Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
This user has been, since the beginning, changing every link related to Uyghurs -> Yugurs. Claiming Uyghurs are not descendants of the Uyghur Khaganate. While they're not fully, here [1] below it explains how Old Uyghurs are one of the people forming their ethnogenesis. It's not also true that Yugurs are "actual" descendants", since they're mixed with Mongolian ethnic groups.
So this user has been POV pushing since a while. Also has various edits against Turkish language as well. Removing relevant cognates in various topics. Haven't seem him putting once a sourced content, plus removing various stuff calling "fake information", etc.
@Red-tailed hawk: I'm not sure, but he has generally disruptive behaviour. I don't see him anywhere (sometimes he does copy paste from another article) putting a sourced content. Always removing and edit warring. Beshogur (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue this might already be covered. Historical revisionism regarding a race subject to genocide is typically a key part of that genocide itself, it seems to me that editing to delegitimize the Uyghurs' ethic history would fall under that. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, historical revisionism relating to the genetic history of the Uyghurs could be linked to this, but I've generally not seen this sort of specific rhetoric in the context of Uyghur genocide (though there is some rhetoric about mixed bloodlines adopted by the Chinese state). That the modern Uyghurs are not the direct descendants of the ancient Uyghurs (i.e. there was mixture of ethnic groups in the area) is a position that major historians of Xinjiang such as James Millward (see this for more citations) have taken. And Millward is not actually someone who denies any of the abuses in the region (it's quite the opposite, actually). That being said, nobody reputable (as far as I know) claims that modern Uyghurs are not descended at least in part from the Old Uyghur people who lived in the Uyghur Khaganate.
That being said, the specific claim that the Yugurs are the direct descendants of the Old Uyghurs is not something I have ever seen advocated for by anybody serious. To be frank, I have no clue if this is something common among Yugur nationalists, but I don't think it's something that's related to Uyghur genocide, broadly construed. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)16:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion: Proposal to Expand GS/uyghur to include the Uyghurs more broadly
Support as proposer. I believe that this expansion would allow for administrators to better handle disruption relating to the topic of Uyghurs more broadly. I believe that the expansion of this regime will save our community time and will prove for a more coherent way to protect Wikipedia from future disruption in this area. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)14:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is anyone able to provide diffs to show this is a widespread problem bigger than this one editor? It's not clear to me that the diffs above (POV pushing as they may be) are related to the Uyghur genocide without some serious leaps and dot joining. Do edits changing pre-14th century Uyghurs to Yugurs relate to the CCP line described in the RFA article? Happy to have this explained to me if I've misunderstood. I also don't think its good that a decision to expand these sanctions is buried in this AN/I filing. Can these discussion be moved to somewhere with more visibility? Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the part of your question around this being at ANI, a link to this discussion was posted to AN on September 4. I have no objection to CENT-listing this if you'd like, but I think that the notification at AN is more than sufficient for this sort of thing. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)05:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now we just need admins other than myself (and Girth) to actually make use of this sanctions regime. BTW, this is one of three sanctions regimes which I, personally, treat with utmost severity (the other two are WP:GENSEX and WP:CASTE). Ask me xwhy. El_C16:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think disruption surrounding a race subject to genocide should be expected beyond the articles directly related to the genocide. Giving the admins the tools to deal with that makes sense to me. FrederalSay Hi19:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Doug Coldwell and self-promotional editing
This started as a minor matter but soon a host of other problems were discovered. As a community, we should consider what it means if such a productive long-term contributor has produced so much content which, on closer inspection, was so problematic. For me, I was most surprised by Doug Coldwell's responses here, which some other contributors found to be severely problematic as well, and signaling either WP:IDNHT or just incompetence, with the result that there are quite a few editors calling for an indefinite block. There is no consensus for that, however, and given that a. the discussion has petered out somewhat and b. a GA/DYK ban has been decided on, it is time for this to be closed. Let us hope that Doug Coldwell will take some things to heart. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Doug Coldwell has repeatedly engaged in promotional editing, seeking to promote himself in articles. He first did this at Preparation (principle), initially in 2020, before being reverted by another editor [16]. Last month, he added it again, and I removed it [17]. Three days later, he added the same promotional material about himself again [18], before promptly being reverted by User:Praxidicae. I gave him a formal warning on his talk page that these promotional edits were unacceptable on August 20th [19]. I had hoped Doug had learned his lesson and would stop doing this. Alas, on September 1st he did it AGAIN, this time on Michigan eLibrary[20]. Clearly, nothing any regular editor says to Doug will convince him to stop using mainspace to promote himself, so I am seeking sanctions against him, or even just a warning from an administrator to stop his self-promotional edits. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a rather flagrant violation of MOS:SELFREF and WP:TONE, but those aren't conduct issues, and I'm not sure I buy this as PROMO. What's he promoting? His existence as a Wikipedia editor? If there's anything for AN/I to address here, it's a failure to communicate / subtle edit-warring. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)01:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's certainly him ignoring all attempts at communication, for starters, ignoring consensus that such edits are wholly inappropriate (as discussed at Talk:Preparation (principle)), and yes, editing promotionally about himself. I feel like it's pretty self-explanatory that adding photos and prose about yourself is not appropriate. Consider the following, which Doug added to Preparation (principle): A Wikipedian from the state of Michigan does this by visiting his local town library for reference books and searching through Google. He uses the interlibrary loan system to borrow books not at his local library. He says that with access to thousands of extra books this way it is like having the Library of Congress at his fingertips from where to borrow books. What is this cited to? Why, none other than an article in a local news organization about himself. And also adding the following photo and caption, which I am copying here verbatim. Wikipedia User Doug Coldwell prepares in creating a new article by surrounding himself with library reference books for research.The real reason we're at ANI, though, is that he has deliberately ignored any and all attempts at communication. Multiple editors including myself have communicated to him this behavior is unacceptable, and we're greeted with complete silence from Doug, while he continues editing elsewhere. This cannot continue. Communicating with other editors is not optional. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's the prose, and there's the picture. For both, there's obviously a WP:COI. That isn't disqualifying, but certainly means that Doug should be extremely careful and not do things like, you know, repeatedly reinstate something when others challenge it before finding consensus for it. That's good practice regardless, but when you have a COI not doing so is a recipe for disaster. Doug's been around a while and is clearly "here", so I don't really have a problem with him adding this stuff [one time]. The prose is IMO a bit much indeed, but it and [more so] the photo have a bit of early/mid-00s DIY Wikipedia feel to them. It's not bonkers to add a photo of someone doing research at a library to an article about that library, for example, and a line about researching for Wikipedia may have a place somewhere. The main thing is, again, he just shouldn't have reinstated any of the edits (and should've been using the talk page more). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 02:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am in agreement. Doug should be indefinitely blocked, to force him to communicate. He's actively editing as we speak while continuing to ignore all attempts at communication. He's either unable or unwilling to engage with other editors; either way, communication is not optional and at the point I believe a block is the only thing that he will respond to. If he then engages with the community and addresses the concerns here, the block can be lifted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Going to make a comment here about something related. Doug has repeatedly sent up GAs that are just not up to standard. While I've been able to salvage two, they required me rewriting a lot of prose, such as Talk:Mail chute/GA1. At Cone Mills (the article that has had four GA nominations), he failed to address prior concerns about missing content. Talk:Joshua Lionel Cowen/GA1 was sent to GAN with significant typos (including one of the last name of the subject), images of strange provenance, and other issues. I made these comments, which feel representative:
With all due respect, I feel like I'm a judge on a cooking competition—and, more often than usual, your offerings are undercooked in ways that are peculiar to you.
Unfortunately, he has not substantively engaged the quality issue, either here at ANI or at other user talk pages, nor has he engaged the self-promotion issue. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear anything has changed since 2007. Another user summed it up nicely then too: This is the second article I have seen by Doug Coldwell in two days. They are both empty pieces of nonsense, formed about a small fact, and bolstered by irrelevant references. This editor is seriously disruptive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson. I think we can all agree that Doug is probably writing in good faith but we require more competence than he's been able to demonstrate...PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The most immediate problem here is the failure to engage with other editors in a meaningful way, which makes it impossible to solve the other issues. I am inclined to try with a shot across the bow, to see if we can get him to actually talk to others. As such, I am about to block him for three days. Salvio21:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth noting that while it was 15 years ago, the ANI thread I referenced is still relevant, as are the ones in years after that, discussing this exact same behavior, failure to engage, failure to accept any criticism and demonstrating ownership, which isn't brought up directly here but should be as it's a large part of the problem and has resulted in massive amounts of nonsensical WP:OR to the tune of several hundred thousand bytes of text. PICKLEDICAE🥒 21:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I wholeheartedly agree that Doug's editing is problematic in more ways than one and I'm not trying to pre-empt any further action the community or another administrator may wish to take. I am merely hoping that we can get him to talk to us, to see if we can solve the problem without an indef block... Salvio21:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to reply to myself anyway, I didn't think your block was pre-empting anything. Though, I will say Doug's response to said block is...pretty bad. Sorry for any confusion. PICKLEDICAE🥒 21:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pasting your response to every single person that brought this up on your talk page isn't doing you any favors, Doug. Are you going to address the actual issues or not?
