Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
|||
Line 181: | Line 181: | ||
::{{unblock|1=I would greatly appreciate an extra set of eyes on this block as I believe the issue at play is complicated. I certainly admit to engaging in highly focused editing without bots/scripts to replace deprecated sources with a {{citation needed}} tag or removing them when there are other sources already cited. Is this approach against policy? I do my best to analyze the wording of the statement in which the deprecated source in question is used so that it does not fall within an acceptable use of it such as [[WP:ABOUTSELF]]. I have felt that when dealing with deprecated sources with a well-documented history of outright disinformation and fabrications such as RT, [[WP:NOW]] is of the utmost importance. Additionally, deprecated sources often do not have a simple "replacement" and the {{citation needed}} tag affords others the chance to analyze the statement in question as there may then be heavy revisions or removal required. Also, for this particular issue, I thought I had engaged with the editor in question on my talk page in good faith and saw that the fully deprecated source (RT in this case on the article for Anthony Hudson) was ultimately removed by them. I moved on because I assumed good intentions and that, at most, there might have been a misunderstanding on the nature of the [[WP:DEPS]] policy. That has happened before and it never caused me a block. It would be helpful to have some additional clarification here so as to educate myself on how to move forward in the most policy-compliant manner. Thanks.}} |
::{{unblock|1=I would greatly appreciate an extra set of eyes on this block as I believe the issue at play is complicated. I certainly admit to engaging in highly focused editing without bots/scripts to replace deprecated sources with a {{citation needed}} tag or removing them when there are other sources already cited. Is this approach against policy? I do my best to analyze the wording of the statement in which the deprecated source in question is used so that it does not fall within an acceptable use of it such as [[WP:ABOUTSELF]]. I have felt that when dealing with deprecated sources with a well-documented history of outright disinformation and fabrications such as RT, [[WP:NOW]] is of the utmost importance. Additionally, deprecated sources often do not have a simple "replacement" and the {{citation needed}} tag affords others the chance to analyze the statement in question as there may then be heavy revisions or removal required. Also, for this particular issue, I thought I had engaged with the editor in question on my talk page in good faith and saw that the fully deprecated source (RT in this case on the article for Anthony Hudson) was ultimately removed by them. I moved on because I assumed good intentions and that, at most, there might have been a misunderstanding on the nature of the [[WP:DEPS]] policy. That has happened before and it never caused me a block. It would be helpful to have some additional clarification here so as to educate myself on how to move forward in the most policy-compliant manner. Thanks.}} |
||
:I endorse this block (but as I am one of the multiple editors who asked you to stop previously, and also called for you to be blocked at ANI, I am probably too involved to respond to the unblock request). You are making several removals a minute – clearly not enough time to properly review them, so I can't see how the 'I do my best to analyze the wording of the statement' claim is true. Also, in many cases a replacement source can be easily found, but you're making no effort to do so. You've been asked by multiple editors to stop and ignored them all. You're also likely to be blocked again if you restart the same behaviour, so perhaps actually take on board the comments this time. [[User:Number 57|<span style="color: orange;">Number</span>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<span style="color: green;">5</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<span style="color: blue;">7</span>]] 14:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC) |
:I endorse this block (but as I am one of the multiple editors who asked you to stop previously, and also called for you to be blocked at ANI, I am probably too involved to respond to the unblock request). You are making several removals a minute – clearly not enough time to properly review them, so I can't see how the 'I do my best to analyze the wording of the statement' claim is true. Also, in many cases a replacement source can be easily found, but you're making no effort to do so. You've been asked by multiple editors to stop and ignored them all. You're also likely to be blocked again if you restart the same behaviour, so perhaps actually take on board the comments this time. [[User:Number 57|<span style="color: orange;">Number</span>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<span style="color: green;">5</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<span style="color: blue;">7</span>]] 14:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
