, I also link it to its page on Wikidata, and create redirect/dab pages for the first half of the placename as needed. And I've also been replacing links from the koyumuz site, doing about 200 in the past 24hrs. Obviously I wont be replacing that source if someone else has added it. Thanks."
• "Well I've addressed the original issue, and have begun to replace the unreilable source. I haven't created any more of these today, although everything I have done is clearly within the spirit of the guidelines for populated places, and per point 1 of WP:5P."
• "I've assumed a lot of good faith from the OP's concerns, despite the two of us not seeing eye to eye. The original issue being about the reliabilty of the koyumuz source. I updated a whole batch of them earlier today, and I've said I'll work through the rest."
• "Hi. The initial concern was the creation of populated places articles using an unreilable source. That has been recognised by myself, and I'm working through replacing said source. I think the original stats were 4,000+ articles with that source, the number is now just over 3,000. IE I've updated 1,000+ articles since the issue was flagged up. That's it. ONE mistake with a source, which is now being fixed. Everything I create is to the letter/spirit of the relevant notability guidelines/policy."

Since a great many Koyumuz references still remain, I propose that Lugnuts is banned from all activities except the cleanup of Turkish village articles, to be lifted when no references to Koyumuz remain in article space. Do not leave any articles unsourced/unreliably sourced; redirecting to the District article is allowed. This would be in addition to any other sanctions.

A more stringent option would be to require that all of Lugnuts' Turkish village creations be either redirected or sourced with at least two sources that cover the subject in prose, not just lists or tables. –dlthewave ☎ 15:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

As much as I agree that he should do this, this seems like “cruel and unusual” punishment. Let him just show he can edit productively and collegiately. FOARP (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

We can't actually compel him to do any work he doesn't feel like doing, his sub-stub creation goes far beyond Turkish villages, and what poor bastard wants to be the one monitoring this all? The tban as proposed above is good enough. Ravenswing 17:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose; sanctions should only be imposed in order to prevent disruption. This proposal has a different purpose. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Rather moot, now that he's apparently retired. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Disambig

Now that we are here, can someone please explain to @Lugnuts: that when there are redirects to politicians, it is not okay to move them to (foorballer) disambiguation to usurp the original article? They did this (now twice) with Otto Moltke, first moved to Otto Moltke (footballer) (corrected by me), and now again to Otto Moltke (Danish footballer), which now has a history starting with a redirect to Otto Joachim Moltke who isn't a footballer. Worse, they did the same (again twice) with Flemming Mortensen (now at Flemming Mortensen (Danish footballer)), a redirect to Flemming Møller Mortensen who is clearly the primary target for the search term "Flemming Mortensen"[27][28][29]. I get that they want to increase their "article creation" count at all costs, but moving article history to a blatantly wrong title is not an acceptable way to do this. Fram (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Well it's all go here, isn't it. You can see there's no other articles with those base names, hence why there's no disambig needed. Hatnotes have been added. Anyone else? Oh, and a Merry Christmas to you, Fram! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Stop hijacking primary titles of biographies. An admin should pull your page mover perm for this (and the others too). I don't have time for this but if someone does, they can look at the page views of the two articles and the redirect and show that you're making the encyclopedia harder to navigate by changing a redirect to a less-sought-after target. This is even worse than spamming or ripping off off-wiki databases. Seriously you are so disruptive in your quest for a high score I can't believe it. Levivich 15:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

This says zero page views for Otto Moltke in the past month. It's not "hijacking" - all I've done is moved an a redirect to save an un-need disambig page. I thought this was the done thing? Pinging @Anthony Appleyard and Tassedethe: who do tons of work in this area. Have I been doing something wrong here? If so, what should I be doing? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

You've not only pinged these two but posted to both their talks asking them to chime in here. I have no clue what your relationship is to these two, but to me this seems really questionable. Unless these are editors who have a history of actually criticising your work...is that the point here? —valereee (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, to get an impartial view on this from two editors (one an admin) who do the same work in this area. That's the point. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts, you haven´t even attempted an explanation why you thought it good or even acceptable to move redirects to politicians to "footballer" or "Danish footballer" disambiguations. Is there any explanation besides "I want to have my name as the creator of these articles at all costs, and I´ll do silly moves if that is what it takes"? Fram (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

You can see there's no other articles with those base names, hence why there's no disambig needed. Hatnotes have been added. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not an answer to the question though. Leaving aside the question of priamry topics for now: why couldn't you simply write your article over the existing redirect, instead of moving it to a name which had no connection to the redirect at all? Moving a redirect to a politician to a "(footballer)" title, just to change it into a different redirect completely, simply makes no sense at all, unless you just need to be the page creator for some reason. Fram (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

You can see there's no other articles with those base names, hence why there's no disambig needed. Hatnotes have been added. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Can someone give Lugnuts a jolt? He seems to be stuck in a loop here. Fram (talk) 09:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I've answered your question, Fram. Don't know what the fuck your problem is with me. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question though. Why did you not simply usurp these redirects with an article, along with the necessary additional redirects and hatnotes? It gives the appearance of gaming page history to show you as the page creator; i.e. Otto Moltke now shows as being created by you (i.e. instead of as it was originally, by BD2412) and ridiculously, the history of Otto Moltke (Danish footballer) shows it as being created as a redirect to a politician. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, lets say I created it at Otto Moltke (footballer), as Otto Moltke already existed (as a r/d). It would eventually be moved to just Otto Moltke, as there's no other article with that exact title. That's the sort of work Anthony Appleyard, Tassedethe, and others do in these cases. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Why didn't you simply overwrite the existing redirect then? Why this complicated system which moves the original history to a page where it doesn't make any sense at all? It's not as if you can't or don't want to overwrite the original redirect, as you did that anyway (but only after moving it to a title which had nothing to do with the redirect). Fram (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts, the problem is the apparent gaming of redirects in order to show yourself as the page creator, which is abusing the pagemover permission. If you understand why people are objecting and will commit to not doing that again, good enough, but if you sincerely don't see the problem, unfortunately that permission probably needs to be removed. —valereee (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

What Fram said. While I have some sympathy for wanting to be the official page creator (this is the only way I know of to get the "somebody linked to your page" notification; it would be nice to have other ways to get this), moving redirects around using the suppressredirect superpower of pagemovers isn't a clean way to do it. If you need a redirect deleted to move something else in its place, use {{db-move}}. If you are this unresponsive when challenged about the way you use your pagemover power, perhaps you shouldn't have it. —Kusma (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup II

I'm curious what editors think should be done about the stubs. I believe the order of magnitude is thousands created this year, tens of thousands overall. Should we leave them be, try to go through them, batch delete some, something else? Is there an automated way to figure out which have not been edited by more than one editor? Levivich 19:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Delete all - Wipe the slate clean. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• I was wondering that myself. Could we delete all articles he's created since April (say) in which he's the only editor (as of yesterday, say)? Seems to me that if Wikipedia wanted mini-stubs of every village in Turkey (for instance) someone could go to the Turkish authorities, get a list of villages with their population, etc and some wizz-kid could create articles for every village all in one go with relatively little effort. We could have articles for every star in the sky, quite easily. Why would we need some editor doing such a repetitive exercise manually? Nigej (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• The prospect sucks, but manual is the only practical way around it without a riot. Think about it; damn near ANY grouped AfD/prod these days attracts howls of rage (hell, people bitched about "mass AfDs" about me taking THREE articles to AfD ... some of them who voted for that exactly that result to happen at RfD). There is no way in creation that a mass deletion involving 9000 articles will fly, the more so in that a number of them will wind up with valid sources and expandable articles, and that people will claim NSPORTS/GEOLAND passes. Art of the possible, folks. Ravenswing 20:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• A lot of them will have had bot-edits since creation, and many of them will still be technical SNG passes which is going to make AFDing them difficult. Many are also expandable into real articles - Lugnuts just didn’t distinguish between the notable and the non-notable.

A lot of Lugnuts’ Olympian articles sourced only to sports-reference.com/Olympedia (essentially the same source) are now NOLY fails, though, since the automatic notability pass for all Olympians was removed and replaced by a pass for all medalists. Particularly the pre-WW2 Olympian articles have loads who are never going to pass WP:BASIC. I’ve started the process of cleaning up these with Francis English (which uncovered some problems with the accuracy of sports-reference.com) but there’s tons more just like it.

For comparison, we’ve STILL just barely scratched the problem of Carlossuarrez46’s problematic GEOstubs, and the AN case involving him was in April and the clean-up started years before it.

Frankly I’d favour a TNT solution but I don’t see it happening. I’d be pleasantly surprised if it did. FOARP (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

(nods) We've had a similar situation at the hockey project, where Dolovis was banned from new article creation for pretty much defying all consensus to falsely claim his creations met the guidelines. It was hundreds of articles instead of thousands, on shakier grounds than Lugnuts', and that cleanup's taken years. Ravenswing 20:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes. We at WP:HOCKEY do indeed, remember Dolovis. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Really highlights what a net-negative mass sub-stub creation really is for the project. FOARP (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

It's really a job for a computer anyway, if it's needed. Take Eddy Carbonnelle which he created as Eddy Carbonelle when the database entry (in this case an archive of it, since its defunct) clearly has two n's. OK, we all make mistakes but I hope not many of us would make this sort of fundamental error. As I noted in another discussion "Perhaps this slip was related to the fact that the article was created at 17:56 on 22 September 2019, between the creation of Guy Debbaudt at 17:54 and the creation of Freddy Rens at 17:57." The article still says nothing, a link somewhere to the database entry would be more useful than the article itself, eg mentions his brother. Nigej (talk) 08:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, its an odd feature of Wikipedia that it's very easy to create articles but a hundred times more difficult to delete them. For some reason this is accepted and as a consequence we're apparently happy telling the world that 15% of all notable living people are notable because they play association football. Nigej (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. This process is an absolute travesty, a witch hunt. You'd think people here would have more contructive things to do, like constructing an encyclopedia. StickyWicket (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• And I imagine we'd all rather be about that. But here we are, needing to clean up the mess of someone who has been far less interested in constructing an encyclopedia than in going for Game High Score. Even those of us -- what was it you called us? -- "knobheads" who aren't participants in WP:CRIC [30]. Ravenswing 21:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• The idea that creating utterly useless articles is "constructing an encyclopedia" is nonsense. An encyclopedia is not a random collection of statistical and trivial information. It's a collection of well-written articles about people and topics that readers are interested in. Nigej (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• And BTW some of us did contribute to the cricket project. eg Archie Cumberbatch (created 21 May 2007‎) and others, but left for pastures new, so I presume my comments are not part of the "absolute shite chatted by people who never contribute to the cricket project". Nigej (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• I was a member there once myself... until being signed up to the project and also disagreeing with one of its decrees made me the target of personal abuse. So I left. Then my departure made me a target of further abuse and used as ammunition in a risible attempt to get me permabanned from the encyclopedia. There's simply no pleasing these people, which is just how they like it. Reyk _YO! 22:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Given the related discussions that have gone on at many venues (WT:CRIC, AFD, NSPORT, N, ANI, etc.), i.e. covering mass-produced database entry-type stubs, especially over the last 12-18 months, some of the comments seen both here and elsewhere by certain members of the cricket project are tone deaf at best. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• I've gotten through about 30 of 300-some districts in Turkey, using AWB to redirect stubs and create Village/Neighbourhood lists. The biggest time sink is copying over the coordinates and any other salvageable data. I think it would go much faster if we used an automated process to create district-level tables with coordinates and population from scratch, then use AWB to quickly scroll through each article and either redirect or skip if it's been expanded. Could probably process 6 stubs/minute this way. –dlthewave ☎ 03:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yeah, it's absurd that someone can create dozens of articles a day, several thousand in a year, clearly having put zero thought into them except for how quickly the data from a sports reference site can be copied, but the rest of us have to spend a week scrutinizing them individually. Heck, start by filtering any article that contains the words "one match" and delete. Or take the phrase "for the ____ team" and redirect to that team, e.g. Johann Baar to List of Austria international footballers (1–24 caps). Put me down for the AWB crew if there's a way to do this. The link to StickyWicket's comment says he's made B-class articles from stubs, but there's nothing stopping you from doing that from a redirect to a list either! Would also concur with GoodDay though, say, anything under a certain length... Reywas92^Talk 05:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• Footballer editor here - the stubs he has created about Danish/Austrian footballers from many years ago are definitely notable per NFOOTBALL and likely notable per GNG, but I agree that the mass creation of these very basic stubs was problematic and agree that a redirect to a relevant 'List of X international footballers' is sensible. In due course we can create proper articles if/when we want to. As for the Turkish village stubs - get rid of them all. GiantSnowman 08:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree that probably most of the Danish footballer articles are at least technical SNG passes, but… like we’re talking about stand-alone articles for Danish footballers who were subbed into a single friendly against Poland in 1937 and this is literally the only thing that is known about them. The sources are in every case statistical databases, statistical databases where the biographical information (e.g., death-dates) may be less reliable that the sports-stats data. These are database entries, not articles, and the chances of them ever being expandable into real articles is in many cases zero. All it needs is a tightening up of the notability requirements as happened with Olympians and every single one of these will have the same point of failure. FOARP (talk) 09:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Soft delete all In my opinion, this is the best way to both deal with the mass stub creations while leaving the door open to the retention of entries which may have a claim towards notability. I know this is a very unconventional use of soft deletion, but I don't see any better options here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
• The trouble is, there will be many creations that are valid articles. It would be nice if it were possible to automate moving anything without a non-database-type source to draftspace; then auto-delete whatever remains there in six months time. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Policy around mass stub creation based on databases