I'll be glad to discuss the problem What is the actual issue? I have to go to bed now, but if you will give me the issue I will reply tomorrow morning.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be glad to discuss the problem What is the actual issue? Have you considered reading the beginning of this thread...or your talk page? Or the many article talk pages where these problems have been neatly outlined for you? PICKLEDICAE🥒 22:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you didn't see the multiple times your edits were reverted with detailed edit summaries, or the talk page discussion at Talk:Preparation (principle), or the warning I posted on your talk page before you left me with no choice but to take this to ANI? That suggests a level of incompetence which would merit a WP:CIR block. Surely you can come up with a better excuse than that? How about, "I thought that the rules didn't apply to me because I have lots of GAs and DYKs" which appears to be the real reason? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused - so exactly why am I being pinged to this discussion? Trying to read through this extensive thread and its subthread this morning, still haven't caught up... Shearonink (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you got pinged, Doug is mass pinging editors familiar with his work to try and defend himself here. The gist of it is Doug did some self-promotional edits, ignored all attempts by editors to tell him not to do so, and didn't even engage here until he was blocked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Coldwell, the fact that you claim to not understand what the issue is, after it being explained to you over and over again is really quite concerning. Your fellow editors do not want you promoting yourself on Wikipedia with either text or images. Period. Your failure to acknowledge and respond to that basic criticism is powerful evidence that you are not a responsive, collaborative editor. Nobody cares about your FAs or GAs when you fail to respond to legitimate concerns about your self-promotional edits. Cullen328 (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its casual sentiments like "Nobody cares about your FAs or GAs" which make this page an awful place. It may come as a surprise to some in this thread that many users prefer to create article content and not seek out user interaction, a sentiment that many who frequent this page could benefit from. I hope Doug acknowledges and obliges the self-promotion issues, but I also hope that other editors in this thread reconsider their attitudes, which have resulted in repeated and unproductive sarcasm, insult and an exceptional lack of AGF. Aza24 (talk)05:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, Cullen's kinda right. You can have a lot of FAs or GAs, but if you continually promote yourself (and as Praxidicae has said, this goes back to at least 2007), your credibility gets weaker and weaker. Plus, WP:COMMUNICATE. ♠JCW555(talk)♠ 05:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're ignoring the context here, Aza24. 'Nobody cares about your GAs' seems like fair comment when someone's copy-pasted response at multiple venues to concerns about edit-warring and COI editing is 'look at all my GAs'. GirthSummit (blether)06:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am certainly ignoring context, but on purpose. I don't see why it's okay for any editor to disparage someone's genuine contributions to the encyclopedia, and the fact that it was done so casually (and subsequently approved by other editors) is all the more frustrating. This is already becoming a tangent from the topic at hand, though, so I will not press further. Aza24 (talk)06:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24, I should have phrased myself more precisely at the expense of brevity, and should have said, "nobody cares about your GAs or your FAs when discussing your self-promotional behavioral issues outside the GA/FA review process". The editor's recent comments are evidence that they do not understand, accept or take on board the criticism that has been offered. The editor could have put this issue to bed instantly by saying, "Yes, I recognize that some of my edits might be considered self promotional, and I promise to never do so again" But they have not done so. That is troubling. Cullen328 (talk) 06:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid the "I've had many thousands of edits/I've had FA-GA-DYK nominations, and that immunizes me against having to follow behavioral policies or guidelines" is a long discredited concept. Just ask the likes of MickMacNee or Lugnuts. Ravenswing 06:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The picture shown above was put in Preparation article and Michigan eLibrary (MeL) in Good Faith, because they demonstrated just that. It was for illustration purposes for the article. It was not an intentional self-promotion. As you can see in the hundreds of articles I have created I never do any kind of self-promotion. There has never been any complaints that I have done self-promotion. I would have thought with the 500 Did You Know articles there would have been some complaint. That also applies with the 234 Good Articles I have done. None of the GA reviewers have brought that up as an issue. It has only been an issue starting with the Preparation and MeL articles. If I had been doing self-promotion it would have showed up way before now.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 06:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have already told us exactly how many GAs you've had your hand in on. You have also already told us exactly how many DYKs you claim to have. Do you think that repeatedly trumpeting these accomplishments is the best way to convince us that you're not self-promoting? Ravenswing 06:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Coldwell, the discussion has moved well beyond any COI issue to the question of whether your judgment is such that the community can trust you to edit at all. Can you not see that this version [21] of your now-notorious Preparation (principle) article is absolutely inappropriate from top to bottom? -- that literally every sentence in it borders on the bizarre?
In the medical field, preparation is to decide what branch to pursue (i.e. aid, technician, nurse, doctor, specialist, scientist, dentist, veterinarian). One of the first steps might be to get some medical experience by being an assistant at a local hospital or volunteer medical technician. Another step could be to do research projects for doctors. Another step is to study on your own and do practice Medical College admission tests. Another step would be to apply as a student at a selection of several colleges and universities that would give the medical profession you are interested in. Another step could be to learn another language, like Spanish. Another step is to learn about financial aid options for financing medical school.
The reader is also told that
In vocational school, preparation is to get a skill for a career to be able to produce a lifetime income. Some of the courses involved to achieve this are in mechanics, woodwork, metal work, electricity, construction, photography, chemistry, and physics.
That weirdly narrow career advice is cited to an article called "True Tales of Peril and Heroism" published in 1913. Let me repeat that: 1913. EEng08:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My 500 Did You Know articles have been viewed by at least 2000 editors each. That means that over a million editors have seen these articles and none have put in a complaint that I was self-promoting in any of them.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This shockingly bad non-encyclopedic prose brought to light by EEng is just more evidence that we have a serious problem here. Perhaps we have a problem with the GA review process as well. Why would any editor experienced with GA and FA write so poorly? I have avoided that whole sideshow in recent years as a waste of time. Is there a more serious problem there? Doug Coldwell, please stop patting yourself on the back for your articles and page views. It is unseemly in this discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's just scratching the surface of how bad the Preparation (principle) page was. Looking at the AfD, EEng brought up other examples of frankly baffling writing. I really hope that EEng's suggestion that every one of Doug's article creations needs to be scrutinized doesn't need to come to fruition, but with how bad this page got, I really don't know. ♠JCW555(talk)♠ 08:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dough Coldwell, I just said that possible self-promotion is no longer the issue. You really appear to be incapable of comprehending anything anyone else says. I'll ask it again: can you really, at this late date, not see how bizarre your "preparation" article is (particularly the version I linked above)? EEng08:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng I'm wondering if we should propose a ban from Doug talking about how many GAs/FAs/DYKs he has so it would require him to focus on the substance of the complaints... PICKLEDICAE🥒 12:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Coldwell: You maths is faulty. There is no reason to think all editors are unique. Also do not confuse readers with editors. Most readers even if they notice problems do not comment or do anything. As a BLPN regular, I can say there are articles with significant BLP problems with higher view counts where no one has ever complained. When you are talking about multiple articles it gets more complicated, still I won't discuss this further since it's beside the point anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Coldwell: a hint, if people are concerned about self promotion, you bringing up how many GAs etc you have in nearly every response is actively harming your situation not helping it. It strongly suggest that you apparently do not understand what self promotion is and why it's harmful. While self promotion in talk page comments isn't such a big deal, since concerns have been raised over your self promotion in article space, the fact that your responses are so poor makes us think there is no hope for reform and so the only option may be some sort of sanction. Nil Einne (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that an Administrator should use this app https://sdzerobot.toolforge.org/gans to see how many Good Articles a particular editor has done before making any decisions on any proposals. Of course those that have made few or no Good Articles want to stop those that have made over 200 Good Articles. It looks like a case of jealousy, as those that have made few or no Good Articles wish they could do that but are not able to.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have some GAs myself, but unlike you I don't go around bragging about it in every comment I make, or acting like my GAs make me above the rules. I also don't commit copyright violations in my GAs or have them get deleted, unlike you. Quite frankly, I'm astounded you haven't been blocked again yet. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just quote you in bold here, for all to see:
It looks like a case of jealousy, as those that have made few or no Good Articles wish they could do that but are not able to.
We are well in truly in crazytown now. For the third time: do you, or do you not, see what's wrong with this [22] bizarre shitpile you nominated for GA? EEng15:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to want to block an editor who has many positive contributions to the project. It becomes a bit easier when they're using their contributions as a cudgel to silence those who have concerns about their conduct. Hi, I'm FrederalSay Hi16:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doug, your 200+ GAs and 500+ DYKs will not save you. And for the most part, they're not the area of concern here, either. Legitimate concerns have been raised with regards to your editing habits, and to downplay them as a case of jealousy is completely uncalled for. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 15:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doug, please stop. Are you familiar with the Streisand effect? People are now combing through your GAs and finding fault in them, even proposing limitations on you nominating. Please just address the argument. Etriusus (Talk)15:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Coldwell "Of course those that have made few or no Good Articles want to stop those that have made over 200 Good Articles." That is an unfounded and bizarre assertion/accusation. It shows a battlefield mindset. I have created zero Good Articles, and I don't want to stop anyone from creating more -- if the articles are truly good. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "self-promotional editing" is a very strange title (with very nasty implications) in light of the actual issue at hand here, which is that a guy who's written many hundreds of articles put a photo of himself in one of them. Granted, the way he did it was pretty silly, and my opinion is that he should leave it out (and probably shouldn't have put it in in the first place). And the edit-warring is clearly an issue, but framing this in the same way as some random UPE spam account seems confusing and counterproductive. jp×g12:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, jp×g, the title is appropriate in that he keeps trying to insert those photos in articles even after being told he shouldn't: this ANI was filed after his multiple attempts to add himself to Preparation (principle) were reverted with explanations of why they were inappropriate, most recently on August 17 and 21, and he added a nearly identical section to what he'd inserted in Preparation, complete with the picture above, to his expansion of Michigan eLibrary on September 1. It's the sheer persistence that's troubling here, along with the failure to engage editors who point out issues with anything but his GA and DYK stats. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at their most-recent article creation, Arthur P. Yateswas a pioneer and leader in railroad photography and He made an excellent reputation for himself as a railroad photographer and was considered the finest in the field in the world in the nineteenth century and early twentieth century. seems to be sourced to a self-published book from 1908, and an 1896 book published by the YMCA where the content consists entirely of quotations from an interview with Yates. I don't think that's properly sourced.
