Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new 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 [1][[2], 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 [3], [4]. 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 [5]. 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)

Arbitrary break 1

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

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

And repeated edit-warring (eg [6], [7]. 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 incident 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)
        • Thanks Bilorv. I'm quite familiar with our content and sourcing policies, and think it's pretty clear that they are, in fact, exceptions to the general rule. Someone else has explained to me (above) the actual reason this has suddenly become a big deal. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• 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 [8], [9], [10]). Do you really think Id be raising this big a fuss about not being able to cite random crackpots for controversial facts? nableezy - 17:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Jayjg would you call this sequence edit warring? Removal by DG, restored by editor 2, removed again by DG 20 minutes later, restored by editor 3, re-removed by DG 14 hours later. Would you call that a violation of the 1RR for ARBPIA articles (yes I know there is no edit notice). Even if it were not subject to the 1RR, is that edit-warring by DG? Is an administrator edit-warring acceptable? Do you want to do anything about it? nableezy - 18:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Jayjg, Im only pinging you because I think he would listen to you, but would you please review that sequence above and these as well. At Alan Dershowitz he removes entirely material in a University of California published source and Dershowitz's response in CP (ABOUTSELF and one would think that Dershowitz's response to charges of him plagiarizing would need to be included per BLP). That is reverted and then David removes it again. Do you find it acceptable under WP:BLP to remove the subject's response to charges of wrongdoing? What if there is already an established consensus for inclusion? Then at Sara Roy, he removes an ABOUTSELF reference and material it supports about Roy's father being one of the handful of survivors of Chelmno extermination camp. That is reverted, and removes it again. Do you find edit-warring to remove details about Roy's parents surviving Chelmno and Auschwitz to be appropriate conduct here? Would you please ask him to maybe re-examine whether or not in the rare instance somebody objects to the removals that maybe he should not so quickly re-revert and instead discuss the issue on the talk page? Otherwise, for the love of anything you hold dear, can you close this so that I may file an arbitration case so that I may ask somebody else to tell him that? nableezy - 21:52, 2 January 2022 (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: [11][12] These were adding archive links in fact, to ensure the preservation of the content (because we know that dailymail.co.uk literally can't be trusted as to the contents of the Daily Mail) - though the second of these has since been removed by another editor.
    When an editor who likes a particular deprecated source complains of its removal, they always seem to claim the removal is "indiscriminate". This happens no matter what the action is, if it involves any removal whatsoever of their favoured source. Similar is claiming "bot-like" editing with no actual evidence of bot-editing or non-consideration in the editing process. Such claims should be ignored as attempts to poison the well.
    They also tend to personal attacks - see the editor who brought the present action claiming violation of, er, an information page that explicitly isn't either a policy or even a guideline, has posted about half the words in this entire section, and absolutely cannot restrain themselves from repeated personal attacks, here or in the multiple other threads they've started to defend CounterPunch - David Gerard (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break 2

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

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

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

• (Somewhat) uninvolved editor here. I found this discussion while reading an article about TrueCar, clicking the history tab out of curiosity, noticing that Gerard removed a deprecated source from that article, and looking at his contributions out of blatant curiosity (I had encountered him in the past and wondered what he is up to these days...). I am also aware that he has been in some kind of trouble for unrelated matters that ended up being covered in the press, though I can't recall the exact circumstances. I can relate to being frustrated with nonsense sources repeatedly being introduced into articles as I personally have removed references from Rational-Wiki, Conservapedia, social media sites, and even other 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). [13]. The timing shows no likely attempt to find replacement sources or use alternate tags. For example, one pulled at random [14] that David removed a Counterpunch link and replaced it wiht a cn, but I found a source in 2 mins [15]. 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bad sources aren't being "worked on". They're being removed by editing at breakneck speed. I cannot say what percentage of the removal edits you've done today, or any day I object to. Why? The edit summaries give no indication about what was removed so I oppose all of them that remove more than content between ref tags with the standard edit summary you've used. If you used summaries like "removed mention of Blue Ocean Event as an alternative name due to deprecated source cited", or put a notice of the removed content to a new talk page section, I wouldn't have any trouble with what you're doing because then editors who want to improve the articles can find the talk page section, say 6 months from now, and decide if there's other sources that support reintroducing the content.

I don't consider it to be an optimal source for the term, but the term itself is notable and searching "Blue Ocean Event" in any search engine would lead you to believe the use of the term is widespread in popular science. RoseCherry64 (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course, and as usual, you are not addressing the substantive issue of why you are failing to follow WP:BURDEN and WP:PRESERVE by quickly seeking out an alternative reliable source (or at the very least inserting a cn tag rather than removing easily verifiable content), or assess whether the use/mention of a depreciated source is valid. Don't tell me – it isn't compulsory, right? Well that's great for you but when you're rattling through 2 or more articles per minute (which simply cannot be done with considered judgement), it's very much less so for everybody else. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

This first removal counts as a revert, and then 1RR was breached with this removal; same at Tel Rumeida. Clearly inadvertent, but self-reverting on both would be a good idea - although the fact that people are disputing those removals, where the statements previously supported by CounterPunch are currently sourced to alternative non-deprecated sources, is questionable.

While I am here, Gerard's broad actions appear to be a proper. These are deprecated sources, and broad, bold action to remove them is appropriate, with re-adding them being discussed on a case-by-case basis. BilledMammal (talk) 04:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Removal of long standing material is not a revert by an edit and is never enforced Shrike (talk) 08:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

That's correct. Doug Weller talk 10:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. BilledMammal appears not to understand 1RR, and the edit was fully within 1RR - David Gerard (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I was not aware of that. BilledMammal (talk) 11:28, 1 January 2022 (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 (without discussion). By using rollback, it makes it even more obvious that he didn't bother to check before clicking, which is also a CIR problem. He also didn't even bother checking after being questioned, which is inexplicable, especially when this discussion is ongoing. As has been described by many here, DG is acting without due care and it needs to stop. I don't think anyone is contesting the justifiable removal of depreciated sources, it's the total lack of effort in doing so – contrary to the guidance of both editing policy (i.e. WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM) and verifiability policy (i.e. WP:BURDEN) – that is the problem, which results in indiscriminately removing good easily verifiable content, permitted depreciated source use, and worst of all, leaving potentially bad unverifiable content (with a cn tag). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

My understanding of use of "deprecated sources" is that they should be avoided, but "Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately." I would also be of the opinion that a deprecated source can be used in a BLP where it's an article written by the subject of the BLP. Yet here, both content and the source are being removed because "rm deprecated source Counterpunch (per WP:RSP)". Am I not correct in thinking there's nothing at all wrong with use of the source in that context? Am I not also correct in thinking that rather than removing the content, if the source is being removed it should normally be replaced with a 'citation needed' tag? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bastun: in this case I don't think it should have been used anyway, we should use secondary sources, not simply pick quotes from the BLP's statements/writings. Doug Weller talk 15:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, our reading of WP:PRIMARY differs, then - I would have assumed it could be used in a case like this, but fair enough. What about removing the content rather than just replacing the source with a 'cn' tag? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

On Tanya Reinhart, DG removed all reference to Noam Chomsky's obituary of the subject, because it was linked to a CounterPunch repost.[16] It was trivially easy to find the original obituary on Chomsky's own site, but a pain to restore the text with a suitable reference. This could have been avoided had DG bothered to check, and himself insert the correct reference. Failing this, a citation needed tag would have alerted other editors to the need for a reference. As it was, he reduced the entire section on Reinhart's professional work to just one sentence. RolandR (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It's been replaced. But here you're literally arguing an editorial dispute - David Gerard (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2022 (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., [17][18][19][20][21][22][23], 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.

Request for close

As David continues to indiscriminately remove sources, continues to violate WP:FAIT, and continues to edit-war, and continues to dismiss any challenge to his editing, I ask that this report be closed so that I may request arbitration. nableezy - 16:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I already tried once, over a week ago. It didn't stick :/ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Idk how much enthusiasm there will be for continuing it but I have reopened the above closed discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deprecated and unreliable sources#Reopening the closed Selfstudier (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry but... you really just copied over the above section to the new RFC? That doesn't strike me as a very good idea. At the very least, you should probably wrap it in archive tags, so people don't respond to messages by people who aren't at the RFC. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I will look up how to do that, I did mark it quite clearly as copy/pasted. Selfstudier (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

You meant atop, OK, I did that. I don't expect many replies tbh, just tying up loose ends.Selfstudier (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2022 (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). [24] After nearly a year of Æthereal's editing, the article had a total of 117 mentions of Epstein in November 2021. [25]. 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 [26] (used to attack Andrew Cuomo for associating with Epstein)
• David Rubenstein [27] (used to attack Les Wexner for associating with Epstein)
• Vicky Ward [28] (used to impugn the Queen of England for supposedly associating with Epstein)
• Chelsea Clinton [29] (stressed that Epstein's girlfriend attended Chelsea's wedding)

More of Category 1 - Epsteins

Bill Clinton [30] Michael Bloomberg [31] Jes Staley (used to attack Staley, Bill Gates and Boris Nikolic for associating with Epstein) [32] / [33] Rafael Reif [34] Nicolas Berggruen [35] (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 [36] 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 [37] 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 [38] (used to criticize Miller's reporting)
• Janet Napolitano [39] / [40] (used to criticize her management of DHS)
• George Soros [41] (George Sorоs’ right-hand man was accused of BDSM crimes in his sex dungeon)

More of Category 2 - quotes / references

Dick Cheney [42] (used to criticize Cheney as a war criminal) Antony Blinken [43] / [44] (used to criticize Blinken's decision to invite the UN to investigate racism in USA given UN's ties to China) Ronnie C. Chan [45] (used to criticize Harvard's acceptance of China's gift) Wendy Sherman [46] (used to criticize her China-funded trip) Max Boot [47] / [48] (used to criticize Hollywood grovelling to China and then Boot themselves) Jonathan Greenblatt [49] (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 [50] / [51] (used to criticize her husband's running of Nike with China, fails to even mention her ambassadorship)
• Edgar Bronfman, Jr. [52] / [53] / [54] (stresses family relations due to family's connection with sex cult NXIVM, plus Epstein)
• Edgar Bronfman Sr [55] (see edit summary, adds sister purely because she supposedly enabled a murderer)

More of Category 3 - relations

Susan Roosevelt Weld [56] (highlights past marriage, fails to mention her professorship) Frank G. Wisner [57] (highlights father, fails to mention his ambassadorship and other roles under federal employ) Christopher Elias [58] (for some reason, wants to highlight how the president of Bill Gates Foundation is connected to WHO) Susan Rice [59] / [60] (mentions her wealth, highlights both of her parents) Elaine Chao [61] (highlights how Harvard named a school after her mother..?) Mentions other family relations / marriages for Kati Marton [62], Diana Villiers Negroponte [63], Laura Trevelyan [64], and Judy Woodruff [65]

Category 4 - very questionable edit summaries

• considers [66] / [67] this list of think tank members the "Mean Girls Club" / "Naughty Boys Club"?!
• Larry Summers [68] Epstein sidekick Summers sampled sugardaddy’s sweet succor shamelessly.

More of Category 4 - edit summaries
Michael Bloomberg [69] Added Bloomberg’s knighthood in the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire whose “Grand Master” is über-racist Prince Philip, Bill Weld [70] 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 [71]. 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 [72] / [73]. How is this acceptable? starship.paint (exalt) 14:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal 1: indefinite BLP topic ban (Æthereal)

In light of the additional evidence presented above by Ravenswing, RaiderAspect and Lindenfall, that this disruption is prevalent over multiple lists/articles [74] and multiple topics involving living people including Black Lives Matter [75], Washington Post and its Pulitzer prizes [76], Communism [77] and China [78], I propose an indefinite BLP topic ban for Æthereal. This will leave them the opportunity to edit in historical/non-human topics in the meantime to demonstrate that they are indeed HERE to build an encyclopedia, and with six months of this maybe they can appeal the topic ban to lift this. However if they instead continue to disrupt in other topics, then we can proceed with further sanctions. Naturally as proposer I support this. starship.paint (exalt) 07:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

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

• Support Coatracking muck (similar to WP:ADAM) is the wrong approach to developing BLP articles. I looked to see when Æthereal last edited their talk. It was in 25 February 2019 in response to a complaint regarding this edit which used a reference that failed to verify the claim. Johnuniq (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support though I'm not an Administrator and am unsure whether I ought to vote here. (Please delete me out if that is the case.) Lindenfall (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support That seems fair Sennalen (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef BLP topic ban based on evidence of sustained WP:RGW/WP:SPA-type WP:POVPUSHing. Levivich 21:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support although I'm not sure how effective it will be given the lack of communication. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed COVID topic ban for User:Adoring nanny

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

---

• User:Adoring nanny (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Diff of sanctions notification: [79]
• Diff of final warning: [80]

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

• They have created User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely and China COVID-19 cover-up allegations (at the somehow more POV-titled "China COVID-19 Cover-up").
• Most recently they frivolously removed [81], doubled and tripled down when challenged after their final warning, and continued to 1AM argue the point here and here and here and here.

