Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	13	13
TfD	0	0	0	11	11
MfD	0	0	0	3	3
FfD	0	0	0	1	1
RfD	0	0	0	57	57
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 5 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 6 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 5 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 18 sockpuppet investigations
• 28 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 2 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 0 requests for RD1 redaction
• 43 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 13 requested closures
• 93 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 7 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (34 out of 8869 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin 2025 Indian Premier League 2024-11-23 07:51 2025-05-23 07:51 edit Persistent sockpuppetry: semi-protection expires tomorrow, and confirmed socks already found their way here Ymblanter Luca Allam 2024-11-23 07:41 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz User:CFA 2024-11-23 05:24 indefinite edit Page-move vandalism Reaper Eternal User talk:CFA 2024-11-23 05:16 2024-12-07 05:08 edit User talkpage under siege by LTA with any number of easily autoconfirmable sleepers Bishonen Human safari 2024-11-22 20:33 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case 2024 Kafr Kila clashes 2024-11-22 20:25 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Kushwaha 2024-11-22 20:14 indefinite edit Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (17 October 2024 – present) 2024-11-22 20:03 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Karim Ahmad Khan 2024-11-22 19:47 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case ???-type Pokémon 2024-11-22 17:43 indefinite edit,move Blacklisted name, best to add some protection Anachronist Law & Order: Special Victims Unit season 6 2024-11-22 12:03 2024-12-22 12:03 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts UtherSRG Pam Bondi 2024-11-22 00:39 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Will log at AEL Ad Orientem State of Israel 2024-11-21 22:10 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Hindko 2024-11-21 22:02 2025-05-21 22:02 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 Oreshnik (missile) 2024-11-21 21:54 indefinite edit Community sanctions enforcement: per WP:RUSUKR Swatjester RS-26 Rubezh 2024-11-21 21:02 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Karbi people 2024-11-21 20:49 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case 1995 Palestinian prisoners' hunger strike 2024-11-21 19:17 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Israeli figures 2024-11-21 15:51 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Fathoms Below Cleveland School of Cannabis 2024-11-21 03:38 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Anachronist Sandeep Lamichhane 2024-11-20 21:52 2025-11-20 21:52 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree Draft:Vansh Sayani 2024-11-20 19:42 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Isabelle Belato Young SaceP 2024-11-20 13:52 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Pickersgill-Cunliffe Draft:RAGULVARMA PRABHU 2024-11-20 13:01 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD IFly.com 2024-11-20 05:46 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: Created repeatedly at IFly Pro, moved to new name after that was create-protected Anachronist 2028 United States presidential election 2024-11-20 05:21 2025-11-20 05:21 edit,move requested at WP:RfPP Dr vulpes Template:United States Secretaries of State 2024-11-20 02:34 indefinite edit,move This only has 89 transclusions, that's a bit low for template-protection now that we can ECP due to risk level which wasn't allowed in 2016 Pppery User:Fastily 2024-11-19 19:46 indefinite create no longer an admin, bumping down in case they ever want to recreate this page Queen of Hearts Talk:Minecraft: The Wild Update 2024-11-19 18:52 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Fathoms Below Principality of Sealand 2024-11-19 18:50 indefinite move Persistent disruptive editing; requested at WP:RfPP Fathoms Below Draft:Minecraft: The Wild Update 2024-11-19 18:31 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Daniel Case King's College, Auckland 2024-11-19 17:56 2024-11-26 17:56 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Persistent attempts to remove alumni of whom the school might not approve. Gadfium Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review 2024-11-19 14:21 2024-12-03 14:21 edit Persistent sock puppetry; seems to be coordination of some sort BusterD Bunq 2024-11-19 11:51 2024-11-26 11:51 edit,move Edit warring / content dispute Lectonar

This user has again started harassing me.

This user User:Edward Zigma is harassing me, causing stress and doing personal attacks on me. Violating WP:CIVILity policy again and again and

1. See SPI against me without any evidences.
2. See Arbitration case against me without any evidences.
3. Check their oldest contribution in which they called me as Islamophobic, publicised my tweets, personal informations and social media accounts which are oversighted now. Like this.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
4. Name-calling me as Hindutva Terrorist.
5. See this edit, they removed content without summary and content was added with consensus on talk page. Also, they undo my this edit in which I removed details from non-RS.
6. Also, this user doxxed me and declared me as Islamophobic.
7. User has aggressively removed my edits from Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 which I created and he put deletion template. They have been blocked previously for their battle ground behaviour. Check their talk page.
8. This is again when they namecalled that I have hidden agenda on page which I created.
9. Most of his edits are related to me and blanking my contributions. Check history of their talk page.

Kindly, take some action on this user. This user is WP:NOTHERE to build encyclopedia but to cause stress on good contributors and riding them away from contributing. If this user is going to stay here and harassing me then I have no other way to stop doing contributions to avoid stress and doxxing. Block on them will be appropriate.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• I see the following situation. On 28 September, Edward Zigma was blocked by a checkuser for edit-warring for 48 hours, and, while being blocked, got from another user a warning about harassment. After the block expired, they only made five edits: three in the articles (reverted edits by Harshil169, who earlier reverted their edits; these edits were again reverted by Harshil169. At least in one case [1] they presumably were restoring text based on a bad source), replied on their talk page on a warning left by Harshil169, and opened a AE case against Harshil169, which did not contain diffs and was speedy closed by Black Kite. They have registered a year ago and made 200 edits. On one side, this is by itself not yet a case for an indefinite block, on the other hand, apparently, most of their contributions have been reverted, and WP:NOTHERE block might be a good decision. Certainly if they continue editing without first explaining themselves here I would be in favor of an indef block.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ymblanter. Blocking is only option until and unless user promises to improve their behaviour. This user created chaos on my twitter profile too. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 16:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• So the subject just raised a DS case against Harshil, but with no evidence. They've been notified by another admin, so we'll see if anything comes of that. Nosebagbear (talk)
• In terms of this, the user does appear to be trying to OUT Harshil. That can be done without actually giving a specific URL. There are also some extremely serious accusations made without supporting evidence provided. There are some less than ideal behaviours by Harshil that I've spotted, but thus far I've not spotted anything of comparable severity. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

No Nosebagbear . There is nothing harassing in this. This person is delibirately trying to attack news portal webpages and all other things such as niyoga from wiki pedia pages which seems to go against his ideology. I don't have any personal problem with him, but some months ago he made a defamatory hate page on muslims and posted about it on twitter crying for help resulting in sockpuppetry and many new accounts invading wikipedia. This user willfully attacking and changing the liberal voices of India and slightly removing the content slowly slowly which seems to go against his hindutva agenda. I don't want to bridge but you can see his twitter account. I may not be correct in submitting my request becoz I am learning wikipedia but this person is slowly doing this with his own agenda. I might act wrong before coz I dont know many ways here but becoz of me his fake wiki page of a temple vandalism got removed which he made with a malicious attampt to defame muslims. It's not about muslim or Hindu or Christian but its his ideology which is harmful with which he is working. I didn't provide diffs coz I don't know how to do that. But my purpose is only one thing. To call out the hypocrisy of wiki editor running his propaganda through wiki pages. Thanks. Edward Zigma (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you see the language of this editor? They are accusing me to suppress the liberal voices of India while I have been here since 2015 and see Talk:The Wire (India). I have been involved in meaningful discussion. There was also one SPI against me but it was failed and also, this user opened SPI against me without any evidences. Isn't this serious case to label me as to spread Hindutva agenda? If I made any defamatory page against Muslim then how I can be here without any block log? Pinging Nosebagbear again to see language of this editor and personal attack on me. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Ymblanter to check discussion above.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Didn't you call on hate against muslims when you made that page with malice intentions. I don't want to to brigade but the intentions of the editor are maliced and hate filled Islamophobic. Him lurking and slowly changing the context of liberal wiki pages are the proof for that. Wire is one of the best news portal for liberal voices in India but he is trying to vandalise it with his harmful hate intentions. Check the activity of Harshil169Edward Zigma (talk) 05:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I’m Islamophobic Hindutva terrorist as per your allegation. What the point you’re making here? Page has lengthy and meaningful discussion with concerned editor Winged Blades of Godric. You’re again and again accusing me with personal attack. This is administrator Noticeboard and you’ll see what happens due to this language. This is not first time. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Why are you so worried if your intentions are moral and to the ground. Let the editors check your history and let them decide how you selectively hand pick liberal wiki pages and try to defame them and removing other editors edit who are not alligned with your ideology. Tell them first didn't you make temple vandalism page and tried to blame muslims for it, that page is scrapped by senior wiki editors now. Now aren't you trying to disrupt the wiki pages of liberal voices of India. There is nothing wrong in my language. I never abused you like the ones you called from sock puppeting by your twitter handle. My allegation is there that the Harshil169 is trying to have an agenda and disrupting wiki pages of liberal voices of India. I request the editora to look at his edit history and take my matter into consideration. Thanks. Edward Zigma (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

You really need to cut out the accusations of malicious intent against Harshil. You're not helping your case at all. 199.247.45.10 (talk) 06:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• All things apart, user is still accusing me without providing difference. I have over 3K edits on Wikipedia and I always engaged in DR and Consensus. User again alleged me and attacked me by calling Hindutvavvadi, Islamophobic,agenda spreader. This depends on Admin to what to do. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The question here is about intent of accused editor Harshil169. His selective editing of liberal wiki pages of India and reverting the edits made by other editors with same warning given by him to everyone who doesnt allign with his ideology. I sincerely request the seniors to check his edit history and how silently he edit the web pages of news portal and other without proper citations. And reverting the edit of other editors who provide proper citation. His page about temple vandalism is already scrap ped when caught with his malicious hate intentions. This is wikipedia not some hindutva propaganda page or islamic page. You cam clearly see the pattern of attacking liberals in India. This is not personal attacking but the intention of Harshil169 is not moral or in any way justifiable.Edward Zigma (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The question here is about intent of accused editor Harshil169. His selective editing of liberal wiki pages of India and reverting the edits made by other editors with same warning given by him to everyone who doesnt allign with his ideology. Ehh, where the heck did I revert edit of person who doesn't align with my ideology? Please provide differences. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 07:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Didnt you involve in temple vandalism page and purposefully added the word muslims with malicious intentions. Are you attacking liberal wiki pages of news portals of India to mallign there image. Didnt you involve with editor moksha88 in the wiki page and tried to malign it sarcastically. I want to respected editors to take a dig at Nizil Shah for involving in editor groupism with Harshil169. .Edward Zigma (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

You are unnecessarily involving Nizil. First know what WP:3O means and what groupism means. I sought 3O from him. This is wikipedia not a hub for propaganda stuff. I just wanted to speak all of these in Administrator noticeboard which you spoke on several talk pages and behaved with me. Thank you for making my case more strong here. WP:ASPERATIONS will be applied and WP:NOTHERE block will be on way. Thanks a lot again! -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 08:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing about the case. Checking the history of your edits. You are silently removimg or adding stuffs related with your Islamophobic agenda. Anyone who check 4 or 5 pages of your edits will know of of your intentions. Again this is wikipedia. Not some hub for your propaganda.Edward Zigma (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Zigma (talk • contribs) 08:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

if you want this situation to be resolved, you must stop responding to each other and just let other editors get a chance to review the situation. You're not helping each other by just responding to each other.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 08:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Blue Pumpkin Pie, IMHO these two did not had a proper conversation on their own talk pages (other than posting templates), so they are having it here now.--DBigXrayᗙ 08:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

No DBig, this is serious issue. Calling me as Hindutva propagandist and Islamophobic is not acceptable. They filled SPI and AE report against me without any difference. This user is WP:NOTHERE to build encyclopedia.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 08:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

yes DBigXray This is really a serious issue. My saying won't make anything. Check the edit of accused Harshil169.I won't comment after this from my side. But Harshil169 is involve in groupism and any edit i make he uses either his friend or his own alternate account to evade 3 evert rule and try to suspend me on that 3 revert rule which I didn't even know about. Next you can check his edit history. He add defamtory stuffs about The wire and Quint and remove the content on Payal Rohatgi page on which she said Islamophobic comments which were talked a lot om twitter.

You won't get any comment here after this from my side. Please take matter into consideration about biasedness and groupism. And check the editor's connection with another senior edior Nizil Shah both are from Gujarat and are involved in groupism and changing wikipedia content according certain political ideology which cannot be allowed on wikipedia.Edward Zigma (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Question User:Harshil169 Please clarify below, in a yes or no, Are you following the contribution history of Edward Zigma ?DBigXrayᗙ 12:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

AnswerNever. I’ve more works to do like making pages, AfD, CSD, Copyedit and ITN or DYK. You can just check Zigma’s contributions. He NEVER contributed apart from my edited pages. See this. He generally undos content which I add. He never started editing page first. He’s stalking me. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 12:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Question Edward Zigma Please clarify below, in a yes or no, Are you following the contribution history of User:Harshil169 ?DBigXrayᗙ 12:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Answer Honestly no. I never do that. I cross paths with him coz he manipulate the articles of my interest and in a way defame those article (liberal ideologies). If thats not enough he calls different editors to his aid like it's a fight in the edits . And instead of involving in a discussion at talk page he and his friend edit the article and since 3 R rule is applied I can't change his reverts and he is adamant to not involve in talk pages. That's why feud arises. But no. I dont even watch his contribution but has to visit his page since he is involved in groupism.Edward Zigma (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• please clarify your last line.--DBigXrayᗙ 15:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

AnswerI meant DBigXray that i dont care what he said in his edits. I never purposefully visited his pages. Maybe since our Interests were same , we may cross the paths since I watch the pages of my Interest mainly. And whenever on that page I came across something suspicious I edited and many times it was his edits and many times they were someone's other. But today yes I checked his page since whenever I open discuss page or lock horns with this guy, some unknown editors suddenly come and start to support him. And when today he raised a complaint against me I checked his talks and in that he asked many editors to help him in complaint. Like it's some sort of groupism. On talk pages his friends come and manipulate the views, I got one stuck in 3RR when I didnt know about it and he and his friend obviously changes the edits. But I never checked his page until today. When again after the complaint some editors came to his rescue I checked his page and I already explained what I found. There were emails and call for aid to other editors which cleared my suspicion. I accept that due to no expireance my tone may got out of the league amd I am sorry for that. But my concern is strict and still there against this person that he is involved in Groupism.Edward Zigma (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Few comments from User:Edward Zigma on this thread:

This user willfully attacking and changing the liberal voices of India and slightly removing the content slowly slowly which seems to go against his hindutva agenda. I don't want to bridge but you can see his twitter account. Doxxing

I don't want to to brigade but the intentions of the editor are maliced and hate filled Islamophobic. Him lurking and slowly changing the context of liberal wiki pages are the proof for that. Wire is one of the best news portal for liberal voices in India but he is trying to vandalise it with his harmful hate intentions. Calling me Islamophobic and vandal

Now aren't you trying to disrupt the wiki pages of liberal voices of India. There is nothing wrong in my language. I never abused you like the ones you called from sock puppeting by your twitter handle. Declaring me as Sockpupeeter

You are silently removimg or adding stuffs related with your Islamophobic agenda. Anyone who check 4 or 5 pages of your edits will know of of your intentions. Calling me as Islamophobic again

This with SPI and AE without any evidences is causing me panic. User is definitely WP:NOTHERE. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 09:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I am definately here for wikipedia. I was the one who debated when you purposefull tried to defame muslim in your Temple vandalism page. I am learning at present. I don't know a lot of rule. I don't know how to complain or add diffs otherwise I would have complained a good on you and anyone visiting your edit page will see this. Now stop the conversation and let the other decide. You have again tried your groupism by calling another friend of yours which is completely unacceptable on wiki pedia. You called to Kautilya3 who himself is involved in disruption on the wiki page of Muslim prophet. If I am wrong they will take care of that.And if you are what I said they will that care of that too. Now it's best to let other decide. Edward Zigma (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I see clear evidence of repeated personal attacks, for which Edward Zigma deserves a strong warning, and a block if he persists with such conduct.