Looking at their most-edited articles led me to William Austin Burt and equatorial sextant, where Burt made the first equatorial sextant is tagged as dubious, and a 2020 message at Talk:Equatorial sextant/GA1 points out that there were equatorial sextants invented long before Burt, such as Flamsteed's 17th-century equatorial sextant. Burt had a patent for an equatorial sextant, you might call it "Burt's equatorial sextant", but not the first. The claim is sourced to some pretty dubious sourcing, including a biography of Burt written by one of his descendants. A similar issue occurred with Talk:Burt's solar compass/GA1. I question the notability of these articles.
William Austin Burt also makes the claim that his typographer (typewriter) was the first writing machine in America. This dubious claim is dubiously sourced to very old sources... "The replica has been since 1922 in the Smithsonian Institution" is sourced to a 1922 source, for example. Our article Typewriter#History give a different view.
Making a lot of articles is great, but they have to be accurate, and they have to be properly sourced. This strikes me as moving too fast and loose. In particular source selection seems lacking. I don't think Rhodo's proposal below really gets at the heart of the issues, and Doug's one-sentence reply -- in light of what else he's written here -- doesn't reassure me. Levivich23:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has been editing here less than 1 year I hold Good Articles in a particularly (and possibly over the top) high esteem so I am very concerned seeing someone adding the statement This library is the world's largest evaluated and organized Web based electronic library of online resources. with reference {{sfn|Davidsen|1997|pages=101-106}} at Michigan eLibrary (diff [23]) before nominating it for GA. It would be easy for someone to miss the fact that the information is from 25 years ago and think that it is currently true.Gusfriend (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I fear this is the problem with much of Doug Coldwell's editing: he indiscriminately pastes into articles any random junk that falls in his lap. Often the result is a rambling article with odd details -- superficially making sense, perhaps, but on closer examination full of inappropriate and outdated stuff. But once in a while the stars align and you get that "Preparation" monstrosity. EEng07:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doug's responses here are eerily reminiscent of Mathsci's bizarre self-aggrandizing non-sequiturs in the discussion that got him indeffed this past June. That is not a good trajectory to follow and if Doug doesn't get with the program now I can't see this ending up in anything besides a site-block eventually. JoelleJay (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Though I recall that Mathsci was banned mainly for harassing other editors, which Doug has not yet done. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Appologies to all if this is to soon to propose anything. I am concerned about the following here:
Seeing Preparation (principle) go from nominated for GA status to what is looking like a snow delete within 3 weeks.
The number of times that articles are repeatedly submit an article after initial rejection with minimal change.
Their lack of engagement with other editors on talk pages unless it is to do with GA/FA.
Their response that they can't be doing anything wrong because of their GA, FA and DYK work.
Their comment about GA reviewers.
After spending time thinking about it today an appropriate response I propose the following:
That user Doug Coldwell is prohibited from nominating articles for GA or FA status until after they have got a consensus on the article talk page.
This would require them to build a consensus both of the content of the pages that they are working on and the appropriateness of a GA/FA nomination. As always please feel free to disregard my idea.Removing proposalGusfriend (talk) 07:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC) 12:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Good Article nominations must have been appropriate, as why else did 234 of them get promoted to Good Article. Perhaps I paid off the reviewers. This app shows how many Good Articles an editor has made. https://sdzerobot.toolforge.org/gans Getting a consensus from those that have made few or no Good Articles doesn't make sense. How can those that have made few or no Good Articles give a consensus to the appropriateness of a potential Good Article? That's saying that the Good Article reviewers that do reviews on a regular basis, like the ones I mentioned above, are not competent or able to do a review on one of my GANs. That's saying that those who have made few or no Good Articles are a better judge than the reviewers that do Good Article reviews on a regular basis.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doug, please, stop digging. Multiple experienced editors are voicing, in good faith, their concerns regarding your edits and you continue to fail to engage meaningfully. Unlike before you are now talking, but you're still not listening. You reiterate the same argument, that there can't be anything wrong with your edits because you have multiple GAs. I am afraid we are in full WP:IDHT territory. Salvio09:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This targets the wrong thing. The issue is about self-promotion and communication, not directly about GAs and FAs. The terms of this proposal have simply led Doug to continue avoiding that issue and go on about the irrelevant issue of how many GAs he has contributed to and who makes the best reviewer. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning was that they seem to want to promote articles to GA status and this would require them to communicate with others about any concerns that they have including self promotion if they wish to continue to propose GAs as any concerns from other editors would stop it from getting consensus. Also, separately to the self promotion and lack of communication, several people have commented about the quality of some of Doug's nominations especially the preparation page.
I am more than happy for someone to come up with a different (and hopefully better) proposal with the hope that Doug doesn't talk himself into an indef ban. Gusfriend (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If self-promotion on an article is the issue, keep in mind that at least 2000 editors have looked at each one of my 500 Did You Knows. None of the 1,000,000 editors have brought up anything about self-promotion. I would think if I was self-promoting on articles on a regular basis that at least a few of these 1,000,000 would have said something. None have. That idea has only come up lately by these in this ANI. I believe an Administrator should use this app https://sdzerobot.toolforge.org/gans to check out what Good Articles these editors have and that will give an idea why they wish to stop someone that makes a lot of Good Articles. BTW, while these editors in this ANI are wasting their time trying to stop me from making Good Articles I just made another one. Check out William Buchanan (locomotive designer) that I turned into a Good Article this morning before breakfast. --Doug Coldwell (talk)— Preceding undated comment added 11:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Coldwell I have only been following this discussion tangentially, so am not fully up to speed with the proposals here. However, I think I can safely make this statement - in this context it does not matter how many Good Articles or DYKs you have. Nobody here is trying to stop someone that makes a lot of Good Articles, nor does having a large number of them make you somehow immune from Wikipedia policies or community norms. The fact that you seem to be unable to grapple with the issues presented here and merely parrot the same line is increasingly concerning. firefly ( t · c ) 11:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an interesting observation I have noted. The article I turned into a Good Article today is about a train locomotive designer. The previous 6 Good Articles I have recently made have to do with trains. The main instigator in these issues of this ANI is User:Trainsandotherthings. Perhaps just a coincidence. What are the odds?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
About the same as the odds that in that new GA, your sentence "he frequently did repair work on the historic DeWitt Clinton engine and passenger cars." and the source sentence "he frequently did repair work on the historic De Witt Clinton engine and cars." were arrived at independently? Fram (talk) 11:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fram, thanks for pointing that out -- I was the GA reviewer and I have not been spotchecking Doug's work for close paraphrasing. I'll go back and check the ones I've promoted to GA recently. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to remind everyone that there is presently an open CCI on Doug Coldwell; it has been open since early 2021. It is distressing to see continued issues with copyright, and that alone might merit a block. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wish I'd known about that before reviewing his articles; for experienced editors I only occasionally do source spotchecking, but I will have to do it for all Doug's work now. But should he even be nominating at GAN before the CCI is finished? I know nothing about the CCI process, but wouldn't it make more sense to insist that he help clean up the problems he caused before continuing to edit, particularly since we have at least a couple of examples that show the problem is continuing to happen? And even if the normal approach is to let an editor continue to edit, surely formal reviews of their work ought to include some way for the reviewer to know that the CCI existed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: CCI does not have the power to require an editor to clean up their own work, that would require a per-user community consensus, which we might pursue here. I've never seen an editor make a concerted effort of their own volition, as I recall. We also take a stance against having the CCI "follow them around" under the (incredibly optimistic) assumption that they will "go and sin no more" after it has been opened. Perhaps this is not always the case, but it has worked in past, especially with older edits from more established users. Something further is likely required here. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum19:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the information. I'm going to be doing random spotchecks of every GA I review from now on, as I suppose every GA reviewer should. I don't know what "something further" is, but I agree the current situation seems unsatisfactory. The problem is that, as anyone who reads a lot of Doug's articles can see, Doug loves doing obscure research and writing it up, and he is clearly capable of being a very valuable contributor, but on the other hand, it's not clear he fully understands why his work is being criticized. I hope we can find some way to respond to these issues that doesn't drive him away. I am about to start going through the seven GAs I recently reviewed of his; he has told me he's gone through them again to check for source problems and close paraphrasing, and if they come up clean this time that would be a very good sign. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: A not-insignificant part of it might be cultural; I will be the first to admit I'm significantly more likely to do extensive spot-checks on an editor with fewer nominations than an experienced one. This is even basically written into our FAC policy, wherein first-time noms should expect comprehensive spot-checking, and those with a few bronze stars in the bag rarely are. Have to be the change you want to see in the world, I suppose. I'll do a better job of it going forward as well. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum01:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug ColdwellEven if the filer of this report did notice the issue because of some overlap in editing interests, that does not in any way make the report deficient. There are multiple experienced editors here expressing concern with regards to conflicts of interest, edit warring and a failure on your part to engage constructively with those concerns. As Salvio said above, this is starting to seem like a disruptive refusal to get the point. firefly ( t · c ) 11:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as this proposal does not really make sense to me. What does it even mean to build consensus for a GA nomination on a talk page? Most of these articles are on fairly obscure subjects, and for many of them Doug is either the creator of the page or its only serious contributor in the last decade. Is the idea that he would be limited to creating a talk page section, and then sitting around twiddling his thumbs for fifteen years waiting for a second person to show up? It is true that Doug makes a lot of typos. It is also true that he half-asses the formatting on his references sometimes. However, I've reviewed seven of his GA nominations, and they were all passes, and they were all quite fascinating works of great detail that very few around here are capable of. They required copyediting, so I copyedited them, and passed them, because they were good articles, and the product of some very long hours poring over old newspapers and old books and interlibrary loans and bad OCR. I think that, at the absolute strictest, it may be condign to forbid Doug from renominating GAs without talk page consensus. If the proposal is to kick him out of nominating GAs, the proposal should say that, instead of some strange procedure that nobody else has to follow and is basically a guarantee of never being able to nominate. jp×g11:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The problem is communication, not really GA nominations; we need Doug to engage more meaningfully with people who find issue with his edits, and making it harder for him to nominate articles for GA won't help with that. Also, it seems Doug will need more explaining what is wrong with his edits (not an unreasonable thing to ask, given that he feels like he has edited very successfully for many years as attested by the GAs; I can imagine it to be mystifying when suddenly the fundamentals of his editing get attacked and everybody else expects him to understand why suddenly everything is different from what he thought it to be). A "no quick renominations" restriction would make more sense. —Kusma (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a "no quick renominations" restriction might make sense, though that doesn't actually address the reason why this thread is here. An example: I recently failed his GA nomination of Four-Track News; the GA review is here. It was failed because it only covered five years of a century-long history of the magazine. He renominated it immediately with four short extra sentences about the rest of the magazine's run, and the nomination was promptly removed by BlueMoonset, who posted this note on Doug's talk page. I can't tell whether Doug ever thought the reasons I failed the article were valid, but I should add he did post on my talk page to say he'd renominated it, and I promised to take a look at it (and had not done so till today) and I also found some more sources that could be used for the article. I agree with JPxG that most of Doug's work is completely unproblematic, but episodes like this are a concern. But to apply a restriction like that when that's not the issue that brought him here seems a bit harsh. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Given all the concerns addressed above, I agree with Phil Bridger, if communication is the issue, GA and FA nomination doesn't seem like the issue to address. Hi, I'm FrederalSay Hi16:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a painful discussion to read
What do we do with a long-time, productive, good-faith contributor who writes lots of articles but is not as skilled at on-wiki communications as others? That's the underlying question. We certainly have no trouble accepting the opposite skillset: those who don't really write anything but are very good at understanding and enforcing rules. We need both, folks. This is a community and an encyclopedia, after all. This is and should be a diverse place, which is, yeah, frustrating as hell sometimes.