:: I believed the issue had been discussed at length by many, including yourself, here ([[Wikipedia_talk:Deprecated_sources#Proposed_clarification_of_deprecated_sources_guidelines]] most recently and was more complex than simply "replacing" a fully deprecated source with a reliable one. Unfortunately, with a deprecated source with a well-documented track record of disinformation, it is seldom an straightforward swapping out of sources. Replacing a fully deprecated source with a {{citation needed}} tag seemed like a path forward. I also read [[WP:ONUS]] and [[WP:BURDEN]] and thought that my actions entailed that the burden and onus was not on those removing a deprecated source, but rather on those seeking to maintain its inclusion. I could be wrong on my reading on WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN, and would appreciate clarification on this general matter. [[User:Amigao|Amigao]] ([[User talk:Amigao#top|talk]]) 14:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
==Disambiguation link notification for December 28== |
==Disambiguation link notification for December 28== |
Revision as of 14:55, 28 December 2020
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Teresa Wat Edit Warring
Hi, you seem to be edit warring with User:Wikisilver0000 regarding changes at Teresa Wat. Per WP:EDITWAR, You are required to discuss with the other editor when there is disagreement and reach a compromise or consensus. You may be blocked if you continue to edit war. Jumpytoo Talk 04:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Deprecated source removal
It's great that you help with deprecated sources... as DEPREC says, they are generally unreliable, but can be used for some things. But overall we want them all replaced. Replaced is key here. We don't want removal with nothing in its place. When you remove the source, first find a good replacement and exchange the bad for the good source. If you can't find a good source replacement then either leave it or remove it but place a template that says it needs a source. The worst is to simply remove it and leave nothing as you did with 2020 US Open – Women's Singles. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Deprecated source removal
Please find a better source before removing a source and leaving nothing in its place. If you can't find any better ones then either leave it or remove it but place a template that says it needs a source. The worst is to simply remove it and leave nothing as you did with Allied Democratic Forces insurgency and 2020 Democratic Republic of the Congo massacres. Wowzers122 (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Good point and duly noted. Amigao (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yet you continue to remove sources, there's a template to place beside bad sources {{Deprecated inline|certain=yes}}. The latter parameter ensures there is no question mark, since this is a verified bad source. BFG (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Deprecated sources can still be removed just not indiscriminately per WP:DEPS. Each is reviewed for context prior and some do remain. Amigao (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- The policy says very distinctively it's not a retroactive ban. Removing a source and leaving nothing in it's place is way worse than having an unreliable source, of course marked as such. An unreliable source leaves context which can be used to find a suitable replacement. If you positively determine a statement is unverifiable, then you should rather go ahead and remove it. BFG (talk) 12:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Deprecated sources can still be removed just not indiscriminately per WP:DEPS. Each is reviewed for context prior and some do remain. Amigao (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yet you continue to remove sources, there's a template to place beside bad sources {{Deprecated inline|certain=yes}}. The latter parameter ensures there is no question mark, since this is a verified bad source. BFG (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure why you keep removing one of my citations on Tim Naish page. It is a legitimate reference. I would appreciate it is you go to my talk page and explain your thinking. Thanks Realitylink (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Unresponsive editing
Hi Amigao,
- Regarding bot-like mass editing:
- Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity. For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that are a) contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked.
- Users who read messages or edit summaries from bots will generally expect a high standard of cordiality and information, backed up by prompt and civil help from the bot's operator if queries arise. Bot operators should take care in the design of communications, and ensure that they will be able to meet any enquiries resulting from the bot's operation cordially, promptly, and appropriately.
- Discussion is called for, [...] if you think the edit might be controversial or if someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by reverting your edit and/or raising an issue on the talk page).
- Fait accompli actions, where actions are justified by virtue of being already carried out, and difficult to reverse, are inappropriate.
- When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion.
In a nutshell: Please respond to people raising concerns on your user talk page, before making any further similar edits, or you may be blocked from editing to avoid further disruption.
Your edits may well be fine; I made similar edits a while ago. However, when people approached me about them, I took the time to write friendly, detailed answers and eventually stopped making these edits due to the concerns. Refusing to respond to concerns about your mass edits, and discussion-less restoration of reverted mass edits, are not acceptable.