Zigma, you need to stop acting as a self-appointed policeman of Wikipedia, for which you do not have any training or qualification, and focus on doing your editing. People with all kinds of ideologies come here and they are allowed to function as long as they edit Wikipedia according to its policies. It is not proper to brand them or harass them, or even to bring in their alleged conduct at other venues like Quora or Twitter or whatever. Those venues are not our concern. Since you have said that you are still learning how to work with Wikipedia, please focus on that first. Once you learn enough, you will know how to deal with real issues. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Does Harshil169 will call every other friend for his help. He clearly went on your talk page and called for aid from you. You are obviously his friend and biased. Let other unbiased editors decide what to do.Edward Zigma (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment @Edward Zigma and Harshil169: some words of advice as an entirely uninvolved editor? Knock it off. Stop commenting on each other, stop responding to each other and stop this back-and-forth. The India-Pakistan area already is one many editors prefer to stay well-away from due to high tensions, but the both of you sure aren't helping matters. Right now, you're making people look at their watchlist, see either of your names on an edit here at the AN and think something along the lines of "goodness, are those two still at it?". It doesn't matter which one of you is right or wrong: all this back-and-forth is achieving is making sure everyone wants to stay far, far away from this issue. AddWittyNameHere 10:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@AddWittyNameHere: My only concern is blank reports about me at AE and SPI, and Publicly putting my Twitter account. If these continue then I’ve to stop editing here.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you've made your concerns clear. All I'm saying is, if you want people to look into the matter you're reporting, you're not helping yourself by constantly replying to the other user. Similarly, if Edward Zigma wants people to look into what he is saying, he is also not helping matters by constantly replying to you. You've both stated your side of the issue, now give folks time to read it and check what you're saying. AddWittyNameHere 11:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment came here after stalking contributions of Harshil169. I was connected with him long ago on GU and Mr wikipedia. It is clear that Zigma is repeatedly attacks the users and fils void reports. This can put anyone under panic. He is openly calling a contributor as propagandist or Islamophobic which goes against personal attack policy. As Harsil claims, if he revealed twitter accounts which are over sighted then I will support Indefinite block on this user. He is just attacking and riding away good contributors like Nizil and Harshil who are making articles. He was blocked even. Also, Harshil please keep calm.--Rutvik P Shah (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Note, this comment here at WP:AN is User:Rutvik P Shah's first ever edit on English Wikipedia. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Further Update'

I want to inform the editors that after filing the complaint against me Harshil169 and I put our points in front on the editor. I am advised by AddWittyNameHere to put my points and let the rest of the editor handle the case and to stop interacting with this editor. I did the same and never responded until and unless asked. I continued my work on different articles and had talk with senior editors such as uamaol on different issues and learnt a lot. I published a page on wikipedia and started working on it.here. By the time I ended whole editing , my article started getting edited by one account which was made a few minutes ago without proper resoning.Here. That same accounts which was made 12 mins ago (and started editing my article),and put my article under deletion with bad reasons and putting religious chants at the end of his reason.Here.My article was put into deletion by the new account(which edited my article without proper reasoning) and I am suspicious that this another account by Harshil169 and I want further checks between Harshil169 and the account which was made to put my article under deletion i.e. Bajarangbali ki jai (his reason for deletion of my article here ). I responded calmly. Put my reasons and waiting for editors to take decision. In the mean time I continued my casual editing of the article.

My grievance is that now I am getting further harassed by Harshil169. He is snooping and crawling in my contributions and putting my own edited images under deletion on copyright claims on wikimedia commons.Here.He is blocked here but now he started harassing me on wikimedia commons since he is not blocked there. This Harshil169 is leaving no stone unturned for harassing me. He changes edits and canvass the discussions and talk page of the groups. He is involved in groupism. He arbitrarily removes well cited edits of other users without involving in discussion. Now after we were advised by AddWittyNameHere to stop interacting here, I stopped having any type of slight imteraction with Harshil169 on my side but he keep harassing me by going through me contributions and now attacking me on wikimedia commons. I want Bbb23 and other respected senior editors and to take action against Harshil169 for harassment.

Thank you.Edward Zigma (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The user Harshil169is further getting involved ,now on wikimedia commons with me. Here. After getting unmecessarily involved by putting my image in deletion draggimg this matter to wikimedia common. I have decided to not indulge with this guy anymore. He keeps talking about cases and always acts in hostile manner and bad tone.check his reply. He keeps citing unnecessary policies and continuously indulging with rubbish debates and acts in arbitrary manner. Please I request Bbb23 and other respected editors to take this matter into consideration. He has dragged this to wikimedia now ,causing disturbances. I would have considered his request to delete the image for once if he was right. But he has dragged with no good intention as image was in public domain, edited for making it good. But he is now acting very arbitrary and intentionally disturbing my editing. Please take action for this.

Thank you. Edward Zigma (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

List of diffs
References

Proposed solution

Some links:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harshil169 (previous attempt)
• Special:Permalink/926604005#Harshil169
• Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tabrez Ansari.jpg

Background

I didn't read up about this situation until after I wrote this. It is now abundantly clear to me that Edward Zigma is trying to grind an axe against Harshil169 in whatever way possible. He has attempted to out (per above), repeatedly attacked, and insulted with a number of accusations.
That said, Harshil169 is not perfectly in the clear. He has, on differring occasions, made several missteps in response to this controversy. Among those issues, he canvassed another editor despite that being something he should've known not to do.

Proposal

We need a hard separation between these two. I therefore propose:

1. A one-way IBAN against Edward Zigma (talk · contribs) prohibiting any interaction with Harshil169 (talk · contribs) with the first substantive violation being met with an indef;
2. A community-imposed topic-ban for Edward Zigma along the lines of WP:GS/Caste (since all problematic edits seem to have to do with Anti-Muslim violence in the region);
3. A warning for Edward Zigma that further conduct violations will lead to an indefinite block by any uninvolved administrator;
4. An final warning, logged at WP:EDR, for Harshil169 (talk · contribs) that the next instance of canvassing will be explicitly blockable offense to be enforced by any uninvolved administrator; and
5. Both users are encouraged to not engage in further WP:BATTLEGROUND-like behavior in the future.

@Ymblanter, Nosebagbear, AddWittyNameHere, DBigXray, Blue Pumpkin Pie, and Bbb23: Does that sound reasonable? (Non-administrator comment) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• @MJL: - in cases where both editors have caused some problems (even when legitimately imbalanced), would a 2 way IBAN not be preferable? Other than that, the rest of it all seems fine Nosebagbear (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Nosebagbear: It felt unnecessarily restrictive for Harshil to be completely banned from interacting with Edward since Harshil has been productive in several areas that could include interacting with him. For example, I linked an above discussion in which Harshil nominated a copyrighted image Edward uploaded to Commons. I am decently confident he would not abuse that position (since he has said he would like to stay away from Edward from now on anyways). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not very familiar with either editor, but i will support it based on the conversation i saw here and a few links provided too.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
• @MJL: - sigh. Considering my previous intervention and subsequent attempt to get Edward to behave in a non-battleground manner does not appear to have had lasting effect, I'm unfortunately going to have to agree. AddWittyNameHere 20:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  @AddWittyNameHere: I don't think it's worth giving up on Edward per se. I just think he kinda sees himself as morally right in this situation, and this community has not really told him that is far from being true. My genuine hope is that by separating him from Harshil and removing him from this contentious topic area that he'll open up more. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  @MJL: Oh, I'm not giving up on him as such. Assuming he's still willing to accept my help after my comments here, I'm more than willing to keep providing it. I do genuinely believe he can become a good editor, but it will involve having to get rid of that battleground mentality and learning how to discuss things calmly and productively instead. Considering the stress he's still causing another user, I do however also think we're now well past the point where we can justify trying to "wait it out" in the hopes he changes rapidly. AddWittyNameHere 03:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@AddWittyNameHere: I did not engage with him in amyway.Neither in any battleground. I was suspicious so I opened an investigation for that. He is right or wrong that investigation will tell.If he edits under wiki policy then that's the best thing. But him being supremacist here and reverting edits by other, not getting involved in issues I open on talk pages, and unknown IP adresses reverting me edits tells us a lot of thing. I think we should wait for investigation result. I am pretty sure that will tell us a lot about this ongoing issue. Thank you. Edward Zigma (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Edward Zigma: Did you comment on that user? Yes. Did you accuse editors who didn't agree with you of being his sock puppets? Yes. Did you demand he get involved in your talk page discussions? Yes. Did you just now, in this moment, accuse Harshil169 of being supremacist? Yes. Did you engage with him in this dispute? Yes!! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes I comment on user awkward way of editing liberal articles particularly of wikipedia.Next, I didn't just accuse. I opened am investigation on him. Amd I have my own evidences and proofs for that. Jumping on accused's innocence is right ?
No he never involve in talk pages. All he do is revert. If he revert it 2 times some random IP will revert it for him(let investigatiom check that).And then forcing his edits by putting templates on other editors pages. Next I said supremacist in editor way that his edit will last, without involving in a fruitful discussion or anything. If you think I am wrong then he is more wrong here. Which is somehow getting ignored. He literally canvassed don't know how many editors just for getting support. Dont know how many editors just jump randomly telling him to keep calm. That's the reason I opened the investigation. Edward Zigma (talk) 06:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Edward Zigma: I have criticized Harshil169 on multiple occasions about the canvassing issue. You're investigation is also extremely pointless in terms of what you are looking for. If I post on Twitter "Hey go vote in this afd," a Sockpuppet investigation is never going to be able to prove that. They also have a strict policy of not revealing whether or not a user is editing as an IP address. Finally, an SPI is in no way useful for dealing with user who doesn't remain calm. You aren't going to get what you want out of that investigation even if you were 100% right. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support Yes, please! It’s becoming too stressful to edit while all ad hominems are going on. I’m perfectly comfortable on IBAN on Edward because he’s making my situation too tough. I’ve too much work to do on Gujarati Wikipedia, Wiktionary and several other projects. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 22:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

You have no idea of what a pain in the ass an WP:IBAN is. And if you think it is going to hurt only Zigma, remember IBAN hurts both parties (I have seen experienced admins getting blocked for IBAN violations, you dont stand any chance). IBAN should only be used as a last resort.DBigXrayᗙ 07:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Harshil169: I understand that you have been stressed out about this situation, but I don't want you to take the wrong thing out of this experience. How you react in the tough times is what defines your character on this site, but once things got bad you then took several actions that proactively made your situation worse. You should have listened to this solid advice when it was presented to you. This was able to go on for literal months because you kept engaging with someone who did not want you to continue editing.
  Despite all that has happened, you need take responsibility for your part in all this and explain to this community why you're better than that. Where did you go wrong in dealing with Edward? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  @MJL: Most of the contributions (before November) of accused were related to reversal of my edits and complaining me and pinging me in blank discussions and all other things. I generally do content creation (like created 22 undeleted pages), take part in AfDs and CSD. This user has reverted my many valued contributions, which were posted by consensus even, by summarising it as propaganda. In addition, outing of my social media details. In a nutshell, this all was intended towards particular harassment of me. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, Kautilya3 was involved in seeing that accused was harassing me, putting deletion templates by other person’s name and all other things. So, I just informed him about this, though, my tone was bad and should be neutral. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169: You should not have notified Kautilya3 in that manner. Even if your talk page message had been neutral, the fact it was targeted to a single user whom you knew to agree with you is a major problem.
My point to you is that when someone is trying to hurt you, then you shouldn't respond to their remarks as if they have any power to define who you are. We have separate processes for content and conduct disputes for a reason; it isn't negotiable for whether someone is allowed to be uncivil and say user's aren't here in good faith.
I'm not trying to put you down, but I am speaking from my own experiences of abuse and harassment. Comments like this did not help your cause. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand. Apologies. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support :- Agree with MJL's assessment, sort of. Zigma is (usually) on the right side of content but, he's one of the most brazen POV pushers and his insistence on assuming bad faith of others in content-dispute, when compounded with a poor grasp of the language renders him a net negative. Thus, he ought be banned from all topics, related to Indian politics, broadly construed. I note in passing that Zigma's sub-optimal behavior does not in any way, justify Harshil's behavior and responses; this ain't a competition of rhetoric. ∯WBG^converse 06:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• On some re-thoughts, I don't support a logged warning on canvassing. It's not as clear-cut, to my eyes given K3 was previously involved in their disputes. But, once again, Harshil needs to tone down the aggressive rhetoric by a good few notches, per WP:BATTLEGROUND. ∯WBG^converse 06:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Recently, after block, I never commented uncivil. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 07:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• I disagree that Zigma is net negative, folks having English as second or third language may make some mistakes but that can be easily fixed in 1 copy edit. Zigma is far from a WP:CIR domain. Zigma has created a notable article and based on my discussion with him, knows that he is new and is open to learning. These are all positive traits. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• @DBigXray: Apart from content creation, threatening to reveal twitter and quora accounts, posting links of my interview, name calling as Hindutva Terrorist, Islamophobic, Superamist, personal attack and filling void reports multiple times isn’t learning, IMHO. It’s directly an attempt to throw someone out of Wikipedia. And even if you ask him again about me then his answer will be I’m spreading propaganda.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 07:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• It is also my own observation that your edits have a Pro right wing and anti left BIAS. (see here) It may be Zigma's observation that you are spreading propaganda. Different choice of words. This is not something that enforcement of WP:NPA and WP:AGF by admins cannot fix. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think this issue was discussed yesterday at Talk:Vivek Agnihotri#Controversies. Now, if things are going personal then let me remember Talk:Zomato in which you opposed inclusion of twitter backlash and Talk:Tejasvi Surya where you never responded back about similar issue. Apart from your feeling, threats to disclose accounts, name calling and void reports are vital here.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 08:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• you are only giving more strength to my prophecy below. Good luck. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose #1 and #2, that is any type of WP:IBAN or Topic BAN among these two users. I am ok however with #3, #4, and #5. I have been watching the dispute between the two and I am quite sure one or both of them will try to game the system by trapping the other in an IBAN, that will be very unfair. IMHO these two are very less experienced and they clearly belong to the two opposing school of thoughts in politics. Discussion between them is useful for the article reaching an WP:NPOV. The problem is uncivil discussion and WP:BATTLE mindset. An IBAN will prevent any discussion and IMHO is akin to killing a fly with a hammer. Similarly putting a TBAN will deny them opportunity to contribute in the only topic area they like to contribute. Based on my own experience of how they are behaving with others at separate pages, I dont believe any of the two editors can survive for a long time here until and unless they bring about a drastic change in their un-WP:CIVIL behavior. I consider both editors to be at fault, and I believe both of them are aware what fault they have committed. I would suggest closing this thread with a warning on both of them to strictly follow WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and the steps of WP:DR whenever they encounter each other (or everyone else for that matter). If the problematic behavior continues, the offending party can be subjected to incremental blocks. Harshil169 has already been blocked last week for WP:NPA violation [2] and Zigma in September for EditWarring, more blocks will be coming if folks dont learn . Lets give these two users a chance to act as good editors following WP:CIVIL and also give them WP:ROPE. This is not something that enforcement of WP:NPA and WP:AGF by admins cannot fix.--DBigXrayᗙ 07:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  @DBigXray: I appreciate that you are more involved in this content area than me, so you clearly are better equipped to analyze this situation from a disruption standpoint. Also, thank you for the strawberries!
  I still think a warning will not be enough for Edward, and here is the reason why. I was genuinely dumbfounded by that comment. I don't think either user is a net-negative, but I don't think Edward is actually capable of commenting on Harshil's content without bad-mouthing the editor. Harshil, obviously, is a hothead, but there is not shortage of left-wing contributors for him to be able to argue content with. I'm willing to forgo the T-Ban per your concerns, but an IBAN seems like the minimum to preventing further conflict. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks MJL, for sharing your kind thoughts, indeed I am very familiar and involved in the topic area these two have been editing. As I said above in this thread, IBAN should be considered a last resort, when the editors are incapable of behaving despite warnings. AFAIK, they have not been formally warned. So there we are. If Zigma attacks someone, Zigma will be blocked by an admin, if that is reported. Last week, Harshil was blocked for a week for NPA violation. If Harshil attacks someone again, his next block will be for a month and then the next block will be indefinite. So clearly we have an established "usual" way to fix this. IBAN will also achieve the same thing (i.e. them getting blocked) but without IBAN, atleast these guys will have more control on their fate, and if they really care about editing career here, they will possibly reform. If they dont, then a block is only a click away for an admin. This is my opinion on the way forward and I note that it differs from what MJL thinks. So, lets agree to disagree. DBigXrayᗙ 17:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