I think a COVID-19 topic ban is an appropriate remedy. Notified: [82] VQuakr (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

It's a different point. I encourage the community to participate in the RfC.[83]. I am proposing inserting material supported directly by a WP:BESTSOURCE. The community may want to ask itself which is more WP:TEND -- including this material, or leaving it out, even though we include a parallel reason supporting the same underlying claim. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If one looks at series of edits, the sequence here is: Another user removes four sources and some text.[84] I restore three of them and the text [85]. You restore the fourth.[86] I was trying to be polite by not reverting the full edit by the original user. It was simply more convenient to do the restoration as two edits, rather than one.Adoring nanny (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Expand to see comprehensive point-by-point evidence

Repeatedly making edits/arguments against consensus ad nauseum (A) Pushing a POV sentence into an article, against all opposition: [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] (see the entire history of this page: [92] merged as blatant POVFORK) (B) Make sure we don't cite Shi Zhengli's opinion on anything, even when it is DUE, until it aids in pushing a POV: [93] [94] [95] Often makes extensive arguments trying to delegitimize WP:RSes and convince others they are unreliable: (A) Distrusts science and scientists, does not consider peer-reviewed publications reputable or useful, in contradiction to WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:BESTSOURCES [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] (B) Delegitimize the WHO and anything published about their investigation, unless it serves a POV purpose ([101]): [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] Deleting well-sourced additions of others, in service of consistent POV editing (pro-Trump conspiracy, pro-lab leak): [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117][118] Often urges others to "assume good faith" while not doing so oneself: [119] [120]<--'Mainland Chinese participants in an RfC cannot be trusted'. (paraphrased - double quotation marks were converted to single quotation marks to make this clear, my apologies to anyone who misread this as a quotation.) <---Respectfully, withdrawn Escalates small disagreements unnecessarily when consensus is clear (see above issues with Shi Zhengli and attempting over many months to get her NPOV- attributed statements removed from articles, resulting in RfC which is decided unanimously) Assigning undue importance to a single aspect of a subject (see above hyperfocus on including lab-leak perspective and removing WHO and scientific mainstream perspective.) WP:SPA and WP:RGW: See User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely: logic and reason are not Wikipedia policy... Wikipedia can't be trusted on controversial topics, particularly where powerful interests are at stake. and many other above instances of hyperfocus. Seeing editing as being about taking sides: see: User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely and more particularly, off-wiki coordination with other POV editors who were TBAN'd: [121] [122] and POV defenses of user conduct that resulted in TBANs: [123] [124] Cites WP:BLUE and other essays in efforts to support following WP:TRUTH in an effort to circumvent WP:PAGs: [125] [126] [127] (see also: user essay)

For all the reasons above, I would assert that Adoring nanny has a history of WP:TE in the COVID-space in particular (and some bleeding into American politics) and for this reason should be TBAN'd from COVID-19, broadly construed. If their disruption in American politics continues, it may be a good idea to TBAN that as well. But, for a while, that disruption has been pretty quiet. No need to TBAN when the disruption is not ongoing, and if the user acknowledges that they should not remove well-sourced content or otherwise violate discretionary sanctions. (edited 20:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

My goodness, you certainly have more time to throw things at me than I do to refute them, so I'll pick just one. Is the content I removed at this edit [128], which you cite, currently in the Flynn article? Should it be? Does my edit summary message that it is "not biographical for Flynn" make sense? Adoring nanny (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

@Shibbolethink: also specifically, it's not just a paraphrase, but an especially bad one, and you use quotations marks, so again, it's masquerading as a possible quote — a big no-no (on both counts). Example of why it's bad: I have a friend (of decades) who lives nearby. She is Chinese. We don't live in China. Adoring nanny spoke about participants from mainland China, which would not include editors like my friend (well, she never edited Wikipedia, but you get the point). Please be more judicious with evidence. This is important. Thank you. El_C 14:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink please can you strike the text El_C noted concern with. It can be seen as an accusation of racism, which violates WP:NPA. WP:BOOMERANG may apply here. LondonIP (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I adjusted the text to exactly answer @El C's concerns. The paraphrase now describes a sentiment against Mainland Chinese users. if you think this is still an unfair paraphrase, please explain why. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, the expectation is for you to use strikethrough alongside the adjustment, so the record reflects that it was, well... adjusted. El_C 19:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I did not remove anything, aside from double quotation marks. I used underline to indicate where things were added. I will double check and make sure this is consistent. But frankly, strikethrough on double quotation marks would be useless and confusing. If you'd like me to add that, I will. I have added an underline under "Mainland" to be consistent. I have added an explanatory note instead of strikethrough on double quotation marks. Anyone who would like to take me to ANI for not striking through quotation marks and instead explaining it in text, please go ahead. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, the forthright thing to do would have been to retain the original bad paraphrase but strike it and then place that alongside the real quote, which once again reads: i.e. "participants from mainland China risk arrest and disappearance if they are too critical of the CCP." It really isn't that long. Please own up to your mistake in a clear and direct way. I'm not looking to shame you, but that sanitized "adjustment" is coming across as a bit evasive tbh. El_C 19:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I still retain the right to frame my arguments how I wish, within policy. That is what I have done, acting in good faith. If you did not intend to shame me, please consider that this is exactly how it is received. I have no intention of inserting a direct quote, the diff is there for all to see. Where I have directly quoted, I changed the color of the text to make it clear. I apologized for the misunderstanding. I underlined all insertions. I explained the modification. This is such a minor incident that at this point, I have no idea why we are belaboring it. I would appreciate it if we could collapse this thread when it is resolved, because it distracts from any attempt at consensus. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: maybe consider how what you've written would be received by the subject of this ANI complaint. I am logging a warning for you at WP:AEL for WP:COVIDDS. Not so much for not going through the strikethrough procedure I recommended, but for an overall confluence of subpar conduct in this thread. El_C 20:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Please explain what subpar conduct you are referring to? I fixed it the moment it was pointed out to me. I explained the mistake. I apologized. If I'm going to be formally warned, I want an exact explanation so I can avoid the behavior in the future. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, you seem to fail to appreciate the gravity of your error even now. I don't know why you keep repeating that you explained the mistake and that you apologized, when you've been constantly backtracking. No, I want this logged for the record, which is within my discretion to do. El_C 20:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, why would you think it's okay to collapse my comments? I strongly advise you to step away from this thread. El_C 20:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Above, I said I would appreciate it if we could collapse this thread when it is resolved, because it distracts from any attempt at consensus You did not respond to this, so I figured I would collapse and you could revert if you wished. You reverted. I have no intention of doing it again. Please let me know if I've violated any policy or guideline by doing this. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the miscommunication, I appreciate the gravity of misquoting. It steals someone of their voice and besmirches their reputation. I've placed an apology in the context of the explanatory note of my evidence as well. I'm sorry for all the trouble this is causing. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

'Mainland Chinese participants in an RfC cannot be trusted' is not a paraphrase of the quote though... And if you say otherwise I think we need to have a competence discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'm just withdrawing the entire thing, because this is a waste of time and not worth defending. I get why some users find that to be an inaccurate paraphrase. I think I may have misinterpreted the original thread, reading it again. I don't think it's worth squabbling over. If you want to get me banned over it, please make a new ANI thread (or a subthread of this one). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

@My very best wishes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, many people (me including) do not have a lot of time to participate. They can only look at the original diffs on the top to see if they are telling by themselves. I think that's OK. No one can ask more from uninvolved contributors. These diffs are not at all telling, at least to me. But this is easy to check. If anyone really believes the user should be sanctioned (I do not), please bring it to WP:AE. I think this subject area can be handled there. My very best wishes (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I did check some diffs by S., but I do not think they are convincing. For example, this removal [129]. Based on the sources on the subject, yes, people from the group have been involved in making various accusations, but were all of them false as asserted in WP voice? No one can actually prove they were false; some of them could well be true. Same with many other diffs. My very best wishes (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

If you don't have time to participate thoughtfully, it's best if you don't participate. EEng 03:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I think I checked enough now and do not think this complaint is convincing. For, example, how this diff from statement by S. proves anything? And so on. My very best wishes (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Or that diff provided by S. as an incriminating "evidence" [130]? Yes, Shi Zhengli is "closely affiliated" and she is basically an accused party. Therefore, she is not an independent source per WP:INDEPENDENT (#2). The source is an RS and can be used on the page, but this is just not an independent source, exactly A.N. said.My very best wishes (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

  @FormalDude: its possible that some editors here don't consider the evidence to be very strong, starting with the first diffs, the accusation of racism, and the WP:BLUE thing. One can't just make a big list of diffs and expect all editors to comment on each and every one. LondonIP (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

  I would expect any accusation of WP:TE to be accompanied by many diffs, as it is not an accusation to be taken lightly. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

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

  You are using a rather unconventional definition of the word "nobody" there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose This looks like a very dubious attempt to block a user simply for advancing positions some users dislike. I see almost no evidence above of Adoring nanny misbehaving, instead I see (1.) false citations attributed to them though they never said them, (2.) several diffs to them making political arguments on articles about politics. Newsflash: having different political opinions is allowed. So no, in the absence of any policy violations, Adoring nanny should not be blocked nor topic banned. Jeppiz (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support. This is not about "advancing positions some users dislike" - that is a strawman. This is WP:PROFRINGE editing. Shibbolethink listed examples of it. Of course, this particular fringe narrative has been pushed by much bigger fish in the US, even by the saner one of the big parties and by usually reliable news outlets, and now people somehow have the impression that it is not fringe. But it is. The scientific sources tell a different picture from the non-scientific ones. It is like climate change twenty years ago. Wikipedia should follow the science, and someone who keeps knocking the keyboard out of pro-science editor's hands should be stopped. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

If a position is "pushed by much bigger fish in the US, even by the saner one of the big parties and by usually reliable news outlets" then by definition it isn't fringe. Also just FYI the scientific consensus is that there was some sort of coverup, is that what you mean by pro-science or are you talking about the potentia; lab leak aspect? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, you must have missed the COVID-19 cover-up RM, AfD, MR, ANI, AN, RSN and creation of the newly created Chinese government response to COVID-19. Now a consensus has formed there that the Chinese government's response to the outbreak was just fine, based on data from a Chinese government website. LondonIP (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, not really buying that we have a conduct issue here... To me this looks like a garden variety content dispute. I agree with Nableezy that basing conduct charges on a userspace essay is just not something we should be doing, Adoring nanny seems to do a pretty decent job of upholding our policies and guidelines despite their strong personal opinions and we need more editors like them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose this looks like an attempt to win a content dispute by getting opponents banned. Regarding the two points from the filer - the "Lab Leak Likely" essay was litigated months ago and consensus was that it is fine in userspace. The second argument (and set of diffs) appear to be on multiple topics, but are primarily about "Frutos et al." I don't know who Frutos is, and since ANI does not decide on content disputes I do not need to find out. The process of debating a topic that people disagree with on a talk page is not problematic behavior - it is how the encyclopedia works. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Adoring nanny is a wonderful person and a good editor. This complaint of misconduct is just the latest of many attempts to lobby administrators to ban editors in the COVID-19 origin topic with the "wrong" POV. I am surprised they chose to go after an editor who always has such a civil attitude. I would have been an easier target because I have a very strong opinion on this topic and I operate ​​laboratoryleak.com. Shibbolethink also has a WP:SELFPUB reddit post on the lab leak they promote in article discussions, so they should not accuse others of pushing their POV, otherwise it could come back as a BOOMERANG. Francesco espo (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

  Hi, I noticed you reference this post a lot. When was the last time I referenced it, do you know? I'm pretty sure it was at least 6 months ago. And have I ever mentioned it in article space? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

There's a bunch of editors, including Adoring nanny, who are on a major Right Great Wrongs spree over the COVID articles where there's a strong and consistent pattern of pushing conspiracy theories (e.g. lab leak, horse dewormer) as fact. I ran into them closing the RM at what is now China COVID-19 cover-up allegations, and it's not just a problem that isn't limited to just one user; it's an incredible disruptive group effort (I think there were, at one point, five threads in Wikipedia-space on that awful article running at once) which needs to be dealt with pretty sharpish. That said, I support a topic ban to allow them to touch some grass for once, and more topic bans for more users if the disruption continues. Sceptre (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Off topic: There is no evidence that ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19, but it is materially misleading to define it as "horse dewormer". It is an antiparasitic medication with human and veterinary application that "has been used safely by hundreds of millions of people to treat river blindness and lymphatic filariasis," according to Wikipedia.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

People aren't getting the ivermectin on prescription from a doctor, though; they're getting it from veterinary stores with a nice apple flavouring. Sceptre (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps (although Joe Rogan, for one, claimed that his doctor prescribed it to him), but I'm incredulous that "a bunch of editors, including Adoring nanny" are specifically promoting the veterinary form of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. In the absence of diffs to that effect, your earlier comment appears somewhat overstated to me. Anyway, I digress...TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Sceptre, I'm going to WP:AGF and assume you have diffs of me editing something about horse dewormer somewhere. Would you kindly provide them? Adoring nanny (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support User is clearly here to advocate a fringe opinion on the subject matter, rather than improving the project's coverage of the topic. Zaathras (talk) 03:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Adoring nanny is a great editor with a great attitude towards working with others in helping to build Wikipedia. This looks more of a content dispute than a behaviour problem. Sanctions are not warranted here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - looking through their mainspace contributions, I don't spot any policy violations. Whilst the essay you mentioned is based on questionable findings, as other people have pointed out, it's not a problem if it doesn't make it into any articles. MiasmaEternal☎ 03:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Ping abuse by user:RogueShanghai