Thanks and best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Pursuant to the above message as well as requests by multiple users to include (Fyunck(click)), you should not be performing 50 WP:DEPREC edits in the span of even a few hours, as this was beyond the pale. Pinging @ToBeFree:, it is telling that your first-ever post on your own user talk was made this Monday evening (UTC), despite having edited here since 2009. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- If there's policy stating that a certain frequency of WP:DEPREC edits is somehow "beyond the pale," please refer to it and I will be happy to adjust appropriately. Amigao (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- ^^The above facetious attempt at a blatant deflection is against the spirit of WP:BOTCOMM. You know very well I did not revert your other recent edit on the same page, the "beyond the pale" descriptor applied to the most recent removal. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why WP:BOTPOL is being referenced here since no bots were in play here. Amigao (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, so ToBeFree posted the above message for absolutely no reason, then? Seems like an WP:AN/I thread on your non-collaborative conduct is in order. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why WP:BOTPOL is being referenced here since no bots were in play here. Amigao (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm going to add that you have been tagged repeatedly in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Mass removal of content on China-related articles in the last 48 hours in a discussion started specifically over your mass edits, so it should be abundantly clear that people are taking issue with your current editing practices, and the very least you could do is respond. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- ^^The above facetious attempt at a blatant deflection is against the spirit of WP:BOTCOMM. You know very well I did not revert your other recent edit on the same page, the "beyond the pale" descriptor applied to the most recent removal. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the edits of Amigao are out of control and not reflecting general norms and policies on this site. There seems to be a consistent problem here. He is violating the three revert rule and being unresponsive to those who are upset. (SupplyRoute (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC))
Deprecated source removal 3
Per Wikipedia:Deprecated sources#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources, source depreciation is not a blanket ban, and there are reasonable uses for using them, for example in articles specifically about the propaganda mouthpiece, or in articles about propaganda related to the mouthpiece. Indiscriminate tagging such as this is counter-productive, in my opinion. This article is specifically about Chinese propaganda, of course it would need to cite what Chinese propaganda outlets say. --benlisquareT•C•E 23:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed with your reversion as this article is specifically about propaganda/disinfo, as you pointed out. Amigao (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Violation of three revert rule
You have violated the three revert rule by removing efforts to add books and citations to a page. (SupplyRoute (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC))
Abuse of deprecated source removal 4
Please do not abuse the Deprecated source removal tool as each case is individually unique, hence requires to be reviewed properly to the point case by case. You repeatedly removed the reference in the 1987 Lieyu massacre article originated from the official archive of Nanhua county (General Zhao's home town), Yunan province, whereas his families on both states never denounces the source and the fact of referred personnels either. It is inappropriate to exclude every single information from an open resource such as Baidu Encyclopedia without examination, only because its average evaluation rate as unreliable, otherwise even Wikipedia would be subjected to mass deletion by your same logics. Sincerely, Mickie-Mickie (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion converted to PROD: International Mayor Communication Centre
Hello Amigao. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on International Mayor Communication Centre to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. KillerChihuahua 16:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Telesurv
Hello. Could you make an effort to find a replacement source when you delete Telesurv references rather than just tagging it with [citation needed]? Thanks, Number 57 18:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Number 57: Hello. This assumes there is source replacement for the statement in question, which is not something we can automatically assume when dealing with sources that the community has decided to deprecate. WP:GOODFAITH is important here and that's why a [citation needed] tag is appropriate. Amigao (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Number 57: This has been a recurring problem. There is no way that with their WP:BOT-like speed of editing they have strived to find replacement sources for each removal. An (Article) namespace partial block may be looming. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- @CaradhrasAiguo: I'd suggest raising at WP:ANI and I will support a topic ban on source removals without replacement if Amigao does not commit to it themselves. Number 57 20:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Issues with Global Times