• Tangential option: use the attention attracted here to try again to modify policy to require authorization for mass stub creation based on databases (as per last time it came up, I know some people think policy already says that, but it doesn't actually and the difficulty enforcing it makes that clear). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree that consensus should be sought whenever a user seeks to transfer the contents of an external database (entirely or in large part) to Wikipedia. By hand or by bot doesn’t matter - there’s a legal risk exposure issue as well as an information quality issue to be dealt with. FOARP (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I would support that. —valereee (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Levivich 17:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree. For something like olympedia.org have we got any idea about the accuracy of the content. Nigej (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen arguments that WP:MASSCREATE and WP:MEATBOT have this covered, but something specific would be useful. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I think WP:MASSCREATE and WP:MEATBOT miss the database-importing part of this. They also simply aren't enforced because everyone always denies that they are using tools and then just ignores MEATBOT. Nigej - we need to have an RSN discussion about Olympedia at some point. FOARP (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Support starting such a discussion again. JoelleJay (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Support- I agree that this needs doing, for the "copyvio by tiny slices" reasons outlined by FOARP and because WP:SPORTCRIT already disallows listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion. Reyk _YO! 19:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Support - We've had a number of cases like this one at ANI, with strong consensus that these mass creations are disruptive, but when I pointed out similar editing patterns at NPP and RfP/Autopatrolled it was dismissed as a non-issue or even encouraged. Formal consensus would be immensely helpful here. I also think that sending more articles back to draft space (or not moving them to mainspace in the first place) would help put a specific time limit on the "somebody might expand it someday" argument. –dlthewave ☎ 04:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• And likewise, 'support the creation of such a proposal. Ravenswing 15:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
• @Dlthewave, JoelleJay, Levivich, Reyk, Rhododendrites, Valereee, and Wjemather: - I've created a very rough draft essay about this, please feel free to criticise/chop/change it as appropriate. FOARP (talk) 11:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
  • As a reminder, here's the last time this came up (that I'm aware of): Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_73#Adding_one_new_thing_to_the_current_SNG_text, opened by Masem. IMO it was in the wrong place, as I mentioned in there, and it was closed as no consensus, but I wonder if it's time to revisit it. I've had mixed feelings about placing this problem under the heading of the bot policy, but ultimately if we're going to require "authorization" as part of this rule, there is already an authorization system built in there. If that process proves inadequate, it can always be spun off, but might as well try it. The relevant sections are WP:MEATBOT and WP:MASSCREATE. Maybe the best next step would be for FOARP to draft an RfC (or open a section for drafting) on the talk page of that essay? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Also I recommend reading that notability discussion, as it was a rather complex discussion with oppose !votes in two major factors: what actually counts as mass article creation, and whether it was CREEP to have the MASSCREATE aspect covered in notability guideline. I get a sense that there is general agreement that unapproved mass creation - when it well defined - is discouraged as a whole, but how to reiterate that as PAG is what was a question. --Masem (t) 15:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

User Geoff3Cae continuous category organisation MOS breaches

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

---

Hello, following advice from @Lee Vilenski: and @GiantSnowman:, I would like to raise the topic of continued breaches of the manual of style, specifically MOS:CATORDER by @Geoff3Cae:. I have had to make a number of reverts in recent weeks of this behaviour, but I won't have even scratched the surface of the number of breaches I'm afraid. Users Lee Vilenski and GiantSnowman made attempts to steer Geoff3Cae away from this behaviour here and here, but unfortunately the user has not responded on either occasion and the behaviour has not changed. Per the advice from Lee Vilenski/GiantSnowman, I am raising this topic here to gain wider views on the matter and what action/s may be necessary to change this behaviour. Kind regards, MunsterFan2011 (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

It would be helpful @MunsterFan2011: if you provided examples of recent edits which violate CATORDER. GiantSnowman 16:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course, here are a dozen examples of this behaviour from just yesterday alone: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12. This pattern of behaviour has been repeated almost daily for some weeks now. Kind regards, MunsterFan2011 (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Geoff3Cae has never posted to a talk or user talk page. I'm not familiar with categorization issues so can't have an opinion on how disruptive (or not) the editing is, but failing to engage with other editors raising their concerns on their talk page is a major problem. Schazjmd (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I left a warning for Geoff3Cae (talk · contribs). Let me know if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks @Johnuniq:, I am pleased to report that the behaviour has stopped since your warning, though I will continue to monitor in case this is just a pause, as there is no indication unfortunately from Geoff3Cae (talk · contribs) as to whether or not they have acknowledged this. Kind regards, MunsterFan2011 (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq, Geoff3Cae has begun editing again without replying here or on his talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Schazjmd and MunsterFan2011: Geoff3Cae has made 31 edits since my warning but it appears none of them have been reverted. Geoff3Cae is misusing the WP:MINOR flag but apart from that the edits might be good for all I know. That doesn't warrant a block at the moment. Please identify a problem in their current edits and I'll take it further. Johnuniq (talk) 23:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I mentioned it because your warning instructed him not to edit articles until he dealt with this ANI complaint. Schazjmd (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but we need something other than failing to obey as a block reason. If an edit can be shown to be a problem in the same terms raised here, and they haven't responded, a block would be needed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Potentially uncivil edit summaries

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

---

• Sparkle1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

While reverting vandalism I've stumbled across User:Sparkle1, who has been leaving some pretty uncivil edit summaries while reverting other's edits or critiquing how someone else edited a page. It's not really targeted harassment but just general rudeness in their actions. Some examples: [31][32][33]

I'm leaving this on the noticeboard and not the user's talk page because I'm not directly involved in any of the edits / pages, and don't feel I have the authority to "warn" this user of any incivility. If my post here is incorrect or I've done something wrong, please let me know. Thanks, ― Levi_OP^Talk 16:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I've noticed this user around a little, and was disappointed to see them bite a newbie and mislabel good-faith edits as vandalism on their talkpage[34] and left a few more passive-aggressive edit summaries[35][36]. — Czello 16:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Block - after looking at their contribs and talk page (see talk page history, as many postings have been deleted), the battleground attitude is strong and has been going on since the edit summaries of their first edits (which suggests to me those aren't their first edits). Also prior ANI [37] and warned at ANEW [38]. An uncivil UK editor who began in summer 2019 with strong feelings about article layout and graphics... hmm... Levivich 20:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Looks like there's a 3RR violation here too revert 1 revert 2 revert 3 (the IP they were warring with has been blocked) -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 02:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• I left a warning for Sparkle1 (talk · contribs). Let me know if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

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

ICookie

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

---

This editor, ICookie, has been causing a lot of trouble over at the COI noticeboard. He made edits to the Luckin Coffee page, which i reverted because of their suspicious nature and the fact that he had been reported at COIN (They were later rev deleted by an admin for violating the copyright policy.) and all other editors on this matter have agreed with my actions. Despite this, he is still denying that he was in the wrong and has readded content that got deleted for the aforementioned reasons and has threatened to report me to the Edit warring noticeboard despite me doing nothing wrong (even going as far as to accuse me of breaching TOS.) and has been incivil towards the other editors. This is my first report at ANI, so I hope i didn't do any mistakes along the way. Quetstar (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Reply from ICookie

The revisions you deleted (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luckin_Coffee&oldid=1061097110) were not part of the rev-deld versions, so you've already been caught in a lie.

Anyone can look at my revision of Luckin Coffee before the reversions and edit warring started (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luckin_Coffee&oldid=1061097110) and see that it was NOT part of the rev-deleted versions that infringed copyright, all my edits follow the Wikipedia TOS and all other rules and legal framework, and that my language is kept as objective and civil as possible. Yes, some edits made by another user were removed by an admin for copyright infringement, but my edits were never rev-del'd. My edits included completely non-controversial data such as updating the sidebar with the recent financial data, revenue figures, the number of stores, as well as news citing Bloomberg and Reuters regarding a restructuring process that Luckin Coffee is currently undergoing. @Quetstar has been arguing with me on the COI noticeboard for some time, and has consistently deleted / reverted any edits I have made to the Luckin Coffee-site, with no regard for the actual content of my edits. He claims I am breaching copyrights, but has still not been able to point out exactly what or where I am breaching copyrights. AGAIN, the revision I did was NOT breaching copyrights and was NOT rev-deld, and anyone can still see it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luckin_Coffee&oldid=1061097110

As for the the COI debate, it is a mess, but @Quetstar almost immediately deleted my revision (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luckin_Coffee&oldid=1061097110) before any of the other editors were able to take a look at the edits made.

*above text was updated Dec 22th, I removed links to the current Luckin Coffee page, as this has been updated numerous times since this debate started. I replaced it with links to my revision of the Luckin Coffee before the edit warring started, as that revision is the one being called into question. See this page here: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luckin_Coffee&oldid=1061097110) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICookie (talk • contribs) 21:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I suggest editors take a look at my revisions (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luckin_Coffee&oldid=1061097110), and make your own decision as to wheter or not there is copyright infringement, COI or whatever other excuses Quetstar has used in the times he has deleted my edits.ICookie (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I did not delete them, i just reverted them. Only admins can delete reverted ones, which is exactly what happened. Also, many of the rev deleted edits were made by ICookie. Quetstar (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Quetstar: I notice on your Talk page you have a lot of complaints against you about mass-reverting contributions. In fact when you mass-reverted the Luckin Coffee page the second time, you gave "copyright infringement" as the reasoning, despite there being no copyright infringement in the version you deleted. Take notice that the version that you deleted was NOT rev-del'd by admins earlier. In fact admins rev-del'd ALL versions of the page after 20:22 (GMT +1), 19 December 2021‎, for reasons unbeknowst to me. But most of my editing was done before this happened, the remaining edits I made were mainly spelling corrections and re-arranging categories. Again, the version you just reverted was not rev-del'd and had no copyright infringements in it. ICookie (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I understand, but the admin rev-del'd some of your edits as well. I will now let the admins decide the matter. Quetstar (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Quetstar: The revision you reverted was not part of the rev-deleted ones with the copyright infringement from Mattm64, yet you gave "copyright infringement" as reasoning for the reversion. You breached TOS, WP:AGF, WP:NOTBATTLE.