MJL (talk · contribs)I was trying not to say anything and let the editors decide. But your comment made me to answer. First can you tell me where did I bad mouth them this guy. I never said he is Hindutva Islamophobic.I said the ideology is. Second as far as I remember I didnt even used the term hindutva terrorist for him or anything like that but somehow he added that too. There is a hell of a lot difference between how he is showing I am and How I really am.Talk to people editors with which I have worked in this last month or two(most active in these months only), then you will know what and how my behavior is. If the people with whom I have worked with (except this guy) have any type of bad expireance then point that out to me right now. Just coz I am in dispute with this editor and I am seeing a pattern in his edits( many of which got ignored) doesnt mean I am a person with bad behaviour or somethimg. If I wanted to involve with this guy I would have edited all his work in the time of one week in which he was blocked. But I didn't even see his page coz I know it's his thinking and way he edits liberal articles of India is wrong, not him as a person. I know gujrati too but I never even went there coz I know he works good there. Next he is alleging of outing or whatever it is. Then let me tell you first he put the link of his own linking himself to the outside and after that I said the same which was used by him to try to open report against me. You justify him by saying him being an hothead but your views change when it comes to me. Is this justifiable by explaining his mistakes like he is some sort of child or a baby learning, but when it comes to me then whole scenario changes and accusing me of things ,many of which are taken in wrong context just to discard me. You read his views and opinion and that's good but same behaviour must be taken to my side too. That's what I am saying. Edward Zigma (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Edward Zigma: My views of you are thus: you think that you are right and the actions you have taken are justified. I am telling you that they are not. You aren't a bad person, but you certainly aren't acting like a good one.
Here is when you said this user was using Hindutva terrorism ideologies and fake propaganda.
Here is an example of you badmouthing Harshil on Commons.
He also is accusing you of outing because you keep referring to things he is supposed to have said off-wiki which is VERY against policy. (see WP:OUTING).
Also, both AddWittyNameHere & Winged Blades of Godric (who HAVE worked with you) said your behavoir likely needs to be sanctioned. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

That's what I said. How is the diff that you have provided is bad mouthing. On the day I posted that, we were advised not to interact with each other. And then he got banned here. But hebwas still checking my contributioms. After his block I made an article and from that article he took an image and put it under speedy deletions of wikimedia commons.And I just tell that this guy recently blocked here is now doing this with bad intention. How isbthat BADMOUTHING? He is here for 4 years but not at one single place he told me how things work here. All he did was either revert edits, posting warning templates, not getting involve in talk page discussioms and reporting to noticeboards. This was the context.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Zigma (talk • contribs) 19:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Edward Zigma: I see what you are saying, and in a twist I am actually going to say that a lot of this should be thrown back at me to be honest. I was checking my watchlist and saw your talk page come up. It turns out that I was the person who originally welcomed you to this project, and it would seem that I didn't follow through on my responsibility to point you in the direction of resources where you could've more easily understand and learn our policies better. This is doubly true if you at any point felt frustrated or another user was biting you.
However, you did upload a copyrighted image, and that is a pretty serious thing which you are making light of. Copyright violations have genuine legal implications and are not acceptable in any circumstance. It was the right thing to do for Harshil to nominate that image for deletion on Commons even if he was actively blocked on English Wikipedia for disputing with you. Saying he nominated it for deletion with bad intentions is meaningless because you infringed on another person's copyright.
In this very thread, I told Harshil169 straightforwardly that he acted poorly while engaging with you. He pushed back, but he ultimately accepted he had a role in this (including improperly canvassing another user). Will you do the same? Did you try to out this editor on multiple occasions by speaking of alleged tweets and Quara accounts despite their clear requests to stop? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Months ago there was some sort of disruptive editing 2 or 3 times(and that only with this guy) which could easily be sorted out by telling me how to raiSe the issue. But if there is allegation about outing him or something.Why would I?. The first place where I mentioned about twitter is when he literally sockpuppeted. (Redacted) Then Hugsyrup (talk · contribs) put that article under deletion and for thar he himself tweeted (Redacted) and somethimg like that amd then he asked for voting. Thats where I said that this guy tweeted this and this resulted in sockpuppeting.How is this doxxing when it was related to that incident. Next time this happened was when he was again adding stuff like quora is Hinduphobic and all. And I said just coz some users on quora answer doesnt make it that. But again he was stuck there like he is somekind of superior, whom has right to every edit. Then I said on talk page that this user (Redacted), How could he be unbiased on this. These were the two instances where I had to mention something from the outside. And those mentions were totally related to the topics. How could this be called outing? Amd why would I even care if this person do good edits instead of purposefully changing the liberal articles of India. He was not changing in big contexts. He was changing a bit by bit. That's where I had to intervene on quint talk page and somehow he saw that as harassment and this ended up here. Honestly now I dont even want to give clarification on this becoz I just did a small edit on quint. If he wanted he could have sorted that out when we were on the talk page. But he did not. I have given many clarifications and left this on other senior editors and adminstrators to take their decisions. Thank you. Edward Zigma (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Edward Zigma: I am not going to say this again: Stop repeatedly making allegations against Harshil169 that can in any manner compromise his privacy. I have redacted the most problematic parts of what you said (though they remain in this page's history) because this is a highly visible noticeboard. If you want to pursue that matter, then contact the Arbitration Committee. This isn't the forum for that, and neither is WP:SPI. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Who could decide this was controversial? I was sayimg these were the 2 conditions where I explained how it's related to something outside. And that explaining is what he is using against me. If he were so careful he should have warned me against that. But he didn't chose to do that.We should let other editors and adminstrators to decide what should be done. Thank you.Edward Zigma (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Disagreement between Leaky caldron and me concerning ADMINACCT

Today, I was unfortunate to leave this comment. Based on this and the subsequent discussion, Leaky caldron came to the conclusion that I was not impartial in the discussion, and that my remark in this discussion shows a clear bias in favor of admin participants. They found my responses that I did not mean anything of this kind, first there and then at my talk page, unconvincing, and now they came up with the requirement that I should warn Kudpung, another participant on this discussion. To be honest, I did not feel such pressure on Wikipedia since about two years ago, when my interaction with Fram followed a similar scenario. However, it does not mean anything, or it could mean that I am tired, or that I do not understand obvious things. May I please ask (an) uninvolved participant(s) (and given the nature of the dispute, it is better that these participants are non-admins) to read Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020#Questions to candidates and User talk:Ymblanter#Remaining question unanswered (this is not much text) and answer two questions: (i) was my behavior inappropriate in this episode, in particular, below that expected from an administrator; (ii) are there any policies, guidelines or any other binding documents, in particular, WP:ADMINACCT, which would require me to continue this discussion (which I already proposed to stop [3]) and take any actions as a result which I would not otherwise take. Thank you for looking into this.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

This is ridiculous Ymblanter, you have nothing to answer for here. There are users who will exploit any, just absolutely any, opportunity to insist they have been attacked, insulted, offended by an admin, or to find any other flimsy reason whatsoever to have a dig at admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just to be clear, I have not requested this referral and am not intending to participate beyond the following. I don't want to crawl over the entrails of past disputes. Nor did I require Ymb to warn Kudpung. I did ask Ymb if Kudpung's remarks about my use of English parts of speech was also a borderline personal attack and if Ymb was intending to do anything about that but it falls some way short of a requirement, IMO. Leaky caldron (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• The incident just seems to be a routine discussion and there's no need for a big inquest per WP:LIGHTBULB. On the issue of effective communication, Ymblanter should please review his opening sentences. In the first one, I'm not sure what he means by "unfortunate". In the second, I have the impression that there's a missing "not". Andrew D. (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you, I inserted "not". Unfortunate means here that if I could foresee where the discussion would go and how much time and effort it would cost to me to continue it, I would never respond there even though I still stand by my opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• Uninvolved non-admin comment. @Ymblanter: Thank you for forwarding this for review. I think you probably are being tired here.
  Basically, if this was intended as a general comment to disagree with Leaky, then that's relatively fine [That page isn't for comments but whatevs]. However, you seem to imply that it was actually a response to a potential WP:NPA (therefore an admin action)? I can see that being rather problematic here.
  (1) Leaky's initial comment was certainly more charged than Kudpung's comment, but it didn't seem to be a personal attack.
  (2) That really wasn't the place to warn Leaky anyways.. that'd be their talk page.
  (3) I still really don't see any reason to single them out anyways.
  (4) Leaky kinda does have the right to engage with you about adverse admin actions taken against them.
  If it was me in your position, I'd just have blanked both Kudpung's and Leaky's comments since that page is for next year's RFC questions and not debate/general comments. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks @MJL: for looking into this. Do you think collapsing the whole discussion below the first comment under the header "more detailed proposals" os smth like that (rather than blanking) would be acceptable at this point?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Ymblanter: [Thank you for the ping] 100% would still be acceptable to collapse everything after Thryduulf's initial post (pretty much everything posted on 24 November 2019 didn't belong there). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks, I will wait a bit longer in case additional reactions are forthcoming, and collapse the topic.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

UK newspaper sources and how to handle deprecated sources?

This has spilled over from WP:RSN, but clearly it has gone beyond WP:RSN's ability to find a solution.

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#News of the World
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Daily Mail (sigh, yes, again)
• Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#What (exactly) does "Deprecation" mean?
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Correct action when someone persistently adds back a deprecated source?
• User talk:David Gerard#John Wark

UK newspapers are increasingly seen as unreliable and unfit to be used as sources (unlike, for instance, the seemingly unimpeachable Fox News or Russia Today). Every time I look at the noticeboard, another one has been added. This has gone from the infamous WP:DAILYMAIL "ban" to The Sun, The News Of The World and even The Daily Express.

These sources are now "deprecated". There is little agreement as to what "deprecated" means. WP:DEPS is pretty clear "that editors are discouraged from citing in articles, because they fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances." and "Deprecating a source is a more moderate measure than "banning" it.". However some editors at WP:RSN have disagreed with this. Also note that DEPS does not list the NotW or Express as deprecated at all.

There is general agreement at RSN that:

• These sources are deprecated, and rightly so (at least, let's say, for the Daily Mail). There is no question that they do not have considerable problems of either recurrent inaccuracy or editorial bias.
• Deprecation should (per DEPS) discourage these sources being added to articles.
• There are also issues, without great disagreement, that an article, a BLP statement, or a contentious statement generally, would have trouble passing WP:V if it relied upon such sources.

It should also be noted that:

• There is no policy against the use of non-RS sources. There is no policy supporting the immediate removal of non-RS sources. We have guidelines, based on WP:V, which require the use of RS sources (and would not be met by non-RS sources) in several situations. But there is no policy against the further use of sources which do not meet RS, to go beyond this. Typically such sources have had issues re WP:SPS.

When it gets to the following however, there is great disagreement at RS:

• What is to be done about existing articles, with existing use of deprecated sources?

Several approaches have been discussed:

1. Tagging such sources as {{better source needed}} or {{Deprecated inline}}.
2. Immediate blanket removal of all such sources, from all articles. Optionally with replacement by {{citation needed}}
3. Immediate blanket removal of all such sources, and the content which they support, from all articles.
4. Deletion of articles which rely on such sources.

Two editors have been carrying out 2 / 3 here. Despite prior agreements to not do this, and to limit themselves to 1. There is no consensus to support this, there is significant opposition to doing so (1 would be supported). There is no policy to support this, WP:DEPS does not support it, WP:DAILYMAIL does not support it, the RfCs etc. before WP:DAILYMAIL were pretty clear in not supporting it. Also, when other editors have done this, they have largely been reverted. However two powerful editors (admins) are able to push this through anyway.

These removals have also failed on WP:COMPETENCE and WP:EW. In many cases, one citation or reference to a deprecated source has been removed, leaving other citations hanging. In others they've removed blocks of citations and taken out obvious RS with them. There have been concerns about the speed of these edits, and their resultant poor accuracy, including breaching the usual level of "a sustained rate of under 5 seconds per edit" being seen as a problem, re WP:MEATBOT. Edit-warring is a given: even against CitationBot [4][5][6] on Skibidi and most recently [7][8] on block-setting crane. It might be noted that this citation came up specifically at the WP:DAILYMAIL RfC a year ago as an example of why automated bulk removal of these citations was so wrong Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 254#RfC: The Sun. And of course, whenever admins indulge in content disagreements, they back it up with threats of blocks: User talk:Andy Dingley#Addition of deprecated sources to Wikipedia articles.

WP:FAIT and a willingness to edit-war freely is also a good way to skew any argument in one party's favour, if they have the power and influence to do so. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 270#Global ban on non-RS? is a good example of such, to strip out all use of an unquestioned (except by one) source which then turned out to have support as RS.

These disagreements (and for one of the admins here they're very long-running) have been characterised throughout by sheer bad-faith and abuse of other editors, and regular threats. Some of the abuse would be insta-blocks if anyone else had done it the other way, but evidently it's OK for them to call other editors "c*nts". In particular, two things: a persistent and unbending description of anyone disagreeing as "friends of The Sun" etc. Yet no-one here is supporting these sources or claiming that these newspapers are a problem for us (the first two points at the start here), rather than disagreeing solely on the third point, what is to be done about them? Secondly, repeatedly claiming that policy supports immediate blanket removals and citing WP:DEPS in support of that: and yet DEPS does not support any such, nor does WP:DAILYMAIL.

WP:RSN is not a safe space for a GF discussion on how to proceed here, when one side of the argument can (and is repeatedly) threatening to block the other. Accordingly I bring it here. We need some sort of agreement on the remedy for these sources, and can we please try and do it without accusing the bona fides of one side and pretending that they are instead advocates for the Sun. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I would also add briefly here that at least one editor currently purging Wikipedia against all the above is an admin and has utilised WP:ICANTHEARYOU several times, along with unfounded claims against users' motivations, strongly in contravention of WP:ADMINACCT. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, Just to address a couple of specifics: UK newspapers are increasingly seen as unreliable and unfit to be used as sources (unlike, for instance, the seemingly unimpeachable Fox News or Russia Today). Every time I look at the noticeboard, another one has been added. This has gone from the infamous WP:DAILYMAIL "ban" to The Sun, The News Of The World and even The Daily Express.

1. No, not "UK newspapers" .A small number of UK red tops.
2. See WP:RSP: RT is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics. . I don't use it at all and replace it wherever I see it. It's not deprecated, if it came up, I would support deprecation for the same reason that I supported deprecation of Occupy Democrats. We need to stick to sources whose primary objective is reporting facts, not supporting an agenda.
3. Right now there is a thread on that exact same noticeboard where I am arguing against inclusion of Fox News, and have done so many times based largely on the analysis in the excellent Network Propaganda by Faris and Benkler, and I am eternally grateful to Mike Godwin for suggesting it.
4. The Mail was the first deprecated source. I proposed removing (not deprecating because there were only a couple of hundred uses) the News of the World because it was literally shut down for possibly the worst misconduct in UK journalistic history. One of its journalists has since been jailed for other misconduct.

The problem with taking an arbitrary view of whether this or that story is accurate is that it puts Wikipedians in the position of evaluating primary fact, and we're explicitly not allowed to do that. If I were to propose that a certain chapter in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is a reliable source for a specific fact, I would, rightly, be slapped down. A crap source is a crap source.

It seems to me that you have never accepted deprecation, which you argued against, and you want to ensure that no action is taken based on it. Demanding sanctions against the few who actually undertake active cleanup is the wrong way to go about that.

Instead, you should set up a central RfC at WP:CENT on whether deprecation of sources is legitimate, and whether removal of deprecated sources is appropriate, and if so how should it be done. You're challenging a course of action that has been discussed and refined through multiple debates at WP:RSN, and you're doing so here on the basis that... what? the two people you identify as primarily responsible both happen to be admins? No admin powers have been used here. David's not even using AWB. How is that a matter for the admin board? Guy (help!) 23:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have never accepted deprecation

Please read some of what has been written, and stop just listening to yourself. Deprecation, or the need for it, are not questioned. What is questioned is the meaning of deprecation, and how to deal with those sources.

a course of action that has been discussed and refined through multiple debates at WP:RSN

A course of action that has been rejected at RSN, at WP:DEPS, at WP:DAILYMAIL et al. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I just looked at WP:DAILYMAIL and couldn't find the wording that rejected the removal of Daily Mail references. Precisely which words were you thinking of here? - David Gerard (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• It closes, "Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate. "

No-one is against this with review and treatment of them as appropriate. That is not the same thing as 'bot runs to remove them all regardless, or manually editing at the speeds of WP:MEATBOT. No-one is against a considered removal on inappropriate use of the Mail (which is likely to be asymptotically approaching zero), but the error rate and collateral damage of this blanket process (and I would concede, much less so from your edits than Guy's) has been excessive, way beyond what DAILYMAIL called for.