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps you should consider "yes I see your point" as a response? People who don't want to continue arguments should ... stop continuing the arguments. --JBL (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

(nods to JBL) Yep, that was my take. Ronherry seems to be just the type who has to have the last word. "How dare the other guy not shut up and concede it to me?" isn't usually grounds for an ANI filing, and perhaps Ronherry -- just this once -- will let us have the last word. Ravenswing 16:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: Just want to mention that I am non-binary and use they/them pronouns, I hope you don't mind changing "guy" to "person", thank you :) shanghai.^{talk to me} 16:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

OFFS. EEng 22:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

FWIW: if Ravenswing speaks the same regional dialect of English as me, then "guy" is frequently gender-neutral (especially in the plural "you guys"/"youse guys"); and you are not the only possible referent. --JBL (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

(nods to JBL) Quite aside from that it was a generic statement, referring to no one particular person, so no, I'm not going to be changing my phrasing, any more than I demand others do when they get my gender wrong, "Ravenswing" not providing any obvious gender identity. Ravenswing 23:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, where I come from "guys" and (particularly in this convoluted hypothetical usage) "the other guy" is gender neutral. @RogueShanghai, I think you can specify your pronouns in your preferences, which will make them appear when hovering over your name. Some folks who have a strong preference also place them into their sig, which makes them very visible. —valereee (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee, JayBeeEll, and Ravenswing: Sorry, just a bit sensitive about getting properly gendered right, I've been misgendered on Wikipedia before (whether intentionally or unintentionally) so it is a bit of a sore topic. In preferences, my pronouns are set to they/them and if you look at my user page I have a userbox that says I prefer gender-neutral pronouns. Thank you! shanghai.^{talk to me} 13:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: Also, would just like to point out that Ronherry's statement of "If you ping me again, I will report you at the noticeboard" very much falls under the first example of WP:INTIMIDATE. shanghai.^{talk to me} 17:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to mention myself that WP:INTIMIDATE is an essay with no actionable standing, that Ronherry wouldn't have violated it if it had (his threat, after all, proved not to be idle), and that if you do actually feel that dropping the stick and moving on is the best way to proceed -- with which I agree -- you really ought to drop the stick and move on. Ravenswing 19:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: For what it's worth, I don't have any intention to interact with or talk about Ronherry anywhere. This is only my second time embroiled in a dispute with him and I'm not looking for there to be a third- WP:DTS might be the best solution for all parties involved. shanghai.^{talk to me} 16:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• After the edit warring on Nicki Minaj and Katy Perry I wonder if RogueShanghai needs a stern warning --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Mike Novikoff keeps removing WP:DECOR per template

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've been suspected for manipulation of Wikipedia's Manual of Style without seeking for consensus. @Ymblanter: I would like to impose community sanctions what have you done for WP:MOS, as a result of disruptive editing, personal attacks and oversight. --49.150.112.127 (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

What you are saying is almost incomprehensible. Just note that Ymblanter won't take any action here as WP:INVOLVED (because of {{Moscow Oblast}}). And you have quite a chance to get {{uw-mos4}} and then be reported yourself. (Admins: correct me if I'm wrong). — Mike Novikoff 13:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• Well, now I have a bit of time, let me write what I think about this. First, I do not know who the IP user is, I can not really comment on their motivation, and I do not think I interacted with them before today. (It is obviously not me, the IP is based in the Philippines, and I am in the Netherlands which is obvious from my recent uploads on Commons for example). I however interacted with Mike Novikoff. He is generally doing fine, but he is fully convinced that he is absolutely right and his opponents are always wrong, which is why he on a regular basis resorts either to personal attacks or WP:ASPERSIONS, going sometimes to the degree of lunacy. One example was his crusade against stress marks in Russian words. He was 100% positive that WP:MOS prohibits usage of stress, and started to mass-remove these stress marks. Users started to come to his talk page and protest: one, two, three, four. He responds that stress marks are not allowed, period. Finally, after I come there and say it must be discussed, he opens a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 222#Stress marks in Russian words, where he goes ballistic, his main opponent goes ballistic and gets blocked indef and eventually globally locked, and the discussion finally gets closed as approximate consensus (there were quite a few opposers), which apparently Mike Novikoff perceives as a confirmation that he just knows best. Fine, then he goes on a crusade on templates, which was the topic of the previous ANI and also of this ANI. When he gets opposition, he instead dismisses it and resorts to personal attacks, as we see in the linked ANI thread and also here. He has learned from the previous ANI thread that it is dangerous to attack me personally, presumably because I can do something bad to him. However, he has not learned that his understanding of WP:MOS is not necessarily the one everybody else shares, and that if the edits get reverted multiple times they must be discussed. Again, they were blocked indef in the Russian Wikipedia for a similar type of behavior, and they clearly are moving to the same end here. May be somebody could try to explain these basics to him, because if he learns this he might be a valuable Wikipedia user. I blocked him on Wikidata before for personal attacks for three days (and that was the first time I have seen this user); he asked that the block were revision-deleted from the log else he would never edit Wikidata. This is probably going to happen here after the first block, so his direct interest would be to listen to the advise and to correct his behavior to avoid blocks in the future, but for the time being I do not see this happening.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • He was 100% positive that WP:MOS prohibits usage of stress – I've never said that. Even though some references to the already existing policies were eventually included in the discussion closure, I've presented my own arguments instead. Users started to come to his talk page and protest: one, two, three, four. – First of these users didn't revert my edits, he agreed with my explanation and even encouraged me to write an essay. The second user is the same as third. He responds that stress marks are not allowed, period. – Anyone can see that these discussions were much more elaborate. Fine, then he goes on a crusade on templates – It's not a "crusade", it's one of the many things that I did regularly since long ago, so there was at least WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, if nothing else. — Mike Novikoff 08:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

    No, if your edits get reverted on a regular basis, it means WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS does not apply. If you see that other templates of the same type has the images - well, there is a tiny chance that the templates are there but in 10+ years nobody noticed they do not comply with the policy, but more likely it is that people interpret policies differently than you do. The policy you cite does not say "Coats of arms are prohibited in templates related to the Federal subjects of Russia", it says something else which you interpret this way. If you see your edits reverted, you should check whether there is actually consensus to do it, and preferably in a broader forum, not on a page which is only watched by a couple of people. WT:MOS is probably a good venue.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Boomerang The edit history at Template:Nizhny Novgorod Oblast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) clearly demonstrates that Mike Novikoff's behavior is fine, and the IP editor's is not. Reverting an 18 month old edit with the edit summary of "indistinguishable" (apparently some allusion to the IP editor being accused of behavior indistinguishable from trolling) is the type of edit that should be reverted on-sight, and starting an ANI thread after a few of those edits are reverted is absurd. I don't know who the IP is either. I assume they are some form of banned user. If they are not, they should be warned that a pattern of tendentious editing will cause them to soon become one. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I can't make heads nor tails of the IP's comments, but "indistinguishable from trolling" is a reference to this edit summary of mine (mentioned also in the previous ANI discussion), which was about one particular edit / edit summary. --JBL (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

User apparently trying to get to 500 edits quickly by removing and readding spaces

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

This user has made more than 100 edits at The Avengers (2012 film), just removing and readding spaces. They did the same at Tron: Legacy. —El Millo (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I blocked indef and only after that noticed EdJohnston' s request to the user to explain their behavior. Since this is a controversial situation, I will unblock if a couple of admins think I should.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Your block seems correct to me. If he asks for unblock we can find out if there is any method to the madness. EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - good block in the absence of a very good explanation for this strange editing. GiantSnowman 21:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I endorse the indef block. Even if they are not straight-up system gaming, they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. BD2412 T 21:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I threw User talk:AgentEnthusiast in for free. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Good block, Ymblanter! As far as I can see the only possible explanation for this is an attempt to game the system to get XC status. Could some clever filter-savvy person perhaps devise a way of highlighting this kind of series of pointless edits? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't know anything about abuse filter markup, but I think it's probably going to be something that checks for any/all of the following:

• The edit has added or removed a single character.
• The amount of edits done to a page in a row by a specific user within some amount of time exceeds a set threshold.
• The edit frequency of a user (that only includes very small edits, like adding one or two letters) exceeds some limit. ^{(probably not going to be as important)}

172.112.210.32 (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, Happy New Year ANI! 172.112.210.32 (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Testing in 1180 . ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Might want to look into ShootGuyFirst as well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Reporting Victor Aify

Victor Aify (talk · contribs)

This editor is only adding the website The Afro Desk Journal in articles [131] [132] [133] [134]. Clearly that they are only using this account for promotion then anything else (WP:NOTHERE). TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Their last edit was about three hours ago. You dropped a notice on their talk page about one hour ago. It's unclear to me why you felt it necessary to escalate this at this time. (you also failed to inform them of this discussion, please be sure and do that in the future) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: I only notice this editor just recently, you don't need to be rude about it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I think it's more there maybe should have been an attempt to discuss this at the user's talk page, and if that didn't work out or there was no response, or if they continued without explanation, some admin action would be needed. Just my two cents, anyway. Singularity42 (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Singularity42: Maybe I was being too fast about this, we see the editor response to this issue. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd add that I really don't think my comment was rude. I challenged the basis of this report, but I wasn't rude about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

GalavantEnchancedMoon pblock needed on Railway Preservation Society of Ireland

• GalavantEnchancedMoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Railway Preservation Society of Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Railway Preservation Society of Ireland/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Railway Preservation Society of Ireland
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 176#Railway Preservation Society of Ireland

Please note I (Djm-leighpark) claim to have been a member of the the Railway Preservation Society of Ireland (RPSI) between 25 August 2021 and 22 November 2021 and also between 29 December 2021 and 31 December 2021 which means I have a COI even despite resignation. My tendered resignation today (with request membership fee is retained for purposes of the society) is to indicate views and concerns here are my own and should not represent or reflect those of the RPSI. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I bring to ANI the case of GalavantEnchancedMoon (GEM), whose edits, in my view, seem to POV with subtle and not-so-subtle over-promotion of the south area of the RPSI against the north area of the RPSI and these have resurfaced with the edits on 25th December Railway Preservation Society of Ireland. The explanation today at Special:Diff/1063017973 claims [135] addresses my concerns ... per my background and research detailed at Talk:Mullingar railway station and concerns/background at [Talk:Railway Preservation Society of Ireland#Mullingar] it doesn't. While the Mullingar issues are relatively minor they are a continuation of the behavior which caused this oversighter comment: Special:Diff/1038917193 ... (additionally BLP matters were brought forward and Wikipedia:Revision deletion needed at the RSPI article). The exchange between between Drmies and Mjroots at Talk:Railway Preservation Society of Ireland#COI/Neutrality concerns of 25 December 2021 edits. seems to suggest Drmies is encouraging Mjroots to raise at ANI (or maybe Pblkock? directly). GEM has currently won the edit war (I would have to do {{request edit}}, and the nearest a neutral came to trying to sort it out was at Special:Diff/1062501269 where they declared As an uninvolved editor (I've never even set foot in Ireland), my understanding is that this is a long-running dispute, and essentially all major contributors to the article have a COI. Which makes sense, because everyone else doesn't want to wade into the middle of a war zone (I certainly don't). I don't know how to resolve this beyond banning everyone with a COI from making direct edits to the article entirely and having someone neutral rewrite it (I am NOT volunteering to do this). (NB: I dispute need to TNT). In totality I suggest there is a substantial case for a Pblock of GEM, (which is what I have myself), with use of {{Request edit}} if appropriate, which I have to do myself. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• Happy new year, for your part of the world. We got a few hours to go. Yes, your COI is noted; you do not need to explain that every time. You placed one diff here of GEM's edits; I simply do not see, in that or other recent edits, how that somehow sets up one part against the other, and favors it. Now, I really don't mind a partial block for GEM, but I don't think you have made the case for it, despite the many words in this post. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• Drmies: Your're an oversighter so you've access to the controversial edits. Given the nature of your previous comments this will end you with GEM being BLOCK'ed or me being me SEALION'd ... but was that your intention? I could make a better case but I'd to dox people? Is that what you want? Perhaps your conduct too needs to be scutinised? I need to work out if I need to dox people to make a stronger case? Were you goading Mjroots to take this here to take a "pop" at me? There are things to chew over. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't affect just GEM though, does it? There are five editors named at talk:Railway Preservation Society of Ireland as having a COI. AIUI, Djm-leighpark is the editor accusing the other four of having a COI. He has self-declared a COI, which is why I PBLOCKED him from editing the article. GEM has denied being a member of the RPSI, which we have to accept in good faith in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary.