@Quetstar: Anyways. I would highly appreciate it if admins or other editors could take a look at the Luckin Coffee page and tell me if my edits are breaching Wikipedia TOS, Copyrights, COI or any other legal framework that @Quetstar seems to claim I am doing. PS: Before you start reading, make sure to check Version History so you know you're reading my edits, as it's fully possible that @Quetstar will soon do another unexplained mass-reversion on the article. Anyways. I do believe I have worded myself objectively and stayed true to the Wikipedia TOS, and correctly used citations where required. But I always appreciate constructive feedback. Thank you. ICookie (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I don't have any doubt that this editor is a true professional UPE, along with the other two editors. They were sent in to provide a comprehesive update to the article. This editor has decided to try fudge the issue up at coin. scope_creep^Talk 09:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Scope creep: I think it's a bunch of "investors" from reddit/Stocktwits trying to pump up the stock price of Luckin Coffee, see: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Underlying cause? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @86.23.109.101: Yip, True life stories. No doubt now. scope_creep^Talk 09:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • It is worth pointing out that the huge coin entry, has been post altered to make it less confrontational. scope_creep^Talk 10:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Scope creep: @86.23.109.101: All of Mattm64s revisions were deleted so this is moot. Mine weren't, and I am not a member of stocktwits nor Reddit, nor am I an "UPE". Please stop with the speculative fable. My revisions do not break the Wikipedia TOS, copyrights or other legal framework, and are completely non-controversial, such as updating financial data, revenue numbers and store-counts on the side-bar. These edits are sourced and cited from AUDITED financial data, i.e. data that has been checked and validated by a third-party auditor of the company (secondary source). On the contrary, @Quetstar has twice wrongfully reverted my edits under the guise of "copyright infringement" when there are no copyright infringement, which is breaking Wikipedia TOS.ICookie (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I just reverted this. Not involved in any way, but this seems to stretch WP:AGF beyond it's breaking point. Kleuske (talk) 11:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kleuske: I agree, Kleuske. I re-worded it a bit, and re-added it here for admins to see:

Again, I ask any admin seeing this to read through my revisions on the Luckin Coffee page and see that they are completely non-controversial, properly cited and I am not breaking Wikipedias TOS nor infringing on copyrights. The rev-del was AFTER my initial edits, as Mattm64 apparently broke copyrights. Again, the current revision does NOT break any copyrights and was NOT rev-deld. I am not sure why I was targetted in COIN along with Mattm64 (still haven't got a clear answer asides from @scope_creep and @quetstar calling me "suspicious"). I keep getting accused of being a WP:SPA or that I am "paid by Luckin Coffee" when that is not even remotely true. I feel I may be an easy target because my edits happened right before a rev-delete. Keep in mind that in the COIN discussion, @Quetstar mass-reversed my edits before any consensus was reached, or before users like Slywriter, SPVCobra and Santacruz even had a chance to read my edits. @Quetstar wrongfully revised my work based on "copyright infringement" twice, but the revision he reverted had NO copyright issues. I also suggest admins read the Talk pages of the accounts of @scope_creep @Quetstar @MrOllie to assess their previous complaints against them. Again this has escalated so much that I am now hoping an admin intervenes here, reads through my revisions on the Luckin Coffee page and hopefully locks it to prevent further drama. Thank you. ICookie (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Given that we've established here that Mattm64 has a financial COI, and given that you've said that you two 'know each other privately', it is very hard to take your denials at face value. Please understand that if you do have a COI and you disclose it, you will still be able to participate on the Wikipedia article, you'll just have to use the talk page. MrOllie (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• ICookie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mattm64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 84.211.19.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Three editors is likely an overstatement. ICookie has already claimed the IP address. Also, ICookie has said to know Mattm64 in private (did not specify if it was online or in meatspace). ICookie and Mattm64 both come off an extensive hiatus since 2007/08. This is evidenced on edits on nowp for ICookie and the talk page for Mattm84. The edit history of the Luckin Coffee page shows the edits of this trio never overlap almost like a tag-team. ICookie and Mattm64 have both been quite verbose on COIN discussion with the added similarity of rarely using the section edit and both being very prone to forgetting to sign comments. I am not sure if an SPI should be opened. --SVTCobra 13:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree, User:SVTCobra (and thank you Zzuuzz). But I think there is enough grounds here for a partial block for both, to prevent further disruption at least in article space. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Reply from iCookie ICookie (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Me and Mattm64 are NOT the same person, even though we know eachother. You can easily check IPs to see this. I have no COI w/ Luckin Coffee. My revision before Mattm64 started editing was never rev-deld, nor did it break Wikipedia TOS, and it used proper citations and sources from what I can see. Please, @Drmies:, I urge you to take a look at this revision here and tell me wheter you think it breaks Wikipedia TOS, policies, procedures, wheter my language was non-objective or there were any signs of COI: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luckin_Coffee&oldid=1061097110

Also keep in mind that users @Quetstar edit warred and wrongfully reverted even completely non-controversial information that I added in the sidebar, several times.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luckin_Coffee&type=revision&diff=1061431952&oldid=1061097110

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luckin_Coffee&type=revision&diff=1061316539&oldid=1061312291

The second time around he cited "copyright violations" as an excuse for deleting everything including the sidebar content, despite there being no copyright violations in the article.

Users @MrOllie also did three wrongful reversions that I detailed here (including once again, deleting non-controversial info from the sidebar)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrOllie&oldid=1061425644#Regarding_your_edits_on_Luckin_Coffee

Users @theroadislong also did three reversions of content that wasn't even mine, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theroadislong&oldid=1061428171#Warning

These users have been constantly edit warring and have several blanket reverted completely valid content such as financial data in the sidebar. They don't even seem to pay attention to what they are reverting. And once again I urge you @Drmies to take a look at my revision as it was before Mattm64 started editing. Again it can can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luckin_Coffee&oldid=1061097110

I sincerely hope you will take some time to look more into this and the nuances here. Thank you. ICookie (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The case has now been resolved for good. You and Mattm64 have been blocked from editing the Luckin Coffee page indefinitely, so you better deal with it. Quetstar (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Quetstar:The case is not over. There is still the matter of edit warring and blanking content without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as explained to you here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Quetstar&oldid=1061469593#December_2021_-_Edit_warring,_blanking

PS: I also have an additional question, several of the users claim that the newsletter service The Motley Fool is a valid source, despite them clearly being a promotional service that oftentimes seem to pump stocks for their own financial benefit. I tried marking the sources referring to the Motley Fool as promotional, but others in here claim that Motley Fool is not promotional and reverted my changes to mark them as promotional, several times. Users @MrOllie and @SVTCobra did those reversions. This is the source in question : https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/05/28/why-luckin-coffee-stock-plunged-today.aspx

ICookie (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@ICookie: The Motley Fool has been discussed on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard in the past. The rough conclusion was they are reliable for basic statements of facts but their stock-picking recommendations and analytics should not be used. Also, Mattm64 says you asked for his help on the article in this edit. Pretty random that you should ask for help from a person who has been shown to have a vested COI for Luckin Coffee. Anyway, we ought not continue litigating after administrative action has already been taken. --SVTCobra 20:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Not replying to your underhanded accusation, as this has already been beaten to death in COIN. ICookie (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@ICookie:, without commenting on whether you are in fact concealing a COI, or one of the many collateral casualties, preterition and a personal insult ain’t the best way to handle this. Qwirkle (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It's called circumstantial evidence and it's neither underhanded nor baseless. --SVTCobra 21:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: And saying "we ought to stop litigating" yet continuing to do so is called hypocrisy. Anything else? ICookie (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Hypocrisy is when you replied but also said "not replying". I am not litigating the facts of the case, just correcting your characterization of what I said in your so-called non-reply. --SVTCobra 22:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: I said I was not replying to your accusations. Not to you. You are clearly here to derail the debate and clutter the page, so I ask that you please stop and remain civil. Thanks.

ICookie has once again falsely accused me of edit warring and other policy violations, even though I have not edited the article since opening this case. At this point, I think he should be blocked indefinitely from editing all of Wikipedia, as this is tantamount to harassment. Quetstar (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support total ban(s), ICookie and his associates are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Hunc (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hunc:I was until you and others started reversing my content without giving valid reasons in the edit summary, reporting me for COI and eventually here. @Drmies is free to read the revision I did before the reversions, edit warring, and blanket revisions done by you and others started: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luckin_Coffee&oldid=1061097110

@Questar: My reasoning is valid and the Diff shows you broke policy. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Quetstar&oldid=1061469593#December_2021_-_Edit_warring,_blanking for further details.

@ICookie: I did not break any policies. My actions were done in good faith. Now leave me alone. Quetstar (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Quetstar: Again, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Quetstar&oldid=1061469593#December_2021_-_Edit_warring,_blanking clearly lays out the proof for all to see that you did indeed break policy.

You blanket reverted revisions on the Luckin Coffee-article without giving valid reason in the edit summary. You falsely claimed copyright infringements as justification for your blanket reversions. You reverted non-copyrighted, non-controversial content such as financial numbers from sidebar. You breached WP:NOTBATTLE and WP:AFG and Wikipedia TOS.

@ICookie: I have ZERO interest in continuing this topic any further, so LEAVE. ME. ALONE. Quetstar (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Because WP:BAN states The purpose of [a topic ban] notice is to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned editor's edits, an admin might want to address this. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@JoJo Anthrax: Did not know that. Re-instated it on Talk-page.

• I've indefinitely blocked ICookie and Mattm64.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Minor edits keep being reverted by a single user.

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

---

I don't see what this person, Skyerise, has to do with any of the pages I have addressed; yet, they have reverted each edit. I can only surmise, that people are assigned to oversee new editors, as the pages have little to do with one another. They claim I am going against a rule, unstated in the style manual, of changing CE to AD. The manual says precisely this:

"Years are denoted by AD and BC or, equivalently, CE and BCE. Use only one system within an article, and do not change from one system to the other without good reason. The abbreviations are written without periods, and with a non-breaking space, as in 5 BC. Omit AD or CE unless omitting it would cause ambiguity."

I call attention to "use only one system within an article". This was the case in two articles I edited - moving one date in line to all the others - yet they revert them back. This guideline not being followed has become a real mess. I've been reading wikipedia for the better part of 20 years, and only in recent years have I seen an explosion of articles mucked up with multiple, inconsistent dating schemes. I am tired of seeing CE in one line, AD another section, a redundant BP scheme after absolute dating. See here, first paragraph for example of redundancy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineapple#Precolonial_cultivation It is clutter, plain and simple, and adds no extra information. I aim to fix this when encountered, per what I am apparently encouraged to do, and want to be left alone by Skyerise.

This person doesn't constructively address the supposed legalism directly that they appear to stand behind, and merely insults and threatens me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Samwhaine ; yet there is no disruption: I am minorly editing in conformance with the established style. They contemptively cite "do not change ... without good reason", disregarding the preceding clause. And, it is patently obvious many articles have been changed without good reason, or wikipedia would not have ended up so clumsy as it is. I mostly read articles on antiquity and have watched an invasion of more and more sloppy injections of mostly the CE type. I suspect much of this is hyper-correction, aspiring to pseudo academic pretense.

This misguidance needs redirected, and should not be pandered to by wikipedia; for it itself is the real disruption, that does not serve the common person and adds nothing to rigor. And may I suggest that unless it is a specialist article, say geology, which uses macro date ranges, that BP be avoided and pruned from articles, as I strongly suspect it is cumbersome and byzantine to the average user. It should not be presumed the average person sees all this as semantical; it is confusing! And dare I say, I think it mostly serves a small idiosyncratic group of people.

If people had an actual intention to offer relevant alternative information in absolute dating, looking into proleptic Julian & Gregorian, Julian day, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_year_numbering would be proper pursuit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samwhaine (talk • contribs)

I've looked through the edits that were reverted, and I'm going to AGF here. Samwhaine, it sounds like you're misunderstanding the policy you're trying to apply. The MOS states that all uses within one article should be BC/AD or BCE/CE. If an article has both styles, it should be changed to just use one or the other. However, if the article only uses one style, you should not be changing it to the other without a very good reason.

What I'm seeing here is that the articles were using BCE/CE only, and Samwhaine is changing them to BC/AD.

While you claim: This was the case in two articles I edited - moving one date in line to all the others - yet they revert them back., that's not what was happening in these articles. The articles were consistent, using only the BCE/CE style throughout. In fact, Selkup people only had a single instance of CE, which you changed to AD. Skyerise was correct to revert, as no substantial reason was given for unilaterally changing the date style on these articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

You may want to look again?

In Utu, it looks like the article was mostly BC[39], except for a single photo caption in the other style. When SamWhaine corrected this, he was called a vandal. (Skyrise then made the situation worse by changing[40] another date to BCE despite the article's long standing history of being mostly BC style.)

On Genius (mythology), the article was mostly BC, except for a couple of photo captions. Samwhaine partially corrected this, and was reverted twice by Skyrise. (Skyrise then went on to make the same correction[41] themselves!)