Also WP:DEPS is specific that, "Deprecating a source is a more moderate measure than "banning" it. " and neither of these support the performance of blanket removals (rather than replacements), whether conducted by 'bot or manually. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Removal is usually appropriate - the words you literally quoted there really don't reject the removal of deprecated sources. Your claim doesn't check out - David Gerard (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

No, what "doesn't check out" is your meatbot approach to ban these sources and in doing so, actually introducing errors into articles which were previously fine. You really need to ask yourself if what you're doing is to the benefit of the readers, replacing correctly sourced facts with incorrectly sourced fiction. Not to mention the other messes you've left all over the place. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

You claimed WP:DAILYMAIL rejected a given approach. You quoted text in support of this where it doesn't reject this approach. At this point, you don't appear to be reading the text you're putting in support of your own claims, or you're just failing to understand what it says - David Gerard (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I claimed what? Can you provide me with evidence of that, diffs, that sort of thing? Also, please answer the question now asked of you thrice, are you open to recall? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The above mischaracterises what I wrote at User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Addition_of_deprecated_sources_to_Wikipedia_articles - it was in no regard a threat of a block. What I asked him to do, was to stop repeatedly adding deprecated sources to Wikipedia, without obtaining the high degree of consensus that would require.

Here's the text I added there:

---

You are continuing to add deprecated sources to Wikipedia articles, e.g.: [9] [10] [11] [12] - despite the deprecation of the Daily Mail as a source in two RFCs and The Sun as a source in one RFC.

From the 2017 WP:DAILYMAIL RFC: "its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles."

From the 2019 Sun RFC: "References from the Sun shall be actively discouraged from being used in any article and they shall neither be used for determining the notability of any subject."

I appreciate that you personally disagree with the removal of deprecated sources. However, as WP:DEPRECATED describes it: "Deprecation is a formalization that arises from Wikipedia’s normal processes for evaluating sources. It primarily exists so that we can save time by not repeatedly discussing or explaining the same issues, and to increase awareness among editors of the status of the sources in question." Demanding repeated relitigation of the deprecation of a source such as the Daily Mail is a waste of other editors' time.

As you have noted in previous discussions, the deprecation does not forbid all use of the Daily Mail as a source in articles. However, the two RFCs show a strong general consensus that its use is "generally prohibited". This means that any use of it needs a strong consensus - and not just a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, as that cannot override a general consensus, per the Arbitration Committee's 2013 statement of principles on levels of consensus. A consensus would need to be a general consensus - in an appropriate venue, such as the Reliable sources noticeboard.

I also appreciate that you feel your edits were completely correct and appropriate. However, you still need to obtain consensus for such inherently controversial edits, per WP:ONUS - which is policy - "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content."

The Daily Mail has been ruled a generally prohibited source in two RFCs; as such, the onus is upon you to seek a general level of consensus to override the general consensus of those two RFCs, before adding deprecated sources to Wikipedia articles.

Nor can you claim that you do not understand that adding deprecated sources to a Wikipedia article is controversial - one administrator noted in a recent discussion at WT:RSN that he would have blocked you for one of the edits listed above had he not been in a direct conflict with you at the time. While I further appreciate that you would consider this an unjust block, you cannot reasonably claim that repeatedly adding deprecated sources to Wikipedia articles is an uncontroversial action.

I ask that you undertake to stop adding sources that have been deprecated to Wikipedia articles without first obtaining a sufficient level of general consensus for each edit to override the general prohibition, obtained in a suitable venue.

---

Andy's response comes across as an attempt to strike out pre-emptively against the onerous burden of ... checking that his controversial edits that add deprecated sources to articles - sources that consensus holds we literally cannot trust - have consensus first. Per WP:ONUS, which is policy.

I ask that administrators give consideration to requiring that Andy not add deprecated sources to any Wikipedia article in future, without first obtaining a general consensus for the edit in question - in an appropriate venue, such as the Reliable sources noticeboard - David Gerard (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Wow, walls of text. What has been happening here is as Andy described, a current admin going through anything (and literally anything) related to The Sun and removing it wholesale. Sometimes he finds other sources (introducing raw URLs), sometimes he partly edits articles so leaving them half-referenced, sometimes he removes completely benign references to The Sun. In many cases Gerrard has made false claims in his edit summaries and seems to be under the impression that DEPS is policy or (as he has said at least once, a "guideline"). We should be discouraging admins from doing such things. Also, Gerrard has made some claims about the motivations of a few editors, without any justification. When asked for evidence of this, he has remained silent, directly in contravention of WP:ADMINACCT. I have a complete shedload of evidence I could bring to this, it's mostly trivial to find from Gerrard's recent contributions, but at no point has he made claims of his edits to resolve "controversial" or "disputed" claims, he's just implementing a de facto ban on The Sun and other such sources. This, of course, is in complete contradiction to WP:DEPS which he himself has claimed he is following and which he is also incorrectly asserting. Something needs to be done about this mishandled purge that an admin is pursuing. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I would ask that The Rambling Man be restrained similarly - deliberate additions of deprecated sources to articles, [13][14] including two of adding controversial claims to a WP:BLP sourced only to The Sun [15] [16]. He also had to have it explained to him recently on WP:RSN that WP:ONUS is actually policy - David Gerard (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Please note, these (and those claimed above by Gerrard) are not "additions", they are simply reversions to the previous status quo. Gerrard's deletion policy contravenes the discussion above, and the complete mess he is making is unwarranted. We also don't need him to edit war over the fact that The Sun awarded a best album accolade. This is now well into the realms of disruptive editing. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Adding a deprecated source to an article - including re-adding one, or edit-warring to keep one in - is prima facie an edit against the general consensus that the source is deprecated. It's not actually just fine, and you're attempting to re-litigate the concept of deprecation of sources here - David Gerard (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Stop making things up please Gerrard. Restoring the status quo is not "adding a deprecated source" per your earlier claims. And as you have been advised probably a dozen times now, your dicdef of "deprecation" isn't what is given in the DEPS "information" page. And your accusations about my motivation need explanation per WP:ADMINACCT. Provide evidence that I'm here to support The Sun, and do it quickly. Ironically Gerrard has only just (in the previous few hours) starting quoting ONUS although in most cases it doesn't apply anyway. The examples he has given for the John Wark article have existing consensus through the WP:FAC process which ensures high quality content throughout Wikipedia. At no point did Gerrard seek to discuss any controversial or disputed content (and he has yet to provide any evidence that his edits do constitute the highlighting of such), nor did the esteemed reviewers at FAC raise any concerns. The normal course of action would, of course, be to highlight areas of concern and allow editors to do their best to address them. The Gerrard method was to simply purge the content with a false edit summary. Enough said. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Having said "enough said", it should now be clear that Gerrard needs to stop the meatbot "ban" purge on the WP:DEPS sources using false scare edit summaries until this has been resolved. I would hope he has the integrity to do that at least while we understand where it's all gone so wrong and messy. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, have you ever considered stating your case neutrally, as a lifestyle choice? It might work better here. Guy (help!) 01:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

---

• David Gerard and I both remove deprecated sources from biographies and other articles. The clue here is: deprecated. We do not deprecate a source unless it is untrustworthy. That doesn't mean that everything it publishes is a lie, but it does mean that enough of it is false or misleading that we cannot trust it. That is the starting point.

A small number of people, notably the OP, have resisted deprecation from the outset and have complained whenever any effort to remove deprecated sources is undertaken. There is little doubt in my mind that a subset of editors do not believe we should deprecate these sources at all. That is an opinion they are allowed to have, but consensus as established at WP:RSN is clear. If they want to demonstrate that consensus is in fact against deprecation, disputing the actions of individual editors is not the way to do it. Some people appear to view source removal as tantamount to deletionism. I do not subscribe to that view.

I have been through several iterations of my process, receiving feedback at RSN along the way. Based on these discussions here is what I currently do:

1. If a deprecated source is redundant to other sources for a specific fact, I remove it. The text remains, and remains sourced. I don't think anyone has ever complained about that though I could be wrong.
2. If a deprecated source is in External Links I will usually remove it. Example: blogs and personal websites not of the subject. A few people have complained about this in respect of specific sources. I can remember two. In both cases, it was asserted that they were reliable and widely cited by reputable authorites, in both cases the people opposing removal promised to provide evidence of this, in neither cases was the evidence forthcoming, but in both cases I removed them from my list anyway. So I only remove these links when they are of a type that is, by consensus, not reliable sources but are subject to good faith challenge.
3. So now we come to what is, I guess, about 2/3 of cases: the deprecated source is the only source for a specific fact. I have by now been told with equal force that (a) I must remove the txt along with the source; (b) I must leave the txt and tag it {{citation needed}}; (c) I must not remove the source unless I, personally, find a replacement, putting the burden on me to fix someone's sourcing error. So based on multiple discussions, what I do is:
   1. If the source supports a potentially contentious fact (e.g. about family or marital issues in a WP:BLP) I manually check for a better source and replace it if one is readily available, otherwise I delete the text.
   2. If the source is for something trivial (e.g. date of joining a football team) I tag as needing improvement, for example with {{deprecated inline}}.
   3. If the source is for a sky-is-blue statement or is one of several sources that support the content (e.g. Bob did X[1], after which Y happened[2], and [2] covers both events) I remove it.

I use AWB, largely because the regex makes it vastly easier but also because I have C7 radiculopathy and it maximises the ability to work by keyboard rather than mouse.

The classes of sources I remove are:

• Predatory open access journals;
• Books published via vanity press (Lulu, XLibris, iUniverse, Author House, Trafford Publishing at this point), other than by the subject of the article;
• Deprecated sources per WP:RSP, e.g. Breitbart, the Daily Mail, WorldNetDaily, InfoWars, Mintpress, Life Site News);

The good news is that mostly we're dealing with a legacy problem. Edit filters have been created that warn against addition of most of these sources, and these have substantially reduced the levels of addition. But we still have thousands of articles, including biographies, referenced to sources we have agreed as a community are not appropriate.

It's a bit like being the sysadmin for the company mail server. Nobody ever comes by and says thanks when it's working well. In this case most of the complaints often feel as if they come from people who think we should be using fax instead. But there you are. Guy (help!) 22:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• "David Gerard and I both remove deprecated sources from biographies and other articles."

Yes, and you do it in bulk, carelessly, without per-item editorial judgement, over-riding the views of any editor who disagrees, and most of all against the decisions made for WP:DAILYMAIL et al., which have been against doing just that.

Then, you continually lie (you make untrue statements of fact against other editors) to describe those opposing you as either "opposing deprecation" or "supporting The Sun". No-one is against this deprecation, they are against your excessive and unconsidered response to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• Mr Gerard, your comments here continue the persistent disparaging untruths which have characterised your comments throughout this RSN argument.

Let's just take a look at the "additions" of which you complain – except they're not additions, they're simply trying to maintain an existing and long-stable status quo against these hasty, unsupported and poorly executed removals:

• Skibidi - you chop a self-evident, almost trite, description of the song's video in half, merely to remove a Sun citation. What you leave behind no longer makes sense.
• Block-setting crane – this very cite was discussed a year ago, at the WP:DAILYMAIL RfC discussion, and was cited there as a very example of what was wrong with this sort of simplistic blanket removal. You requested WP:ONUS on keeping it, yet that was already done a year before you removed it (twice). You clearly have no respect for any sort of consensus decision arrived at, merely your own opinion has to win.
• Hijab & Hijab Firstly, after some examination, it seems that even The Daily Mail can't be wrong all the time. They've taken two sets of independent photographs from years ago and reproduced them, for once without bias or blaming Jeremy Corbyn. So I restored this, not so much as WP:V but as EL, linking to a resource of value that we can't host for ourselves. In the second case, after you'd removed it again, I switched these sources to the non- deprecated non-DM sources, from which the DM had obtained them. But those were removed forthwith too as "You can't be serious.". Andy Dingley (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG I don't know why you felt a need to restart the thread, but we'll go from here. Patronising people by telling them "deprecated" is the "clue" is pathetic. You're not dealing with newbies here. And the claims being made are nonsense. I'm even seeing citations for awards been given by The Sun cited by the newspaper being removed as unreliable. You must be kidding? The good news here is that some of us are standing up to the nonsensical purging which is arbitrary and leaving behind a complete mess with its half-arsed implementation. Regurgitating what you think is the essence of DEPS is a waste of time. The meatbot approach to essentially attempting to BAN The Sun and others is actually directly contradictory to the advice we have codified. So stop doing it. And for those of you who keep making false assertions about it in edit summaries, STOP DOING THAT TOO! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, Oh FFS, don't be a snowflake. Do you know how many sources are deprecated, rather than just not recommended? It's a very short list. The list is comprised almost exclusively of sources that have a documented history of fabrication. WP:RS would seem to be at odds with that, and has been canon since before I joined. Please try to acknowledge at least the possibility that we're trying to improve the encyclopaedia, eh? Guy (help!) 23:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

don't be a snowflake? Perfect admin response. Well done you. I think you've said enough already, but feel free to further opine. Of course I'm fully aware of which sources are deemed deprecated, and indeed, and importantly, what that actually means per the definition given in Wikipedia. Feel free to attempt to patronise me once more, but I would recommend you focus more on the substance of the matter than continuing to make personal attacks. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I wasn't aware that replying to a personal comment on a topic that does not involve use of admin powers was an "admin response". YLSED. Guy (help!) 23:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I think you probably already know that we hold admins to a higher standard, and saying "oh for fuck's sake, don't be a snowflake" falls very short of that standard. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• The argument stems from disagreement over how to “enforce“ deprecation. What makes it actionable is if someone is going on a “crusade” to enforce our “rules”. “Crusading” is always disruptive, even when enforcing the “rules”. Blueboar (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  Blueboar, not even enforce really - we do that through edit filters, and that seems to work rather well. Anyone who tries to add a deprecated source is warned, they can then click through if they want, and then the edit gets reviewed off the back of the logs. This is almost entirely about (a) disputing the entire deprecation business altogether and (b) disputing retrospective enactment of deprecation. Guy (help!) 01:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment. I saw this come up at RSN and chimed in there to remind editors WP:ONUS is indeed policy, and those wanting to add the sources (or readd) need to gain consensus for that since the use is obviously disputed. The Rambling Man's responses here and here did not impress me at all and indicates some pretty strong battleground behavior on their part as well especially with this response to me: Hey? Suddenly you're looking for a consensus to include a source rather than exclude a source? You have it completely arse-about-face. We have never looked for a consensus to include any specific source.. . In addition to that hot-headeness, that really looks like thumbing one's nose at ONUS policy to the point my brief interactions have me thinking removing TRM from this topic might decrease disruption significantly due to the inflammatory comments leading to walls of text.

I see TRM had a lot of troubles at AE, though aside from my brief RSN interaction, I don't know any history about sanctions there or which of those warnings are considered "current", but edit summaries like this seem to be continuing those problems. I don't have to the time to assess further whether their behavior here is a one-off or instead at the end of WP:ROPE.

Otherwise, I'm not sure what other administrative actions can be done here. If someone is trying to game WP:ONUS by reinserting the sources without gaining consensus, that is edit warring and blockable. In some examples above (hard to find in the wall of text) Andy Digley provides examples of themselves ignoring onus policy.[17][18] (i.e., finding errors in an edit isn't an excuse to blanket revert). I can't find comments from TRM or Digley trying to get consensus to reinclude the sources on the either of those talk pages either. I'm not finding anything actionable on David Gerard's part though since they are following onus policy, and any perceived mistake on their part doesn't justify what TRM and Digley had been doing. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

For a much needed tl;dr though, everyone needs to follow WP:ONUS, which should cut through all this extra drama I'm seeing above gumming up the works. If you get consensus on a given page to use the source, then do so. If you don't have consensus, it stays out per that policy. If that can't be followed, then it's clear some preventative measures are needed to stop the edit warring and the battleground behavior I've been seeing from TRM and Digley above. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• "Uninvolved"? Grudge much?