I suggested that a community PBLOCK discussion here at ANI may be the best way to resolve this, although since I published those thoughts I've been thinking and maybe AN might be a better venue, as there is less drama there. I will say that I am not going to PBLOCK an editor from an article just because another editor says they have a COI. Mjroots (talk) 06:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@MMjroots: To repeat on 15 August 2021 at Special:Diff/1038917193 by Drmies which named the names: have rarely seen an article so clearly edited by "interested parties"--a quick glance at the history makes this clear already. Just look at all the redlinked names who sometimes just made a few edits and then disappeared--and most of those edits are adding unverified details about what trains the organization rides or what things they do. Like NAME1, or NAME2. NAME3 and NAME4 have a COI too, but it's the opposite interest. NAME5 looks like a former or current member who, on the one hand, wants to fluff up the article while taking stabs at old colleagues. I'm glad User:Pipsally came along in April to remove all those BLP violations, which I'm about to scrub from the history..., NAME2 is GEM, has been identified by oversighter Drmies as (Not just one editor Djm-leighpark) as having a COI. On 15 August 2021 I was not an RPSI member, and adding to COI on the talk page seemed appropriate. And if it wasn't many amdins have had employ opportunity to do so since. You might wonder why I'm singled GEM but they've resumed (what I allege is pointed editing) on 25 December 2021 ... which "feels" like sniping from "South" against "North" ... again. I would appreciate a need for a more private review forum .... and given evidence I've just had to elaborate here there miight need to be a WP:XRV, perhaps as well. Leprechauns couldn't had engineered a start like this if they tried ... not that I'm accused anyone of being one ... but I'll probably get the boomberang on that one. Welcome to Wikipedia 2022 says me eyes rollling ! 08:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

And what is the administrative action that a review is needed on? The only administrative action I've taken in this case is to PBLOCK you due to your stated COI. You've not objected to that action. XRV is not for reviewing an admin for failing to do an administrative action. That I haven't PBLOCKED GEM for the reasons I stated does not preclude any other admin from doing so if they feel it is justified. Mjroots (talk) 08:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Your actions, allegations, inconsistency and sometimes inaction. You repeatedly accuse me of being the originator of the suggestion of GEM's COI seem to fail to recognise Drmies pointed it out first. Totally appropriate action would be for you to remove the connected contributor from the article talk page first and say, "look Djm-leighpark" you made a mistake there and reverted that. I've no real desire to take this to XRV but unless I've misread something the inconsistencies are pretty horrible. Fundamentally your a good dude and doing useful stuff here. But your now involved (or perhaps better put dragged in) and it needs others not involved to sort out. And I am highly aware of the probability of a boomerang SEALION block at some point; thoug I promise not to do a picture injection this time as the consequence is still with us on the Chinese and Japanese trams! Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I don't consider myself "involved" re any actions I take re the RPSI article, either in the past or in the future. I'm not a member of the RPSI and haven't ever edited the article. It is probably for the best that the community PBLOCK discussion is held and a consensus is formed. I will not be expressing an opinion should such a discussion be held, although I may comment if asked to do so. Mjroots (talk) 10:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark, this is getting tedious. Drop the "oversighter" when you talk about me, please, since it is completely irrelevant. There's rev-deleted content, but that's old news and it doesn't concern anyone who is still active, and it certainly doesn't concern GEM. I think you need to stop trying to insult Mjroots, and you should stop trying to goad me. I don't know what a "sealion block" is. No, you don't need to dox anyone: what you need to do is prove disruption in the article (or the talk page) by way of diffs from the article or the talk page. I don't see any evidence right now of current disruption. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Drmies:. Basically this boils down to a content dispute, doesn't it. Mjroots (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

: I agree there is a current content dispute: but I'd argue that also links to previous contributions by GEM and that objective continues. On that matter I'm doing at email to an oversighter I have some trust in. I have previously mentioned oversighter specifically as that position requires high standards, but I will respect the request not to mention it after this. As Drmies and Mjroots are currently in my opinion prepared to back their concerns expressed on the article talk page against what seems like SPA's and wish to classify this as a content dispute, perhaps they may conspire to close this, as content dispute should not be here? The chance of neutrals to sort it out, which has been requested for some time, seems remote, and I'd expect a {{request edit}} to get exoceted in the two months it might take to get implemented. I expect to be blocked for a month or more now or relatively shortly if not by a admin block then by a voluntary requested block to avoid a psychotic incident that would lead to a block. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

GEM arguably disruptive and POV edits

• The general angle to watch for is GEM presenting a point of view that is disparaging towards the Whitehead in the North or the management committee of RPSI. However, some members regard this as a waste of money and effort that would be better used on their existing locomotive and carriage fleet. This unsourced and therefore opinion piece expresses about the opinion of members express to distain at the decision at Whitehead proceed from this. This is actually a controversial decision: It takes parts which could have been used to build either a NCC Class W or a NCC Class WT; and its a very valid and devisive debate to about whether to go for one or the other. This also expresses the opinion that was a long-term flagship project and funds could have been more effectively applied to short-term needs. The issue with this is not necessarily that the opinion is incorrect, the problem is edit is disruptive, Wikipedia has been used to express and opinion, and possibly shows connection with membership. Trivial in itself, but problematic when combined with other problemss. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
• At the risk of repetition, Special/Diff:1038917193 Special:Diff/1038917193 confirms extreme "interested party" editing over article revisions that have been Revision-deleted. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC) (Special diff fixed Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC))
• If we look at edits on 25/27 December 2021 ... the POV pushing resumes. Its valid to talk about operations ... but is selection of the phrase "The Society has extensive operations out of Dublin which are said to bring in the lion's share of income, according to Five Foot Three issue 43" the most neutral way to do this, and especially omitting the date of newsletter Five Foot Three issue 43 ... which is about 1996/1997 ... about 24 years ago. It still may be the case dublin generates more income ... but that's not the way to prove it. In terms of Mullingar needing to be at the top level ... its now a minor base if that ... it doesn't seem to directly have a safety case [136] (Section: If you would like to become a RPSI volunteer then you must:) .and seems to now be restricted to tow carriages [137]. The comment The last overhaul was completed in 2015 and the base is now going derelict with funding instead being channeled to Whitehead, including a council decision not to spend money on the green carriages based there ... it again feels like a winge opporunity at Whitehead. Its not to decry Mullingar's work or voluntary effort there ... its just consistent problematic POV pushing. With regards the "green" carriage one this one at least seems to be at Inchicore. In totality sufficient for a PBlock I'd argue. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  The "RPSI News Letter : date=November 1996" referred to seems to be located at located at [138]. I think its publically accessable but not google indexed. It is being used as a source to support the statement The last overhaul was completed in 2015 and the base is now going derelict with funding instead being channeled to Whitehead, including a council decision not to spend money on the green carriages based there. To state the obvious to start with a 1996 source cannot support a 2015 event (albeit one of the later sources might). But is this cherry-picking out of context to get a POV across? IS it undue in the context of a 64 year history given the current state of the article? Its certainly too hard a read for me at this time of night. ANI is not being about a content dispute, and if I'm correct GEM has said they have an offline hardcopy of this document, but does an experienced editor feel happy about the use of the source, and is this primary source being used through biased eyes?. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  That is a valid concern. I've raised it at the article's talk page and asked GEM to either correctly attribute it or remove it. Mjroots (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'd also like to point out at this point any reference to the 5' 3" magazine should likely have {{Page needed}} added, "with funding instead being channeled to Whitehead" may need {{text-source inline}}. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Block evasion 2001:16A2:C195:96D7:CE9:60A9:AA1B:5A9E

• 2001:16A2:C195:96D7:CE9:60A9:AA1B:5A9E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Latest IP used by disruptive editor who in the past has used:

• 2001:16A2:C1C3:377B:3C26:945A:5727:D2EA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2001:16A2:C168:7FAB:CC71:ECDC:92F3:88CE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2001:16A2:C1EB:7428:E859:8893:BFF0:FDC5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2001:16A2:C16C:4826:B1BD:5149:D940:D4A2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2001:16A2:9077:2B00:DD28:AFCD:19D3:FD18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Same geolocation (Jeddah, Mecca Region, Saudi Arabia) and ISP (SaudiNet), and the same sort of edits to the same topics (Incident management (ITSM), Problem management, Bachelor of Technology, Bachelor of Engineering, etc.). Extremely disruptive editing. Adding full of unsourced information's randomly. Even removing tags from the articles which are meant for improvement. Please do range block.--202.78.236.72 (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked Special:Contributions/2001:16A2:C100::/42 For two weeks. If the problem continues, semiprotecting half a dozen articles might address it. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

List of Chelsea F.C. records and statistics

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

---

I did post at WP:RPP, but there seems to be a bigger issue at state on the article, the IP there is just seems disruptive against a few editors, there was a talk on the talk page. But the article has really just become a battleground. I really feel an admin needs to review the contrib history, talk page. Help stabilise the problem there, cheers. Govvy (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

This page has been semiprotected one month by MelanieN. EdJohnston (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

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

46.138.206.0/24 : vandalism in Talk namespace

• 46.138.206.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  

Serial cross-wiki vandalism in Talk namespace (offensive posts, mainly in Russian). Please impose a long-term partial block on this IP range for Talk namespace only (up to several months or 1 year please). This vandal has been active for many years, see also: previous IP range / earlier IP range / last contribs in ruwiki / last contribs in ruwiktionary.) Thanks in advance. — 2A00:1370:8129:6878:6B7D:C580:E39A:4F21 (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

One of the diffs which I have just revision-deleted contained apology of Holocaust denial.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

user:Mughal7867868055 IDHT, and harassment

• Mughal7867868055 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Even after told/reverted repeatedly, the user has been adding Urdu as official language to the article of Aurangabad. The user is also trying to remove pictures of the Islamic prophet. Today they posted a message to my talkpage, containing slurs/vulgarism, basically typical rev-del material. They also mentioned me being marathi speaker — I don't think they can edit here collaboratively. Appropriate action is requested. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  nevermind. Blocked a few minutes ago by TheresNoTime. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Iridescent and Anthony Appleyard: would you kindly revdel the diff above? —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

On this occasion  Done, albeit with the proviso that in general, revision deletion isn't a good idea except in very serious cases, since it makes it harder to for people to see the background in the event of any future appeal. In this case, it's not so much of an issue since this appears to be someone with no chance of being unblocked. ‑ Iridescent 10:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Iridescent: it was in Hindi typed in English. It was not good stuff. See you around :-) —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Incel

Would somebody close Talk:Incel#"The incel ideology" + new sources are available related to NYTimes front-page article and evolving international news story? No verifiable edits seem to be forthcoming from that thread. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

they asked for sources and now have 33 sources which they are ignoring, including one by Megan Twohey and Gabriel Dance, which has 5-6 paragraphs on the largest incel forum over multiple articles, and a Daily. They are rejecting sources in an immature fashion. 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 10:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Not demanding anyone add them, just giving a heads up, the news is already covering that story on sanctionedsuicide and sub-story on incels.co internationally 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

An article split to Incel Movement incels.co and/or SanctionedSuicide seems useful for anyone intrepid Wikipedian who wants to not ignore reputable outlets on that topic. There's dozens of sources which could be used 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

the news is already covering that story—good for them, we aren't the news. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm curious why it's considered notable for reputable sources but not Wikipedia? 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 10:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

See [139]: misogynistic edits, denialism of radicalization, and so on. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't appreciate defamation 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Mysoginistic edits: Hypergamy, Melanie Fontana. Denialism of incel radicalization: Talk:Toronto van attack and Toronto van attack, many at Talk:Incel (search for Minassian). tgeorgescu (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

A international news story with followups you are considering not notable because IPs edited those pages? I'm not responding to you anymore 2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

An anonymous person cannot be defamed. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I don't see that discussion leading anywhere useful. I'm sure that The New York Times itself would not claim to be more reliable than peer-reviewed academic papers, so I don't understand why someone from a group that usually disparages that newspaper would make such a claim. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

What the intial complaintee is gonna lobby to IP ban me out of a lie that the "wiki anyone can edit" can't insert multiple points of views. Oh no what can I ever do. 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that one of the "peer reviewed authors" (Alexander Ash aka diego) someone added in the todo of the article talk page is under congressional inquiry, who are petitioning the DOJ to prosecute him. As well as Montevideo police inquiry .That was in many reputable sources 2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk) 10:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/21/technology/suicide-website-google.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• The WP:BLUDGEONING and lengthy WP:FORUM posts by 2600:8806:X at the current talk page and archives are a waste of everyone's time. I don't know what they're trying to do, but they don't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. See e.g. their response to a request for specific, verifiable contributions: "Not my job". Well, it's not anyone else's job to wade through their endless rants either. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources are there for referernce for future articles or authors, they didn't even wanna click on them. And I do suspect this story and news was purposefully ignored by wikipedians who scrape google news for 'incel', as editors jumped on minassian story 1 day in but not this. Why? I dunno. There are possibly 500+ deaths associated with the SS site according to the story. And the authors mentioned diego and lamarcus ran incels.co and SS. It's a tragedy I feel is being unfairly ignored by WP and now framed as a problem with an IP. Page splits would probably help though as SS is only tied to incels.co, and that's just one forum, albeit the largest. incels.co Sanctioned Suicide Incel Movement etc would probably be more accurate ways to place refs in future imo2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I think ppl probably add it in eventually, but the retisence and agression towards the story (pretty much only on WP) is odd. News stories should stand on their own without people trying to create wikidrama2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk) 10:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I could go on about the other editors doing WP:NOTAFORUM or WP:RIGHTGreatWRONGs, as mentioned in the talk page, but it's pointless, I don't want people banned cuz this is about a real tragedy. 2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

You have accused me of WP:RGW, but that's a completely baseless accusation. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

At the very least your edits comprised of mostly WP:NOTaFORUM and WP:IDONTLIKeIT, but it's fine, I'm just here today to build an encyclopedia not to create drama. 2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

This formatting kinda evokes the ancient mediawiki method of making wikilinks, which was using camelcase. Just pointing that out, unsure if it means anything --50.234.188.27 (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Back to the story and followups I recommend any wikipedians to read it and the followups and international counterpart stories, it's a good story and could help build on this wealth of knowledge here at wikipedia.2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

If not it's not a huge deal, someone else will add it. 2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The words about being here mean nothing, since those are not backed up by evidence. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

IP user x3 (same user) violating WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, WP:3RR, Wikipedia:Citation overkill and Wikipedia:Harassment

[140], [141], [142] (same user) an anonymous user based in the Phillipines has been edit warring recently. He is unwilling to engage, and has broken the 3 revert rule by this edit. [143]

Both me and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_Convergence&oldid=1063256721 Vif12vf have reverted his addition of social democracy and it's been explained to him why it is being reverted. Instead, he refueses to listen and is trying to [overkill it.] The explanation of his addition being reverted is due to WP:SYNTH. All sources he has added only refer to Gabriel Boric and not the party Social Convergence and alliance Apruebo Dignidad. Obviously by looking at the members of the alliance (founders Daniel Jadue of the Communist Party and Gabriel Boric) and the position, of Apruebo Dignidad, it's pretty hard to believe that the alliance would be social democratic, when in fact the social democratic alliance of Chile is New Social Pact. If his sources refered to the alliance and party specifically, his addition would be fine, however he is breaking WP:SYNTH (Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources) by adding sources that only describe Boric as social democratic and therefore assuming his party and alliance are also social democratic.