Hi there I am uncertain about why Global Times is not an acceptable reference point. I can see from their Wikipedia page that they are a voice for the Communist Party, but the citation in the article for Tim Naish is somewhat perplexing as it does not in any way indicate bias or propaganda. Naish is a respected scientist in New Zealand and unless the information was taken without his permission, I see no reason to judge his call to allow Global Times to publish it. Surely even on sites like this, we can have the discretion to read any citation carefully before posting - as I did in this case - and make a call ourselves? I am really interested in the process here. Editors need to have lots of discussions and I agree in principle with the policy. Greg Realitylink (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- The entry on Global Times at WP:RSP has an overview of the source and links to the discussion around why it was fully deprecated. WP:DEPS also provides guidance on when a fully deprecated source can be used. For example: WP:ABOUTSELF. Amigao (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that.Realitylink (talk) 07:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Removing short descriptions
Hi, Amigao. I noticed that you removed the short descriptions from two articles (Axios (website) and Global Times) but you didn't provide an explanation. I'm curious why you did that. Thanks – Anne drew 23:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hello. In both cases, the Wikidata page description was either the same or a bit more precise/accurate than the one on the Wikipedia article. In such cases, the Wikidata description becomes the default that appears. Hope that helps. Amigao (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Deprecated sources
Hi Amigao, thanks for your work with deprecated sources. Can you please review these edits ([1], [2], [3])? I think these uses of Sputnik might fall under acceptable use guidelines. The concern with Sputnik has been that they are biased and publish Russian propaganda, which is hardly the case in the examples I provided which are all very uncontroversial. For uncontroversial cases, I believe we should replace Sputnik references with other ones rather than removing them.Alaexis¿question? 10:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- FYI, I've raised this as a general issue at Wikipedia_talk:Deprecated_sources. I hope it doesn't come across as personal, I believe that this is an important issue and that the community would benefit from clearer guidelines. Alaexis¿question? 20:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Turkish diaspora
Hi Amigao, I've previously seen the Sputnik new agency used as a source in many wiki articles, so I wanted to understand the reasoning behind your removal of this source in the Turkish diaspora article. Could you please let me know what makes it inappropriate here but ok someplace else? I wanted to make sure I'm following all wiki rules. Thanks in advance. Sseevv (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- The entry on Sputnik at WP:RSP has an overview of the source and links to the discussion around why it was fully deprecated. WP:DEPS also provides guidance on when a fully deprecated source can be used, for example: WP:ABOUTSELF. Amigao (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
People's Daily
You need to verify that the People's Daily post actually claims what Palmer claims, and not blindly trust Foreign Policy or Palmer to accurately represent their quotings. Here is the actual verbiage from the post:
#COVID19 did not start in central China’s Wuhan but may come through imported frozen food and packaging: experts... According to an earlier Italian study, antibodies specific to Sars-CoV-2, the official name of the coronavirus, were found in blood samples collected in a lung cancer screening trial between September 2019 and March this year.
It is a stretch to interpret this as a claim of a Western origin of SARS-nCoV-2 in the voice of PD, only that PD is claiming that it did not originate in Wuhan.
As to your second, poorly explained wording attempt, you need WP:MEDRS to demonstrate definitively that there is little to no possibility of an importation, not Palmer's partisan assessment. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- WP:MEDRS applies to medical claims, not claims regarding simply the text that a newspaper published. Also, no claim of "Western" origin was made in the statement, only that it was "imported." Big difference. Amigao (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- No, WP:MEDRS applies to any claims on the origin of a virus, which is what this is about. And, this is what Palmer is quoted as:
Propaganda push. Beijing is doubling down on its big lie of 2020: the claim that the new coronavirus didn’t originate in China but was instead imported from the West
- CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Not quite. This is a statement regarding a newspaper making a claim about the origins of the virus. There's a difference. Regarding the claim itself, it just happens to be a well-documented piece of misinformation, which is why it is on misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic in the first place. Amigao (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- WP:MEDRS does not make exceptions for statements regarding newspaper claims (in this case, Palmer's false reporting). Onus in on you to demonstrate to the contrary.