As to the block-setting crane ref and ONUS, that was literally the poster child at the Daily Mail RfC for an example of a justified DM ref. Over a year ago. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

That "grudge" comment doubling down on battleground behavior is concerning. I was uninvolved when I commented at that most recent RSN where you hadn't even commented. I was also uninvolved when I came into that ANI you link, especially in regards to you, and noticed battleground behavior problems there when I made my only comments there. That your behavior is an issue again doesn't make those who noticed it before WP:INVOLVED even for non-admins who comment at behavior boards. WP:BOOMERANG definitely applies here if those problems continue. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The_Rambling_Man#The_Rambling_Man_prohibited indeed - David Gerard (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the relevance of that well-publicised situation to this case where your purging edits equivalent to trying to ban The Sun result in the direct introduction of errors. You replaced a source which you claimed can't be trusted with one that you (I assume) believe to be reliable, yet the former was reliable and the latter was incorrect. And it appears your understanding of football transfers is not commensurate with the reality of the situation, particularly in regard to loan players. And this, sadly, exemplifies one major aspect of the problem. You are making sweeping edits, leaving either a mess or simply introducing false information into Wikipedia, despite what you have been reminded of numerous times, that the source you are purging is considered reliable by some editors for sports reporting. This sadly is just one example demonstrating that we now have to check each and every one of your edits while you continue to introduce errors and incorrect sources into Wikipedia. I really think you need to consider your position. Are you open to recall? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

You have now just removed perfectly citable material (ironically cited in the next reference) which was easily found (in the very next reference). I would advise you to stop purging Wikipedia of valid information please. Checking these kinds of edits is highly time-consuming, and despite multiple requests for you to desist, you continue to do so against even basic editing norms, let alone in your position as an admin. Please desist. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• I have a simple question for @Andy Dingley:: You state above in your initial explanation of the dispute in question, that "Two editors have been carrying out 2 / 3 here" where 2/3 refer to "blanket removal" of sources and content from articles. You've asserted this as having happened several times, both in this discussion and in prior discussions. Can you present some evidence of it? That is, can you show a series of diffs or patch of editing history that show that the editors in question are engaging in that behavior? It would go a long way towards help others understand the nature of the problem, and be able to comment on the behavior itself. If there is widespread behavior, we need to see evidence of such. Both of the editors (who are unnamed in your initial complaint, but we probably have a sense of who they are) have said that isn't the way they operate, here and in other discussions, but so far you've repeatedly asserted that they do. Can you provide some diffs showing that they are, in fact, doing as you describe? --Jayron32 17:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• I don't really know or care about the history of this problem, but just a quick glimpse at the contributions of David Gerard will show you the blanket removals that are happening right now, despite multiple requests to stop from multiple editors. Often (and this is the best case) the text is preserved but a bare URL is introduced. Sometimes (and this is happening more frequently), information is just removed, along with the purge on The Sun as a source. Sadly, and what is happening lately, is the removal of text despite other references in the article verifying it, or even worse, the introduction of false information based on inaccurate sources. All the name of the blanket purge on The Sun. Which isn't codified in any consensus that I'm aware of. The end result is that some of us are having to check each and every edit from this admin to ensure that false information is not being added, nor is valid information being removed. In a meatbot sense. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  I've checked about 4-5 and I don't see any major issues. The Sun was deprecated as a source; and in the cases I just looked at, either a) he removed it when there was already a better source alongside it b) he removed it and replaced it with a non-deprecated source, sometimes altering the text to better match what the non-deprecated source said or c) he removed it and also removed some text, but usually the removed text was of spurious utility to begin with (WP:TRIVIA and the like). I haven't seen any unambiguous problems, indeed, most of them seem like uncontroversial clean up. I mean, if you want to spend your time checking up on him, I don't see why you have to. I don't see any evidence of problems in his recent edits you just directed me to. I notice above you raise issue with one of his recent edits, but I wouldn't say the removal is unambiguously bad. --Jayron32 17:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  You checked four or five? Brilliant work. Gerrard is doing about four or five every five or ten minutes. You didn't see a problem with his introduction of factually incorrect material using in inaccurate source? Wow, just wow. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 00:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

  Yep. The thing I keep finding over and over is when about half the Wikipedia wording is supported in multiple sources - but some really interesting quirk of wording in the article is only supported by the Sun. Sports, celebrity, TV shows, all manner of subjects. In such cases, I assume the Sun is doing what the Sun does - jazzing stuff up, i.e. making stuff up, to make it more interesting. This is why it's deprecated, and this is why editors who insist on putting deprecated sources in on Wikipedia articles - as our logorrheic Sun/DM crusaders here do - are behaving in a problematic manner. When you only have the Sun as a reference for a given fact - you don't have a reference. Never trust the Sun - David Gerard (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  "crusaders"? Are you open to recall? I'd say "never trust David Gerrard" ahead of "never trust the Sun". You proved the point perfectly earlier today when you actively removed The Sun as a correct source and replaced it with an inaccurate source and completely false information. It may be that you lack the expertise to edit in certain areas of Wikipedia, which is fine because none of us can be brilliant at everything, but the suggestion that you believe your own "crusade" against The Sun is justified when you are introducing errors into Wikipedia as an admin is beyond belief. You have no reasonable defence for removing facts and replacing them with errors. This is a symptom of someone doing something they should not be doing. So, please, STOP. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 00:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Jayron - to stick with what's already here, take a look at Skibidi vs. Skibidi, where it has been cut to half of its size. These [19] [20] were what literally triggered posting here. One is a pretty obvious statement, sourceable by anywhere covering pop culture (if we cover pop culture at all, we are inevitably going to be using sources that aren't as solid as the London Gazette). The second of these also sliced a description of the video in half, making it nonsensical. You could source that much per BLUESKY even from LittleBig's own YouTube. Again, if you want a pop culture source, take your pick. But when pressed to choose between Hello magazine and The Sun, there's never going to be much in it. Then when this thread opened, Mr Gerard went for it and sliced the whole article in half. [21] Now you might say, "Skibidi is a trivial topic unworthy of an encyclopedia" and you'd have a point, for encyclopedias which hadn't written WP:N the way we chose to. Also, 135 pageviews/day, a year after the song came out, isn't bad going. This is not editing to improve the encyclopedia. This is blinkered editing, to remove a particular source at any cost, and also the content which it had been supporting.

When we see a slab of red like this, [22], when is that ever a good thing?

Look at this one on Brian Cox, "replace deprecated source with RS" (Scottish Sun with Guardian). Lovely, who could possibly question that? Except that the Gruadian ref is from four years later and presents a significantly different viewpoint on Cox's politics in Scotland than what it's supposed to be supporting. This is tick-box editing, with no editorial aspect to it. We could have 'bots do it no worse than this.

Then we get the simple stuff like this "remove and replace deprecated source" (the Mail used for sport, which has already been put forward as an area where it's not so biased). But "replace" doesn't mean, "remove and tag as {{cn}} unsourced", as was done here. That's just a false edit summary.

This post was made in response to Gerard's edits, rather than Guy's. Most of them in the last few days are removing the Sun from articles where it' barely clear we ought to be having that article, which is less of an issue than those involving the Mail. But Guy's go back further and have deeper problems, particularly the RSN page claims, "I will just tag them (1)" and then doing the opposite of stripping them (2 & 3). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Genesis of the dispute

Reviewing past history it seems that this goes back to August 2011: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 102 § Publisher" on a Weebly site and the comment beginning "The editor is carrying out a 'bot-like bulk edit removing any content that pattern-matches a URL indicating that a web site (of any content quality) has been hosted through Weebly. This claims justification through the no-blogs policy of WP:ELNO." It's somewhat surprising that after more than eight years of complaining about this exact issue - systematic removal of sources based on binary assessment of the site's reliability - the OP has yet to come up with a solution other than complaining every time it happens. I know he has friends here, can someone maybe help him to initiate some process whose conclusion we can all get behind? Guy (help!) 00:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I and many others have repeatedly asked Andy to make a case. If his opinions are supported in policy, it should be a slam-dunk by now. Many of us have suggested WP:ANI as a venue, for example. But here will do - Andy, can you or can you not make a coherent, policy-based case against JzG's actions? Your continued choice of extended personal attacks, and wasting other editors' time by repeatedly edit-warring in deprecated sources, is an inferior alternative for working with others, as surely you must understand - David Gerard (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Mr Gerard, there is a large section at the top of this which both of you have studiously ignored, and have persisted instead in making false descriptions of other editors as "Supporting the Sun", "Opposing deprecation" etc, none of which has any truth to it - but IDHT, yet again. This is about your edits, and Guy's edits, which although not identical are both making massive runs of unconsidered removals of refs (cases 2 & 3 in the comments at the start). Yet neither of these are supported by DEPS, DAILYMAIL or any consensus at RSN. Guy, in particular, has repeatedly claimed that he is only doing 1. (tagging), yet persists in these bulk removals.

You keep refusing to address the issue here: you are both acting way beyond the agreement of WP:DAILYMAIL, and you are using every tactic possible to deflect from this. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

In short: No, then. --Calton | Talk 04:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Other discussions

There's an ongoing discussion about the use of newspapers as sources at WP:V. This discussion should be folded into that one rather than being yet another fork. The main issue for AN should be the use of admin tools and, per WP:INVOLVED, it seems obvious that admins should not be using their tools to enforce their own personal opinions about this matter. Andrew D. (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The trouble with "they shouldn't" is that admins are a fleet in being: they still have the capability to block other editors for disagreeing with them, and in this case, both have already threatened to do that. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

If you mean me, please show me the diff(s) and the words therein where I threatened to block you. I'm pretty sure this didn't happen. If you mean other admins, please show the board the diff(s) and the words therein where they threatened to block you - being specific will be the most useful contribution here. I even supplied one above for you - David Gerard (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Still waiting on this one - please substantiate your claim - David Gerard (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Still waiting on if you are open to recall. Please, per WP:ADMINACCT, let the community know. Thanks. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 00:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Still waiting on if you are open to recall. Please, per WP:ADMINACCT, let the community know. Thanks. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Please produce evidence of how a "they" threatened to block you - diffs, that sort of thing - David Gerard (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

A Compromise?

A lot of the current conflict seems to stem from party A removing a source because they believe that is the proper course of action for handling deprecated sources, and then party B adds it back because the removal was done without providing a replacement source, or the removal included collateral damage. The strongest argument I have seen made by party B is that party A is exercising WP:FAIT, and the strongest argument I have seen party A make is that party B is adding unreliable sources to articles. It seems like we could at least cool down the situation by having party A agree to stop removing deprecated sources until such time as we can come to concensus as to what proper policy is, and party B would in turn agree to not add or restore any deprecated sources. While we debate the merits of purging non reliable sources, we can leave Wikipedia in its current state, with no new references to deprecated sources being added and no existing references to deprecated sources being removed. This will at least temporarily end the edit war and perhaps allow everyone to have some time to cool down and amicably discuss a long term strategy for how we should deal with deprecated sources.

I think part of the reason things are so heated in this discussion is because while the discussion is happening both parties are engaging in an edit war behind the scenes. This leads to both parties being frustrated with the other for recent actions, and this prevents either party from engaging calmly on the topic and (hopefully) working towards a long-term solution. For context, I believe the primary involved parties are (in order of me seeing names while scrolling up the page) User:David Gerard User: The Rambling Man User: Andy Dingley and User:JzG.

There also may be value in pausing this discussion for a couple days just to let everyone calm down a bit. Often just a break of a day or two in situations like this can greatly aid in resolution. Micah71381 (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Thankyou. I would be happy with that and would see it as being aligned with WP:DEPS. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

This looks like the right course of action, at least in dealing with the interpretation and implementation of DEPS. Other matters such as WP:ADMINACCT will still need to be addressed, but that can happen in parallel. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Micah71381, no edit warring here, I am singing Biber and Sances. But no, the “compromise” is capitulation so does not work for me: it basically gives those who opposed deprecation and lost, the right to retain deprecated sources - many of which are either redundant or objectively inappropriate.

They’ve had many months to start an rfc and have instead chosen to simply attack those who remove the crap. I have been removing predatory journals for ages, we have few left now, same with obvious no-hopers like Occupy Democrats and Breitbart. This has improved the encyclopaedia. That’s why we deprecate them. Guy (help!) 14:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem here seems to have been missed in translation. It's not the concept of a well thought out replacement of a deprecated source with a suitably non-deprecated one that is the issue here at alll; no-one would argue with that. But certainly for me it's the manner in which a unilateral ban is being enacted, directly contrary to the advice given in DEPS, and that the edits are being made so quickly that errors are actively being introduced, along with incorrect sources, while perfectly citable material is simply being expunged. None of that is necessary nor advocated anywhere that I'm aware of simply in the name of removing deprecated sources (some of which have actually been recognised as being acceptable for some verification in any case!). The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I have been removing predatory journals for ages Yes, there's already a 2009 ArbCom finding of fact that you misused the spam blacklist to remove links to bad sites. The point, in both cases, being that it's not about whether these sources are reliable or not, but how to deprecate them. Some things never change. --Pudeo (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy Do you believe that leaving the deprecated sources up until Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#On_the_use_of_deprecated_sources is resolved will cause undue harm to Wikipedia? Is there some urgency in removal that makes it so it must be delt with immediately, rather than taking some time to figure out a course forward? In this compromise proposal, I am not recommending that we stay in this state indefinitely, just call a truce (neither party messes with the sources in question) until such time as we come to concensus on a strategy for dealing with deprecated sources. Micah71381 (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned, it will not harm Wikipedia because it is unenforceable; people will continue to remove or replace them as soon as it's determined they are unreliable in accordance with WP:RS, and people who persist in violating WP:RS by restoring sources that are definitely unreliable will eventually get blocked, regardless of the outcome of that RFC - that is to say that even if proposal 3 there passed with unanimous support, I could still immediately remove deprecated sources from twenty articles, and if someone persisted in restoring them, they would eventually get banned for editing against WP:RS, which overrides the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on that RFC. However, in the event that WP:RS were somehow eliminated and unreliable sources were allowed to remain in place for months on end, then yes, of course it would hurt the encyclopedia. Poor sourcing damages the reliability and reputation of our encyclopedia, and it's important to fix it as quickly as possible. There is room to debate what sources are reliable (and we should fall back and focus on that aspect, if there's disagreement over this or if sources are being removed in places where many people think they pass WP:RS.) But we cannot write a blank check to simply ignore WP:RS, even temporarily - as in, we cannot, it is literally not something we are permitted to do. If someone is overly-aggressive in removing sources, in a way that goes beyond WP:RS, and they ignore objections to those specific removals to continue editing against consensus, that particular editor could also get in trouble, yes. But "this source has been deprecated, so I will start removing it from many articles where it is being used inappropriately" is protected by WP:RS, and this cannot be changed; and in fact, in many cases (especially WP:BLP ones) restoring the citations will itself be block-worthy, especially if there was an established consensus clearly indicating that the source was not reliable in those contexts and an editor continues to restore it despite that. --Aquillion (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• We've had an RfC. It produced WP:DAILYMAIL. It did not support immediate blanket removal of everything. So why are you going against WP:DAILYMAIL? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Micah71381, What Aquillion said. Only, probably, being me, with more words and less precision. Guy (help!) 12:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• This is is unworkable. WP:RS is a core policy, which means that removing unreliable sources is always a defensible edit - we cannot make a general policy against doing so, and cannot make a policy that would require that an unreliable source remain in place (especially, of course, in WP:BLP situations, where removal is required, but even to a lesser extent elsewhere.) We can disagree over when and where a particular source is reliable, but once it's established that it is unreliable, removing it immediately is always valid under WP:RS, and restoring it is a violation of WP:RS that could lead to editors getting blocked if they persist. --Aquillion (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:RS is (perhaps surprisingly) only a guideline, not a policy. Also there is no WP:RSONLY policy.

WP:RS is a need for RS in order to meet WP:V. It says absolutely nothing about removing any sourcing beyond this. Guy tried that when he stripped sources from all the castle-related articles. See WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 270#Global ban on non-RS?. Despite the damage he caused there, no policy was ever found to support those removals.