ApLundell (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I know this is a matter for MOS, but it would be really helpful if the site would just go one way or the other--the current approach engenders a lot of understandable confusion. Cheers, all, and Happy Holidays. Dumuzid (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, you're in charge of getting MOS changed that way. I promise I'll take up a collection for your funeral. In fact, to get a jump on things I'll start right now. EEng 08:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the OP got two right and two wrong. Selkup people and Age of Aquarius should have been left alone, and Skyerise was correct to revert. However, the OP's edits to Genius (mythology) and Utu were correct, and Skyerise should not have reverted. At the very least, Skyerise owes the OP an apology for calling them a vandal in relation to their correct edits. Mlb96 (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I also appreciate the irony of Skyerise calling themselves "Grandmaster Editor" while getting the relevant guideline completely wrong. Mlb96 (talk) 05:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I would like to thank the prompt attention and predominantly fair shake witnessed here. I feel equipped to move forward without controversy, and I'm glad to see this topic taken seriously and hope that patterns around this style continue to receive consideration. (Samwhaine (talk) 08:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC))

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

Greek IP address vandalism

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

---

Continuous vandalism coming from a partially blocked IP address, whose edits in Evangelos Marinakis are pure POV. May I ask from an admin to look into this? Locking the article could be the only option here. Mightberightorwrong (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

This doesn't presently require admin tools. It seems to be a content dispute between you and the IP about whether criminal allegations should be included in the lead of a BLP despite the article subject being acquitted. I note your edits have now also been reverted by an unrelated editor. If you still feel these allegations must be in the article lead it would be worth seeking consensus for that on the article talkpage, with due regard for BLPCRIME. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

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

User:David Gerard violating Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources#Acceptable_uses_of_deprecated_sources

David Gerard, upon reading a challenge to the removal of an academic expert writing in a deprecated source, has proceeded to go on what I can only describe as an editing rampage removing on sight any link to that source he can find. 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)

This is a continuation of a thread on Talk:Edward Said, two threads at WP:RSN [42][[43], 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The trouble is that that proposal has been raised before - most recently in a broad general RFC at WP:VPP a few years ago - and rejected as a violation of policy - Aquillion has written on it previously (some applicable insights at 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He is removing sources that our policy explicitly says are reliable, and he is edit-warring to do so [44], [45]. 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 [46]. Dont want to repeat the obvious one more time. nableezy - 05:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

All previous discussions have endorsed David Gerard's actions

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)

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

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

WP:DEPS exists for the purpose of explaining what it means for a source to be deprecated. Without WP:DEPS, the formal concept of deprecation disappears from 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)

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment I am less than enthusiastic about any kind of auto/semi auto removal of sources and don't think we should be doing that.Selfstudier (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • You'll be glad to know that there is neither automatic nor semi-automatic removal going on, every edit is by hand. If you can show auto/semi-auto removal, feel free to do so. However, note that for deprecated sources - sources that, by broad general consensus, should almost never be used in 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)
• 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)
• I don't see the problem with what David Gerard is doing here. Coretheapple (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

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

And repeated edit-warring (eg [47], [48]. Claiming that WP:V is overruled by deprecation is likewise an issue. nableezy - 20:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I should also note that the WP:FAIT was when the source was deprecated. At that point, there was broad general consensus that CounterPunch was a source so unreliable it should not be present in 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)

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

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

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

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

        Doing the literal minimum required by the letter of policy is often not a good way to proceed, especially en masse and if the justification is "the letter of the policy requires no more than this". From a common sense point of view: the list of pages that cite e.g. the Daily Mail is easy to find and navigate, half filled with nonsense that needs removing but half filled with useful information that just needs a better source. Removing the information or using {{cn}} to make it the 16,875th entry in Category:Articles with unsourced statements from December 2021 removes it from this easily traversable list and means the content will never be improved.

        You could instead take 60 seconds to type into a search engine something that may produce a good source saying exactly the same facts as the Daily Mail, and cite that source—or if there isn't one then don't spend any longer, {{cn}} tag it or whatever. Bot-like actions are almost never the best way to proceed. Clearing one backlog (citations to the Daily Mail) by piling it into another backlog (unsourced statements) is not a solution. Nor is clearing a backlog with a flamethrower (removing useful information that could be easily sourced).

        This advice isn't about breaking policies, but about building an encyclopedia in the most productive way. — Bilorv (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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 [49], [50], [51]). 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)

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

  I agree about the confusion, but Rosguill, can you explain to me where the subject-matter-expert comes in? I just now re-read WP:DEPREC, WP:DEPS, WP:NOTRELIABLE, WP:V and 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)

  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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• It seems clear that David Gerard is pursuing a largely indiscriminate purge of all depreciated sources due to apparently interpreting things like "generally prohibited" to mean "totally prohibited" (it doesn't) and "deprecation literally means general prohibition" (it doesn't). DG is wrong here and his actions are contrary to WP:DEPS in its current form and should stop. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I reviewed hundreds of David Gerard's edits the last time this came up. "Indiscriminate" was the last thing I would call them. XOR'easter (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
  • "Indiscriminate" is a word that fans of a deprecated source use to attempt to poison the well in discussion of any removal of the source whatsoever, in my experience - David Gerard (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Let me help you out here. Indiscriminate – without careful judgement. This seems (to me) to accurately describe how you have approached removal of depreciated sources. Careful judgement requires more than the few seconds it takes to select text, hit delete, paste an edit summary and click save; for example, how could this removal, which could very quickly and easily have been referenced to any number of other sources, happen if careful judgement was being exercised? Surely careful judgement would involve establishing if the information could be alternatively referenced? Note: this is the only one of a dozen such edits in a randomly selected 10 minute period that I checked, but I have encountered exactly these kinds of indiscriminate removals by you previously. Incidentally, I do not think your response here reflects well on you (AGF, maybe?); it would be better to address the concerns rather than attack those raising them, or suggesting they want to keep unreliable sources – for my part at least, you can be assured that couldn't be farther from the truth. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 23:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• I have no idea whether User:David Gerard's removal of deprecated sources is indiscriminate or not, but it should be possible for him to clear up the issue. David, can you point to any cases in which you have discriminated in favour of retaining such sources? These may not show up in any edit history because they could involve a decision not to edit. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Indeed, and of the Daily Mail even: [52][53] These were adding archive links in fact, to ensure the preservation of the content (because we know that dailymail.co.uk literally can't be trusted as to the contents of the Daily Mail) - though the second of these has since been removed by another editor.
    When an editor who likes a particular deprecated source complains of its removal, they always seem to claim the removal is "indiscriminate". This happens no matter what the action is, if it involves any removal whatsoever of their favoured source. Similar is claiming "bot-like" editing with no actual evidence of bot-editing or non-consideration in the editing process. Such claims should be ignored as attempts to poison the well.
    They also tend to personal attacks - see the editor who brought the present action claiming violation of, er, an information page that explicitly isn't either a policy or even a guideline, has posted about half the words in this entire section, and absolutely cannot restrain themselves from repeated personal attacks, here or in the multiple other threads they've started to defend CounterPunch - David Gerard (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• (Somewhat) uninvolved editor here. I found this discussion while reading an article about TrueCar, clicking the history tab out of curiosity, noticing that Gerard removed a deprecated source from that article, and looking at his contributions out of blatant curiosity (I had encountered him in the past and wondered what he is up to these days...). I am also aware that he has been in some kind of trouble for unrelated matters that ended up being covered in the press, though I can't recall the exact circumstances. I can relate to being frustrated with nonsense sources repeatedly being introduced into articles as I personally have removed references from Rational-Wiki, Conservapedia, social media sites, and even other 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)
  • The "idiot" remark was made in reverting Talk page vandalism by a now-blocked vandalism-only account, so I honestly can't find it in me to get too upset about it. XOR'easter (talk) 04:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I'd place this comment in the same category as comments from some I know off-wiki who think that petty criminals deserve to get killed by police... I don't care about what the blocked user was doing, I care what an administrator on the English Wikipedia is doing. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 19:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
• And now, while an RSN RFC has concluded that Counterpunch is now deprecated, David continues to act by FIAT in mass removal of Counterpunch (see recent contributions as of today). [54]. The timing shows no likely attempt to find replacement sources or use alternate tags. For example, one pulled at random [55] that David removed a Counterpunch link and replaced it wiht a cn, but I found a source in 2 mins [56]. This is disruptive behavior, particularly in light of this ANI thread and discussion about reviewing what deprecated means. Yes, David is doing something within policy, but not in a manner that the continuity fully agrees is the right approach - the same problem with had with BetaCommand around NFC and which we blocked him for. Being in the right in regards to dealing with poor sources does not mean being right in practice, and this is basically enforcing David's view of deprecation by FIAT. --Masem (t) 18:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
  • "fully agrees" is doing all the work in your statement, in that there are editors such as yourself who have consistently disagreed with removal of deprecated sources, and consistently advocated for hindering such removals on spurious grounds. Thank you for finally conceding that it's fully within policy, however, even if you don't like it - David Gerard (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

    From WP:V Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[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)

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

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

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

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

WP:DEPS says Deprecation is not a blanket retroactive "ban" on using the source in absolutely every situation but only because of the specific and small exceptions listed. It also says Deprecated sources should not be considered to be either unique or uniquely unreliable but in context this is in reference to the universe of junk sources, not relative to the RSes usually cited on 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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frankly, this looks like replacing a terrible "source" with whatever else came first to hand (the Bleacher Report story is the first Google hit after the 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)

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. By using rollback, it makes it even more obvious that he didn't bother to check before clicking, which is also a CIR problem. They also didn't even bother checking after being questioned, which is inexplicable when this discussion is ongoing. As has been described by many here, DG is acting without due care and it needs to stop. I don't think anyone is contesting the justifiable removal of depreciated sources, it's the total lack of effort in doing so that is the problem, which results in indiscriminately removing good easily verifiable content, permitted depreciated source use, and worst of all, leaving potentially bad unverifiable content (with a cn tag). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, he's cut out the content completely in, e.g., [57][58][59][60][61][62][63], etc. XOR'easter (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rational-Wiki, which Gerard is ironically heavily invested in, ought to be more than deprecated due to being an open wiki that has tolerated two people who have been the subject of WMF trust and safety office actions on 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. PCHS-NJROTC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyvio revision delete may have restored copyrighted content by mistake

• Aspen University

Some parts of this article look a little bit like an advertisement, and yesterday I removed one sentence that I thought sounded too much like an ad. When I looked at the Mission section of the article, I found it's word-for-word identical to a sentence in the Mission section of Aspen's official website - this looks like it could be a copyright violation.

I then looked at the article history to find where this content was added (so I could possibly nominate it for a copyvio-revdel) and noticed something peculiar - it seems like the most recent revision deletion may have actually restored copyrighted content that should have been deleted. The first revdel removed 1,105 bytes of content added by another editor, but then the second revdel re-added 1,264 bytes after it had been removed by the same editor. I'm confused as to what happened here.

I would have used the standard copyvio-revdel template, but because of the edit history, I'm not sure which edit to nominate for deletion. If an admin is able to see the content that was added/removed during those hidden edits, is it possible this could be rectified, so that the content on the page that was deemed to be a copyright violation is correctly removed? Thanks. – numbermaniac 05:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

What happened with those +/- 1264 bytes edits is that the first one replaced a large part of the article (the History section and all of its subsections) with a smaller copyright infringement. So when it was reverted and revdelled, it looks like the reversion added bytes in the history. —Cryptic 05:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. So what should I do about the Mission section? Given it seems to be identical to the text from their website, should I just delete it from the page? Does it need to be removed from the revision history too? – numbermaniac 13:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it. Because it's so minor, I don't think revdel would be worth it, considering how much of the editing history it would obscure. Rummskartoffel 20:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks! – numbermaniac 13:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

User:SonOfBabylon1

Unfortunately, throughout 2021 User:SonOfBabylon1 made many disruptive non-constructive revisions to Kuwait and Iraq articles especially edit warring and the person behind the account sometimes added copyrighted material (copyvio)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [64]
2. [65]
3. [66]
4. [67]
5. [68]
6. [69]
7. [70]
8. [71]
9. [72]
10. [73]
11. [74]
12. [75]
13. [76]
14. [77]
15. [78]
16. [79]
17. [80]
18. [81]
19. [82]
20. [83]
21. [84]
22. [85]
23. [86]

As seen in the revisions, the person behind this account is altering sourced information to non-constructive POV push. This person was also making claims that weren't supported by the sources. This user has been disruptively edit warring to push the same view, reverting the work of other users without discussion in talk page. --Dilmunite (talk) 7:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Dilmunite, please list three diffs that correspond to the three most egregious violations and add brief summaries to each. Less is more. El_C 12:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

El_C. In Economy of Kuwait, altering and removing sourced information for POV push: This version was reverted to remove Iraq's name without following what the sources actually say (he claimed "the sources are not reliable"), the source he added doesn't support the figures, tries to remove Iraq's name again. He made the same reversions more than 6 times [87], [88].