His sources: "El Chile de Boric: una oportunidad para la socialdemocracia europea" - "Boric's Chile: an opportunity for European social democracy" "Gabriel Boric: qué significa su victoria en Chile para la izquierda en América Latina y por qué aún no se habla de una nueva "marea rosa" - Gabriel Boric: what does his victory in Chile mean for the left in Latin America and why there is still no talk of a new "pink tide" "El triunfo de Gabriel Boric en las presidenciales en Chile plantea la pregunta de qué izquierda representa. Tildado de "comunista" por sus críticos, y aliado con ellos, apunta no obstante a la Europa socialdemócrata como inspiración para el "Estado del bienestar" que promueve." - Boric, allied with the communist party, described as a communist by critics, Boric nonetheless points to social democratic Europe as an inspiration for the "welfare state" he promotes. Stephany Griffith-Jones, economista: “Boric es lo que en Europa se llama socialdemócrata” - Stephany Griffith-Jones, economist: "Boric is what in Europe is called a social democrat" So as mentioned, Boric might certainly be social democratic/looking positively at social democracy but none of these sources mention his party and alliance which has been described far left by some sources, and nevertheless even if Boric was a social democrat his comments about "burrying neoliberalism" is a bit strange for a social democrat. [144] Boric has had several labels on him but the question is about his party and alliance, and this editor is insisting that only because he found sources describing Boric as social democrat, his whole alliance/party is that.

Instead of engaging in an active discussion and being respectful, the editor has gone over the 33RR and used Wikipedia:Harassment by swearing towards me. [[145]]

And he is not only doing it to this party but several such as Chavismo (clearly a social democrat lol), which has led to other users reverting his actions. [[146]]

Nevertheless he needs to stop edit warring, and this is why a report has been made as he is unwilling to engage and only push his opinion in a violation of NPOV. Always the anonymous accounts going on a crusade to add in their opinion and in this case social democracy to every party out there judging his edits lol (8 parties in a hour), he would need a consesus for this too. So hopefully something can be done about this. BastianMAT (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week (/64). BastianMAT, for future reference, less is more; diffs are preferred over old revisions. El_C 13:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Yikes — sorry, BastianMAT, but this raises questions as to your competence. El_C 13:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Rushed it through a bit, hopefully it is not a problem. BastianMAT (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I mean, nothing bad happened, it's just concerning that someone who joined the project years ago doesn't know that new discussion sections go at the bottom rather than at the top of a page, especially when as you edit at the top it clearly states NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE. And, having the header be absurdly lengthy, too. Oh well. El_C 22:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

My bad, I have made reports before and I do make regular ITN nominations. However, you are right, I did make a poor report this time and I acknowledge that. I will not repeat that, anyways, I wish you a good day and cheers. BastianMAT (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries, BastianMAT, don't let roughnecks like me bring you down! El_C 22:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppet needs blocking

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Haiyenslna Dronebogus (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

•  Done Black Kite (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

User using edit summary to abuse and insult

Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel has made various insulting edit summaries in the past couple of months. See the following examples of this disruptive behaviour: [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159]. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit summaries recently include this and this giving the middle finger emoji, and this and this referring to people as "clown" and "brat".

For the avoidance of doubt - and I'll post this at Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel's talk page as well - WP:CIVIL applies to edit summaries as much as it does elsewhere. Such use of swearing and insults is entirely innappropriate. I cannot see any talk page posts informing this user of this before, so because I'm in a good mood this evening I'm willing to AGF and assume they were unaware, but any future infraction, no matter how mild, will result in an indefinite block. GiantSnowman 22:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a puzzling (and very inappropriate) series of edit summaries, especially as they don't seem to be directed at anyone in particular. They need to stop, and I'd be interested to hear an explanation. I second GiantSnowman's advice. Mackensen (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like @El C: has blocked them. Fine by me. GiantSnowman 22:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing especially egregious about the insults themselves, they're just too much in their totality. Certainly, if they assure us they'll correct their conduct, no problem in unblocking. BTW, ItsKesha, for future reference, diffs are preffred over old revisions (déjà vu!). El_C 22:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I blocked prior to any the above comments (I am trying to be less toe-steppy, believe it or not!). El_C 22:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding a different matter, I had asked the user on their talk page to be civil and avoid shouting/using all caps, they almost instantly reverted without responding. I checked their talk page history, they have reverted vast amounts of edits there. This incivility in edit summaries is something that dates back not just a couple of months but years. See [160] [161] [162] and [163], so I hope I can be forgiven for not wanting to go back years digging into their talk page history to see if there have been any prior warnings, but for future reference I will bear in mind to ask/warn prior to reporting regardless. Thanks all for your help and advice on this. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Unhealthy stalking (hounding?) by another editor

I am coming here after Hatchens reverted my accept of Draft:PharmEasy to draft because they were unsure of notability. Please also see the talk page Draft talk:PharmEasy. If they were unsure of notability, they could have taken it to AFD or initiated a discussion at talk page. Moving it back to draftspace isn't a policy based move to begin with and here, this was done for incorrect reason. I find it utmost disrespectful and looking to have opinions of uninvolved editors about this move. It feels like they are trying to say that they are a better reviewer than I am and that I need baby sitting.

There is of course history between us. Started when they felt that my accept of a page called Rattan India wasn't a great accept because it didn't have enough negative material as they would have preferred to. They tagged the whole world and led a crusade against me with AFDing many pages that I accepted. Only one of those were deleted after DGG gave a nuanced perspective on guidelines. Here are our discussions then [164], [165]. At Rattan India AFD [166], they said the wildest thing like the share price of the page improved because of a wiki page in 2 days amidst other.

Overall, they have been very aggressive against me and I feel very pessimistic about this. In conclusion, I don't need a baby sitter. If they don't agree with a draft I have accepted for neutrality, they are welcome to add more negative things as they see fit. If they don't agree on notability, they are welcome to AFD it. But I don't want to see any more drama and tagging the universe to harass or draftify the pages that I accept because I disagree. I respect them for their work and I don't want them constantly doing what they are doing now.

Also to mention, it is alright to accept previously rejected drafts even if no changes were made to those since an editor might be evaluating notability differently.

A curious observation is with their involvement about Draft:Vin Gupta. They were always appreciative of me before I denied this draft and had a difference of opinion on this. Their view of notability on this highly promotional non-declared COI draft is extremely strange. RattanIndia incident happened right after our difference on this one. Pharmeasy incident happened right after I said I would excuse myself from not reviewing Vin Gupta [167]. Felt like they were sending me a message. But this is a wild hypothesis and could just be a coincident. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

You have neglected to notify Hatchens, as you are required to do. You have also neglected to indicate which draft this dispute is about (unless I've missed that in your lengthy post). Please remedy both of these issues. Girth Summit _(blether) 02:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out Girth Summit. Have added the draft. Hatchens were notified right after I made this post on their talk page. You may please check it there. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, Nomadicghumakkad - often, when people put an ANI notification on someone's talk page, they put it under a new section header, and I confess that that is what I was looking for - I see that you put the notification at the end of an existing thread, which is also fine.

Thanks for clarifying which draft you were having the problems at. For future reference, it's better not to simply amend a post once it has been responded to; there's guidance on how to do this correctly at WP:TALK#REPLIED. Also, please also don't use people's signatures in your own posts when you refer to them - you can use a template like (type {{u|Girth Summit}}, for example) if you want to ping them (as I did at the start of this post to ping you). Girth Summit _(blether) 11:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It's ok Girth Summit, Thank you. I'm here. Let me assist; This is regarding Draft:PharmEasy. And, the page was moved into the main article namespace unilaterally (which is not a crime) by Nomadicghumakkad on December 31. But, somehow I felt that "the move" was not appropriate and so I draftified it because of the entity's past page attempts. And, I sought a "second opinion" which I always seek from time to time while reviewing the pages (under my NPP rights). This particular AfC reviewer - "Nomadicghumakkad" has a good AfC reviewing history. But, somehow, his behavior seems to be very conflicting especially when passing certain company and BLP pages. The list includes; Draft:Anusha Rai, Draft:Renjit Shekar Nair, Karan Tanna - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karan Tanna, Debashis Chatterjee (The way it was passed is doubtful, but since it also passed through AfD process. No complains - as of now) and of course RattanIndia - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RattanIndia - where his involvement is found to be pro-company; he intentionally removed negative narrative and try to put the company in a good light. Here the question is not how he passes it (these certain pages), but why he passes it without doing substantial neutral edits or without taking advice from other seasoned editors/reviewers - he processes AfC pages as if he is on a mission and out of 100 if he passes a couple of such pages and later if he being questioned... either he will try to clear off his hand or he will try to put up a justification which is nothing more or less than a "collective deflection" The point is; Wikipedia doesn't work on unilateral decision making; we together lookout for a general consensus. And, most of the time, we generally do indulge in conversation at the talk pages - then we take the next call or decide a way forward. But, somehow this very essence has not sipped in the psyche of the petitioner and his behavior actually makes our belief stronger about how AfC reviewing process is so compromised. Anyway, I'm open to providing any kind of assistance to Nomadicghumakkad as well as to the administrators at this ANI incident page. So, feel free to ask. -Hatchens (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind assistance. You seem to be missing the point again - perspective. I may feel that what I have added for neutrality is sufficient and you might feel differently. In such case, it is expected that you add whatever else you feel should be added rather than constant bullying. You mentioning all these pages are distraction. They are all discussed in the threads of the link provided. A funny thing about Karan Tanna: DGG gave a nuanced perspective of guidelines which appealed to me. Right after, getting inspired, I nominated another page Falguni Nayar that I accepted. All editors who voted against Karan Tanna also voted against Falguni. But, Falguni was kept - perspective. I see your list of 'wrong' pages has substantially decreased from our last discussion(!!) - since others were decided to be kept or were clearly notable.

Question about neutral edits - on pharmeasy, your concern was not even neutrality to begin with. That was notability. So stop using the isolated incident of Rattan India for an overarching argument. Also, in Rattan, which negative part did I remove? Can you please show the diffs. Similarly, you feel Draft: Vin Gupta is notable despite all the problems it has and that no other editor has found it notable since ever. But, it is your perspective and you have the right to have it. The way I see it, you see to be appearing a complete pro towards that BLP. So how come your perspective is justified and mine is not?

And you choose to mention Draft:Renjit Shekar Nair when it was clarified during last discussion that it was accepted as a mistake and I had asked at tea house to revert it. Not sure what to make out of it.

While you make a remark about my psyche, here is a thing about yours: you think your perspective and understanding is most correct and everything should match up to that. It need not. Others can have a different perspective or a different liberal/conservative idea about guidelines, specially when it comes to BLPs and Companies.

Bottomline is, your move on Pharmeasy was not policy based. You could have done what you did now (take second opinion) on the talk page while it was in mainspace. But you chose to draftify it which I find problematic and is indication that you have some bias against me. You need to stop creating similar trouble for no reason.

Agreed on unilateral decision making, considering our history, I would prefer to work with anyone else on collective decision making except yours since it is clearly biased. Another example to support this: Draft:V. K. Ahuja was accepted by me and it was draftified by Onel5969. I didn't feel irked at all by that move because it had logic. In fact, I myself added a template for adding more sources. So in future, if you feel you are not enjoying what I am doing, I would prefer you to hold your horses because of your pre-conceived notions about my work/approach and perhaps request another editor to check with me.