The relevant statement here is WP:DEPS, not WP:RS. And particularly, what is to be done about large numbers of existing sources, and how to improve things without causing more damage than any benefit. That's the issue for this thread. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. seems straightforward to me. Citations, themselves, are also "material"; an unreliable citation without an accompanying reliable secondary source discussing it is therefore "material lacking a reliable source" and should itself be removed. --Aquillion (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• Aquillion, true, though strictly RS is a guideline, but it's a guideline in the same way that evolution and gravity are only theories. It has been canon for so long that it has the same force as policy, and is a guideline only because it derives from policy (in this case an intersection of V and NPOV).

  If something is carried only in an unreliable source then it may not be neutral, cannot be verified (because the only source is undependable) and almost always gives undue weight because no other source considered it worth publishing. Guy (help!) 12:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Following up on the OP:

1. On behalf of British journalists everywhere, I resent the use of "UK newspapers" rather than "some British tabloids". There are plenty of reliable British newspapers, and those aren't the subject this discussion.
2. I take no issue with removal of deprecated sources from articles. Deprecation of sources means they must not be used, regardless of time. Put differently: whether they're "about to be added", or "have already been added" to an article is insignificant - they shouldn't be there, with few exception.
3. If an editor repeatedly adds deprecated sources where other sources are warranted, then that's a potential violation of any number of policies, and the editor is liable to being sanctioned.
4. In dealing with existing use of deprecated sources, the choice between options #1, #2 and #3 in your list comes down to the nature of the content (its notability, verifiability, sensationality etc.) and is at editors' discretion.
   1. I would usually avoid solutions #1 and #4 as too light and too severe, respectively. If you still opt for solution #1, then use {{deprecated inline}} rather than {{better source needed}}.
   2. If you take issue with an editor opting for solution #3, then you can ask that they apply solution #2 instead. You suggest there's been previous agreement to apply solution #1 alone, but no diffs are presented so I can't comment on it.
5. Other problems that have been raised in this thread, such as incivility and alleged abuses of administerial powers, should be raised separately. It's impossible to deal with all of it in a single thread. François Robere (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thankyou for a rational reply

I resent the use of "UK newspapers" rather than "some British tabloids".

Note that here, Guy clarifies that as: "No, not "UK newspapers" .A small number of UK red tops." Except that the Daily Mail isn't a red top. Nor would it be seen as a red top within meta-commentary on UK journalism. It has problems, so does the red-topped Sun, but these are not the same problems.

I do prefer "some UK newspapers". It's not red tops alone. Nor is the size of the paper they're printed on any reliable guide, so I don't like "tabloid". The Daily Express is also being discussed in the same manner. Now that the scarlet-hued and diminutive i has been bought by the Mail, I anticipate that Guy will be turning his attention in that direction too.

Deprecation of sources means they must not be used

RFC:2119 is always a useful guide for such wording. The problem is that "must" is very strong and we find ourselves in a position where we already have many of them in use. So what is to be done? Does the simple blanket removal (as I contend) make things worse?

In the context you seem to be discussing it's more specific: the article is actually open for human editing at that point. I can certainly agree that this is a time when we have more control over what to do next than simply looking at a backlog with a 'bot script in hand.

If an editor repeatedly adds deprecated sources

Has this happened? I see no examples of it. I'm accused of it, I certainly haven't been (within our general standards for non-EW disagreement between editors).

4. I favour option #1 because we can do that with a 'bot script. It would be a reasonable and practicable thing to do, with broad agreement behind it. And most of all, we can still do #2 or #3 immediately afterwards, should we wish.

We should move to a situation where DEPS are replaced, rather than removed, and in nearly all cases it ought to be possible to do so without losing content. If that content can't be verified, then of course we might have to lose it (Although just {{cn}} is still an accepted option across WP, unless this is constrained by BLP or specific challenge). However it's considerably harder to replace a source than to remove one, so we can't make bulk runs for that overnight. If we try to, there's also the risk (as for the Brian Cox source noted on this page) they might end up with an impeccable RS source as a ref, which doesn't actually support the claim it's supposed to. Those are a problem, because they're not machine-detectable afterwards, as a tag or url regex would be.

4.2 That would be here: WP:RSN#News of the World. Where Guy posted a new thread, WP:RSN#News of the World, and stated, "I propose to tag and then remove the couple of hundred links we have to this site." When challenged, he then changed this to "I am not removing and leaving {{cn}}, I am tagging as needing a better source unless the source is redundant (i.e. one of two or more sources for the same text) in which case I am removing it altogether and leaving the other sources. " However that's not what he then did - he kept on with #2 and #3, even for non-redundant cites. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

If an editor repeatedly adds deprecated sources Has this happened? I see no examples of it. This entire section literally exists because I asked you to stop doing precisely this thing, and cited my examples. TRM has also repeatedly added deprecated sources to articles. You both think you have excellent reasons, but you still actually did it. I realise there's a lot of words between the beginning of this section and the end, but you've generally been good with detail (as compared to TRM's response to a statement of the issue of Wow, walls of text - but then, following the discussion may not be for everyone) - I'd expect you to remember how this section started - David Gerard (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• stop doing precisely this thing Where? Block-setting crane? Where I restored a ref (you then 2RRed it), because it's a ref we specifically agreed at RSN and WP:DAILYMAIL a year ago showed that the DM wasn't always wrong? At iceberg house, where we did the same, because the DM had paid out its media budget to get far better photos of the London house collapse than we could get any other way? At Skibidi, where you kept removing sections such that the para no longer made any sense, then you simply deleted half the article and made it worthless? Or at hijab, where I checked the two historically valuable refs via the DM and saw they were free of bias or inaccuracy, per WP:DAILYMAIL? Then when you'd summarily removed them again, because discussion is something you consider beneath you, I replaced them with the sources that the Mail had got them from. At which point, Guy removed them again anyway.

So go on then, show this "repeatedly adding", to anything like, for instance, WP:3RR? And don't say "these should have been discussed", because whenver I try to discuss this problem it's dismissed as "whinging" or "disruption". Andy Dingley (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: I've looked at some of the diffs David is referring to; the "status quo" argument (other than not being Policy on the English Wikipedia) doesn't hold in the case of deprecated sources, the usage of which has been found by definition to be violating Policy. In other word, restoring a deprecated source is not a simple restoration of content, but a restoration of a Policy violation. What's more, since both WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS place the responsibility of justifying the inclusion on you, you end up breaking several policies at once. François Robere (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• So which ones? Because for the first two, WP:ONUS was met, back last year when we wrote DAILYMAIL. If anyone wants to discuss or analyse further, then fine, because I'm all for discussions. For Skibidi? Yes, that's mostly annoyance at Mr Gerard making such POINTy edits at all. And at hijab? Again, the point of DAILYMAIL is that we need to check these edits, and I'd checked them. Why remove the refs to a non-DM site? That's really being POINTy!

I've always been fine about discussing any of these, I cheerfully accept that I might even be wrong on them, if that's how consensus falls. But there is zero discussion from either Guy or Mr Gerard, just a continual claim that they're admins and so they're right on all content issues, even against RfC decisions. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• Not last year, now. If you want to add something in November, you've got to have consensus and verifiability in November, and AFAICT you've had neither (verifiability, in particular, is incompatible by definition with DEPS).
• the point of DAILYMAIL is that we need to check these edits, and I'd checked them Actually the point was that the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. Drawing from as appropriate that we should retain a source is not in keeping with the spirit of the RfC; in the case of Hijab, for example, alternate sources should've been searched for. François Robere (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• So sources now "expire"? A decision made a year ago no longer holds? Now that's creative.

For hijab, alternate sources were not only searched for, they were added. Guy then removed them and the content too. Perhaps you'd like to ask him why? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• It's not about expiry, it's about specificity. You have to justify source use on a case-by-case basis, especially when the consensus is that a source is WP:GUNREL.
• On Hijab - if other sources were found, then there was no need for the DM. Diffs? François Robere (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• Hijab replaced removed Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

For specificity, look at the RfC for WP:DAILYMAIL. The "crane case" was already current at that time (Nikkimaria had replaced it by another of those wrong refs to the wrong type of crane). It became one of the discussion topics as to why not all DM refs were implicitly biased. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Guy here. Two of the three sources don't look reliable, and the third one doesn't support parts of the text to which it's attached.
• I can't find any reference to "crane" at the RfC discussion, and the only comment by Nikkimaria doesn't contain any links. François Robere (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
• Found it at the Sun RfC.

• The edits in question introduced the DM almost two years after it was deprecated. Nikkimaria was right to remove it, even if the replacement was wrong. Simply put, that ref had no place in the article in the first place.
• Recall you denied ever adding a deprecated source afresh, but here you did just that.
• On another point, in the opening message of this thread you brought this edit as an example of the damage of automated removal, but I see no evidence that NM used an automated tool to do that. François Robere (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• Are you aware that The Sun isn't the same paper, or related to, The Daily Mail? That's the Sun RfC, not the DM. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• The crane example appears at The Sun RfC (November 2018), not The Daily Mail RfC (January 2017). The example itself cites the DM (October 2018). François Robere (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• It's not red tops alone. Nor is the size of the paper they're printed on any reliable guide We're not discussing paper sizes and masthead colors, we're discussing tabloid journalism. You may not like it, but it's an accepted and widely used term.
• The problem is that "must" is very strong So are our RfC results on said sources.

• Does the simple blanket removal (as I contend) make things worse? Not if done correctly.
• In the context you seem to be discussing it's more specific: the article is actually open for human editing at that point What context are you discussing it in?

• I favour option #1 because we can do that with a 'bot script If we run a bot across the entire article namespace and Guy then proceeds with solutions #2 or #3 as he sees fit, will that resolve the dispute?
• We should move to a situation where DEPS are replaced, rather than removed, and in nearly all cases it ought to be possible to do so without losing content Ideally yes, but that assumes DEPs are reliable in practice, otherwise we couldn't replace them with equivalent GRELs. In cases where they have proved reliable, however, I'd rather let editors decide how to handle them, with some guidance.
• @JzG: Comments on method (Re: this)? François Robere (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

A few more notes:

• The statement there is no policy against the use of non-RS sources is disturbing.
• The statement these removals have also failed on WP:COMPETENCE and WP:EW is not supported by diffs AFAICT.
• On the one hand I see the OP supporting source replacement over removal (We should move to a situation where DEPS are replaced, rather than removed), on the other hand I see a complaint against an editor making an erroneous replacement (Nikkimaria had replaced it by another of those wrong refs to the wrong type of crane). Replacement errors are unavoidable - they're bound to happen the moment we decide to deprecate a source. The assumption in all cases is that allowing and keeping the source is more problematic than deprecating and replacing it. We should certainly strive for accuracy when replacing sources; one way to minimize errors would be not to introduce sources that would likely be removed later.
• There are two core misunderstandings at the basis of this case: a finding of "generally unreliable" means, and what a successful deprecation RfC results in. My reading of Policy is that a "generally unreliable" source is one that you should not employ for general content (including images, unless you have a specific RfC that allows it) and/or in general practice (ie habitually); and that a deprecation RfC results in an effective ban on a source. It seems the OP reads it differently: that WP:GUNREL sources can still be used liberally; and that RfC results are voluntary. If that is the case, there may be room for a more assertive clarification by the community. François Robere (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• The statement "there is no policy against the use of non-RS sources" is disturbing.

Then cite the "WP:RSONLY" policy. There is none.

• This is a long post and to keep it as short as possible I have tried to avoid repetition. The diffs for the competence issues have mostly been listed in the previous threads, linked from the top of this one. A few were repeated here (The Trump ones), but the worst examples would be the Castles set.

I'm also tired of posting diffs etc. only for the next comment to be "I don't believe this without diffs". Yet allegations like "I am repeatedly adding references to the Sun" are all false, unsourced and yet unchallenged.

• one way to minimize errors would be not to introduce sources that would likely be removed later.

Whilst true, that is an irrelevance here. The point is, we already have these sources. Their number will increase as more UK newspapers are deprecated. The Express will probably be the next, followed by the Mail on Sunday and the i.

• My reading of Policy is that a "generally unreliable" source is one that you should not employ

Which policy was that?

• a deprecation RfC results in an effective ban on a source.

And yet WP:DEPS specifically says the opposite.

• It seems the OP reads it differently: that WP:GUNREL sources can still be used liberally; and that RfC results are voluntary.

Yet more fabricated mud-slinging. I will ask you to cut that out. In fact, I'm the one arguing that the RfC should be followed, not cited to support something which it has been clear that it does not. If there is a policy for WP:RSONLY, please cite it. If there is an RfC supported blanket removal of sources in bulk, please cite it. WP:DEPS, WP:RS, WP:DAILYMAIL do no such things. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, WP:RS is a guideline, but WP:V is a policy, and I'm not sure what verifying an unreliable source is meant to buy us in 2019, except calumny and grief. Mackensen (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• This has nothing to do with WP:V. No-one has ever claimed that it has.

WP:V is clear: if content is contentious, it needs to be sourced to WP:RS. There is no contest to that. However we have a large grey area beyond this, as we looked at extensively for the Castle case. Can sources not meeting RS be used in addition? In particular, we had an issue with a good quality but a SPS source. There is no WP:RSONLY policy (and yet Guy removed the lot, against consensus). Andy Dingley (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: You've now clashed on this with multiple unrelated editors (including in the "Castle" case, which I just took a look at), and Guy's request below was answered overwhelmingly with a call for a one-way I-ban. Any chance you're wrong in your reading of Policy and RfC results? François Robere (talk) 05:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Any chance you're wrong Then you'll easily be able to cite the opposing policies.

Nor are these "unrelated" editors! Take a look at the editor interaction reports, or just look to see what particular chip each of them has on their shoulders (there are very few names I don't recognise here, let alone the off-wiki rabble rousing). Andy Dingley (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Andy, there are now 18 editors who support a one-way I-ban between you and Guy, and only four who oppose it. I again encourage you to consider whether it is at all possible you're in the wrong on this. François Robere (talk) 10:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

A further point outside of what's been argued is that a broad goal in general on WP is to minimize any type of disruption - whether for editors or for readers. Implementing a "we must immediately remove a long-used source that has suddenly become deprecated, and material that is only sourced to that", even if that meets the intent of WP:V, still is disruptive. The entire situation here reminds me of what mess there was over updating non-free images back in 2009 with BetaCommand/Delta, as the automated handling of removal of non-frees that didn't met the letter of the law but could be fixed was a problem.

Mass removal of deprecated sources is fine as long as that is not disrupting articles just to be "free" of a bad source. We need to give editors reasonable time to see if they can find replacement sources, or to edit the article to remove the bad source, or other type of action. I've suggested before that we have a six month moratorium on any "semi-automated" removal of deprecated sources but make sure editors are well aware of this and pointers to the necessary RFCs that outline that. After that 6 month period, then editors that want to go at the semi-automated removal should be free to do so. That's how we've done this types of changes in the past, some type of sunset/grandfathering period. --Masem (t) 06:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Requesting IBAN

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

---

I'd like to request a two-way IBAN between myself and Andy Dingley, please. I cannot recall a single example of any interaction between the two of us that has ever improved either of our understanding of anything, or moved towards a productive resolution of any dispute. In every case where one is present in a discussion and the other arrives, the result is increased heat, the impression of furtherance of long-standing grudges, and ill-temper. Guy (help!) 22:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose If you can't curb your own foul mouth, then that's your problem, not mine.