In Saleh and Daoud Al-Kuwaity, altering and removing sourced information for POV push: "The brothers were solely Iraqi, they had nothing to do with Kuwait whatsoever" (despite the existence of reliable sources that contradict his POV push), repeatedly altering sourced information about their father's Iranian ancestry, repeating the claim the brothers had nothing to do with Kuwait (apart from being born there). -- Dilmunite 17:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a similar discussion in the Administrators noticeboard for edit warring about this IP 78.82.178.37 which is likely related to SonOfBabylon1. --Dilmunite (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello El_C, I have contributed to various articles on wikipedia using multiple reliable sources. The reverts I make, are mainly because of unsourced text or a source not being used as it should. Wikipedia should not tolerate false accusations which Dilmunite are making here.

Agdam Mosque

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

---

[[89]]

Referenced information is deleted in countless times. Please react.--85.132.44.122 (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and I note there has been no discussion on the talk page in over four years. I've requested page protection to force the parties to discuss on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

OP Blocked – for a period of one month. Page Fully protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I manually reverted the fully protected page to the longstanding version on the basis of WP:BANREVERT. Note: WP:AA2 dispute. El_C 13:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Despite my unending enmity towards you and everything you do, I approve of this one, single action. But make no mistake, I have my eyes on you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

El_C 13:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I hope that's a joke, SFR? —valereee (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Inside jokes, Val. All is well. Footnote: For the last couple of years, whenever I edit conflict, I lose everything. I tried getting help for it, but nobody could figure it out. So now, it's ctrl.c or bust. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 16:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

And I made it official. He's the Dr. Claw to my Inspector Gadget. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

As a kid, I used to have an unhealthy number of daydreams that I had a Go Go Gadgetcopter! in my possession. And now, not even a flying car לרפואה. El_C 16:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

My daydreams definitely tended more toward the Penny side of things. :/ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, both! I thought it might simply be an inside joke that I wasn't aware of, but (especially) here at ANI I like to check. :D —valereee (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppet/meatpuppet issues at Talk:Akhtar Raza Khan

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

---

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1080#Akhtar Raza Khan and image
• Talk:Akhtar Raza Khan

Yes, I realise sockpuppet/meatpuppet cases usually go to WP:SPI, but that's generally backlogged and this is so blatant this is probably a better venue. Earlier 256Moin256 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made another perennial suggestion of removing the image (they also have a concflict of interest as "one of his followers, it is my job to always protect his integrity"). This proposal has been supported in very quick succession by S.S8685 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Sayyed Zahid Kamal Qadri Ismaily (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and MUHAMMAD ALFAZ RAZA AZHARI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), all of whom make the exact same reply with their very first edit. FDW777 (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Add Mohammed saqeeb suhail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the list as well. FDW777 (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1061696500 shows 256Moin256 response to this ANI is to black/disrupt sections of the article talk page.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/256Moin256, 256Moin256 also created the FDW778 account to continue their disruption, and is still trying to get the image removed. FDW777 (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

And now they're back with FDW788 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Woodroar (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

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

217.149.166.11 (talk · contribs) personal attacks

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

---

I'm tired of this IP user's personal attacks. First [90] yesterday, he said Your colleague Grandmaster, while I had one time contact with Grandmaster in 2 November 2020 requesting him to join talks. Now he's calling me a a renowned irredentist while he started to edit 6 days ago. Also it's noteworthy that his edits are similar to the sockmaster ClassicYoghurt (user comparison) and his sock BaxçeyêReş (user comparison), where his last edit summary was a racistic remark against Turks, that I got deleted afterwards. Some user opened a SPI, but administrators declined because it's an open ip. Beshogur (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I am tired of my edits being undermined by these two editors. Both accused me of socking on Wikipedia, even though the investigators said there was no evidence. I am apparently not allowed to have an interest in certain topics. I think my treatment is very unfair by Beshogur.

Then, "your colleague" is also not a personal attack but just a fact. They are both Wikipedia editors, and they both accused me of the unthinkable, without evidence besides "editing about Azerbaijan and Armenia". Also, Beshogur keeps bringing up that Kurdish or Armenian (or i don't know) editor and reverting his edits (which is good) while also defending a fellow ultranationalist editor whose edits I reverted (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agdam_Mosque&action=history) and These are double standards from Beshogur, and irredentist is not wrong if he defends his fellow Azerbaijanis all while he picks on those who "oppose" him.

Lastly, he never tried to discuss things with me but came straight here. I even messaged him on his talk page - he not once responded. Is this how a Wikipedia user should behave? With accusations just because I don't fit one's agenda?--217.149.166.11 (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

One final message. If you want to complain about racism against Turks, Beshogur, then complain about that editor. But do not drag me into it and accuse me of the unthinkable. And especially not at a noticeboard. You had every chance to voice concern in private with me, but no, you chose to come here. Isn't the noticeboard only if you tried talking to the editor you have a problem with? You seem to violate this principle Beshogur.217.149.166.11 (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Even coming back, one should view Beshogur's last edit. Even though my edits were not contested (there was a discussion going on on the talk page), he still erased my edits and told me to "get consensus", even though nobody disagreed with it or said so! (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic&oldid=1061570027).217.149.166.11 (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, nationalist editors, who only defend one side of the story should be indeffed or topic banned on the spot. It applies to all those mentioned. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is a banned user evading his ban. He edits the same articles as the banned user, in the same manner. And CU refused to check the IP for privacy reasons, as they are not allowed to link the IPs to registered users. But maybe an admin can make a judgement call based on behavioral evidence. Grandmaster 10:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Also note the IP edit warring and POV pushing in this article: [91] [92] [93], distorting the source despite multiple users explaining that it is not what the source actually says. I think this alone merits community intervention. Grandmaster 10:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Additional comment: This user accuses others of ultranationalism, but himself accusing Turkish people with such a sentence. WP:NOTHERE WP:POVPUSHING. Beshogur (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I will always stay by that comment. Anti-genocide and terrorism against the Turkish govt is not hate towards Turkish culture. Were the Jewish rebels who killed Nazis during the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising anti-German? These two users are unbelievable--217.149.166.11 (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• After all, they were colleagues. Both ganging up, both accusing me, both with their nationalist agendas. At this point, I also think they are sock puppets - why dont i open an investigation.217.149.166.11 (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I think what merits community intervention is Beshogur calling civilian casualties "war crimes" and Grandmaster saying that Azerbaijani sources from a totalitarian dictatorship about who the UN said that they are treating their Armenian minorities like animals are as reliable as that of a healthy democracy like Armenia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azerbaijani_reconstruction_of_Karabakh). Az media calling Armenians terrorists is according to Beshogur "nothing controversial." (Not also how users Toghrul R and Wertrose are saying that sources are credible even if they called Armenians terrorists and praised Ramil Safarov in the past).217.149.166.11 (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
    • And now Beshogur strikes again. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Secret_Army_for_the_Liberation_of_Armenia&action=history. ASALA was a militant Armenian organization that looked for revenge for the Armenian genocide by killing Turkish diplomats. Militant - yes. Terrorist - yes. Anti-Turkish - absolutely not. They worked with TİKKO, a turkish communist group. (Ask the Turks themselves --> https://avim.org.tr/en/Yorum/RELATIONS-BETWEEN-THE-PKK-AND-ASALA) Being against a government is not being against a culture.
    • But if i get banned because two big users are harassing an IP address, Beshogur will continue doing this. There need to be restricitions and sanctions against editing in the Armenian AZ Turkish topic area. (I agree with tgeorgescu) Because otherwise there will be nothing but cessfire on here. Of users pushing their own hyper nationalist narrative and ignoring reality.217.149.166.11 (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
      • One more Beshogur affair. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_proposed_state_mergers&oldid=1061715180. There was the Miatsum movement in the 1980s when Armenians and Artsakhis wanted to unify. Then the war broke out. Until now. The proposal was the reason for the Karabakh conflict until today. And Beshogur is calling it "irredentist" and fringe - even though it is both super notable and on a wiki page that discusses irredentist state mergers... Such a user should not be able to influence public opinion on here.--217.149.166.11 (talk) 03:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• And now I did my own little research . I went to the Kurdish users sock puppet investigation and look at the IP addresses reported. 134.69.193.195 and 2603:8000:2B3F:E3C2:605C:E344:DA55:E28... California is kind of far from here. Why would i go to Los Angeles just to be "an obnoxious editor" like these users are saying? I like Middle-Europe just the way it is... Apparently I am not allowed to have an interest in topics the same as other users. Excellent...--217.149.166.11 (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

  People may travel to different locations. But the IP is involved in edit warring across multiple pages in Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles, which is an arbitration covered area. This is certainly no good. Grandmaster 10:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes yes, I indeed travelled through the whole world to continue by devilish editing /s. And edit warring seems to be your field of expertise, Grandmaster. Just look at your record on talk pages at Shusha and Stepanakert. The whole picture, please!217.149.166.11 (talk) 10:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Also Dont do it out of your gut[94]. Beshogur (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Not a "personal attack" by any definition. You are just looking for "evidence" where there exists none.--217.149.166.11 (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

And here come the accusations of "high levels of vandalism": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase#List_of_proposed_state_mergers. And I am the one with personal attacks, of course.--217.149.166.11 (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

That's one way to revrt your OR on the subject. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 12:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• IP addresses are humans too, and WP:ASPERSIONS are nonsensical if you can't prove them, so far I seen claims of the reported being a sock, a banned user who travelled elsewere just to edit and simply being reverted for being a IP. Have any of you tried discussing instead of assuming bad faith at each other?

I've lost count on how many times Beshogur dragged people to ANI with 0 attemps at communication to try and solve issues. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 12:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

This IP is edit warring and making POV edits simultaneously on about a dozen pages, many of which were previously edit warred on by the banned user. I don't believe in such coincidences. This looks like system gaming by using the IP instead of a registered account to avoid more scrutiny. Look at this removal of a category by a confirmed sock account: [95], and the same by the IP: [96] Grandmaster 15:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe in the coincidence of you and Beshogur reverting the same things either. What if you two are also just socks? We can speculate back and forth , but to what avail? Also, again mentioning your back-and-forth arguing and edit warring on Talk:Shusha and Talk:Stepanakert.--217.149.166.11 (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

What if you two are also just socks? if you feel so coinfident, go open a spi. @Kevo327: Have you even see his edit summaries? The was he's editing is definitely WP:NOTHERE, skipping the fact that he's editing in the same way of BaxçeyeRes and ClassicYoghut. Beshogur (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

editing in the same way of BaxçeyeRes and ClassicYoghut one word - how? Your edit summaries themselves are based on untruths and personal opinions and original research. You are WP:NOTHERE too to quote you, with your constant edit wars and disputes.--217.149.166.11 (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

And once more, I love it here in Central-Europe. I dont wanna go "back" to California, the home of the BaceyeRes - or anywhere else. Assuming good faith and avoiding edit wars is obviously a foreign concept to you, which is sad.--217.149.166.11 (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment - I was following this discussion and going to be honest, I have to assume good faith here. IP has opened mltuiple discussions [97] [98] [99], including in the talk page of OP which was left unanswered [100]. They do communicate unlike OP who came straight to ANI and created this report. I'm leaning to think that WP:BOOMERANG may be appropriate, since OP doesn't seem to stop this ban push on IP without significant diffs. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked for 48 hrs, [101] this thread could be closed now. Grandmaster 09:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

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

My discussion page

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

---

Hello, I hope I'm right here. Sorry if not. For a few weeks now, my discussion page has been vandalized on a regular basis, and the usernames used there are mostly offensive on dewiki, my home wiki. I'm the admin there and obviously someone is evading here, to enwiki for these insults, or just to stalk me. I would ask you to block my discussion page permanently for new users. I am happy to set up a redirect on dewiki so that I can be addressed. Thank you very much, best regards --Itti (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi! If you want a page to be protected, you should request so at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. ObserveOwl (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I see the sock puppetry has been going on for quite some time. Semiprotected for 6 months. Bishonen | tålk 20:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC).

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

User:20doyld

• 20doyld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A new user showed up on the talk page of a semi-protected article on my watchlist and inquired about removing the protection from the page. I answered their question here by noting that although the page was semi-protected, they could edit the pages once they met the requirements to become an autoconfirmed user: 9 more edits, 4-day old account.