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Nomadicghumakkad,Why should I bother you for Draft:Vin Gupta? Have you read my comments over there? Comment #1: " I'll not override your decision. All I can do is... request you to reassess draft. " and just after your reply, I gave the following Comment #2: "I would advise all of us... to wait for another reviewers' opinion. This way we can guarantee an unbiased outcome to this AfC. " Now, tell me, from which angle Draft:Vin Gupta seems to be a bone of contention between you and me?. Does it look like I'm offended by your denial? This is the same reason I gave to you when you raised the same topic at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RattanIndia. So, I'm requesting; relax, think and get me a better argument. We're at ANI incident reporting page.

Also, please don't be overconfident about your edits on RattanIndia; I guess you're assuming that once the page is deleted - no one can access your past editing history. If you're assuming just so, then you're making a big mistake. Again, I'm requesting; relax, think and then put your words here because we're at the ANI incident reporting page.

Also, as you have noticed that the 'wrong' pages (as your sarcasm has defined it) have substantially decreased, then that's another misconception you're harboring at your end. Because, I'm assuming you came to ANI for Draft: PharmEasy - so if you insist to digress from the topic and expand your "list of controversial AfC passes" - then I would be more than happy to do the analysis and provide one to the authorities over here. But, at this moment, I'll definitely wait for further instructions from admins (& others), so that; a necessary structure to this discussion can be decided, and accordingly I'll chip in my views. -Hatchens (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• I am here by happenstance, and because I was asked to give an opinion on Draft:PharmEasy after it was returned to draft.

In essence I feel that what we have here is a content dispute between two experienced editors, editors who are bound to trip over each othr in AFC review and NPP. I think that would be better resolved on one or other's talk page, with the two reaching a genmtleman's agreement to work well with each other.

I can see how their interacions are common because of the areas they work in. It might be better if they stood back from each other. No-one wins when bringing issues here, regardless of the actual outcome Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• So the overall response to this is another threat?! Well, like you said, let's wait for admins and others (not including people you group with in past) to provide feedback on what they think. We can then circle back to what you and I are saying. Timtrent, what you have said is precisely the outcome I am looking at here : stay away from each other since I don't think their bias is gonna change. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Nomadicghumakkad I think it becomes incumbent upon each of you to step back, even if you feel, indeed find at times, that you are in the right. I give @Hatchens the exact same advice. I am impartial in this advice.

  Wikipedia is large enough for folk to avoid each other. Each of you needs to take your own moral high ground and be the better editor by not participating in any argument between you. Even collegial discussion might be better stepped away from for the short to medium term future.

  Either, or neither, or even both of you is right, but it doesn't matter. And when either of you say "But it does because of [reasons]" it does not. All that matters is Wikipedia. and, at present, neither of you plays well together, so should either make friends and make up, or should avoid each other. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 18:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Timtrent, I didn't want to get all of this started but as you may see, there is no limit to this unfortunately. Now I must respond and also present some of their own allegedly controversial accepts. My sincere apologies to you for not following your suggestion here. I wish I could but I must respond to this Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I am afraid this will not end with honour for either @Nomadicghumakkad or @Hatchens unless each editor steps back, takes a decently long quiet period of reflection, and chooses neither to escalate the dispute nor interact with the other except in a collegial and civil manner.

We are here to build an encyclopaedia, not to knock seven bells out of each other.

I can foresee the loss of two experienced editors if this back and forth continues. Please, both of you stop.

After ceasing hostilities you can solve this quietly and simply.

I suspect that lack of ceasing hostilities may result in each of you being sent to sit on the naughty step. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Timtrent, I am okay to stop - provided they back off - now and in future. Rather than taking accountability of their actions, they have only attacked here and continued the same behaviour of tagging others who would go and nominate the pages I accepted. That pushed me to go and check their own accepting history and there are anomalies that should be addressed. I haven't even started with NPP history - I am certain lot will come out there. With due respect to you, I will stop here. But I would surely want you to check on them their work with Nikhil Kamath, if you wish to pursue it. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment It is alright to have a different opinion. However it is not okay to think that "my opinion is the only opinion". I usually hate reading and writing huge walls of text. Seriously. We get a little time to contribute on this encyclopedia and this is utilized in infighting etc. I feel bad with its usage. That said, Hatchens reverting the AfC acceptance of the OP is inappropriate at the least according to rule but this doesn't make sense to take it directly to the ANI. It should've been discussed on talk page of draft/article or the involved editors and if there comes no solution, the ANI makes sense. Hatchens usually asks for second opinions from others, from me as well, and he seems to me, with this perspective an amazing Wikipedian, who tries to learn new things each coming day. Nomadic has a nice AfC history with some controversial approvals as well, but everyone makes mistakes, and the best of them are those who learn from mistakes. I personally hope that these two Wikipedians try to solve this mutually and if nothing good comes out of that, I'd propose that they don't interact with each other or edit articles created/approved by either of them. Best. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 15:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nomadicghumakkad I have no intention of looking at the edits that either of you has highlighted. Conditional cessation of hostilities is pointless. Stop, or not, at your discretion. I see already that you have not stopped. Please be wise.

I was neither gracious nor ungracious (your later comment to another editor here) in moving PharmEasy back to mainspace after checking the references and looking at the short informal consensus that formed. It was a necessary move. I have said all I have to say regarding the edits of each of you on that talk page. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Timtrent and TheAafi for the kind words. Ok! Nomadicghumakkad, let's stop playing with words, and let's analyze your controversial AfC passes. I hope, this will provide enough clear picture to all of us;

YesWeHack - In this entity's page, you have deployed - "we submit it (in Afc), we accept it (ourselves)" tactic. Isn't it the same "tactic" you used in RattanIndia? Let me recall, TheAafi and Timtrent - both of them had witness the same situation at RattanIndia. Not a tactic. It's a perfectly fine acceptable way of accepting articles at AFC as concluded during last discussion. So stop saying that again and again. Yeswehack was discussed for long and many french sources were given. Check my talk page here [168]

Hamara Hind - accepted on what grounds or logic. God knows. TheAafi is an expert in the Urdu language. He can be a better judge. Passes WP:NMEDIA

Zest AI - Classic WP:ADMASQ case. The petitioner might argue that the entity got articles published at The Washington Post and Financial Times; without checking the fact that the writers are PR professionals and Freelance contributors. I would not like to identify them over this thread because this information is personal identification details which will be a direct violation of Wikipedia guidelines. But, somebody wants to Google them then please feel free. I think it passed WP:CORPDEPTH. Again, you can feel differently and open to nominate. Honestly, I might do it myself because what you are saying makes some sense and we could let the community decide on this one

Santhosh_Damodharan; passed without checking any English citations. Out of 5 English citations, only 1 has a "mention" of this entity... just a mention. It does not even satisfy WP:BIO or WP:SIGCOV.Passes WP:CREATIVE and doesn't need to pass WP:BIO or WP:SIGCOV

Acharya Prashant; In this entity's page, you have once again deployed - "we submit it (in Afc), we accept it (ourselves)" - similar to YesWeHack and RattanIndia. Here is the proof. The page was earlier moved back to draft by Praxidicae. Later, the page was edited by an ID called Niketanjha - and if we do a simple Google search we can understand this ID belongs to the person who works with the entity, Acharya Prashant. Now, tell me what's the difference between the drafts - the rejection by Praxidicae and your submission-cum-acceptance? And, please note, whatever edits or comments are executed (by you) between rejection and acceptance are just "cosmetics". Passes WP:CREATIVE. Had added a proper criticism section to make it neutral. Those are nuanced changes which might look cosmetic to you

Falguni Nayar; your favorite example. What is the statement you just gave in the above para? - "Right after, getting inspired, I nominated another page Falguni Nayar that I accepted." Are you sure, you nominated it? I guess, if I'm not wrong... the page was nominated (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falguni Nayar) by Timtrent and you just added your vote because you were under extreme scrutiny (at that moment). Right; didn't nominate but started a conversation at DGG's talk page [169]. Tim nominated before I could

Debashis Chatterjee; Criteria 6, of WP:NACADEMIC - we need to revisit this clause for South Asian universities - because most of the top appointments are political in nature. This guy has zero academic citations, he is the Director of a so-called premier institute of India... and his page was attempted 7-8 times in the last 1 year - I'm not at all surprised! The last person who accepted the draft before you were Krishnavilasom_Bhageerathan_Pilla; the fellow himself got blocked for sockpuppet of Sulshanamoodhi. And, the Sulshanamoodhi is the same guy who had another account called Kashmorwiki a.k.a. Kichu with whom you shared a great rapport (which you yourself has confessed at RattanIndia's talk page - alas, it is deleted)! Nothing to add. You have a problem with the policy itself here. So-called Premier. Haha! IIMs are so called premier? LOL.

And here is the list of other academics who have been passed by you, based on the publications which have them as a first or second author or they themselves are the primary source - Ghattas Khoury, Franklin Serrano, Dora Apel, James B. Grace (ecologist), the list is huge. I surrender. All passes WP:NACADEMIC. And with that, primary sources work fine. Evaluation criteria is not on primary/secondary sources here. Please educate yourself - if they have highly cited academic work, that's all they need.

Besides all these, we do have Draft:Anusha Rai, Draft:Renjit Shekar Nair, Karan Tanna AfD, and RattanIndia AfD Are you mentioning Renjit for the third time while fully knowing it was a mistake and I myself asked to revert it? You must be kidding

See, I had no plan to drag you at ANI. It was you who came here first and brought me in. In fact, at PharmEasy draft, I didn't even mention your name. It was plain vanilla NPP work. I like to have a WP:GOODFAITH; but by looking at your AfC history; all I can say... either you are acting dumb or you are one of those highly compromised AfC reviewers who are trying to sneak under the radar and do unethical editing. I don't know what would be the outcome of this ANI, what I would be asked to do, or whether I'll eventually get blocked. I'm open to all kinds of judgment and I assure you... I'll not protest, I'll not play victimization card, and I'll not create a scene. But, in the end, I'm very much thankful to you for providing me with an opportunity to dig more about your editing history. -Hatchens (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

What you have done here is precisely I have a problem with. Please note that they called me dumb while in reality, they don't have the right understanding of different subject notability guidelines. What I am now curious to know is:

1. Why did you accept Nikhil Kamath? A page that was immediately redirected to Zerodha? The draft you accepted [170] was miles away from NPOV. At least I try to make things neutral. You made zero attempts. This page wss not just accepted by you but also NPPd which was unreviewed [171] by an admin. So in short, you used both AFC and NPP on this page? Wow.
2. Still waiting for you to respond on why you think Vin Gupta is notable. Because if I wouldn't have commented, you would have accepted it already.
3. There are two more drafts in your own history that you would refer to as 'controversial' while I would say I feel differently about them.

Not sure if Aafi is regular at ANI or if they came because you are involved (though I appreciate their balance point of view here).

To others: do you folks see what they are doing? Is this constructive? I came here to simply have an outcome that they stay away from me and all they have done is more mud-slinging. I prefer them to be please temporarily blocked till other uninvolved admins weigh in. But of course, up to others. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute. This is not a matter for ANI. Discuss it politely on the Draft article's Talk page and work it out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, I wish it was but it isn't. The page is already sorted. Timtrent moved it back to mainspace graciously. The problem here is their bias against me and their action to draftify pharmeasy when it was AFC accepted. And then, rather than taking accountability for that here when pointed out, again attacking with a list of pages they feel are 'controversial' but are accepted as per policies. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Dear Girth Summit, could you please ask Nomadicghumakkad to post his replies seperately rather jumbling them with my replies/statements. He is trying to mellow down my replies with this tactic. Besides that, it is making me difficult to continue with next set of replies/statements. -Hatchens (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, could you please ask him to be "polite" and "to the point". These are just a series of discussion on our volunteering works at Wikipedia. There is no reason to get carried away and be insulting to others. -Hatchens (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I think you are the one who called me dumb? Where do you think I was insulting? The IIM thing? Trust me, if you'd say IIMs are so called premiere institute, anyone will think it's a joke. And what I did was not a tactic to mellow down. It was to address your points right where they were raised. Bolded them so that they are distinct and it becomes clear that they are responses. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm signing off from this thread. Thanks to all of you. To closing admins, if I have to follow any particular way forward or so - please do order or advise. I will be happy to oblige in both ways. Thank you once again. cheers! -Hatchens (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

TheDreamBoat and Rondolinda are WP:NOTHERE

The following accounts are WP:NOTHERE and should be indef blocked:

• TheDreamBoat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Currently blocked from wikipedia space and tbanned from People's Mujahedin of Iran
• Rondolinda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Currently blocked from wikipedia space and previously indefinitely blocked

TheDreamBoat outed themselves as a meatpuppet. The master is almost certainly a blocked/tbanned user, which indicates that TheDreamBoat is likely to continue same disruption that got the master blocked/tbanned. Few months ago, TheDreamBoat was found copying and pasting votes across >100 AfDs (ANI discussion). They also have WP:CIR issues: [172][173] (and more). They don't listen to feedback: Arjayay asked them to "respect national varieties of English", and months later I found them doing the same thing again. Whoever was controlling them was asking them to make false accusations (here TheDreamBoat makes "very serious accusations" against me, and here I show how each of them are false). I'm afraid that TheDreamBoat's tban will not prevent them from continuing WP:HARASSMENT in other areas, so an indef is needed.