I mean, I get it, this is difficult all around: it's frustrating to try to communicate with someone on a collaborative project just to have those communications repeatedly ignored, missed, or misunderstood; and it's frustrating to write articles collaboratively but more or less on your own most of the time, then be confronted with social norms you don't understand and get dragged to a place like this where people bring up a whole range of gripes about you (and even explicitly tell you they don't care about your content work because your on-wiki communication skills aren't up to snuff -- ouch). It's painful for everyone, and with the proposal above the discussion is sprawling and increasingly chaotic such that at this point I couldn't blame Doug, who may find the social aspect of Wikipedia less fun than the encyclopedic aspect, for being overwhelmed and scattered.
We seem to be on a trajectory towards some sort of long-term block/sanction, and considering what led to this IMO we shouldn't be. So maybe rather than additional proposals for sanctions, we can try to provide Doug with a way out -- one that's as simple as possible. For example, perhaps Doug can simply say "I agree" to these simple terms:
Do not add material about yourself to a Wikipedia article directly. If you want, you may propose it be added on the talk page, but do not add it yourself.
Really really try to pay close attention to talk pages (especially your user talk page), and try to make time to respond even if you're not sure you need to. People appreciate knowing their concerns have been heard.
If you're having trouble understanding a problem someone has raised, and they are not explaining it effectively, reach out to an editor you trust for help. Do you know any of the other Michigan Wikipedians in real life? Sometimes it can help to actually meet up with a group rather than try to figure things out on-wiki.
I hope this helps rather than hurts. Other things came up, but this seems like a reasonable starting point. Let's try to move this towards resolution? — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the filer, I actually would prefer for Doug not to be blocked. That's not my desired end goal here. His responses here have unfortunately made that more likely, but I think Doug is capable of editing here constructively, and I would like to see him continue to improve articles. But to do that, he needs to take other editors' concerns and criticisms seriously. I don't have anything personal against Doug - while I think his recent conduct has been wholly unacceptable and unbecoming of an editor of his tenure, I've seen he is capable of good work when he puts his mind to it. With all of that said, I think this is too light. It took a block just to get him to even respond to criticism - what's stopping him from repeating that behavior in the future? If Doug pledges to change his behavior regarding communicating with other editors going forward, rather than simply saying "I have 500 DYKs and 234 GAs, therefore the rules don't apply to me", at least for me I'd be willing to meet him there and have this end without anyone being blocked. But Doug has to agree to meet us in the middle, instead of continuing to act like his conduct is perfect and editors are only criticizing him because we're "jealous". There's actually not much overlap between him and I in terms of what we write GAs about - I write about railroad companies and rail yards, and I don't believe Doug has done any articles on those two subjects, maybe one or two of the former a long time ago? Regardless, his accusation that I filed this thread because I'm "jealous" of him is absurd and I'd really like to see him withdraw that accusation. In summary, we need a real commitment that Doug is going to change his behavior going forward. Given his responses here, I doubt he will agree to do so, but I'm going to hold out hope just the same. Other editors have raised concerns about other aspects of his editing as well, such as copyright and the creation of the ridiculous Preparation (principle) article, which we will also need to see him acknowledge. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'd like to propose this discussion be closed, with a reminder to Doug that we may wind up back here if not cautious about this stuff. I know some other things have come up in this thread, but since they all seem to be rooted in communication, perhaps we can take them as they arise, where they arise, rather than trying to address several things at once here. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being able to explain in detail implies a particular understanding of the nuances of Wikipedia social norms than I think we will see, and is that really a deal-breaker? Being able to "explain in detail what the issues were and how to avoid them" is a different requirement from not engaging in those issues further, after all. Since the underlying issues have to do with communication and (originally) self-promotion, isn't it worth waiting and seeing if Doug takes on board the things he has just agreed to? YMMV. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given Doug's repeated statements that he doesn't understand the issue, a summary of the issue by Doug would be very helpful to demonstrate that he now does understand and isn't just guessing at what people might want to hear. MrOllie (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good proposal, thanks Rhododendrites. There seems to be a lot of spite at play here, directed at Doug. I'm sure if those engaging in this behaviour were in the same room as Doug, they'd behave very differently. I've worked with Doug on dozens of articles and all I've experienced is a diligent and good-faith editor. Perhaps this wall of text translates as "shouldn't edit war", in which case we're really done. Perhaps it translates as "don't self-promote" with which I agree, but it's done. The message has been received, and those distributing vitriol can now move on to their next victim. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You'll notice I and a number of other editors have not disputed that Doug is a good faith editor. However, his conduct the past few days has been objectively poor. It shouldn't take a block to get someone to respond to the community. I would be ok with this being closed, but only if Doug receives a formal warning about not avoiding communication when other editors have concerns regarding his edits. Otherwise, I oppose this being closed. Doug has made a brief statement saying he agrees not to repeat the problematic edits, which I am happy to see, but I am still waiting to see that he has a clear understanding of what the issues are, and how he will avoid repeating them. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To me, this is just plain and simple bullying and belittling a good faith editor. Of course, that's just my opinion and I'm not casting aspersions or making any personal attacks, rather I'm just suggesting that the continued berating of a good faith editor to somehow unlock a code by saying exactly what certain people want him to say is somewhat disgusting and disappointing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given Doug's agreement to go with these conditions, I support accepting that and closing this now. Going forward, any possible future problems can be taken one at a time rather than confronting Doug with a lot of things at once in a potentially overwhelming manner (as, for example, can happen at ANI when people often identify all sorts of different things at once and make blanket demands on an editor). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a real benefit to the community easing up here but I object that the issue is he is "less skilled" at on wiki communication than others. The issue was he didn't! He refused to! And when it became an actual problem he needed to be blocked to actually engage here. We aren't saying that he needs to spend all his time on the boards--we are saying that refusal to communicate about problems PLUS the continued generation of problems results in a serious issue that needs some actual resolution. The response can't always be "well, go tell him he is messing up" because as noted above, he has just ignored previous responses. If Doug doesn't want to be confronted with problems all at once he can respond to things one at a time, otherwise refusing to bring them up all at once is tantamount to letting them continue. Protonk (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Doug Coldwell is warned by the community that he must make a reasonable effort to respond to good-faith concerns about his editing expressed by other editors. If, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, Doug is not abiding by this warning, he may be blocked for up to one week. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well what do you propose then? I'm trying to find something that addresses his behavior and can get support. Feel free to suggest your own proposal or a change to this one. I'm trying to make sure this doesn't just get closed with no action taken. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, I'm one of the GA reviewers who was summoned by Doug. The issues, as I understand them are: subpar GA nominations, self promotion, and lack of communication. Currently, Doug has 14 GANs open, and he is such a prolific nominator I am not surprised some issues slipped through the cracks. Perhaps a temporary slow-down to his nominations (max him at 5 for a bit), or at least have him go through his current noms to make sure they're up to snuff would be a happy medium. I don't think a total ban on GANs would be a good idea, but having him show a sign of good faith he intends on being more communicative/receptive to feedback would be a good start. I can settle for a warning as well, as long as Doug demonstrates corrected behavior.
For the record, I have reviewed a handful of his GANs in the past and have had no issue with him. No GA nom is perfect and he's far from the worst I have seen. He's been very punctual on responding/answering questions, and it would be a massive detriment to Wikipedia if he were banned over this. You don't get over 200 GAs just by bumbling around, he clearly has a knack for it.