From there, the editor went on an editing spree with a lot of (low-quality) edits among a number of different articles. Interspersed among those edits, the editor left inquiries on the article page about how many more days they had until they would be able to edit the article[102][103][104]. While it's possible that those inquiries were done in good faith, that seems unlikely to me because I had answered that question right after their first edit in the second diff above.

I left a message today the user to stop spamming the same message to the talk page over and over, and to stop pinging me as their question had already been answered.[105] They apparently didn't appreciate this, and left messages on my talk page threatening to report me to ClueBotNG,[106][107] and then proceeded to do so.[108] Those threats, and edits like this[109], make me think the editor is just trolling. Anyway, I'd appreciate it if an administrator could look at these diffs. Thank you, Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Trolling, and surely also trying to amass the ten edits they need in the easiest possible way. Blocked for 48 hours for gaming the system. Bishonen | tålk 21:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Thank you for reviewing and for the quick block. Much appreciated. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• [110] One of the funniest instances of WP:LEGAL I've seen lmao. Does this warrant further action? Curbon7 (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Pointing and laughing, perhaps? Looks like the poster child for WP:CIR. Ravenswing 22:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I've indeffed the user for the threat. Indeed, I was going to indef the user for their behavior, but Bishonen beat me to it and was more lenient.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Well, they're new, and probably very young, and used to more "social" media than Wikipedia. I have reinstated the original block of 48 hours (now 33 hours remaining), because I think the threat of 'reporting me to the cops' is so ridiculous that it can safely be disregarded. Bishonen | tålk 10:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC).

• Per these diffs [111][112][113], this is is just a troll and any good faith extended by myself and others was misappropriated. Can someone please re-indef and revoke TPA so we can move on? Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm asking again in light of renewed trolling: Can someone please indef and revoke TPA? Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Jingiby reported by Dandarmkd

Moved from WP:AIV

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

• 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)

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

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

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

Hello, this is the my example [114]. I am going to give examples [115][116] by another users whose edits were undid by Jingiby. Dandarmkd (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

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

 Comment: From the very start, Dandarmkd's report stinks of a nationalist tone. Commenting or bringing up an editor's ethnicity is a frowned practice in 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: [117], and even an old nationalist edit of theirs at: [118]. Please let me know if I missed anything else. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello again. I'm sorry, but I will report Dandarmkd. For about two weeks now he has been creating a series of new articles about houses located in North Macedonia. Although the name of the country has been changed since 2019 in this way, he refuses to accept this reality. He was warned about this a year ago on his talk page, but in vain. He was explained today that per 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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

Local hero, looking at this, I don't think "North Macedonian vandalism" statement is made in an ethnic context but in a political context. A look at the nature of these edits, is enough to understand that they are not mentioned in an ethnic context but political. Anyways, ethnicities in 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)

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

PS. By the way, it is aware that articles related to the Macedonian issue have been the target since years of systematically organized destructive IP attacks. Another time it was a question here of holding online webinars organized by the United Macedonian diaspora, where instructions are given on how me to be reported in order to be banned from editing on 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)

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)

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

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

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

• Comment There is nothing substantial here to justify a report. Disagreements are a daily activity in the Balkans area, and it is part of human nature to make new controversies from old ones. I suggest this report is closed by an admin and editors focus on improving articles. Many of the important ones have major issues to be addressed. Best if long discussions are made on how to solve those issues rather than to accuse each other of doing this and doing that. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm struck at the incongruity of Jingiby being castigated for using the term of phrase "North Macedonian IP" when Dandarmkd's OP calls him an "ethnic Bulgarian." If the one is irrelevant as something at which to point fingers, the other should be as well. He is also correct that the legal name of the country is North Macedonia -- whether or not the residents care for it -- and that 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)

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)

""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)

Anfwepgnrwfinre and sourcing

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

Anfwepgnrwfinr has been editing for 3 months and, as far as I can tell, has never provided a source for any edits. This includes plenty of claims about living persons. Just today they've added relationship claims about a BLP and this edit that I'm unable to verify in any sources. They've been warned 10+ times at User talk:Anfwepgnrwfinre, blocked for 36 hours, given a BLP DS alert, and a personalized message. Nothing seems to be getting through. Woodroar (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I left a warning. There may well be enough reason to block the user now. If not, I will if there are repeats. Please let me know of any further problems. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Erm ... I rather think there's plenty of reason NOW. Over the three months this guy's been editing, he has 111 mainspace edits ... and 13 warnings, to go along with a prior block. Ravenswing 02:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

They're a low-volume editor, so I don't suppose a final warning can hurt. I'll keep an eye on them and let you know if it continues, Johnuniq. Thanks! Woodroar (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Possible AfD LOUTSOCKing

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

It is worth nothing that Godsentme1, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by AJDaGuru for their contributions to 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

Anon IP acting rather disruptively (the 'son/s' IP)

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

---

Left threatening message on my talk page after I reverted their edit with a disruptive summary, then called me a "figgot" (whatever that is) in a subsequent edit summary. For evidence see: Special:Contributions/2600:1702:2350:20F0:B9CC:7C06:3772:3DAD and User_talk:The_Alternate_Mako#Why_are_you_threatening_me,_son.... Rangeblock the /64, they seem to be the only one on there and have a history of bad edit summaries and threats. Mako001 (talk) 09:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked the /64 for a month. Cabayi (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Edit request misunderstand and accusation

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

---

Dear Wikipedia administrator noticeboard. Recently I have edited the page Negrito and made explanation here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Negrito#Edit_explanation:_Trying_to_restoring_useful_additions/changes_while_correcting_misrepresented_parts._~Nobuaki_H.

I tried to improve and clarify content. I also included Cleanup tag, which is necessary because of several issues. My version got accepted by a reviewer. Than another user (Austranesier), who had an dispute or something with another user (JihoHone) mistook me, my IP, to be the alleged user. But I am not this user, which can be confirmed. I have requested third user opinion and hope other editors will bother to take a look at what was done. I try to improve the article. I am aware that I reincluded parts used by the alleged user, but it can be verified by WP:RS. I read WP:Banrevert too, (similar to Japanese version). It states that it should not be reverted to bad versions (original research placed WP:OR). I hope some editor with knowledge will take part. Sincerely Nobuaki H.176.97.70.48 (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

LTA blocked by Ohnoitsjamie. Acroterion (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Rd2412

Rd2412 (talk · contribs · logs) has repeatedly added the same unsourced content to Brazil national football team and has been unresponsive despite several messages left on the user talk page (see diffs: [119], [120]). User appears to be unable or unwilling to follow WP:VERIFY, and I suspect it's the same person who was IP-blocked earlier this year for the same/similar edits on the page (see IP diffs: [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127]). Ytoyoda (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. If no communication and disruption after block expires, I recommend an indef block. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

IPs 114.10.23.3 and 114.10.4.132, part of a range or set of ranges evading a block of another IP range from Indonesia

This is a follow-up to an ANI I filed about a week ago - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1086#IP range 36.81.12.0/22. There is currently a six-month block on the range 36.81.8.0/21 ... both that range and the two more recent IPs I am bringing up have edited similarly at American Music Awards of 2021 and other recent year articles in that series concerning those awards, among others. Those two IPs are currently under separate partial range blocks (unable to edit certain articles), one concerning 114.10.0.0/20, and the other concerning 114.10.16.0/21. The smaller range is not a subset of the other, and instead, both map to 114.10.0.0/19. As was the case with the address range beginning with 36, from Indonesia, I am suggesting a block of whatever range is necessary to stop the disruptive editing at the above articles, but this is a pretty large range, even larger than the 36 one in fact, and WP:COLLATERAL could be a problem. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Extremely persistent sock puppet continuing to evade block

• Carmena Seoul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Prior ANI

A couple months back User:Carmena Seoul was blocked for disruptive editing. The user has continued to evade the block at various IPs in the Chattanooga, TN, area, and accounts (such as User:SLOTUSFLOTUS, some of which I subsequently reported and were blocked. Most recently the user is editing from User talk:23.251.65.195 as well as User:Green News Verified. The user has ignored messages about disruptive editing, but more importantly should be blocked as a sockpuppet for Carmena Seoul et al. Thanks for your help. Wallnot (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Edits by those 3 users and that IP have consistent attributes - making sentences ungrammatical (in the same way), inserting uncited or irrelevant statements, going against MOS conventions, and restoring those edits after multiple reversions. - Special-T (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Bumping this. Could someone please block this IP and account? Thanks, Wallnot (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Currently persistently adding the same type of uncited content at Judy Agnew despite warnings & reversions. - Special-T (talk) 17:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Tak'em to the SPI. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikihounding

• Fdom5997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Eievie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ute dialect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kawaiisu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Acehnese language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am working on adding IPA links to language phonology charts, and otherwise cleaning them up. Fdom5997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) agrees that IPA links are a good thing, but is very offended if I ever change a table's formatting while I'm at it. They basically think that any change in format is intrinsically bad, and should be avoided whenever possible on principle. I have asked them to show me any wiki rules that say something to this effect (I would do it, if it were actually a rule) and none were provided. Fdom5997 is endlessly following me around, rolling back my edits — only to later go back in and add the same IPA links again themself. [This] is an example of a very typical incident between us, and [here] is a example of Fdom5997 being so quick to rollback my work that they didn't even bother to check if they disliked it before rolling it back, only to later realize they'd misidentified it. Eievie (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

How about just drop it already. Those edits are so minimal, not much of a difference is even present. Want to add links and shrink the tables, fine. Anything else, let it be. End of story. Fdom5997 (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

You're not really the arbiter of what edits others are allowed to make, and it is inappropriate to follow and editor just to revert their edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the editor interaction analyzer paints a dim view of Fdom5997's actions. At the very least, a stern warning should be given, and assurances received that this behavior will be remedied. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm perplexed by the "very offended" part. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

My bad, I attributed motivation there. "Reacts disproportionally" might be a better, more detached description. Eievie (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

This has been going on since July. (Example [here] or [here].) Back then, Fdom5997 always used the phrase "unnecessary edit". Firstly, I was never given any expiation for why only strictly necessary edits are ok (although I did ask). Secondly, it's more than a little hypocritical: I cannot imagine any edit more unnecessary than undoing someone else's edit, only to go back and redo 80% of that edit again yourself. Eievie (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

What the heck is the big deal? Yes it was unnecessary because it was not productive or beneficial, all’s it does is just change the appearance. So let’s forget about it now and move on. Just leave all the other charts alone and then I’ll stop. Fdom5997 (talk) 06:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Fdom5997: Seriously? "Just leave all the other charts alone and then I’ll stop."? The big deal is that you're following an editor around and reverting their edits for no reason other than that you dislike then making changes. You do not WP:OWN the articles and should only revert disruptive edits. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Even with this pending, it's still happening. Eievie (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Another bizarre twist occurred when I made a substantial correction to a sound table[128] based on the cited source, only to be reverted[129] by @Fdom5997 without any substantial reason. I am sure I have gotten into the crossfire of the hounding, because the edit that preceded mine was made by – guess who – @Eievie. My following edit summary was slightly uncivil in bringing up CIR[130], but sums up what I think about it. –Austronesier (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Eievie not for anything, where's your background and experience in linguistics/phonetics? I have one, do you? Fdom5997 (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

That is of no consequence. Editing does not require any prior experience or training. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Fdom5997: Why are you reverting Eievie? EvergreenFir (talk) 23:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Fdom5997: Beyond that, I'll echo the other users. Eievie does not have to prove their credentials to your satisfaction, any more than we are requiring you to submit proof to us of your alleged "background and experience in linguistics/phonetics" ... which beyond you throwing up some userboxes on your user page, you haven't. Nor can you assert that certain articles/charts cannot be touched. And when in doubt, the definitions of "productive" and "beneficial" are made by any number of editors through consensus; they are not shaped to suit your own preferences. Cut it the hell out. Ravenswing 13:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Eyeballs on Bananas…well, Banana Wars

• Banana Wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Qwirkle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lockley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Invasive Spices (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(First, getcher minds outta the gutter. EEng, this means you.) The article on the Banana Wars, the depressingly common US interventions in the Caribbean, has become, IMO, a rats nest of WP:OR, poor sourcing, and WP:OWNership, with the obvious implications for its accuracy. Attemps to correct this have met with…well, look for yourselves in the talk page. I think it largely speaks for itself. Qwirkle (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the banana." – Wilde, "Lady Windermere's Banana"