SPI into TheDreamBoat found Rondolinda was not the former's sock but 2 admins said the two accounts "likely coordinated". This was based on the fact that both accounts copied and pasted >100 votes to AfDs, both started doing this in February 2021, and in some cases, both copied and pasted the exact same line (eg "Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines" used by Rondolinda and used by TheDreamBoat). Both users have an interest in People's Mujahedin of Iran (Rondolinda edited Maryam Rajavi within an hour of joining wikipedia[174]). Rondlinda sometimes writes in poor English (example) and sometimes jumps out of the blue in WP:RSN debate about Iranian politics, writing in perfect English. It is likely that Rondolinda and TheDreamBoat are influenced by the same person. Rondolinda also has WP:CIR issues. After several warnings, Rondolinda was indef blocked. They were unblocked, but problems continued. Rondolinda hasn't edited in a few months but I'm uncomfortable with a blocked/tbanned master being able to revive this account when they see fit. (Between 2017-2021 TheDreamBoat went dormant only to "wake up" and vote on RfCs then go back to sleep[175])

I see people at ANI get indeffed for less. I will notify both but neither can comment here due to partial blocks.VR _talk 10:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

User:ניסים מזרחי

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

---

ARBPIA issues here. Editor has been removing sourced content that they dislike, and was partially blocked by JBW, but they have just changed pages, and are off again, ignoring warnings. I'm thinking NOTHERE? They were warned about the discretionary sanctions. Pinging @JBW: as they may want to make the inevitable indef. Mako001 (C)  (T) _{^{(The Alternate Mako)}} 10:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I have fully blocked the account indefinitely. Thanks for reporting this, Mako001. JBW (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Copyright violation issue

I hope this is the right board for this. My apologies if it is not, but I am in uncharted territory here and do not know the right way to resolve this issue.

Yesterday, I flagged a long paragraph at Draft:Sir Donough O’Brien (b. 1595) as being an almost verbatim lift from the website identified in that notice. The principal author of that draft, obligingly rewrote the paragraph and it is now (IMHO) satisfactory. [Note: I have typed the article name correctly but I cannot see why it will not link correctly]

The problem is that User:SKIBLY101 did not follow the instructions and instead of not editing the original article and not removing the template or creating the temporary subpage as stated, he or she edited the original article. In fairness to SKIBLY101, he is a relative new editor of just a month’s presence and I have no desire to discourage someone who is endeavouring to create a good article.

I understand that when a copyvio occurs that it is necessary to revdel the copyvio material from the article revision history, but I have no idea how to go about rectifying this, so I bow to superior knowledge here.

I had thought of reverting the draft back to the copyvio notice and persuading SKIBLY101 to do it properly, but I considered that this was rather harsh and might discourage a new and keen editor. That’s why I am here.

SKIBLY110 has been notified of this posting. Vuehalloo (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Sir Donough O'Brien (b. 1595). O'Brien instead of O’Brien. – NJD-DE (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I’m always willing to learn, but there is no difference. They are identical. Vuehalloo (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It may not be visible in your font, but the titles use different forms of punctuation after the "O" in the surname. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

When adding the content to the draft SKIBLY101 stated in the edit summary copied from dromoland castle page, and I believe they did copy it from that article indeed. When I compare Draft:Sir Donough O'Brien (b. 1595) with Dromoland Castle I find the exact same text (note the "132.13.4 pounds" on draft and article instead of Clare Library website's "£132.13.4."). Digging deeper I noticed that Dromoland Castle's history section is actually a copyvio: the content added back in 2005, existed on the Clare Library website already in 2004 and earlier. – NJD-DE (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by user:Fmemedov868

• Fmemedov868 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. Added a self-made unsourced flag to the Shahsevan article.[176]-[177] No edit summary, source or explanation.
2. Added a self-made unsourced flag to the Qashqai people article.[178] No edit summary, source or explanation. Tried to reinstate the same edit on 4 occassions.[179]-[180]-[181]-[182]
3. Doesn't respond to the numerous warnings that were issued.[183]-[184]-[185]-[186]

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that said user is not here to build this encyclopaedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• I've partially blocked them from editing the two articles concerned, indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Now the user is attempting to do the same at Khorasani Turks. He has also added the images in the Turkish and Azeri Wikipedia. I've already identified one of the flags as copyvio [187], which wasn't in reality even related to the article he tried uploading it to. The rest are probably copyvio as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

He now also has attempted to do it in other articles [188] [189]. Notice he adds the irredentist term 'South Azerbaijan' in most of these edits. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly not playing whack-a-mole with partial blocks. Indeffed. Black Kite (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Compromised Account

I request that DiplomatTesterMan be CU-ed for potential compromise. This AfD and recent edits to other pages beggar belief. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I've notified the user, which you were required to do. I also don't think you should have closed the AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23, thanks for the notification - first time at this board. Why do you feel my closure to be in error? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3, @Fowler&fowler FYI. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I think closing the AfD was fine, it's obvious disruption. Black Kite (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• The recent behavior by DiplomatTesterMan seems bizarre by an editor who has a long history in this topic area, and is consistent with TrangaBellam's theory that the account was compromised.VR _talk 18:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Well, it won't be the first time somebody lost their head over Kashmir. DiplomatTesterMan, please take a break and cool off. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

User:TheSnowyMountain

User:TheSnowyMountains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has removed a section on I.S.S._(film) 7 times since 4 October 2021. 10-4-12 [[190]], 10-8-21 [[191]], 10-8-21 part 2 [[192]], 12-10-21 [[193]], 12-26-21 [[194]]. 12-29-21 [[195]] , and again today 1-3-22 [[196]]. They did engage with Bovineboy2008 and Doniago on the talk page- both of them felt the section in question should remain- with TheSnowyMountain disagreeing. The talk on the talk page went cold for 2 months, TheSnowyMountain decided this meant they could make whatever change they wanted and revereted again. Doniago opened a case on WP:DRN which resulted in the page being nominated for deletion by one volunteer there, and it being closed by me as a stale discussion and under deletion consideration. I then reverted the change to the current consensus and advised TheSnowyMountains to open a WP:RFC, instead they reverted yet again and decided to call me a hypocrite. TheSnowyMountain has had issues with not accepting consensus and edit warring in the past- and has received a block for this. [[197]]. THey appear to still not understand WP:Consensus, WP:AGF, and WP:3rr they also seem to have a case of WP:IDHT. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Nightenbelle has provided a gross misinterpretation of the events, he's already been called out for his misinformation and for not acting in good faith. There is a dispute going on over the inclusion of an item on this page, with my stance being that the statement in question is not notable. There is no consensus as he claims. One user agreed with me and two others disagreed. It's 2v2. But it's not a matter of the scoreboard, it's about how little interest there is in discussing the topic, evidence I felt lent to my stance that the information was not notable. Throughout the process I have been pleading with the two users who disagreed to to engage in discussion and attempt wikipedia's methods for dispute resolution, but I more often just got reverting to their preferred version without reason. Nightenbelle's claim that I felt that because there had been little discussion meant that I "could make whatever change" I wanted is completely false and he's already been informed of my intentions but has continued to spout his lies. After his latest threat that he would report me if I reverted the page to my version again, I reverted it to how it was before I got involved. Reverting it back to the version I disagreed with, NOT my preferred version. I did this to show good faith that I was willing to work toward a solution and hoped it would implore the two who disagreed with me to continue in discussion rather than edit war, a position I stated numerous times. Nightenbelle's claim that I've had an issue accepting consensus in the past is also completely false. The single incident he speaks of was one where I was on the side of the "clear consensus" and when blocked for enforcing the consensus, successfully argued that the block was unwarranted and had it lifted. Nightenbelle seems to have a large issue with me on a personal level and appears to be more trying to cause problems for me rather than do what's best for wikipedia. He was clearly just looking for an excuse to report me and quite frankly has unnecessarily escalated what was a relatively small dispute. Regardless of how this plays out, I will not let Nightenbelle bully me into running away. Improving the article is the ultimate win. I plan on continuing to engage with the two users I disagree with on this topic until we can come to some solution for this dispute.TheSnowyMountains (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Just a couple of corrections, with no offense intended. It was Bovineboy who opened the DRN case, not myself. I did open a filing at WP:3RN on December 28, which was subsequently closed by Bbb23 (talk · contribs) with a finding of "No violation".[198] At that point I was planning to opt out of the situation, but I'm glad to see this has gotten further attention as I do feel TSM has been edit-warring and not operating in good faith. DonIago (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

First of all- I'm a she- either ask for correct pronouns or use gender neutral ones please. 2nd- I'm not involved with the disagreement- so why in the world would I have a preferred version?? - as I said on my talk page- I could care less if this section was included or not- I am a WP:DRN volunteer- I help mediate disputes- I don't have an opinion on this one. I've never dealt with you before? How in the world do I have a personal issue? I responded to a Dispute Resolution request. Seriously TheSnowyMountains- slow your role here and take a breath. Nightenbelle (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Also- Diffs please of where I have been called out on my "missinformation"? By anyone other than you that is? On this board- accusations don't mean much without evidence. Nightenbelle (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Nowhere did I say you had a "prefered version." I think I made it very clear that the issue you had was entirely with me and you could care less about the facts of the actual dispute. And don't ask my why you developed a personal issue with me. I was pretty taken aback with it myself. Sorry if I'm a little annoyed when you're reporting me and spreading lies about me, but I don't feel it's anything close to the hostility and maliciousness that you've suddenly brought to me.TheSnowyMountains (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you are just not understanding- I do not have an issue with you. I responded to a Dispute Resolution Request to close it because it did not belong on our board- while doing so- I did research to see what was going on with the case- I read the talk page on the I.S.S. movie- saw that three users had a discussion two months ago, two wanted one thing, one wanted the opposite. Then- the one who wanted the opposite decided that 2 months of silence meant they could make the change they advocated for and did so. The other two users then re-engaged and informed that user (you TheSnowyMountains) that you did not have consensus to make that change. You disagreed- they opened a DRN. And that is where I came in. WP:CONSENSUS stands at this point. You claim a 2nd user supports you- yet they never once contributed to the discussion- they simply made 1 change at some point in the article- this is not enough to indicate support because we do not know their motivations. Now- when I let you know what step was available to you WP:RFC on your talk page- you in turn called me a hypocrite and reverted my restoration of status quo. Here you have made yet more attacks and again failed to WP:AGF. Let me be very very clear- I do not have anything against you. If you stop reverting and resume appropriate dispute resolution processes- I'm done and out of this conversation. However, thus far you have assumed an WP:IDHT attitude and attacked anyone who disagreed with you. I don't understand why you are choosing "violence" so to speak when people try to help you. I don't know why you assume anyone who disagrees with you is out to get you. I don't know you, don't really care beyond stopping disruptive editing, and hope never to interact with you again. Have a nice day and may an admin please put eyes on this situation? Nightenbelle (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I literally reverted the page to what the two users who disagreed with me wanted, which was the OPPOSITE of what I wanted, the thing you keep referring to as "the consensus." You literally reported me for reverting to what you wanted! "Assuming good faith" only goes so far and basically ends when you won't stop telling lies about me. You claim that we can't know the intention of the editor who agreed with me (what an excuse to claim the guy on my side doesn't count), but meanwhile, you keep falsely stating my intentions ("I don't know why you assume anyone who disagrees with you is out to get you") even though I've repeatedly told you that you're wrong. You keep saying things about me that are verifiably untrue ("he has had a problem accepting consensus in the past") and when I correct you, you just repeat the lies again. And yes, you're a hypocrite for advocating dispute resolution over edit warring, and then immediately engaging in edit warring. You're a hypocrite for constantly accusing me of having an WP:IDHT attitude and then expressing that same viewpoint yourself to literally everything I've said. You're a hypocrite for constantly telling me that I need to WP:AGF when you've done nothing but the exact opposite toward me. Tell me how you were trying to help me like you claim when all you did was report me for reverting to what you wanted. Yes admins, can we please get eyes on this editor constantly casting aspersions, not assuming good faith, and having an "I don't agree with that" attitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSnowyMountains (talk • contribs) 23:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Ahem. Just having looked over the whole mess myself, @TheSnowyMountains:, I can't see a single "lie" told about you -- what precise statement of fact did Nightenbelle make that you claim is inaccurate? You are in fact edit warring, you did in fact start throwing accusations and insults around, three separate editors -- actually, make that four -- oppose your POV, and no one is on record explicitly agreeing with it. Ravenswing 23:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I feel like I pointed out several, but (for the 3rd time) how about the claim that I've had a problem accepting consensus in the past? And I completely agree with you, I am not the consensus, so why report me for reverting to the consensus and against my preferred version? How was I not doing exactly what you wanted? It's quite clear that this is just a big "Hey, let's jump on the guy who doesn't have a whole lot of edits," party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSnowyMountains (talk • contribs) 23:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hm. Perhaps your memory needs refreshing. You have been blocked twice for edit warring[199], engaged in some serious ranting and raving while contesting your blocks (and repeatedly being denied) [200], going on to describe an opponent as a "sociopathic troll." [201]. This is a serious amount of drama for someone with barely a hundred edits, and this is far less "jump on the new guy" than in reacting to someone who plainly has a problem with a collaborative, consensus-based encyclopedia. Ravenswing 06:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be a reoccuring theme with you guys. All I did was answer your question where I pointed out how you were incorrect, and your response is to completely change the subject and try to attack me in a different way which is completely unrelated to the topic at hand. I have trouble being collaborative? Because of this one instance where the consensus was 2v2? Where I kept pleading with those who disagreed with me to engage in discussion? I tried engaging with you on the talk page with genuine discussion, like I did the other editors. You ignored me on there but were happy to come back here and attack me further. Like I've pointed out before this is clearly just about attacking me and nothign else. I feel like your main points of attack have been commpletely invalidated, and now you're just flailing around trying to find any point of attack on me, hoping you'll say something that manages to harm me. Let me fill you up on a wikipedia rule: "It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation." Please adhere to wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSnowyMountains (talk • contribs) 10:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Saying "You lie" is not providing proof- please provide diffs. I provided a link to your block log- which was received for edit warring- and your response to it was to argue with the admin. Blanking your talk page does not remove your blocks- anyone can check histories and that block log. I reverted 1 time- to restore the consensus- 1 2 times- to restore consensus -2 reverts is not even close to an edit war. It is restoring the status quo. I've looked in the history of that article- I do not see where you restore the blacklist section- please provide the diff where you did. To post a dif- go to the history of the article- copy the link address of the date and time you made the change and post it in double "[" and "]" brackets. However- yet another person here is letting you know that the perception of events is not what you are saying. Please consider backing down and finding another route to pursue this issue. If you do that- you may avoid further action. Not a threat- but very well intentioned advice. Again- I'm not out to get you- I'm a volunteer who deals with disputes almost exclusively on WP. Its my chosen "job" here. I don't have any opinion about the article- but I do have an opinion about policy and it needing to be followed and enforced. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I literally provided the link to the discussion on the topic of dispute to which you claim I had trouble "accepting concensus." The information in the link fully confirms that there was a "clear consensus" and that the edits I made were on the side of the consensus. So yes, you lied, many times, about this and other things. And it's ridiculous to me that you really need me to link to the next to last version, but here you go: [202]. It's literally the 3rd sentence on the page. This is exactly how it stood before I got involved in the page. I was restoring it to how it was, which is the OPPOSITE of how I wanted it, as a show of good faith that I was looking to find a solution instead of edit warring. I stated very clearly what I did and why I did it both in the edit summary and on your talk page. As for your "not a threat" that I need to back down. I hadn't been planning on engaging on that page. Donlago had said that he wasn't going to involve himself anymore. BovineBoy also hadn't been engaged in that page. In fact, the main discussion on that page was whether or not it should be deleted. It seemed like the topic was pretty dead until you came along. So while I appreciate your "concern," it's again hypocritical for you to constantly telling me to tone down my behavior when you're the one so heavily escalating the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSnowyMountains (talk • contribs) 01:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