The difference is that the community is giving specific feedback that the editor's conduct is below the community's expectations, and that they (the editor) need to do better. Mackensen(talk)18:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The feedback has been given, in the section above, and Doug has agreed to the proposed conditions. "You are warned to do the things you already have to do, or someone might do something they're already allowed to do" is just hot air. But then, this is increasingly becoming the hot air noticeboard these days. He's been pilloried, and we should just leave the poor man alone now and let him try to adhere to what he's already agreed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I opened this, all I wanted was Doug to say "Sorry, I won't do COI editing anymore." and that would have been the end of it. If he had said this on his talk page when I tried to communicate with him about it there, this thread never would have happened. I can't control what other people say or add. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does a "formal" ANI warning have any meaning? If he fails to adhere to the stuff he agreed above, people are going to bring him back here and point to that discussion anyway as proof that sanctions are needed, and given how many people were pushing for serious sanctions already, it clearly won't go well for him. Having people line up to say that formally seems like unnecessarily gilding the lily. --Aquillion (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the feedback cycle is important. If this thread is something other than a pillory, or hot air, then the community needs to tell Doug, concretely and specifically, what aspects of his behavior aren't up to expectations. That given him something actionable going forward. Mackensen(talk)18:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless. He's been warned. All this "prove he knows exactly what he's done wrong" is just a ballache and a proper example of wiki-lwayering. How much actual disruption has occurred here, and is it more or less of a waste of energy and bytes than this ANI report? Mackensen nails it above, this ANI is a poor performance, with some hysterical hyperbole levelled against a good faith editor. Suggest enough damage has been done in total, close and move on. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of the above comments; "formal warnings" are meaningless. He's been told already. It doesn't add more weight to being told "formally" (whatever that means). Warnings, admonishments, etc. etc. are meaningless forms of double secret probation. We only need someone to be told that their behavior is a problem, and it only takes one person to do that. This entire thread is sufficiently informing Doug Caldwell that there is a problem. Once they have been made aware, the next step is always some sanction or action (topic ban, block, page block, whatever). By the time something reaches ANI, it is time to discuss an actual action; presumably the person has already been told they are creating a problem, because if they haven't, we tell the OP to tell them exactly that before requesting a block. --Jayron3218:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's not fucking wikilawyering, he's spent most of this time denying there even is a problem, no matter how many times people explain to him. It's making sure we don't fucking end up here again in a month. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is nothing to do with me. Your anger is pretty clear for all to see here. I suggest you should work on that a bit before casting stones at everyone else. My de-sysop was like nearly a decade ago, and I don't regret losing the bit for a moment, and acknowledged the issues surrounding it. I've developed since then and realise that the behaviour I'm seeing here from others is abhorrent, bullying and unhelpful. But thank you for demonstrating exactly the kind of behaviour that means you should take a looooooong break. Your behaviour here is not helpful at all, quite the opposite, and it's genuinely sad to see this dogpiling onto a good faith editor, just to punish him. Several people here should be genuinely ashamed of themselves. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Doug's been hammered here. He's a good faith editor and all these various calls for "he needs to demonstrate he understands what he's done wrong" are simply bullying and belittling. Let's just get on with life, and if Doug makes any further infringements, let's hope we can deal with it satisfactorily. In the meantime (insert something here about assuming good faith and not continually and doggedly pursuing active punishment) suggest a few of the more rabid commentators chill out, and cease & desist this pursuit which will ultimately be of literally no benefit to anyone. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The GAs are being reviewed again, the "inserting himself in articles" that people had questions about has been stopped, the mentioned article above is heading for a SNOW delete, the other behavior (while not currently addressed to everyone's satisfaction) isn't something we are going to fix here in ANI. While I firmly believe TAOT wasn't jealous or anything else that was asserted above, and I have significant concerns about the fact that it took a block to force engagement, the editor is engaging now, on multiple venues, and none of the proposed sanctions above have support. If there are future concerns, they can be addressed, but at this point, I think the issue brought forth in the ANI report has been resolved, even if it isn't to everyone's satisfaction. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC) Struck and amended FrederalBacon (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Given Mackensen's points below, and the fact that the editor's most recent GA has serious issues, I don't think this should be closed until further action is taken. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support At this point, I don't think ANI will serve any roll in fixing the issue at hand. As much as I don't like the idea of 'kicking the can down the road' its equally not worth dragging him through the mud any more than he already has. If this behavior persists, we can always look back to this ANI for proof of repeat behavior. I get that TAOT wants something more concrete but the cacophony is too disorganized to effect any actual sanctions. Frankly, we all need to chill out a bit. Etriusus (Talk)22:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Oppose While I don't condone many of the more vitriolic comments, Mackensen & Levivich have both raised very serious points on the quality of his GAs. I do support some type of mechanism to vet his GAs or slow him down so that his GAs can be of higher quality. Etriusus (Talk)18:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If you're going to complain about AGF you should honor it yourself. It is not "bullying and belittling" to request the bare minimum of WP:CIR and WP:COMMUNICATE from an experienced editor. This is clearly a necessary ANI with valid good-faith comments from multiple editors. ––FormalDude(talk)22:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Take a break. The pile-on is absurd. It's not like this is an ongoing damage limitation exercise. The incendiary abuse going on here is beyond belief. And the ANI formation is calamitously bad. Perhaps those complaining should take a step back and better formulate their issues for the next time. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first comment in the discussion. The only reason it seems like it's a pile on is because Doug continues to give vague and unconvincing responses. Not everyone has the patience we do, and it seems like you're doing some WP:PEARLCLUTCHING. ––FormalDude(talk)23:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support closing this but I agree with FormalDude above, it isn't bullying to demand that editors actually engage with their talk pages when needed. I'm sorry that long-term refusal to do so has backfired spectacularly on someone and that sending copy/paste messages announcing their number of GAs has not availed them, but pointing this out isn't wrong. Nor is it wrong to be concerned that the problem isn't actually solved. Protonk (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I frankly don't think the proposal Doug agreed to is sufficient (nor does it have consensus as such). We had several editors bringing up multiple very specific problems, including clear copyright violations and inappropriate references, and every single one of his 6 responses to those complaints (none of which had anything to do with GAs; he happened to ignore the one comment that initially brought those up), as well as all 4 responses in the first ban proposal AND 3 comments on his TP ANI notice and block appeal, were variations on or literal copy-pastes of
I'm not sure what the issue is??? I can demonstrate I have made 234 Good Articles. Of those in 2020 I made 60 Good Articles in a 60 day period of time, averaging 1 Good Article per day. I have created 500 Did You Know articles. Here is a list of my multiple article Did You Knows. Here is a list of my Did You Knows that have been placed in DYK Hall of Fame. This article was put on the main page as an official Did You Know 36 hours from when I created it. Do you need more?
including this ABF aspersion:
I believe that an Administrator should use this app https://sdzerobot.toolforge.org/gans to see how many Good Articles a particular editor has done before making any decisions on any proposals. Of course those that have made few or no Good Articles want to stop those that have made over 200 Good Articles. It looks like a case of jealousy, as those that have made few or no Good Articles wish they could do that but are not able to.
Earlier today his direct reply to EEng bringing up examples of barely-coherent unencyclopedic passages on modern medical career advice that he had cited to an article called "True Tales of Peril and Heroism" published in 1913 was this:
My 500 Did You Know articles have been viewed by at least 2000 editors each. That means that over a million editors have seen these articles and none have put in a complaint that I was self-promoting in any of them.
So I am not convinced he now, suddenly, understands exactly what the issues are. If he has the skills and time to guide other editors on the nuances of Commons image licensing on his talk page, he could have acknowledged the multiple warnings he received from Trainsandotherthings outlining precisely what he needed to stop doing and we wouldn't be here. He chose to ignore it and continued edit-warring descriptions/pictures of himself into mainspace instead. JoelleJay (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, this is what I've been trying to impress upon people - it took sustained refusal to communicate to lead us here. I still would be ok with dropping this if Doug would explain he understands the concerns here, but I have not seen that yet. That's all I want. It's not about punishing anyone, it's about preventing this from happening again. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose closing - I rather agree with Joelle Jay above this. None of the proposals here have hit the nail on the head, but I do not think that the problem has been adequately dealt with, and simply saying "he knows better now after this discussion" and closing the discussion is clearly not accurate and is therefore not the appropriate response. The fact that this editor created very poorly written and conceived material is a serious concern, as such things make Wikipedia look ridiculous. I believe that there is a need for some kind of formal sanction to provide guidance for Doug Coldwell, but I'm damned if I know what form it should take. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out that Doug Coldwell having written 60 articles in 60 days -- a fact of while he seems so proud -- is in fact a big part of the problem. EEng05:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The more I read about the issues regarding the editor's content (It appears below as though his most recent GA had copyvio and poor quality source issues) the more I'm beginning to support a CBAN. I still don't know if it's there yet, but the more issues that are found, juxtaposed against the aspersion casted above (People are just reporting because they're jealous they can't make GAs), in addition to the fact that a block was required to force engagement, isn't promising, IMO. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sympathetic to the view that there's no administrative action to be taken here, but I'm also worried that closing now will have the net effect that Coldwell feels vindicated in doing the same things he was doing before. To me his boasting about "234 Good Articles I have done" is a big red warning flag. I am in strong agreement with Sammi Brie that many of his GA nominations and I think also many of his passed GAs have been subpar: badly organized, badly sourced, badly written, and overloaded with picayune detail. His typical response to GA reviews is to just keep asking the reviewer to suggest new wording for every issue until they get tired of responding and pass it, or (if they fail it) to quickly renominate and try the same thing again with a new reviewer. That's not the issue here (the nominations I have seen had no hint of self-promotion in their content) but it suggests a similar lack of self-awareness. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You might think so, but still today in Special:Diff/1108869547 he is using the recent GA pass of one of his articles as justification for claiming that he is vindicated against claims of bad scholarship and copyvio in the article, and proposing only cosmetic copyediting-level patches, rather than making any serious consideration of the alleged problems in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Meanwhile, I just quickfailed yet another of his GA nominations (I don't review them very often because every time I do it's a quick fail and a quick renomination and that just feels sad and pointless) over yet more recent copyvio: Talk:Conrad Hubert/GA1. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have started reviewing New York Central and Hudson River Railroad No. 999, as I mostly work with trains these days. This was promoted to GA just a few days ago. This is presumably his most recent work and should represent the state of his art. I (and another editor) immediately found probable copyright violations and the use of low-quality sources. If I had reviewed this article, I would have failed it. To relate this issue back to the question of self-promotion, I think it's clear that Doug Coldwell is proud of the breadth of his contributions. He should be, 200+ GAs is impressive. The issue is that the depth doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Writing a GA or FA takes time. Source analysis takes time. Fellow editors, how many articles were in limbo for years until we had the right sources? That's the feedback that Doug needs: that he needs to take his time and produce fewer, but better, articles. We also need to be frank with him that the system failed him, by promoting articles that weren't ready yet. That's not his fault; it becomes his fault if he's unwilling or unable to take on valid criticism of his work. Mackensen(talk)11:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:New York Central and Hudson River Railroad No. 999#Speed record was posted on May 26 and apparently ignored. Turns out, the claim that the 999 broke a speed record is disputed, if not outright doubted or dismissed, by scholars. I don't get how this got through GA on Sep. 1, and this concern was not addressed. I just tagged the article and posted some sources for discussion. Part of the problem is that the entire article was sourced to sources from ~100 years ago, with nothing modern. These sorts of factual errors are a big deal; we're misinforming the reader in our haste to make GAs. So I oppose closing this and my idea for a proposal is that Doug agree to go through all of his GAs and creations and confirm they meet WP:V, WP:RS, etc., before creating any new articles or nominating any new GAs. Once he's done his self-review, he can post a note confirming same on his user talk page. Levivich15:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I see the problem as over-reliance on free-to-access sources, like public domain sources and local news from 100 years ago via Newspapers.com, without consulting better sources like 21st century academic books, journal articles, etc., so that our article ends up saying, in Wikivoice, whatever people were saying in local news 100 years ago, rather than what scholars are saying today. This is a WP:TIER1 sourcing v. WP:TIER3 (with some WP:TIER4) issue. Levivich15:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see the need for a big drawn out ANI thread like this with so many personal comments. This is not a topic ANI is good at addressing. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's the ideal venue here? A conduct RfC? Practically speaking we don't have good venues for problems which amount to "this editor is doing something they should probably stop doing" rather than bi/multi-lateral disputes or issues centered around a particular set of articles. Protonk (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think there are just too many colored flags to leave this situation where it is now. I agree that we should avoid making snap decisions to push away long-time editors that have made good contributions, but what I'm seeing of DC's attitude is still too much to ignore. Their posts here and their user page show that they assign great value to the FA/GA icons, and particularly the 'possession' of them. Constantly trumpeting their own counts, and saying that the concerns of people with less GA contributions should be sidelined, makes it seem like they see this as a competition of some sort. At this time I personally don't support any block or ban on DC, (though I wouldn't oppose), but as someone mentioned above, closing the discussion at this point will probably lend DC more feelings of validation than intended. Regardless I think something further has to be done, else I expect that there will not be an appreciable change in behavior. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In my mind the first salient question is whether Doug, overall, is making the site better. And second, whether he is acting in good faith. I believe the answer to both questions is yes. I can confirm that Preparation (principle) is an absolutely awful article (and undoubtedly some other contributions need scrutiny), but those can be addressed by more targeted deletions/reversions/warnings on specific contributions. There is really no constructive reason to keep attacking a user through mass discussion on ANI who seems to be acting in good faith. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose closure without any further action. It's clear from comments upthread that there are issues with his editing, including but not limited to a lack of engagement with reviewer comments, close paraphrasing/borderline CV/unattributed PD copying, and the incomprehensible prose pointed out by EEng. His copy-and-paste "I have more green circles than you" response to valid concerns is extremely concerning to me (and it's not the first time he has responded in this way to people). Communication is required, and that kind of response can't be excused by assuminng that the editor in question has poor social skills. We can respect someone's efforts as an editor while at the same time recognizing that there are problems with it that need to be acknowledged and corrected. ♠PMC♠ (talk)18:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I stand with a lot of editors here in being against closure, but not quite certain what the resolution is. This could have been much easier but Doug seems unwilling to make concrete changes to his behavior after years of commentary. Yes, he gave a brief approval that he'd fix things. How will he go about them? He seems less certain than any of us. He still remains unwilling to compromise from what I've seen, and has yet to retract blatant ABF aspersions against fellow editors that they are jealous of his success (which reveals a great deal of his motivation IMO), and very strange accusations that the filer has a villainous plan behind the filing here. Doug, there is a light out of the tunnel, but you need to calm down and discuss fixing your past mistakes and not making them again, rather than continue to bloviate on your past successes. Refusing to communicate at first set you up in a very bad spot here, but you can fix this. Please do. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum19:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not comfortable with this being closed without some form of consequence. Even though Doug clearly edits in good faith, many of his edits and, to a lesser extent, his conduct regarding this discussion, raise legitimate concerns that can't be overridden by simply acting in good faith. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 12:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've been reading this thread, including the various points over whether a sanction is required or not required, whether to close or not close the thread, and how to balance the identified issues with moving forward and balacing Doug's good contributions with the problems that have also been identified. I would like to propose a possible solution of removing the autopatrol user right from Doug, and that he cannot re-apply for a minimum of six months (which is a long time given how prolific Doug is in creating articles). This does two things: (1) it practically relates to the creation of articles that have problems (either in encyclopedic value like the Preparation article, or the copyvios that have been identified), and (2) sends a message to Doug that improvement is needed with something to work towards (regaining the autopatrol right). Singularity42 (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This seems like an eminently sensible response to the problem, enabling DC to continue to create articles, but subjecting them to community control. I would also point out that the entirety of the thread would seem to point to problems with the GA approval process. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One of the articles that made it to GA was almost immediately identified after further review as having a questionable source and potentially a copyright vio. Mind you this was after the above mentioned "Community control" of a GA review. If the community is not catching the mistakes the editor is making already, adding further burden to the volunteers to check MORE of his contributions by removing AP isn't going to help, at all, and this also falls significantly short of addressing the wide ranging issues identified by many editors above.FrederalBacon (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean either way WP:CCI's just going to have to review all of DC's contributions anyways. The CCI only goes up to 2010. Whatever solution happens, it needs to make sure that we don't have even more to review after this. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the longer this goes on, the more I'm becoming convinced the only way to prevent even more review of this editor's contributions is to stop them from contributing anymore. I mean, if we are to the point where it's pretty clear someone is going to have to go through everything this editor has done, I don't think the arguments about his contributions outweighing the problems are valid anymore, personally. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think a WP:SBAN is a bit nuclear in its response. The longer Doug takes to respond properly, the worse the sentiment is going to change against him. That isn't to say there aren't legitimate contributions he has made to wikipedia, but there're a lot of moving pieces. New page reviewers, GA reviewers, and ANI boards have all failed to properly catch the issue, I have reviewed some of his GA noms and even I cannot say I am without fault. There's an old saying "It takes a village to raise a child" and Doug was likely under the impression that some of what he was doing was probably right, since it had been reinforced so heavily.
This isn't mean to absolve him of all of this, rather I want to point out that WP:SBAN is a huge leap, especially when smaller, corrective steps can be made. Doug has made quality contributions, I doubt all of his GAs are poor quality (As that would implicate dozens of GA reviewers), and we would be remiss to throw him out into the cold like that. Doug does need to respond, however. I cannot condone his comments thus far since he's flirting with some very serious accusations. Etriusus (Talk)21:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely the nuclear option; That's why no one (including myself) has proposed it yet. But almost every editor here is staring at all of these issues and scratching our heads going "Well what can we do about all this?" None of these sanctions seem appropriate for the issue, nor cover the entire issue, but most agree action is needed...what do we do? Well, that's something we can do. I don't think it would have support yet, I don't think it's absolutely needed at this point, but the longer this goes on, the more baffling the responses to the issues are, and the more the issues crop up....it's hard to see that as anything but the most complete solution to the problem. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever solution or action is taken, it cannot and should not create more burden on people who review his edits. If any solution allows for more copyright violations to fly under the radar, for poorly sourced content being pushed through our quality article processes repeatedly and at a rate that the reviewers cannot handle, I am going to oppose. Sennecaster (Chat) 22:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps editors are reluctant to suggest any action, out of fear of being jumped on by other editors and accused of trying to "punish" Doug or of being inflammatory. I've certainly been cowed into not suggesting anything else. I don't think a CBAN is the answer unless all else fails. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think after the discussion below has made it clear that further action is needed, but no further action has been proposed, it is evident there is a hesitation from editors to propose those actions. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had a look for prior discussions of the removal of autopatrolled and it is a matter that hasn't been subject to a lot of administrative discussion. No sensible administrator would grant autopatrolled to a user who has been found to have engaged in copyvio. That seems reason enough to remove the right at least until any ongoing investigation into the copyvio has been concluded and/or other remedies are worked out by the community. As imperfect a venue as ANI clearly is, I do hope further discussion can help D.C. change both his editing behaviour and to communicate better with other editors. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as it's apparent here that Doug is clearly not trusted anymore by the community to edit unpatrolled. Insistent, continuously sustained IDHT when people call out his mistakes and unrepentant copyvios are not traits I'd like to see in a person with privileges that allow them to bypass quality control. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This isn't likely to solve the underlying problems, because his content is likely to pass a cursory new page patrol, but continued recent copyvio (e.g.) make this necessary as a minimum step. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a minimum step, per various comments above. I was hesitant to support this because as FrederalBacon says it means more of his contributions will be marked as requiring review, which means we're giving ourselves more work to do. But I think that work is necessary; if Doug continues to contribute, his work does need to be checked, for a while at least. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Regardless of what, if any, other sanctions will be levied against this editor, the copyvio issues makes this a pretty common sense thing: autopatrolled is meant for trusted editors who regularly create articles and demonstrate familiarity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially those on biographies of living persons, copyrights, verifiability and notability. (emphasis mine) An editor with ongoing copyvio issues very clearly either lacks the required familiarity with the copyright policies and guidelines, or cannot be trusted to follow them, and should therefore in either case not have the autopatrolled user right.