well-documented piece of misinformation
No it is not, the misinformation mentioned in that section before your edits today is relating to: 1) U.S. army or government bio-engineering; 2) mis-representation of Remuzzi's reporting. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)- Incorrect. See the first paragraph in the sub-section "Origin of Virus". Amigao (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is an inexplicable failure of reading comprehension. All three non-opinion refs (CNN, WaPo Shih, AFP) are about U.S.-related conspiracy theories. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- They are about a particular conspiracy theory that blames the U.S. for the origin of the virus, to be precise here. Also, might be worth reviewing WP:NPA. Amigao (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- That, as you are fully aware, is separate from claims of the virus being introduced via imported meats, which is what the aforementioned PD post is about. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- They are about a particular conspiracy theory that blames the U.S. for the origin of the virus, to be precise here. Also, might be worth reviewing WP:NPA. Amigao (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is an inexplicable failure of reading comprehension. All three non-opinion refs (CNN, WaPo Shih, AFP) are about U.S.-related conspiracy theories. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Incorrect. See the first paragraph in the sub-section "Origin of Virus". Amigao (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Not quite. This is a statement regarding a newspaper making a claim about the origins of the virus. There's a difference. Regarding the claim itself, it just happens to be a well-documented piece of misinformation, which is why it is on misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic in the first place. Amigao (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Reliable sources
Hi @Amigao: I really appreciate your valuable contributions re Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I believe the following discussion is relevant to your work. It would be great if you could take a look and provide your insight. Thanks.
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Xinhua_News_Agency
Normchou (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. More so than Xinhua, China Daily is known for propaganda and disinformation campaigns. Amigao (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input. It would be great to have a discussion in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard on China Daily as well. Normchou (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- It came up a few months ago here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_305#China_Daily and it seems there might be some interest in an RfC on it. Amigao (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input. It would be great to have a discussion in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard on China Daily as well. Normchou (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
December 2020
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Anthony Hudson (football manager), did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You seem to have a real issue with your editing. You're so keen to just remove stuff that you are willing to edit war? You've been told before that while you can remove links, it's best to provide a new source and tag old links.
Also surely you know WP:BRD, so you edited, I reverted, why are you doing it again? I think your editing needs to be looked at by admins NZFC(talk)(cont) 13:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Fully deprecated sources removed are replaced with a [citation needed] tag when appropriate. In this case, there is another source to back up the statement being made. The entry on RT at WP:RSP has an overview of the source and links to the discussion around why it was fully deprecated. WP:DEPS also provides guidance on when a fully deprecated source can be used, for example: WP:ABOUTSELF. In this particular case, WP:ABOUTSELF is not applicable. Amigao (talk) 13:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- So this shows that you aren't checking before you remove things, otherwise you would have realised the other link is dead so you've gone and left the article with no reference instead.
- This assumes there actually is a replacement reference for the statement in question, which is not something one can automatically assume when dealing with sources that the community has decided to fully deprecate such as RT for very good reasons (see: WP:RSP). That's why a [citation needed] tag is left if it's the sole source being used out of good faith and an abundance of caution. In the particular case of Anthony Hudson, the deprecated source was never the sole source being used in the statement in question and there was another perfectly good link that was left in place. Apparently, it was a dead link that just needed to be repaired. I'm certainly not checking every article I edit for WP:LINKROT as I don't think anyone would consider that reasonable. Amigao (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- So this shows that you aren't checking before you remove things, otherwise you would have realised the other link is dead so you've gone and left the article with no reference instead.