Also, you will use this to silence opposition to your against-consensus edits, as you have previously attempted to do with persistent threats of blocks simply for disagreeing with you. A tactic which you were so egregious at using that even Mr Gerard has taken to quoting it (as noted already on this page). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'd also note that you're required to notify other editors of discussions such as this. Instead posting warnings to the wrong page might be a small matter, but it's indicative of your edits throughout this: you just don't give a damn about accuracy of anything. You're happy to make edits which "remove the Daily Mail", even if there's a bunch of collateral damage that you missed. And woe betide any editor who then complains of that. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  Andy Dingley, And there you ahve the perfect example. You are obviously aware, you nioted that I mis-typed ANI-notice instead of NA-notuice, and you're making a Federal case of it. I rest my case. Guy (help!) 23:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, as I pointed out it's a pretty trivial mistake. But you keep making them. Especially when you're in a seconds-each run to remove the Daily Mail, and you end up stripping out other things too. After which you just walk away – never any interest in cleaning them up afterwards. If you're going to claim god-like powers, you're expected to achieve similar rates of accuracy. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose although it appears that perhaps JzG should have a one-way IBAN implemented as it's clear that there's a problem in that direction. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  The Rambling Man, interesting idea. Last time we clashed I stopped commenting on him, but he continued commenting on me, continuing to raise the thread above. How does that fit with your narrative? Guy (help!) 23:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  I don't have a "narrative" here. It strikes me that the best course of action for Wikipedia is that you are IBAN-ed from Andy. Your commentary is single-mindedly disruptive in this case and without any real backing in policy, your approach is disruptive and aggressive, and I feel sorry that Andy has had to put up with your vitriol. Which you now seem to have moved onto me. So I would recommend that you are banned from interacting with Andy in the first instance, and perhaps with a view to extending it further should your misbehaviour continue. Oh, and stop pinging me please. I'm watching all the threads I'm talking in, and the other 9000+ articles, no need to irritate the situation further/ The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I almost wish I understood how you got there from my, at that point, single post explaining what I am doing and how, but in the end I think I am probably glad I don't. Guy (help!) 23:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Normally I'd say oppose when no diffs are presented at all (I do suggest adding diffs to demonstrate how widespread the problem is to justify it more), but there are clear battleground behavior issues with the above opposes even here or in the section above (should this request be nested within that as a subsection?) that is already convincing. If Guy still voluntarily wants the ban to be on their end too to keep things simpler, it's fine making it two-way instead of one-way. I remember having to caution Digley about hounding another editor at ANI not long ago, so I'm concerned that I'm seeing such pursuit of battleground behavior from them again. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: I notice that JzG's notification of Andy of this attempt to sanction him pointed to a non-existent discussion on ANI. I trust that this is just an unfortunate error. Please be more careful - the editors in question appear to have found this discussion, but less experienced editors may not have done.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Nigel Ish, yes, it was a typing error. My bad. I acknowledge it above, but it's irrelevant as Andy Dingley was here anyway per the above thread. Guy (help!) 23:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support ban on Andy interacting with JzG, per Kingofaces43. JzG's offering to also refrain to interact, which shows good faith - David Gerard (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban on Andy Dingley (first choice) or Support two-way interaction ban (second choice). Andy Dingley writes If you can't curb your own foul mouth, then that's your problem, not mine: nope Andy Dingley is, in fact, the problem here. --Calton | Talk 03:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

So you reckon it's OK for Guy to call me a c*nt? Sorry, but our standards have slipped lately on such, but not that far. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I reckon that you're playing the victim and failing badly. I reckon that you are almost guaranteed to parachute into any discussion whatsoever involving Guy's actions with some standard whinging about how Guy is a terrible person and/or why the Daily Mail and other shitty UK tabloids are, somehow, not-shitty. I reckon that putting words in my mouth is such bad faith that it is convincing me only of the notion that maybe a topic ban for you should be extended to cover ALL admin boards. --Calton | Talk 04:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• You don't get to complain of "putting words in your mouth" when you keep repeating the false claim that "other shitty UK tabloids are, somehow, not-shitty." That is not what this is about. It says so right at the start of the post. Stop misrepresenting this complaint like that.

How Guy edits is up to him. But stripping the amount of content he is doing is not supported by the RfCs he claims. That's the point here. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• You don't get to complain of "putting words in your mouth"...
• Why yes, I do, when you're doing exactly that. Screaming whataboutisms doesn't change that you are, in fact, putting words in my mouth.
• ...when you keep repeating the false claim that "other shitty UK tabloids are, somehow, not-shitty."
• I'm going by your long-time, observed behavior. Not my problem that you don't like it.
• That is not what this is about. It says so right at the start of the post.
• You mean you JzG asking for an interaction ban, which is, you know, what it says at the start of the post? Or do you mean your clumsy attempt at some sort of gotcha to my opinion -- surely a persuasive bit of rhetoric that will change my mind -- by putting words in my mouth? SOMEBODY'S misrepresenting here, but it ain't me. --Calton | Talk 15:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose As I understand it, JzG is using automated tools such as AWB to find and change articles which use newspapers of which he disapproves, such as the Daily Express, for example. This newspaper has a long rich history and featured many topics which British editors might be interested in such as Rupert the Bear, Beachcomber or the work of Henry Williamson and would naturally cover many aspects of British culture such as the Boat Race. That newspaper has had a significant decline in recent years and so is not now what it was. I get the impression that the matter is a case of WP:RECENTISM in which current affairs are given undue weight over history, contrary to WP:NOTNEWS.

The AWB activity seems likely to keep bringing JzG into conflict with other editors such as Andy Dingley or TRM when articles that they are working on or watching are affected by this indiscriminate activity. An interaction ban would require that JzG stop doing such wide sweeps but I don't get the impression that this is his plan. A ban would therefore tend to exacerbate the issue rather than resolving it as each side would claim that the other had violated it or was gaming it. Andrew D. (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson, You misunderstand. The Express is not on my list. The only sites on my list are those with consensus to deprecate, so this is not my personal dislike, it's based on WP:RSP. See my extensive description above. David is not using AWB and is getting exactly the same, and the first example I found, 8 years ago, and a completely different editor, was also manual editing. The issue is that Andy Dingley and presumably also TRM do not accept that deprecation means retrospective removal of sources, and they are choosing to settle the question by arguing time after time with individual editors who are doing it. It doesn't help when there is a long history between editors, that makes onlookers discount the issue as yet another grudge match. Guy (help!) 10:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• t Andy Dingley and presumably also TRM do not accept that deprecation means retrospective removal of sources,

Right up at the start of this posting, you can see a statement of much the same thing. Except it's not the same – we're against bulk, unconsidered removal of those sources. Often a removal which is automated or semi-automated. And our point is that WP:DEPS and WP:DAILYMAIL agrees with us: community consensus, other than about three editors (two of you noted here), has not supported that blanket removal.

Daily Express is in the RSNP list, the Guardian and the Telegraph have been discussed similarly, although not with any support. I've not seen anyone removing Express refs as yet. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I certainly don't see anywhere that states that a blanket removal of any use of deprecated sources has consensus. Initially we were pointed at WP:DEPS, which categorically states (1) deprecation doesn't mean a ban (2) deprecated sources can be used under some circumstances and (3) The Sun (for instance) has specific cases where its use is considered reliable. What I'm experiencing now is that David Gerrard is removing The Sun as if it was banned. And in doing so is removing valid content, is introducing errors, and is not considering the content itself. I'm even seeing awards given by The Sun being removed by this user, I don't see that in any sense as a valid interpretation of DEPS. Also, I do note that Gerrard is cycling through various reasons to remove The Sun until he can settle on one which might apply in each case, edit warring to achieve this. I find it hard to believe this is considered acceptable from an admin, so I've asked him if he's open to recall. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson I urge you to examine Andy Dingley's behaviour in this section: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#News_of_the_World Rather than talk about the issue at hand at all, he goes off into an extended personal attack on JzG. Multiple editors (including me) ask him to either substantiate his claims against JzG in an appropriate venue - several of us specifically suggest ANI - or stop making them; and, in any case, please talk about the subject matter of the RSN board itself. Andy responds to JzG at one point "But you're an admin, so you're immune at ANI and there's no point wasting my time there." - which, to me, sounds functionally indistinguishable from admitting that he really doesn't have an actionable case. He did not desist in ongoing personal attacks, continuing at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#What_(exactly)_does_"Deprecation"_mean? where he continues to make accusations against JzG but at no point actually making a case, despite repeated requests to either do so or desist in the continued personal attacks. There is not an equivalence of behaviour here - it seems clear that Andy will continue to behave in this manner unless and until injuncted not to - David Gerard (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Please do read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#News_of_the_World Especially the section where I complain of Guy's editing yet again going off the rails because he is in such a hurry to "remove Fox news" that he ends up removing two RS (BBC & Reuters) instead and re-adding the Fox News ref himself.

• This is why I see Guy as not being a suitable editor to do this type of bulk removal: Trump–Ukraine scandal just this evening:

• 1RR: "Reverted good faith edits by WoodElf (talk): Not good sources, especially Fox News"
• 2RR: "Reverted good faith edits by WoodElf (talk): This is rouced to Fox News. At the very least that needs consensus on Talk. See WP:BRD."
• (improving sourcing)
• " it had already reached the point where unpicking it is not easy, and in any case it's better to discuss sourcing - especially crappy sources like Fox - on Talk, as I have done."

Also WP:ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WoodElf and RS

This is a long-standing problem with Guy's edits in this vein, and that is why I have had a long-standing complaint against it. I am still waiting for either of you to address the points at the start of this posting: why do you think that bulk removal of source and content is OK, when WP:DAILYMAIL specifically rejected that as the way to proceed. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support one-way Iban, per KingofAces43. Dismissing Andrew Davidson's suggestion wholesale, as he is effectively claiming that someone acting on a community consensus should expect anything between irritating and provocation for doing so. Indeed, this seems to be a perennial attempt at relitigating WP:DAILYMAIL. ——SN54129 11:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Closing admin: please note the quantity of WP:BLUDGEON, with additional material from Disingenuity, from a singular party. ——SN54129 11:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
• Where is the community consensus for these bulk removals? It's not in WP:DAILYMAIL. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support one-way ban of Andy Dingley interacting with JzG. Judging from the comment by Andy Dingley of 22:23, 24 November 2019 above, there is clearly a significant problem with the conduct of Andy Dingley. I have no basis for saying the same about the conduct of JzG, and would be surprised if there would be issues warranting interaction-banning him. Sandstein 14:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Sandstein, I wonder whatever brought you here? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Andy Dingley, I wonder why you rely upon insinuation instead making direct statements you have to stand behind? --Calton | Talk 04:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support one-way ban of Andy Dingley interacting with JzG. Per all above ... ∯WBG^converse 06:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Maybe a AWB ban would solve the problem altogether without the need for an IBAN. Agathoclea (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Andy isn't using AWB to make extended personal attacks, so this is unlikely to stop those happening - David Gerard (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • No, it's the meatbot-esque purging which makes it look like Gerrard is using AWB. Maybe he is, who knows. Andy is not disrupting Wikipedia in this way. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

    The Rambling Man, if you want to establish that consensus to deprecate a source does not include consensus to remove it from biographies and other articles, you are free to start an RfC. Guy (help!) 23:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

    How many times have I told you not to ping me? And no, I'm happy for you to refer me to the RFC which established that the deprecated sources noted in DEPS must be purged from all articles, not just BLPs, which is exactly what Gerrard is doing. Show me the consensus for that and I'll happily apologise and move on. In the meantime, do let me know when you'd like to apologise for your outbursts, calling me a snowflake etc. And also show me the reasoning behind the clumsy error-strewn edits that Gerrard is making. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 00:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support one-way ban against Andy Dingley (first choice) or two-way ban (second choice). For a long time now, across a variety of venues, Andy Dingley's negative comments about JzG have been rude, highly personalized, and unwarranted. I can think of several recent discussions where the preponderance of Andy Dingley's comments had little to do with the matter at hand, and were primarily about JzG, and of Andy's personal interpretation of JzG's motives. The kind of vitriolic speculation of that nature has no place at Wikipedia, and should be put to a stop. --Jayron32 17:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support one-way ban against Andy Dingley or a two-way ban if the first is not supported. Some reasonable points have been made about mass removals but they are buried within the indignant noise that accompanies Andy Dingley. If JzG is a problem, someone else can report it. Johnuniq (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support one-way interaction ban against Andy Dingley. The orderly and careful removal of deprecated sources is a great service to the encylopedia, and editors like JzG who do this work should receive barnstars and other plaudits, not the type of dogged opposition that Andy Dingley too often offers up. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• The orderly and careful removal of deprecated sources is a great service to the encylopedia,

No-one is against that. But that's not what Guy is doing. His edits are neither orderly nor careful, they're an over-hasty blanket stripping, with an unacceptably high error rate. He will even go to ANI and castigate other editors (WoodElf) for edits they hadn't made, and that he hadn't "fixed". Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course, any errors should be corrected, but I continue to perceive your dogged opposition to the removal of deprecated sources to be disruptive. I simply do not understand your reasoning, and it is clear that I am not the only one. For example, the phrase "blanket stripping" means nothing to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support one-way interaction ban against Andy Dingley. I can't put it better than Cullen328; I agree with every word he says. Bishonen | talk 05:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC).
• Support two-way interaction ban as per Guy's request. I oppose a one way ban as unfair under the circumstances. There does seem to be long term bad blood between these editors that would be reduced by an interection ban. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support one-way interaction ban against Andy Dingley per most of the above. Fram (talk) 08:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support one-and-a-half-way interaction ban- That is, I agree with a one-way ban against Andy Dingley and would strongly expect JzG to adhere to it as well. But I'd also give Guy a lot of benefit of doubt in borderline or ambiguous situations. Reyk _YO! 08:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Reeks of censorship. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support one-way interaction ban against Andy Dingley Some of the linked discussions above would have been far more productive and wasted a lot less time had Andy not been disruptive (the endless whinging over the definition of depreciation for example). Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• "endless whinging"? As opposed to ploughing blindly on, just so that WP:FAIT can take effect? We have a definition of deprecation, it's in WP:DEPS and it's echoed into WP:DAILYMAIL. Guy's edits are against both. Now Guy's an admin, so I asked politely if we could agree what "deprecation" was actually going to mean in the WP context first. But if the mop had been on the other foot? Anyone else does it and going that far outside a policy or RfC gets blocks.

I'm sorry that discussion and a search for clarity is seen as "disruptive" in today's WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support one-way interaction ban against Andy Dingley. I find it difficult to understand why AD and TRM seem to support the use of such crappy sources in this project. In fact it beggars belief. C'mon guys. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Please tell me this: where does "support the use of such crappy sources in this project" come from? No-one here is supporting their use. But we already have their use, whether we like it or not, and I'm just against making things worse by a poor process for removing them. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

It comes from this thread, which I had just read. I defy anybody to conclude otherwise. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

No, that's complete nonsense. I think both of us object to the manner in which the deprecation is being implemented, not about specific sources. It would be more appropriate to not make completely inaccurate guesses at our motivations when you clearly are so far off the mark it's remarkable. C'mon guy. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Are we reading the same thread? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 19:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Who knows. I'm telling you directly that you are 100% incorrect about my motivations, do stop speculating when you are so far off the mark. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose – From what I've seen of the disputes between these two, it's just content-related. Sometimes heated, but still just content. Maybe if there were actually some diffs of something I haven't already seen, I could change my opinion, but as it stands, I oppose. If there is an interaction ban, a fair, workable two-way ban is the right option. LoosingIt (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@LoosingIt: a fair, workable two-way ban is a contradiction in terms... ——SN54129 19:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@LoosingIt: From what I've seen of the disputes between these two, it's just content-related. Have you seen this, from the discussion linked above? [[23]] Cjhard (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Your point? That is literally the first link I posted here.