I have watchlisted the article in question, Qwirkle, and will now take a look at its talk page. But you are an experienced enough editor to know that this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes, even on Christmas Eve. Cullen328 (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, no hurry, it being Christmas and all. Qwirkle (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The talk page for Banana Wars does speak for itself, I agree. Qwirkle arrived, making large cuts to content. The edit summary on the first cut is "anachronistic bullshit removed." Another (unassociated) editor and I independently asked them to slow down, don't be so insulting and cryptic on edit summaries, don't cut so fast, please show some good faith. Qwirkle's answer was "Problem? See you at ANI". They refused to discuss. Eager to escalate and come here. Made an issue of the improper use of the minor edit tag. The insults and cuts to the article kept coming, with a pattern of reckless-then-obstructive editing as if calculated to draw attention then waste everybody's time. The same user had a similar issue remaining civil with others at Talk:Miriam Benjamin in September, earning a couple of warnings, and there's other disruptive odd behavior such as this accuracy tag and edit summary placed as a joke. --Lockley (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Looking it over myself, I agree with Cullen328; this doesn't belong at ANI. Work it out on the talk page, and if consensus goes against you, lose gracefully and move on. Ravenswing 05:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Banana Wars is just the place where this has come to a head but this is a longer term problem. According to the user page this user is "semi retired", and has repeatedly encouraged others to come here. Yes to come here about him/herself. I don't know why this user doesn't just retire but that appears to be the only way this will end. Vexatious editing is the tool. Invasive Spices (talk) 24 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Qwirkle, you should have followed the steps of WP:Dispute resolution before coming here. The people on the other side have not engaged in misbehavior that needs to be sanctioned by admins. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I’d disagree with the idea that restoring spam and OR isn’t sanctionable, although as you say, there are other steps to be done first if it’s just in one article. The reason why we are here, though, is twofold: secondarily, as a practical matter, it’s a straightforward way to gather visibility. That’s not the board’s official purpose of course, but it is sometimes useful as an aside. The main reason, however, is that we have discussions apparently based on threats of blocking. Did you see anything whatsoever justifying that? Qwirkle (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Hello again

User @Qızılbaş:'s user page is rather interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

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

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

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

Sustained WP:COATRACK behaviour

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

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

Before Æthereal got to the article in January 2021, sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was mentioned only twice in the article (because he was a member of this council). [131] After nearly a year of Æthereal's editing, the article had a total of 117 mentions of Epstein in November 2021. [132]. 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 [133] (used to attack Andrew Cuomo for associating with Epstein)
• David Rubenstein [134] (used to attack Les Wexner for associating with Epstein)
• Vicky Ward [135] (used to impugn the Queen of England for supposedly associating with Epstein)
• Chelsea Clinton [136] (stressed that Epstein's girlfriend attended Chelsea's wedding)

More of Category 1 - Epsteins

Bill Clinton [137] Michael Bloomberg [138] Jes Staley (used to attack Staley, Bill Gates and Boris Nikolic for associating with Epstein) [139] / [140] Rafael Reif [141] Nicolas Berggruen [142] (because Epstein had his contact) All the following for having associations with Epstein: Leon Black, Mortimer B. Zuckerman, Sandy Berger, Conrad Black, Katie Couric, Reid Hoffman, Walter Isaacson, John Kerry, Henry Kissinger, Eric S. Lander, George J. Mitchell, Thomas Pritzker, Bill Richardson, Charlie Rose, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, George Stephanopoulos, Larry Summers, Murray Gell-Mann. Excuse me for not finding the next diffs but I've made my point above. Æthereal is the major contributor to the article [143] and remember that there were only two mentions of Epstein before Æthereal came along.

• When questioned on the talk page regarding the Epstein references, Æthereal's defense [144] 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 [145] (used to criticize Miller's reporting)
• Janet Napolitano [146] / [147] (used to criticize her management of DHS)
• George Soros [148] (George Sorоs’ right-hand man was accused of BDSM crimes in his sex dungeon)

More of Category 2 - quotes / references

Dick Cheney [149] (used to criticize Cheney as a war criminal) Antony Blinken [150] / [151] (used to criticize Blinken's decision to invite the UN to investigate racism in USA given UN's ties to China) Ronnie C. Chan [152] (used to criticize Harvard's acceptance of China's gift) Wendy Sherman [153] (used to criticize her China-funded trip) Max Boot [154] / [155] (used to criticize Hollywood grovelling to China and then Boot themselves) Jonathan Greenblatt [156] (used to comment on George Soros, can't tell if this is criticism or not)

Category 3 - highlighting family ties and other connections

• Eileen Donahoe [157] / [158] (used to criticize her husband's running of Nike with China, fails to even mention her ambassadorship)
• Edgar Bronfman, Jr. [159] / [160] / [161] (stresses family relations due to family's connection with sex cult NXIVM, plus Epstein)
• Edgar Bronfman Sr [162] (see edit summary, adds sister purely because she supposedly enabled a murderer)

More of Category 3 - relations

Susan Roosevelt Weld [163] (highlights past marriage, fails to mention her professorship) Frank G. Wisner [164] (highlights father, fails to mention his ambassadorship and other roles under federal employ) Christopher Elias [165] (for some reason, wants to highlight how the president of Bill Gates Foundation is connected to WHO) Susan Rice [166] / [167] (mentions her wealth, highlights both of her parents) Elaine Chao [168] (highlights how Harvard named a school after her mother..?) Mentions other family relations / marriages for Kati Marton [169], Diana Villiers Negroponte [170], Laura Trevelyan [171], and Judy Woodruff [172]

Category 4 - very questionable edit summaries

• considers [173] / [174] this list of think tank members the "Mean Girls Club" / "Naughty Boys Club"?!
• Larry Summers [175] Epstein sidekick Summers sampled sugardaddy’s sweet succor shamelessly.

More of Category 4 - edit summaries
Michael Bloomberg [176] Added Bloomberg’s knighthood in the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire whose “Grand Master” is über-racist Prince Philip, Bill Weld [177] his family’s Weld Boathouse is a block from the Harvard Kennedy School’s Les Wexner building named for the sugar daddy of sugar daddy Jeffrey Epstein

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

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

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

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

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

  An admonishment is appropriate, the more so in that he's pushed this anti-Epstein fluff into other articles [178]. But we're also not talking a drastic situation. Æthereal is not edit warring to add this edits back in. He is not being uncivil in the exchanges. He's not posting unsourced lies. Obviously he needs to stop treating list articles as biographies -- something he does do a lot -- but I'd recommend slowing your roll. Why does this bother you so intensely? Ravenswing 13:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

  He's done far more than treating list articles as biographies. He's weaponized our list article into attacks on living people, even if these people are not members of the list themselves. Eileen Donahoe's entry, which failed to describe her actual profession, was turned into an attack on her husband John Donahoe [179] / [180]. How is this acceptable? starship.paint (exalt) 14:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Edit warring at East Frisians, etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not communicating and persistent addition of unsourced contents by Arnhem555

• Arnhem555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Yusof Ishak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

On Yusof Ishak, I recently removed a lot of unsourced honours and titles added by User:Arnhem555.

Arnhem555 persists on reverting my removals as "vandalism" with the edit summary "Undid revision by Seloloving. Request page protection from constant vandalism." 1 2.

I have left them a note on their talkpage to request for good faith to no avail. 4 Even when another editor reverts them 5, Arnhem555 continues to use the same edit summary. 6. Arnhem555 does not seem to understand the need for sources, or what constitutes vandalism. I am not clear what else can be done if they are ignoring their own talkpage (which they can see, having replied to it once before). Seloloving (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello @EdJohnston:. I would like to bring to your attention the latest revert and reinstating of unsourced contents. 7 Seloloving (talk) 09:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Arnhem555 has continued to revert the Yusof Ishak article after being warned. I've blocked them 3 days for making unsourced changes and edit warring. See also their filter log. EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the assistance and will hope this spurs Arnhem555 to reply and engage. Seloloving (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Incivility, and Personal Attacks by Silver Seren

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

---

Silver seren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This commenced after MER-C correctly deleted under G5, articles created by a blocked editor creating articles evading a block

• Silver seren calls the actions of MER-C worthless [181]
• Silver seren goes on to qualify the comments of Timtrent as shameless [182]
• I admonish them to be prudent with their choice of words or I’d have no options than to formally report this [183]
• Clearly they didn’t listen as They refer to the whole process as bullshit and Timtrent reminded them of civility, [184]
• Once again they did not listen as they went to WP:AN To report the apt actions of MER-C where an overwhelming number of sysops agree with the conduct of MER-C then they switch to disruptive behavior by being sarcastic [185]

I can’t say I know what the appropriate action should be here, they have being very rude, two editors have warned them about this, they have been condescending, engaging in WP:TE they believe it is their way or no way, I’m not sure what to be done here but I believe someone should talk to them or a short ban from AFD’s until they can be polite enough to make arguments without being uncivil. Celestina007 (talk) 03:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

"Especially since G5 is a worthless CSD claim."

Apparently criticizing a CSD criteria is attacking a user?

"shameless"

Yep, I stand by that one. Trying to use G5 as a deletion argument in a notability discussion after controversy over that action is going on is a pretty shameless deletion claim to make.

Going around the ongoing discussion in multiple locations to try and add another CSD template is ridiculous. I probably should have used "BS", rather than the whole word. Also, I went to AN 2 hours before that exchange occurred, so you trying to make it seem like I did that after everything is misleading. The ongoing AN discussion was one of the specific locations I'm referring to where discussion over the actions was ongoing. Trying to go from there to push another CSD template is majorly inappropriate.

Me being upset at certain people trying to go around ongoing notability deletion discussions isn't TE. It is me being angry at people trying to manipulate various criteria to undermine active consensus-making discussions. Silverseren^C 03:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes words like shameless, worthless, bullshit are all personal attacks and aren’t welcome in a collaborative project, I am tempted to suggest a temporal ban from AFD’s for you until you can demonstrate you can argue productivity without being condescending, or name calling or engaging in personal attacks, but that would be premature the fact you still say that you “stand by what you said” is indicative you aren’t compatible with a collaborative project. Celestina007 (talk) 03:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Silver seren: - if you are upset or angry, consider taking a short break. starship.paint (exalt) 03:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I had been planning on just making my vote in that AfD and leaving the ultimate consensus to be what it was going to be and get back to editing articles myself. But the runaround attempt on the discussion to not even let it actually be finished and consensus concluded made me rather angry, as noted. I would love to get back to working on articles, but I'm also not going to just let attempts to do a run-around on community discussions being finished go by without calling it out. Silverseren^C 03:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

This isn't personal attacks in the usual sense- Silver Seren isn't saying "you are all asshats" or anything like that. But he does seem overly upset that his interpretation of G5 isn't getting any support and the overall tone of his yelling is that we're all a bit dim for not agreeing. Reyk _YO! 03:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that advice by Starship.paint. Simply stop editing Wikipedia when you are angry and return only after you have calmed down, Silver seren. This is a legitimate disagreement among good faith editors about how to deal with dubious articles created by banned UPEs. There is merit to the arguments by both sides and the appropriate thing to do is to discuss it civilly and come to consensus. Using terminology like "shameless, worthless, bullshit" actively interferes with that process of creating consensus. Please treat your colleagues in this collaborative project as you would like to be treated. Cullen328 (talk) 03:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• I am sorry to say this but in the project where it is perfectly common to say that what opponent says is idiotic and get consensus that this is ok and not a personal attack, this thread does not have any chances to lead to anything useful. This is unfortunate, but it is what it is.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter, hello my friend, you are correct that is why I begin this thread with “I don’t know what should be done here” Perhaps a sting warning should suffice what do you think? Celestina007 (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not even see consensus for a warning, though most of the commenters think this is not best practice behavior.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• I wish this had not arrived here, but understand why it has done so. It is linked with This AN thread where I was not alerted to my edits havng been dragged there. I made the only reply I am going to make on that forum in this diff. I think that reply will suffice here, too. Forgive me if I do not reproduce it, and link it instead.

I do appreciate the thoughts by Ymblanter. I think the behaviours they mention are unworthy of any editor here, certainly an experienced editor. I make allowances for new editiors unfamiliar with the ethos here. That something is exhibited often as a behaviour does not make it an acceptable behaviour. It seems to me to arise out of passion, not a bad thing to have, and of haste to achieve something, which is pointless. There is no action I know of here that either requires urgency or cannot be undone.