Your editing doesn't help just removing stuff if it leaves articles worse off. NZFC(talk)(cont) 13:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NZFC(talk)(cont) 13:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Warning
While your editing is within the letter of WP:Deprecated, it gives the appearance of not paying attention and editors are concerned about the bot-like rate at which you are removing depreciated sources. Please stop these removals and discuss these editors' concerns before continuing and if and when you resume please do so at a more careful pace. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. While I do focused editing, I make an effort to assess the wording of the statement in which a fully deprecated source is used to ensure that is not one of the very few acceptable uses of it (such as WP:ABOUTSELF). In cases where a fully deprecated source is the sole citation being used for a statement, it is replaced with a {{citation needed}} tag, which assumes good faith about the statement and it also permits others the opportunity to research and assess the validity of that statement. When dealing with a fully deprecated source like RT (one with a well-documented history of outright fabrications and disinformation - see:WP:RSP), perhaps that is overly generous at times but I feel it strikes the right balance in assuming good faith. Amigao (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying. The problem with this is that you are removing the link and placing a {{citation needed}} tag - which is your editing producing additional work for other editors. It's much better if in removing the depreciated source, you also add a replacement reference instead of a CN tag. Also there are concerns about the rapid pace of these removals - a look at your contributions page shows a rate of removals that is almost bot-like, which raises concerns that the removals are in fact being checked as appropriate.
- I would suggest that, when you resume editing, you engage the editors who have concerns about these removals (in the AN/I thread or elsewhere as appropriate) before resuming these removals, and come to a consensus on what balance should be struck between outright removal, replacement, and remembering that there is no deadline for removal. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank for discussing this. I certainly engage in highly focused editing (often on a particular source that the community decided to fully deprecate) and I'm happy to slow it down. However, it is worth noting that when dealing with a fully deprecated source with a history of outright fabrications, unfortunately one cannot assume that there are simply "replacement" references that can be slotted in. That's why a good-faith approach involves a [citation needed] tag when the fully deprecated source is the sole source in question. That approach affords others the opportunity to continue to assess the underlying statement in question, which may then require significant revision or sometimes removal. Also, for transparency, the issue has been raised and discussed in WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_317#Mass_removal_of_content_on_China-related_articles previously and the [citation needed] tag was raised as an acceptable replacement for a fully deprecated source. Amigao (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Also some relevant discussion here as well Wikipedia_talk:Deprecated_sources#Proposed_clarification_of_deprecated_sources_guidelines on the same underlying issue. Amigao (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- I would suggest that, when you resume editing, you engage the editors who have concerns about these removals (in the AN/I thread or elsewhere as appropriate) before resuming these removals, and come to a consensus on what balance should be struck between outright removal, replacement, and remembering that there is no deadline for removal. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
December 2020
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. The Bushranger One ping only 22:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Amigao (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I would greatly appreciate an extra set of eyes on this block as I believe the issue at play is complicated. I certainly admit to engaging in highly focused editing without bots/scripts to replace deprecated sources with a <sup class="noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact" style="white-space:nowrap;">[<i>[[Wikipedia:Citation needed|<span title="This claim needs references to reliable sources.">citation needed</span>]]</i>]</sup> tag or removing them when there are other sources already cited. Is this approach against policy? I do my best to analyze the wording of the statement in which the deprecated source in question is used so that it does not fall within an acceptable use of it such as [[WP:ABOUTSELF]]. I have felt that when dealing with deprecated sources with a well-documented history of outright disinformation and fabrications such as RT, [[WP:NOW]] is of the utmost importance. Additionally, deprecated sources often do not have a simple "replacement" and the <sup class="noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact" style="white-space:nowrap;">[<i>[[Wikipedia:Citation needed|<span title="This claim needs references to reliable sources.">citation needed</span>]]</i>]</sup> tag affords others the chance to analyze the statement in question as there may then be heavy revisions or removal required. Also, for this particular issue, I thought I had engaged with the editor in question on my talk page in good faith and saw that the fully deprecated source (RT in this case on the article for Anthony Hudson) was ultimately removed by them. I moved on because I assumed good intentions and that, at most, there might have been a misunderstanding on the nature of the [[WP:DEPS]] policy. That has happened before and it never caused me a block. It would be helpful