How do you excuse Guy's actions on these blanket edit runs? Have you looked? He has screwed things up so badly, by simply broken edits, removing the wrong things, breaking other citations, that he's managed to turn the self-evidently good idea of "We should now remove the NotW" into a bad idea! Andy Dingley (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support one-way interaction ban against Andy Dingley - JzG's correct that the interactions between the two of them is disruptive, as evidenced by that News of the World discussion. However, it appears entirely one-sided, so I don't see any reason for a two way ban. --Cjhard (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support one-way interaction ban against Andy Dingley, per the discussion above. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose No diffs presented. Furthermore, I will not take the word of someone who has had a full RFC about their toxic attacks on others at face value, when it comes to ill-temper. Without diffs, it's just a distasteful popularity contest. --Pudeo (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

  Really? Even after 11 years? At what point do you let go? 20 years? – Levivich 17:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support one-way ban of Andy Dingley interacting with JzG. Andy is plainly the problem here; I can't see how JzG has contributed to it at all. Guy's edits are appropriate, backed by both core policy and a clear consensus, and have massively improved the encyclopedia; going after an editor personally in order to try and discourage entirely-appropriate edits that you object to is not acceptable. --Aquillion (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Which core policy supports Guy's edits? WP:RSONLY? He claimed that ages ago, when removing the castle sourcing. Yet there is no such policy. Nor does WP:RS not WP:DEPS support those edits. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Since we're literally right here on WP:AN - have you considered putting together a policy-based case that will convince others to stop JzG doing the things you don't want him to do? You said at WP:RSN#News_of_the_World But you're an admin, so you're immune at ANI and there's no point wasting my time there - and yet, here we are in this lengthy section. Surely you can be bothered to make your case, as multiple editors have asked you to do instead of making extended personal attacks, now that you're writing at length in the precise place to make it? It would certainly give closure on the issues in the present section - David Gerard (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)'

• WP:V. 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; and also Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Fixing clear violations of that policy on large numbers of articles is commendable, and your insistence on trying to harass someone for doing so is baffling. --Aquillion (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• Guy has no interest in WP:V. He is the one who has been removing sources. Now, in some cases he has also removed the content (which hadn't even been challenged), in others he removed a number of sources, including clearly reliable ones. Nor does removing the DM in any way assist towards WP:V or WP:RS. If his edits had all been about replacing it with something better, that would be a different story and no-one would have a problem with that. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support one-way I-ban per all the above. François Robere (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• oppose While I agree that these two editors are in constant conflict, I think imposing an IBAN is an incredibly dangerous action to take because it essentially gives the user who is making changes an advantage over the person who is trying to prevent those changes. In a case where both users are acting in WP:GOODFAITH, an IBAN is an inappropriate way to resolve the dispute. If the users are not acting in GOODFAITH, then the underlying problem should be dealt with. IBANs should never be used to resolve content disputes or prevent the raising of concerns over behavioral issues between the two users. IMO, IBANs have an incredibly narrow set of problems that they are good for solving, but they are not the right solution for most problems. Micah Zoltu (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Not topical. ——SN54129 10:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment the Daily Express is absolutely not reliable. Anyone who follows the Daily Express would notice how fake and hilarious their news are. Also they use clickbait titles with uppercase letters. Their news are like this NEW EVIDENCES SHOWS THAT ALIANS BUILD PYRAMIDS IN EGYPT see this [24][25]. Their politics articles are also the same like "WW3: TRUMP THREATENS PUTIN" etc. The Daily Express reminds me of Bollywood Indian movies which is why at first I thought it is Indian. IMO there are no reliable British newspapers except three or two newspapers, The Guardian, The independent and maybe the BBC. The Telegraph shouldn't be regarded as reliable. They are so anti-Corbyn and although I don't support or oppose Corbyn but I really feel disgust by their smearing articles about him. I believe he should sue them.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• Question Guy, how do you explain this removal, where you start removing oppose !votes against your proposal? Firstly, how could you possibly justify that, secondly, this is the very letter of WP:INVOLVED. Removals like this are not acceptable. What are you playing at? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I would note that Guy refuses to explain or discuss his actions. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• support this one-sided Iban mostly per Jayron (though I'm not normally a fan of one-sided Ibans). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Talk:Bantu peoples in South Africa

Would someone take care of the three move requests at Talk:Bantu peoples in South Africa. Requested move 14 November 2019, Requested move 22 November 2019 and Requested move 24 November 2019. I move protected it because Untrammeled couldn't figure out what the name should be. See my comments here. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:VPR that may be of interest

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#On the use of deprecated sources for a discussion on how to treat deprecated sources. Please make proposals at that location (not here), and comment on any existing proposals that others have made. --Jayron32 19:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:AIV backlog

Needs some eyes; several IPs continuing to vandalize/add unsourced info without anyone to block them or look at their edits. Nate • (chatter) 07:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock Review Request

• Special:Contributions/190.22.0.0/16

I would like to block this range for 2 weeks. It was previously blocked by NinjaRobotPirate for disruption to cartoon pages, which would be the reason for the new block. Given that it is a /16 and I'm new to this, I thought I would ask for second or third opinions on collateral damage before executing the block. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I think 190.22.0.0/17 would be a better choice, actually. There don't seem to be any edits to cartoons on 190.22.128.0/17. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 06:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Status update on X2 (CXT)

This is the first time I'm actually involving myself in this cleanup effort.

I'm sure some admins are familiar with the CSD criterion X2, for deleting any article consisting purely of pre-July 2016 CXT material throughout its entire history. However, since both discussions and cleanup efforts appear to be stale (this report hasn't been updated in over two years), I'd like to see a reaffirmation on the criterion's endorsement. Additionally, since there are still between 1800 and 1900 entries in the above report (some of which have already been deleted or redirected), I'd also like a status update. ToThAc (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, in regards to how X1 was dealt with back in its day, I'd like to propose that there be a new segmented list that covers all of the entries listed in the aforementioned report, listed by their starting letter of the alphabet (as in, lists for A-Z, a list for numbers/punctuation, and a list for user pages). Thoughts? ToThAc (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Graduate project needs admins to interview

Hey everyone. I'm sending this message out because a graduate student at De Haagse Hogeschool reached out on WP:Discord. Kasparas Litinskas is doing his graduate project on user engagement in large crowdsourced communities. It's part of a larger initiative to study and develop a data-structured language framework. As part of the project, he is conducting short interviews to understand the ways that administrators on Wikimedia sites operate and how they handle certain critical situations as well as the tools they use to tackle these problems.
If you are interested, please email him at kasparas.litinskasgmail.com.
Cheers! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Did they ask you to post their email out in the open? At the least I've put it in {{nospam}} to keep the bots off. Wug·a·po·des​ 03:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: They originally asked for volunteers from WP:Discord, but no one there responded. I then privately offered to post a message on this noticeboard as well as on wikidata, wiktionary, and meta for them. Before I submitted, I had them read the message over to which they approved. I followed up to ask if they were fine with having their email public, to which they understood and accepted. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Great, I expected as much just wanted to double check. Use of {{nospam}} is a good practice in these cases since most spam lists are made through simple web scraping. Wug·a·po·des​ 05:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

User talk:DuckeggAlex

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

---

I would like for one or more of you admins to look over this talk page, which is just full of warnings, of about a half a dozen kinds. Editors who have been involved with this editor include Diannaa, though I did not block for copyvios. But lengthy advice and mentoring has come from Mathglot, and other editors who have weighed in are Smeat75, Tarl N., Anglicanus, Eric, Jessicapierce, bonadea, NewEnglandYankee, Bradv, Leschnei, Tgeorgescu--the list goes on and on. The main reason I blocked, just now, is that the user continues to edit this one article while refusing to discuss anything at all on their talk page, or respond to basic questions. Their edit summaries are unclear and often insulting, and no substitute for engaging in conversation with other editors. They insert original research, personal opinion, don't cite reliable sources, etc. If you think this block was too harsh, I'd love to hear if you have any ideas of how to work with this editor who seems to want to contribute but for whatever reason isn't committing to basic rules of engagement. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse block The editor has 4,718 edits since starting in June 2018, yet has made only five edits outside article space, as seen here. Those five edits were this comment at Talk:Donald_Trump in July 2018 and four comments at a user talk page in December 2018. A lot of time has been spent by good editors commenting at User talk:DuckeggAlex with no feedback. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Drmies, I don't think this was too harsh at all. Their contributions to Catalan language are certainly problematic - every one of their edits have been reverted, some multiple times, and they have yet to make a single post to the talk page or respond to questions about them on their user talk. This situation is not unique - of their 4700 edits, only 5 are to talk pages, and not one of those is a response to the many concerns about their editing. This needs to change. – bradv🍁 04:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• (non-admin comment) Given mathglot's comment and PMC's diffs I'm pretty much convinced there's no doubt to sustain giving benefit of the doubt, so I'm just reiterating my support of the indef block. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC) I believe the block is appropriate, so in that sense I endorse. I do think a shorter block should be considered though. Despite all the warnings, they were never actually blocked before, and it seems Mathglot believes some of this user's contributions are productive. I think there's every possibility that after a block of a few weeks or months (where ironically the only edits they could make are to their talk page) the user could get the messages and begin to understand how and why to contribute more productively. I think an automatic standard offer by way of a 6 month block would turn out better than an indefinite community ban—it would probably be less bite-y and more likely to lead to positive change—even if the result is functionally the same. So endorse the indef, but suggest making it definite. Wug·a·po·des​ 05:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Wugapodes, they are not community-banned at all--they are blocked indefinitely until, as far as I am concerned, they pledge to engage in a constructive way. I'm not here at this forum to get a kind of community endorsement to make this a ban, not at all. Drmies (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    • @Drmies: Sorry if it seemed like I thought that was your intention. I only meant to point out that my understanding of WP:CBAN was that, if an indef block is upheld by the community at a forum like AN, it becomes a community ban. I know that point has been contentious in the past, and in this case I'm fine allowing admin discretion to unblock rather than an appeal to the community. Looking at PMC's diffs I'm less inclined to reduce the block than I was when I originally commented. Wug·a·po·des​ 14:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
      • User:Wugapodes, you have a point: a community-endorsed block has the power of a ban. It's not what I came here for (I came here because I was hoping I was right...), but you are correct. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• (non-admin comment) (and from a retired editor, at that) I think you did the right thing. The editor evidently read your talk page notice and responded obnoxiously in the edit comments. Forcing this editor to use their talk page to request reinstatement is the right approach. An edit by them on their own talk page would by itself would be a watershed event, hopefully opening the gateway to getting the editor to communicate with other editors. I would suggest that reinstatement not occur until they demonstrate they understand verifiability. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 06:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• Collaboration and communication is required. It's clear from this and this that the editor isn't interested in either. The block should remain until the editor decides to work with other users instead of against them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• (non-admin comment) Good use of indef but not infef, as people say, with a request for feedback here where there is some clear support, the user can now discuss the concerns and request unblock . Govindaharihari (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• @Wugapodes: I was going to just straight up close this as endorsed (I believe the 24 hour requirement only pertains to if we were actually going to be CBANning the individual, rather than providing a review requested by the admin, not the subject). However, because there is some discussion above I'm going to both confirm my viewpoint for a self-requested review not causing a CBAN unless specifically sought and agreed (with 24hrs etc), and my specific endorsement for an indef block pending engagement in this instance but not a CBAN Nosebagbear (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I think that's completely reasonable and I agree. This seems to be a part of CBAN that needs revising and potentially wider discussion. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• (non-admin comment) Sadly, this is deserved. I'm probably too much of a soft touch, even argued against a block some time back, though it was probably justifiable even back then. Alex is a very strange duck. This may be a case of CIR; the whole thing reminds me very much of Henia Perlman (talk · contribs), who I also spent a lot of time with, in the end to no avail. I don't doubt DuckeggAlex is knowledgeable, and wishes to improve the encyclopedia. He is able to learn, albeit it slowly, as his total non-use or misuse of <ref> tags has definitely improved, after much instruction and badgering. Yet his editing left a wake of articles that needed to be looked at for possible repair, resulting in this worksheet, just to manage it. In one way, DuckeggAlex stands out, possibly uniquely in my experience: namely, in having withstood three large rollbacks at Roman diocese of 18kb, 40kb, and 130kb, and then even apologizing "for making so much trouble" (see this edit) after having hundreds of his edits over months rolled back with nary a cross word in response. I don't know that I would have reacted with such equanimity. Still, that doesn't really mitigate his other actions, and especially, his lack of communication, which he needs to improve. This will be a good test of that. Mathglot (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• (non-admin comment)Endorse block This should have been done long ago imo.User:Mathglot has made effort after effort to communicate basic policies to Alex to no avail. He almost never even responds and has put masses of OR into numerous articles.Smeat75 (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• (non-admin) Comment – One other thing: I strongly suspect there are two registered socks (and two unregistered) of this user. None have recent edits, and I suspect they were simply abandoned because of forgotten passwords, so no nefarious intent. Just mentioning it while the iron is hot, in order to link them to this discussion, although it seems like an SPI now would be a waste of investigators' time. In any case, see this section for the list of users if interested. Mathglot (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Suspicious account creation

Capper2725 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created at 11:32 today, and immediately created Cappers7263ga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The first account has no edits to date, the second a self-reverted bit of nonsense. This strikes me as suspicious behaviour. Does it ring any bells with anyone? DuncanHill (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• No, but I see this all the time, this double account creation. It'd be better if we had some rule where you couldn't create a second account until you're auto-confirmed or something. Ha, or if you couldn't at all. I have yet to see one of these dual accounts do something useful. Drmies (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, it does seem odd to me that brand-new accounts seem to be able to create more new accounts willy-nilly, and not something we should allow. DuncanHill (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a place for class instructors and event coordinators to be able to create new accounts, even if their own accounts are new. However, the event coordinator right (which allows creation of multiple accounts) can be granted as needed. Perhaps the right to create accounts should be treated as an advanced right, with review before granting. - Donald Albury 15:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• I used to patrol new account creation from time to time, and I've seen this kind of two-account thing quite a lot, usually with at least one of the accounts not subsequently used. At one stage I wondered if there might a common explanation for it, perhaps based on some sort of misunderstood procedure, but I never came up with any idea. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

  In 2011 we had a discussion similar to this, albeit primarily to deal with a now-gone LTA, here, but we couldn't talk the developers into implementing it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

At least one of those accounts should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Accounts can't be deleted. ST47 (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Impersonation of Kevin Gorman? - Blocked LocanLmme8

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

---

• LocanLmme8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Duck with a megaphone for socking/trolling ([26], [27]), but not too familiar with these so thought I'd ask someone else to review it. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

YReviewed, TPA revoked, etc. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Arbitration motion regarding Antisemitism in Poland

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 2 of Antisemitism in Poland ("Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek interaction-banned") is renamed Icewhiz banned from interacting with Volunteer Marek and amended to read:

Icewhiz (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from interacting with or commenting on Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 02:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Antisemitism in Poland

Arbitration motion regarding Portals (temporary injunction)

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) and Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) are prohibited from editing in the Portal: namespace or engaging in discussions about portals, with the exception of arbitration case pages, until this case is concluded.

For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 03:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Portals (temporary injunction)

Adminbot discussion open

Hello, a new adminbot request has been opened at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ST47ProxyBot. This is for a bot that will block IP's that it detects to be open proxies. If you have feedback or questions about this task, please follow up at the BRFA. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 14:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Why no ban?

Why isn't Wikimedia Foundation handing out bans Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bidhan Singh. If they're not able to do so, for some technical reason? Please clarify. I think there's enough evidence, to possibly track down the source of those disruptive edits. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're asking about why the WMF isn't doing something here. Surely it's far better to approach a relevant staff member directly. But anyway, the obvious first question is, do they even know? I see some suggestion on the LTA talk page of contacting the WMF, but no indication it actually happened. Also this was back in August. So even if it happened soon after, it would be August at the earliest. WMF bans often take time, 4 months is a resonable stretch but not that long and that's assuming the WMF were notified soon after you suggested it. Nil Einne (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

BTW, remember that there's often no benefit for WMF ban's of LTAs. If the WMF plan to make reports to ISPs, perhaps a wMF ban would be useful for them, but otherwise often not because there's no doubt to anyone on wikipedia that the editor cannot edit and has little chance of being allowed to in the future. Nil Einne (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

It's just that these types of vandalism from the same individual, has been occurring for seven years. I assumed an administrator or arbitrator (anybody with the tools or know how) would've reported it by now. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

LTA that clearly violates Terms of Use may be reported to T&S.--GZWDer (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Generation X

Despite repeated attempts to get Kolya Butternut to bend, I am making no headway. Nor is any other contributor.

A quick view of the (unfortunately heated) talk page will reveal that I have met a man who is proud of his work, but not necessarily open to reason. The Oxford/Cambridge header in the talk page says it all.

The issue is self-explanatory, and the article is wrong. Everyone agrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanoi Road (talk • contribs) 18:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) - I think this would likely get closed/moved, but as I'm not an admin, I'll just comment. This isn't the place for this type of topic, see either the incidents board for bad faith edits, or WP:AN/3 for three revert-rule violations. It should be noted that there are only two editors on the thread, and I didn't see any 3RR violations from the editor on a very quick scan.

Oh, and it's usually best practice to {{Ping}} an editor when talking about them. Hanoi Road. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Not commenting on the content dispute, but the talk archives are messed up; one bot created archive 6 but the current bot is archiving to archive 3. Makes it hard to figure out all of the red-linked and IP accounts. I can't believe I wasted 30 minutes figuring it out. Can an experienced user correct the bot issue? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Hanoi Road has (unsurprisingly) not presented our discussion accurately. This six-section talk page discussion begins here. I have attempted to build off of User:Cullen328's edits to improve the lead.[28] Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)