Disagreements here are many. They can all be resolved cordially, collegially. When they are not, that is a cause for concern. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• Contrary to Reyk above (who is the possibly the most vocal in disagreeing with them there), SilverSeren's argument at AN is getting support, not as much as I think it should (given that it clearly matches the letter of the policy, and in my opinion also matches the spirit) so it's entirely understandable that they are getting frustrated. I see no instances of them calling or treating anyone as "dim" or similar, only robustly and less-than-ideally-articulated disagreement over something they clearly (and justifiably) feel passionate about. Could they communicate better? yes. Could those disagreeing with them be less dismissive of their arguments? also yes. Was there any benefit to bringing this here? Thryduulf (talk) 15:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Thryduulf you said “SilverSeren's argument at AN is getting support” this is not only very wrong, but I am almost tempted to believe this is a deliberate attempt to lie, but I’d assume good faith and choose to believe you aren’t familiar with CSD’s, asides you and about 3 other editors, it is clearly inundated with support for MER-C's action. This right here is the WP:AN for all to confirm this. I’m not sure I understand why you would say what is untrue when it is easily verifiable. Furthermore, this ANI is about civility issues, so coming here to talk about an unrelated matter is counter productive. Whilst we are at it You made a very wrong interpretation of policy which you were corrected, I’m not sure I understand why you are digressing from what is being discussed which is their civility issues to matters which are currently being discussed at WP:AN this is highly disruptive. Celestina007 (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Eh? Myself about "about three other editors [supporting]" is obviously not "no support", and you claim that my arguments are the ones that are unverified!? I'm very familiar with CSDs, and in particular CSD policy, having worked with them and kept abreast of policy changes for well over a decade. It is also rather disingenuous at best to claim my interpretation is "wrong" or "unverified" when I am the only person (last I checked) in the discussion to have actually verified their position by quoting from policy. For exampled when the policy says, verbatim, If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is controversial and another deletion process should be used. it is not a novel interpretation to claim that that means that if any editor, other than the creator, removes a speedy deletion tag deleting the article is controversial and a process other than CSD should be used.
Finally, I shall remind you that you were the one who introduced the content of the discussion at AN here, I was merely correcting your factual inaccuracy. Thryduulf (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Thryduulf, uhh? You came with your very wrong interpretation at WP:AN of how CSD works and it took more than one editor to correct you, and your interpretation was so flawed an editor had to rightfully say you are interpreting policy idiosyncratically. Please stop already you beginning to be very disruptive as per (IDHT) if your next edits here aren’t about the civility of silver seren then I’d see to it that no one would replies you. Celestina007 (talk) 19:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Almost everything in your comment is either incorrect or misinterpreted - the only IDHT happening is from those who want the policy to say something other than what it explicitly does (and has done for years). Your threats to silence me are noted and I look forward to neutral administrators' impressions of them. Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• If an editor isn't vandalising articles, edit warring or using socks? I'm quite reluctant to seek blocks or topic bans for them. PS: If Silver seren is using bad words? let'em throw it at me. "I'm made of rubber & you're made of glue. Whatever you throw at me, bounces off & sticks to you" ;) GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
• That's a modern version of "sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me." That used to be an accepted maxim, but nowadays we all have to be careful not to use language that could be labelled (rightly or wrongly) as offensive. WP:CIVILITY is a basic Wikipedia requirement and there for a good reason; it makes for better cooperation and more constructive debate than rudeness or personal attacks. We should encourage the former and discourage the latter. Bermicourt (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
• Am I the only one bothered by the OP's inconsistency as demonstrated here? If you're going to bring someone to ANI over mild unpleasantness, then you definitely should not in the very same thread try to pull off that disingenuous maneuver. If you were actually assuming good faith, you wouldn't have made the insinuation in the first place. Making an insinuation and then hiding behind AGF is not cool. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Johnpacklambert violates his topic ban again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• These are two separate issues. The sock is blocked as they should be, when they come back we will block them again. Do we give immunity to violations because a sock reported them? The community has created this topic ban, they expect it to be enforced. At least one user in good standing has asked that this be responded to[186], so there ya go. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• I am not doing anything, I am on vacation right now. I just popped in to dispel the claim that John does not know better. That was their song last time and I made sure there was no uncertainty when I accepted that claim last time[187]. This user has been given a second, third, and fourth chance and frankly I find their claims that this is once again an accident to strain credibility. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Ready, aim, collapse

Meanwhile, editors are still bullet-pointing their posts & obviously ignoring my complaint about it. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC) Perhaps this would be better addressed in another thread? HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC) More to the point, editors are ignoring GoodDay's complaint and yet GoodDay keeps complaining. GoodDay, it's just a preference you have, and one that runs against almost universal practice: new posts which branch off from the OP, instead of from a subthread already ongoing, are routinely (and helpfully) bulleted. It's your not bulleting, as you did just here above, that looks weird and out of place. On the other hand, an indented bullet used when simply replying to the post immediately above (where a simple indent -- no bullet -- would do) I find annoying. Yet discussions proceed and life goes on, and I don't try to bend everyone to my will on this minor point. EEng 18:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC) Bullet points are OK because: they help to both indent a new comment and emphasize it a bit more than a mere indentation, they suit the aesthetic tendency of some users, which there's no real need to straitjacket editors matters of style on talk page formats, within reason, and changing this would mean making a rule, which would near impossible, would consume time and energy if it was, would add another unnecessary petifogging rule, and would be one more opportunity to put editors in a cop/perp relationship rather than a collegial one. Herostratus (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

• The topic ban is on religious figures and religion, broadly construed. John McManners, Raymond Lee Lathan, and H. Evan Runner are religious figures. McManners' photo at the top is him in clerical garb, so that was impossible to miss. The Raymond Lee Lathan article is only five sentences long, from which JPL derived his birth and death dates, so his various religious degrees would have been impossible for him to miss. In the H. Evan Runner article, JPL edited the sentence immediately preceding the Westminster Theological Seminary mention, and the whole brief article contains the words "Christianity" or "Christian" six times (plus another in the citations). I'd say it's time for JPL to receive a more extensive block, which is not removed early. Softlavender (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • The two articles where I changed shortened name references that is literally all I saw. It was not at all an attempt on my part to edit anything related to religion. I was fully focused on the name reference part and nothing else. The other all I noticed was the opening that only describes him as a state legislator. I was not trying to flaunt any bans by my actions here. These were legitimate mistakes caused by rushing and not paying attention to all the possible parameters. I am very sorry about this. I was not in any way trying yo flaunt any ban. I had no idea that any of these articles involved religious figures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Please re-read what I wrote. It's impossible that you did not know on Raymond Lee Lathan, as you derived his birth and death dates from the article, which is only five sentences long. And you had to have seen the clerical photo in John McManners, because you couldn't have edited the lead sentence without seeing it. To quote HighInBC above, "Last time this happened I blocked for a violation. I gave them the benefit of the doubt and took their word that they did not understand the nature of the ban, and I removed the block early. I made it very clear to them what the standards are. In my opinion JPL cannot claim ignorance again. I think this topic ban should be enforced with another block and this time they should serve the entire length." and "I just popped in to dispel the claim that John does not know better. That was their song last time and I made sure there was no uncertainty when I accepted that claim last time[2]. This user has been given a second, third, and fourth chance and frankly I find their claims that this is once again an accident to strain credibility." (bolding mine) -- Softlavender (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• These were accidents. I am acting in good faith. I derived the birth and death years from a narrow focus on categories, and I did not see the picture. I often do not look at pictures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Latham is in no categories at all related to religion. He is only categorized based on being a politician. So looking at the lead and the categories would lead one to not realize he was in any way connected to religion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose a block. The edits are unobjectionable, the thread is opened in bad faith, and the explanation that one could make these edits without reading the article is plausible. JPL, please find a way to edit that won't let this happen again. --JBL (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I keep trying to post a response on my plans to be more deliberative before editing. I keep getting told there is an edit conflict. I am formulating such plans.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

  JBL, he had to have landed on the articles before he opened the edit field. And click on the edit fields of all three articles and what do you see? What is the very first thing you see here [188]? And you are completely ignoring Cullen's comment that "Any assertion by this editor that I did not intentionally include religious figures and was proactively avoiding them, even a few articles that said nothing about religion because I was sure if I dug deeper on them I would find something seems be disingenuous at best and overtly false at worst, since is is glaringly obvious to any uninvolved editor that this is an article about a religious figure." -- Softlavender (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, you've made your position clear repeatedly.

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

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

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

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

Battle of Lalsot hijacking

I have done what I was told to do and discussed it in Talk page with @Sajaypal007 but he refuses to heed the facts. He has hijacked the page and removes any attempt to amend the same to better reflect the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.A Ghatge (talk • contribs) 14:27, December 26, 2021 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not something that needs admin intervention. I suggest reading WP:DISPUTE and following the guidance there. WP:3O is probably the next step. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Princess of Ara Accepting A Promotional non notable article of A Business Person At AFC

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

---

Princess of Ara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They were granted AFC pseudo rights by Primefac, who is kind hearted but Princess of Ara has greatly abused this privilege today by accepting a promotional non notable article at AFC today. Giving their history of sock puppetry, admittance of initially being an SPA, I was greatly concerned about them having any sensitive perm, Coincidentally my fears were proven today as they accepted a non notable promotional article at AFC today. I’m concerned about their eligibility to continue to hold this sensitive perm. Celestina007 (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

This article isn't all that promotional, honestly. It's basically "he exists," so non-notable is a possibility... but that's a question for WP:AFD. Rushing straight to ANI over this seems premature. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds, I understand you, You are correct, but the point I was referencing was accepting an article which isn’t notable and relatively promotional is a big red flag, this is problematic for me, I am Nigerian, and I know too well that article’s on business men are frequently edited by paid editors, DGG, Kudpung understand perfectly why i am concerned. The article should never have been accepted in the first place, and yes you are correct I have nominated the article for deletion. See here. Celestina007 (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: abuse implies intent, unless you can provide something to clarify that they have done this either maliciously or with intent then you may want to rephrase this as either an incorrectly accepted draft or an alternative. I'm not seeing there's anything for an administrator to do here. Unless your able to show us a pattern of behaviour or a significant error which couldn't be seen any other way coming here (before discussing it with the editor in question) appears to be rather overkill a mistake should be treated as a mistake until theres something to prove otherwise. Amortias (T)(C) 21:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Im also noting a distinct lack of promotional nature. Non-notable, possibly. Promotional, not seeing it. Would be worth waiting for a response from Princess of Ara with regards to the notability concerns. Amortias (T)(C) 21:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Amortias, well said, I’m not asking for sanctioning right now and I do understand there’s little any admin can do here, i am officially reporting this, as if this occurs in the future I’d use this report as evidence that I have officially reported this in the past. My concerns are they are an editor who has engaged in socking, they are currently under a T-ban for violating their agreement when they were given a fresh start (they edited under multiple accounts in the past some of which they used for socking) as you rightfully said I don’t see anything any sysop can do now, but I’m reporting this because in the past they have shown a tendency for dishonesty and observing them accepting a non notable article on a businessman (an area frequented by UPE editors) this was a major red flag for me. There’s a lot of nuance not explained here, but Rosguill, Valereee, Drmies or other sysops involved with the editor in question perfectly understand why this particular accept they made is a major huge for concern, I’d in good faith accept this was an error or incorrect accept but if there is a repeat of such then I believe I wouldn’t classify it as an error anymore. Thank you for your input. Celestina007 (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your input @Amortias, I was weary of the borderline notability of the subject but I accepted this draft on the basis that it had a 50% chance of surviving at AfD (which is pretty much the point of AfC) based on his coverage in CNN here as well as the prizes he won. Kind regards
Princess of Ara 21:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

If anyone should ask my opinion about this, I'd say Celestina007 is is just here to waste precious time. If an article is promotional in nature (of which it's not) or non notable, why not go to AFD and leave the rest for other editors to vote? What is the rush in reporting the AFC reviewer who accepted the draft? Why did Celestina not leave a message on their(Princess) talkpage as to why they accepted the draft? This is not a matter for ANI. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Idoghor Melody, The article is at AFD, please make your investigations before jumping to give a flawed opinion. I can’t leave a message on her talk page because she expressly asked me months ago not to, which I obliged, so please Once again please do your investigations before jumping to give a flawed opinion. Celestina007 (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

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