User:TheSnowyMountains - The only personal attacks that I see are by you, most recently calling User:Nightenbelle "hypocritical", which she was not and is not, when she was originally observing that you were engaged in a slow-motion edit war. I will also comment that insulting another editor in an edit summary, even if they are a troll, is particularly vile because only an administrator can redact an offensive edit summary. You need to learn civility. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I literally listed three ways in which she was hypocritical and could have listed several more. She only even attempt to dispute one of the examples. I keep pointing out verifiable facts and you guys keep spewing your disproven lies. Meanwhile, I've been called "violent" and "vile" (by you) and had numerous false statements made about myself and my actions. All this in an effort to change the topic of the report which has been thoroughly disproved at this point. But you're so desperate to continue attacking me that you only choice is to keep harping on a dispute that was resolved over 3 years ago. Please adhere to wikipedia rules and stop casting aspersions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSnowyMountains (talk • contribs) 13:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• What I don't understand is that the "deletion" mentioned in the report, this one, indeed restored the "pre-conflict" version--so that kind of renders that part of the charge moot. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I've been screaming over and over. Thank you for pointing out this obvious, verifiable fact. Felt like I was the only person acknowledging reality here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSnowyMountains (talk • contribs) 01:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

142.126.149.62 hijacking redirects

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

I can understand that this user is trying to assist in the field of Anthroponymy by trying to make set indices for given names and surnames, but every single redirect overwrite by this IP has been done over a completely different title where part of the title contains the name in question, effectively making it a hijacked creation. Multiple times I've tried to reason with the IP by telling them they've been making these redirects at wrong titles, but these creations have persisted. I know one solution is to move the page accordingly, but it feels like a waste of edits to do so, and therefore I request that action be taken on this IP if at all possible. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Move warring and tendentious editing by Desertambition

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

Move warring diffs

Article	First move diff	Second move diff
King William's Town	22:03, 9 September 2021	21:29, 26 November 2021
Maclear, Eastern Cape	22:05, 9 September 2021	21:35, 26 November 2021
Mbhongo	12:43, 28 October 2021	01:05, 4 January 2022
eMkhondo	14:54, 30 October 2021	01:50, 4 January 2022
eNtokozweni	15:04, 30 October 2021	01:31, 4 January 2022
Emgwenya	15:11, 30 October 2021	01:41, 4 January 2022
Cala, Eastern Cape	21:08, 26 November 2021	04:35, 27 November 2021
Khubusi River	10:33, 1 January 2022	15:34, 1 January 2022

Tendentious editing via moves diffs

Article	Move diff
Maletswai	00:34, 4 January 2022
James Calata, Eastern Cape	00:40, 4 January 2022
Dikeni	00:55, 4 January 2022
Mmaduma	01:03, 4 January 2022
Mhlambanyatsi, Mpumalanga	01:07, 4 January 2022
Jeppes Reef	01:09, 4 January 2022
Ncora	22:49, 3 January 2022
Komga	22:55, 3 January 2022
Mount Ayliff	23:05, 3 January 2022
Harrismith	23:14, 3 January 2022
Zonnebloem	23:25, 3 January 2022
Austrey, North West	23:39, 3 January 2022
Goodwood, North West	23:42, 3 January 2022
Bholothwa	22:51, 3 January 2022
Hartbeesfontein	23:35, 3 January 2022
Goedgevonden B	00:16, 4 January 2022
Buffelshoek	00:22, 4 January 2022

Added the bottom eleven, as I initially missed them. BilledMammal (talk) 10:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

There is an ongoing issue with Desertambition engaging in disruptive editing through move warring and tendentious editing in the area of South African place names, with the initial table being where they moved articles multiple times against WP:RMUM, and the second being where they moved articles that they should reasonably understand to be controversial, both from broader discussions involving them about place names in South Africa and from a review of usage, which appears to show that the old name continues to be the WP:COMMONNAME.

I also note that their chosen disambiguation for some of the bold moves is itself tendentious; they have disagreed with the consensus at WP:PLACEDAB, and appear to have decided to ignore it.

Attempts have been made to discuss this with them at multiple locations where it was generally recommended that they open RM's on these topics, including in discussions initiated by them, but these have made little or no progress:

1. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa/Politics task force#Renaming Towns and Cities on Wikipedia
2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive339#Bias Present in Articles Regarding Renamed Places in South Africa - Accusations of bias
3. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa#South Africa Wikipedia's Decade Long Edit War Needs to End
4. Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 December#South African cities
5. User talk:Paine Ellsworth#Closing Move Review Without Consensus
6. User_talk:Desertambition#Change_South_African_city_names - Requested to go one city at a time for name changes
7. User talk:BilledMammal#Revert only when necessary - Rejected request to self-revert repeated move
8. User_talk:Timrollpickering/Archive 21#Reverting Kala to Cala - instructed that if their move is reverted it should be discussed rather than moved again
9. User talk:BilledMammal#Khubusi River Unilateral Move - Ignored request to self-revert repeated move
10. User talk:Desertambition#Move warring - Rejected request to self-revert repeated moves

I also note that this user sometimes has issues assuming good faith on behalf of the editors who disagree with them, believing that such editors are biased, and sometimes ascribing problematic motives.

Finally, I will note that I am uncertain whether this or WP:AN3 is the most suitable place, but reviewing the archives suggests that move warring tends to be brought here rather than there, so I have followed that practice; apologies if this is incorrect. BilledMammal (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• I would like to contest these claims. It is unreasonable to suggest that every single renamed place in South Africa be debated. I provided sources in many of the edits I made. Unless evidence is overwhelmingly opposite of what I am claiming, it seems unreasonable to constantly oppose every single change that I make. It has been proven time and again that these names have been adopted by the population at large, the media, reliable English sources, etc. I am not going to dig through everything to prove this. All you have to do is look at the sources I have provided and the numerous arguments we have already had. I have brought this issue to the Administrator's Noticeboard before as well. I understand the need for move requests but in this instance, it's hard to argue they make any sense at all. Renaming is an overwhelmingly popular move, the media almost always uses the new names, and it has been reported on extensively that Afrikaner groups remain deeply opposed to the changes.

By refusing to acknowledge this fact, we as editors are choosing to show the world that these name changes aren't legitimate or aren't the WP:COMMONNAME. We are portraying WP:FRINGE views as mainstream. We are leading the charge in saying what these names are and what they aren't. While there are occasional mistakes and news agencies frequently put the former name in quotations, there is no indication that people are rejecting these names in any capacity.[203] [204] I do WP:AGF but we need to be realistic about the motivations to keep the apartheid-era names. This is not to say that everyone who has opposed these changes, like BilledMammal, is racist or bigoted. I think some editors can just be incredibly stubborn. But it goes against common sense to not accept that the name on the street signs, on the newspapers, in the media, and spoken by the people is the WP:COMMONNAME. When news agencies constantlyreport thatthis is a fringe beliefheld almost exclusively among Afrikaners and the connection between South Africa and white supremacy today it is impossible not to question why this is the route editors have chosen. It is a waste of everyone's time to constantly debate this when the reality is these names are here to stay. This makes Wikipedia less accurate, and therefore worse.

The reason I have stuck by this is because I know it's right. There is no reason for me to stop doing what I am doing. If you check my edits you will see that I have done a ton to flesh out these articles and sources on South African populated places. WP:IGNORE absolutely applies here. By not doing this, I am prevented from improving and maintaining wikipedia. I have read every argument against having the new names be the default names and there has not been a single legitimate reason to not acknowledge the reality of where these names stand. If this is looked at objectively, it is abundantly clear that these names should stay. It is not reasonable to contest every single change. Desertambition (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Just noticed that BilledMammal continued to move pages after making a post about move warring. It's rather frustrating. Desertambition (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Nvm, it was just Jeppe's Reef but it was just before they posted this. So technically not after they posted this. Desertambition (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I would note that I agree with Desertambition that my reversion of their move from Jeppes Reef was not ideal; on reflection I decided that such continued actions was not beneficial, and rather than reverting the other bold moves I expanded my comment on their talk page instead. While we are discussing my behaviour, I would also note that I reverted the moves from King William's Town and Maclear, Eastern Cape twice; on reflection, I should have taken the steps I took one day later following the second Cala, Eastern Cape move then, rather than waiting for the problem to expand. BilledMammal (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• After looking over Lists of renamed places briefly, South Africa is the only country where this is even an issue to be debated. Why is that? To editor BilledMammal: Desertambition (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Because these debates aren't limited to South Africa; they actually happen rather frequently. However, I believe this is off-topic so I will leave my response at that. BilledMammal (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit war and personal attacks from an IP editor in Lift-to-drag ratio

I was engaged in a lame edit war with an IP editor in Lift-to-drag ratio over illustrations. At my request, User:MelanieN kindly restricted temporary the article to autoconfirmed users. This allowed to open a discussion with other editors, allowing to progress towards a new consensus. But as soon as the block was re-opened, the IP editor went back to edit warring without acknowledging the consensus in progress. Besides, he/she is constantly attacking me personally in Talk:Lift-to-drag ratio. I did not confront the IP editor, just linked to the relevant policy, but it's getting tiresome and doing nothing about it sends he/she a message of impunity. Can something can be done about it? Thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Have you notified the IP editor about this discussion? If not, please do so at their talk page, as it is a must to notify them as according to the notice at the top of the page. Jolly1253 (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if he/she has a fixed IP, i don't know if this would work. anyway, i asked to stop multiple times on the article talk page.Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by notified using the IP address on the article talk page. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

thanks for your reply, but i'm not sure you are stating the IP was warned or if the IP needs to be warned?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

2021–22 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season

I am feeling bullied by PeeJay I don't have the best eyes, I have adjusted certain tables on the Tottenham season article so I can read them better on my mobile when I goto football matches, because that's what I like to do. But now PeeJay has come along and changed what I have been doing for years, citing what he thinks is right, when it's only a guideline. I am really fed-up, I feel bullied and I really don't think PeeJay understands the problems I have. Now if I go look at the content on my mobile now, I have to strain my eyes to read. It's not helpful, can I please get some help. Govvy (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

If you're having trouble reading things on your mobile, you should change the settings on your mobile rather than changing things that affect everyone who reads the article. – PeeJay 13:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussed here so i don't know why it has been brought up here shortly after. Kante4 (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Because Kante4, I feel as if I am being wiki-bullied yet again, and I won't listen to that last comment on WT:FOOTBALL project as that guy got me blocked for a stupid reason and got away scott free with no punishment last time I posted to ANI. Welcome to style wars, were WP:ACCESS means nothing. Govvy (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

There are settings on your personal device to adjust font sizes. Editing a wikipedia article for your own convenience is disruptive. Im on @PeeJay's side here. Kuhnaims (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)