to have some additional clarification here so as to educate myself on how to move forward in the most policy-compliant manner. Thanks. |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=I would greatly appreciate an extra set of eyes on this block as I believe the issue at play is complicated. I certainly admit to engaging in highly focused editing without bots/scripts to replace deprecated sources with a <sup class="noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact" style="white-space:nowrap;">[<i>[[Wikipedia:Citation needed|<span title="This claim needs references to reliable sources.">citation needed</span>]]</i>]</sup> tag or removing them when there are other sources already cited. Is this approach against policy? I do my best to analyze the wording of the statement in which the deprecated source in question is used so that it does not fall within an acceptable use of it such as [[WP:ABOUTSELF]]. I have felt that when dealing with deprecated sources with a well-documented history of outright disinformation and fabrications such as RT, [[WP:NOW]] is of the utmost importance. Additionally, deprecated sources often do not have a simple "replacement" and the <sup class="noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact" style="white-space:nowrap;">[<i>[[Wikipedia:Citation needed|<span title="This claim needs references to reliable sources.">citation needed</span>]]</i>]</sup> tag affords others the chance to analyze the statement in question as there may then be heavy revisions or removal required. Also, for this particular issue, I thought I had engaged with the editor in question on my talk page in good faith and saw that the fully deprecated source (RT in this case on the article for Anthony Hudson) was ultimately removed by them. I moved on because I assumed good intentions and that, at most, there might have been a misunderstanding on the nature of the [[WP:DEPS]] policy. That has happened before and it never caused me a block. It would be helpful to have some additional clarification here so as to educate myself on how to move forward in the most policy-compliant manner. Thanks. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=I would greatly appreciate an extra set of eyes on this block as I believe the issue at play is complicated. I certainly admit to engaging in highly focused editing without bots/scripts to replace deprecated sources with a <sup class="noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact" style="white-space:nowrap;">[<i>[[Wikipedia:Citation needed|<span title="This claim needs references to reliable sources.">citation needed</span>]]</i>]</sup> tag or removing them when there are other sources already cited. Is this approach against policy? I do my best to analyze the wording of the statement in which the deprecated source in question is used so that it does not fall within an acceptable use of it such as [[WP:ABOUTSELF]]. I have felt that when dealing with deprecated sources with a well-documented history of outright disinformation and fabrications such as RT, [[WP:NOW]] is of the utmost importance. Additionally, deprecated sources often do not have a simple "replacement" and the <sup class="noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact" style="white-space:nowrap;">[<i>[[Wikipedia:Citation needed|<span title="This claim needs references to reliable sources.">citation needed</span>]]</i>]</sup> tag affords others the chance to analyze the statement in question as there may then be heavy revisions or removal required. Also, for this particular issue, I thought I had engaged with the editor in question on my talk page in good faith and saw that the fully deprecated source (RT in this case on the article for Anthony Hudson) was ultimately removed by them. I moved on because I assumed good intentions and that, at most, there might have been a misunderstanding on the nature of the [[WP:DEPS]] policy. That has happened before and it never caused me a block. It would be helpful to have some additional clarification here so as to educate myself on how to move forward in the most policy-compliant manner. Thanks. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
- I endorse this block (but as I am one of the multiple editors who asked you to stop previously, and also called for you to be blocked at ANI, I am probably too involved to respond to the unblock request). You are making several removals a minute – clearly not enough time to properly review them, so I can't see how the 'I do my best to analyze the wording of the statement' claim is true. Also, in many cases a replacement source can be easily found, but you're making no effort to do so. You've been asked by multiple editors to stop and ignored them all. You're also likely to be blocked again if you restart the same behaviour, so perhaps actually take on board the comments this time. Number 57 14:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- I believed the issue had been discussed at length by many, including yourself, here (Wikipedia_talk:Deprecated_sources#Proposed_clarification_of_deprecated_sources_guidelines most recently and was more complex than simply "replacing" a fully deprecated source with a reliable one. Unfortunately, with a deprecated source with a well-documented track record of disinformation, it is seldom an straightforward swapping out of sources. Replacing a fully deprecated source with a [citation needed] tag seemed like a path forward. I also read WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN and thought that my actions entailed that the burden and onus was not on those removing a deprecated source, but rather on those seeking to maintain its inclusion. I could be wrong on my reading on WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN, and would appreciate clarification on this general matter. Amigao (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of investigations into Donald Trump and Russia (July–December 2017), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)