Support Late to the party, and not intending to comment any further other than that anyone who has the autopatrolled flag had better be damn near flawless at article production. It's not a perk, it is supposed to reduce the burden on reviewers. Issues like the ones demonstrated above show that review is very much needed. Pull it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Elmidae has it: this is only to reduce new page reviewer burden, not a privilege. There should be a low threshold for pulling the flag, as it doesn't deprive the user of any abilities; it just adds a secondary review that is invisible to most users. (And I'm a new pages reviewer, so I know of the burden.)— rsjaffe🗣️18:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Given the long-term issues with copyright/close paraphrasing, it makes sense for NPPers to look at this. I don't see this as particularly burdensome on either Doug's end or on the end of the New Page Patrol, so this seems like a narrowly tailored way to provide for accountability going forward. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)14:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While I don't know that it would be reasonable to block him from writing articles at all, it seems like it would be beneficial (and in some cases necessary) for them to be given some basic review, as they often require copywriting and other fixes. I haven't gone too deep into the CCI stuff; none of the seven GA nominations I reviewed had any visible problems with copyright (and when I do GA reviews I check every statement using each individual source). However, Sennecaster does not generally make stuff up, and has said it's an issue, which I am inclined to believe. This seems like a reasonable step toward addressing said issue. jp×g01:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support if the point of autopatrol is that people make good articles that don't need more eyes, copyvios are examples of the opposite of those. Andre🚐01:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Checking some recent articles of Doug's
As I have recently promoted some of Doug's GAs, and had not spotchecked them as I did so (my mea culpa is above), I thought I should take responsibility for rechecking them. I asked Doug to go through them first to make sure they were clean; my thinking was that if he could show he knew what the problems were and was willing to fix them, it would be helpful. I'm sad to say that the first check, on Charles Grafton Page, is not going well. My talk page comments are here. I was unable to access a couple of source but found problems in about half the text I was able to check. For a contributor to leave in this many problems in so little text while the subject of a CCI and the subject of an ANI thread that covers this problem is astonishing.
I believe Doug is acting entirely in good faith, so the only explanations I can come up with are that either he doesn't understand the problem, or he doesn't understand what it means to do a recheck. I don't know what to do about this, because there's no question that we'll lose a dedicated contributor if we drive Doug away, but I don't think things can continue as they are. Iazyges says above: "CCI does not have the power to require an editor to clean up their own work, that would require a per-user community consensus, which we might pursue here. I've never seen an editor make a concerted effort of their own volition, as I recall. We also take a stance against having the CCI "follow them around" under the (incredibly optimistic) assumption that they will "go and sin no more" after it has been opened. Perhaps this is not always the case, but it has worked in past, especially with older edits from more established users. Something further is likely required here". I think the evidence so far is that we can't assume Doug will "go and sin no more".
I'll keep going through the Charles Grafton Page article, but I'm going to delay reviewing the others till the close of this thread, in case something drastic ends up happening such as the stubification of some or all of Doug's work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, just for the sake of clarification: this is a check made after he was made aware of the issues, as well as aware of a recheck, and specifically said this article was good to go for recheck? FrederalBacon (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Doug made no edits to it at all when I asked him to recheck. I said "I am going to spotcheck the GAs of yours I've recently promoted"; this one was promoted on 19 August. I didn't check to see that he'd edited it before started to rereview it. I suppose he simply forgot it was one that needed to be checked, or assumed I wouldn't go back that far (only three weeks). Either of those is still not a good sign. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you see as a way forward from here in terms of improving the editor's behavior and encouraging them to do better with avoiding the copyright issues? FrederalBacon (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have been unable to think of a solution that is both likely to work and not the nuclear option. I think the comments made elsewhere about Doug's motivation being in conflict with the goals of the encyclopedia are at least partly right, and it's very difficult for someone to change their behaviour if their motivation is unchanged. I can't tell if he understands our copyright rules well enough to follow them. My usual instinct is that people are what they do, not what they say, and he edits like someone who doesn't understand the rules. Elsewhere in this thread someone makes the point that editors can't be assumed to sign up to fix other people's problems; I don't mind redoing the GA reviews I did and delisting those GAs, and ripping out the copyvios I can find, but what about the sources I don't have access to? I gather that CCI's approach is to create a giant worklist for other editors while allowing the problematic editor to continue without helping. I can see the reasoning, but the result here is not good. It would be less work for the community to delete articles, or revert to before significant contributions, where there's a pattern like this. It's painful to say this, because in some ways I admire Doug's work -- as I've said elsewhere, he could be a very valuable contributor. But sadly he isn't, and the evidence so far is that he either can't or won't change. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CCI can and regularly does apply WP:PDEL. In an ideal world, CCIs would be on newer users who are blocked for copyvio and then unblocked because they understand copyvio, but it's not that in many cases. Basically, 12-13 years ago the community wrung its hands over the collateral damage of PDEL, as a very high profile case happened with bot blanking and presumptive deletions, and we have the incredibly and overly optimistic take that we have now. We can't force editors to help; it usually doesn't work and I can think of 2 cases out of the at least 250 I've heard of or worked on where the person in question helped. In an ideal world, we wouldn't have situations where blocking for copyvio this late into someone's editing career, but here we are, and unless DC can give absolute assurance to us that he understands the copyright policy, and how to not closely paraphrase, and that there is a legitimate improvement in his work, I think there needs to be a block from at the very least, mainspace. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue the time to acknowledge he understood copyright policy was when the CCI was opened last year. And, you know, at pretty much any point in this ANI that has now been going for 4 days, and the editor himself hasn't engaged with since day 2. This is a discussion, at this point, that looks as if it might determine his ability to continue with this project, and there hasn't been a response to a single issue here since he agreed to Rhododendrites' well intentioned, but now eclipsed by larger issues, suggestion of a resolution above. So, is he seeing this discussion getting increasingly negative due to the copyright issues, and not replying, or is he not reading it at all? Neither option is particularly thrilling. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I hadn't thought of a mainspace block. It would be slightly less of a nuclear option, though I doubt Doug would edit much, if at all, outside mainspace, so it would probably have the same effect. Not being familiar with CCI discussions I don't want to pontificate but I would have thought PDEL should be the default. If breaking copyright rules doesn't get you a scarlet letter, doesn't require you to fix your own messes, doesn't stop you from editing, and leaves your bad edits in place (since we don't have the manpower to clean most of it up), what is the incentive not to break those rules? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good question! On top of all that, CCI regulars are lambasted and attacked every single time we try to bring copyright violation issues from established editors to the community's attention. At the fairly recent Martinevans CV discussion, we were treated by many people as though we were personally assaulting Martin, as if WP:5P3 - not violating copyright - is an impossible standard we can't expect people to uphold. ♠PMC♠ (talk)22:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I think some of the time, it was the way the copyvio problems were reported, rather than the problems themselves. Certainly, I took a neutral stance with Martinevans123, and decided the best thing to do would be to help tackle the CCI, which has unfortunately stalled. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)08:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have found issues with sourcing before (here), and while I was not that pleased to see no re-checking was done before the next nomination, I do not believe the problems were close to meriting "something drastic" like general stubbification. I do not think the general issue of GAN reviewing inconsistency can be addressed here either. CMD (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The stubification would not be an answer to sourcing problems, but to th apparently still rampant copyvio problems despite being already the subject of a CCI investigation (a combination which does deserve both an indef and stubbing or draftifying all their articles, or reversion where they didn't create but significantly added to articles). If we had some indication that they understood the seriousness of the issues and some evidence that they truly worked on the problem, instead of doing some perfunctory edits, things might be different: but it seems as if they have little or no intention to abide by such basic rules and see themselves as above them. Fram (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright problem is severe enough as it is. WP:CCI is expected to manually review every single substantial (over 150 bytes, adds content besides refs) edit made by Doug Coldwell up to now, since the level of copyvio that David Eppstein, Fram, Mike Christie, myself, and others is well into the territory of expanding the current CCI. This is absolutely unfair and unacceptable, especially if DC doesn't understand copyright policy. It's unfair on the GA reviewers, it's unfair on copyright editors, and it's unfair to the community in general. There are not enough editors who care to do a proper review and have time or enough energy, to rewrite entire articles to a GA standard for someone else. Sennecaster (Chat) 13:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe, then, that this whole situation leaves the community with little choice of what action needs to be taken here. Doug's actions have caused an increased burden on the community significantly, and given the fact that this has been addressed with them before and they are still committing blatant copyright violations, we can not trust the behavior to change. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And just when we were finally getting a handle on the GA nom backlog. I'm sure there is plenty worth saving, but it'll be painful, especially tracking down the sources in print. I hate the idea of stubifying 200+ GAs, but it's gonna take some serious manpower to clean up this mess. GA reassessment frankly can't handle that load. Etriusus (Talk)13:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have been following this discussion from afar, as my off-Wiki life has been taking precedence. From my bystander observation, many of the disparate issues brought up here are centered around a focus on the value of "shiny things" – in this case, good articles and DYKs. Concerns are brushed aside because those that have made few or no Good Articles wish they could do that but are not able to. Articles are nominated, removed for nomination on the basis of serious issues, and are renominated hours later with no or minimal improvement. Cone Mills Corporation has failed four times because no improvements have been made between those nominations. That seems absurd. Then there's whatever is happening here. I think even a temporary TBAN as it relates to GAN might have to be in order to stop some of the bleeding until concerns around copyright and lack of communication are remedied. — GhostRiver14:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really not a fan of that Then YOU will earn a GA green icon for being the nominator and I will earn a GA green icon for being the creator of the article. bit in link provided; quid pro quo is certainly an acceptable thing in terms of "oh you review one of my FAC/GANs and I review one of yours, but make no promise of outcome" but it basically seems like he's trying to pass off fixing the issues, or else just try to ram it through by having someone else nom it and stand by it. Not good. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum14:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my various colored nuvola icons. I was worried when making my comment that I focused too much on Doug's love of GA icons, because I thought it was just my bias against self-promotion at work. But that thread is just full of even more of what we've seen him say here, as well as some new brags we haven't. I've been biting my tongue because I don't take it lightly but I have to say it now. I'm having concerns that while Doug Coldwell is acting in good faith he might be bordering on technically NOTHERE. I want to stress that he is acting in good faith (as far as my understanding of good faith goes) but this talk of I happen to be in the top 5% (#18 of 360) of [...], seemingly never bringing up GAs or DYKs without bringing up his or someone else's statistics on it, and generally paddling circles around his accomplishments instead of discussing literally anything else, just can't be ignored. If this comes off as too harsh or aspersions please tell me but I felt this needed saying. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a very strange situation, I definitely agree. No one can doubt that he's acting in good faith I would say, but his strange refusal to take ownership of his mistakes pushes him into NOTHERE, on top of collective behavior. I'll be the first to admit I went about hat/icon collecting when I was a young (age and experience-wise) editor, but this is a man of much life experience and a fourteen-year tenure. It's unbelievable that he is unaware of the copyright policies, not only has he had a very long tenure, but he has actually guided others in understanding copyright policy; it is becoming increasingly obvious that he simply doesn't care. A CCI investigation has been set up under the understanding he would "sin no more". He went forth and sinned, creating yet more work for the CCI team. Now, in the middle of an increasingly adverse discussion that he had to be blocked to convince him to take part in, he has promised that he has reviewed some of his more recent works. Either he missed a few as above (concerning given the small pool of them), has no idea how to review his own works (concerning, as he should have access to all of the sources for a recent work), or he simply doesn't care. It seems increasingly that, although a good faith editor, his driving motivation is to get those awards, and he is unwilling to compromise or heed others warnings on the matter. TL;DR: He's a dedicated and good faith editor, but his general mindset that his achievements make him immune from criticism or policy is very concerning. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum15:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From looking through the thread, this seems to be exactly what's going on. In pursuit of more green buttons, quantity has taken precedence over quality, which has led to issues discussed here. It's clear that Doug has contributed a lot to Wikipedia, but you can't hide from valid criticism behind GA's. I've never created a GA on my own, and I'm sure it's a nice little dopamine kick, but it's a problem when it becomes the most important thing, more important apparently than even the quality of the articles themselves. Perhaps limiting Doug's partaking in the GA process at least temporarily would be healthy for both him and the site. TylerBurden (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever I review a GA nomination, I individually check each statement, and get access to every source in the article (with the sole exception of print sources that I can't find digitized versions of). I expect that the same is done during reviews of my own nominations; indeed, I have always been very glad to see somebody point out when I have made a typo, and quoted an incorrect figure, or some similar mistake. There's even a GA criterion of not having copyvios. Everybody is already supposed to be checking this stuff! If reviewers are not doing this, it seems like a rather dire problem with the GA process itself. It's a little troubling, to say the least, if we are taking "assume good faith" to the level of claiming to perform a peer review process and not actually doing it because we assume that people would only submit good stuff to said process. jp×g01:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Above, Fram has suggested an indef block for Doug, given persistent and uncorrected issues with copyvios. Others have suggested a block, but only from mainspace. As well as the ongoing CCI, I notice that Conrad Hubert has just been quickfailed at GA because of plagiarism issues. I know we don't like indeffing longstanding contributors, but doing it for extensive copyvios has longstanding precedent. Your thoughts please. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)08:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support indef I don't like that it has reached this point and was about to propose the following (that I have included in case it helps people figure out a solution) but I think that an indef is required:
Removal of auto-patrolled rights (proposed and consensus gained above)
Doug can continue to edit pages and propose that they be elevated to GA/FA but someone else needs to submit them for review
Doug cannot make a DYK submissions unless the article has been extensively reviewed by other editors (i.e. after a GA/FA review)
Support with regret. We have significant copyright problems here, including an open CCI for historic issues and ongoing issues to this day. Cleaning up copyright issues requires an immense investment of volunteer time, orders of magnitude greater than inserting the violations in the first place, and therefore we must be willing to take action to "stem the flow" in cases where editors seem to be unable to comply with our policies on the matter. This is particularly critical in the case of prolific contributors where violations seem to be common, as the scale of the problem will naturally be larger. firefly ( t · c ) 09:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It is painful to need to indef ostensibly highly productive editors. We've had to do it a bit too often this year. And a large part of the problem is the mania for Chasing Shiny Things: to get on the Top 100 edits list, to rack up FA/GA/DYKs, to rake in the barnstars. The further problem is that this mess highlights the painful truth that the GA process is seriously broken. There is no frigging way that so many substandard articles should have been promoted, no frigging way that so many copyvios and plagiarisms fell through the cracks, and if there are just too few eyeballs going over GA nominations, or if they're too quick to promote and careless about thorough vetting, the GA process needs to be suspended until these issues are resolved. (And if the result is that Wikipedia has fewer GAs, then tough shit. A lot of us are down on Doug for his relentless self-promotion. Self-promotion doesn't become prettier when it's Wikipedia itself touting all those shiny GAs.) This isn't a matter to resolve at ANI, of course. But as long as Doug is pulling a Lugnuts, and his answer to all these issues and exhortations to clean up his own mess is "But I Have So Many GAs/DYKs!" on endless loop, we do have the power to address that, and we must. Ravenswing 10:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravenswing: I think a large part of the issue with Doug's articles specifically is that he uses eclectic and old sources; a lot of them don't exist in any digital form, and therefore won't show up in Earwig's Copyvio Detector. Indeed, a lot of his articles that had blatant copyvio came back as 0%-2%. I would consider it a revelation that reliance on such tools may be too high, in conjunction with the previously discussed cultural issues that the regulars rarely get spotchecked. I won't say GA is perfect, but I don't think the entire process need be shut down at this point. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum12:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So there's no set standard/rule on spotchecking. It's agreed upon that some spotchecking must occur, since everyone is going to make some minor edits went synthesizing sources. GA reviewers almost never spot check printed sources since it would require tracking down the original text, i.e. going to a library. Additionally, if we spot checked everything, we would just become a de facto FA review. GA just means 'decently written' and similarly has different standards than FAs, sources that fly at GA reviews (namely blogs written by experts in the field of study) would never get by at FA reviews. Copy-vios are not tolerated at any stage of an article's life (I 100% agree with lCOm, we do rely too heavily on earwig). It wouldn't be worth shutting down the process, frankly we just need more reviewers to lighten the load of the ~50-100 regulars who do conduct these reviews. Etriusus (Talk)13:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Etriusus: Well, even at FAC it's pretty much baked in that editors without any FAs should be spot-checked (the essay itself says that Coords will usually (code for always, but good cover for when they forget, you know how shifty and untrustworthy that lot is), whereas those with even one usually aren't. As Mike Christie and I discussed above, it's a cultural issue that I think will likely have to be individually tackled. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum13:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
we just need more reviewers or fewer/better submissions. Overwhelming the queue is why "60 GAs in 60 days" was a bad idea. And DYK suffers from this problem 100x worse. The fundamental problem of all WP:HIGHSCORE editing is that it floods and overwhelms our review processes. Which basically means editors who have lots of time to do lots of GA/DYK/whatever are monopolizing the time of other editors, and the result is sort of disenfranchising editors who have less free time. The editor who has time for 1 GA has to wait because there's someone else who nom'd 100 GANs, etc. We need across-the-board rate throttling to protect against this. Levivich😃13:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: A not-insignificant part of that is areas of reviewer "expertise". I like to review stuff I'm familiar with because it gives me a good handle on what might be missing. Most of Wikipedia is white men, so some topics get premium spots in the amount of expertise; i.e. war and history GANs usually get picked up faster, all else equal. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum14:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More GANs should probably be quickfailed then they are. Unfortunately, in my experience, quickfailing a GAN subjects you to personal attacks from the person who believes that you are unfairly targeting them and not giving them a fair shake. So when reviewers see something that should be failed out of the gate due to poor sourcing, copyright, or poor prose, they are less likely to take it and QF it, thus reducing the queue, and more likely to leave it so that the fail becomes somebody else's problem. I don't know the solution to this problem, but one is sorely needed. — GhostRiver14:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and I think we're all prone to it. There's many a time where I've Seen Something -- a new page submission, an AfD, an ANI filing -- where a casual glance tells me that I'd have to spend at least a half hour researching it to be able to make a meaningful, thoughtful response ... and my wife'll be home from work in fifteen minutes, and I need to get dinner started, and I shrug and say screw it. Ravenswing 15:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In a perfect world, we would have the manpower to deal with any and all articles that make their way through GA review. Unfortunatly, that is not the case. WP:GA has already ruled out QPQ due to the can of worms that opens. Limiting how many noms one can submit (e.g. 2 per month) could, in theory help, but then we're throttling entire wikiprojects and would likely end up with too many reviewers. I can agree that 60 GAs in 60 days is peak Wikipedia:Editcountitis and we should have mechanisms to prevent such egregious examples. I think that GA and FA reviews need to be more strict about spotchecking/not assuming experienced editors are always going to get it right. Etriusus (Talk)14:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: He's been warned, so why not give him a chance to change? Sanctions aren't meant to be punitive, right? He's clearly a good-faith editor. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, in the section Checking some recent articles of Doug's above, Doug was given a chance to fix some of the issues before a recheck and there were still major issues afterwards. Additionally there has been a CCI investigation open since last year but the copyright and close paraphrasing issues have continued since then. Gusfriend (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And beyond that, take a look at his responses above. He just keeps on repeating "But I have so many GAs! I have so many DYKs!" This is not the reaction of someone who recognizes that he screwed up and resolves to do better. Ravenswing 15:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, Doug has been given a chance (and as far as I'm concerned, multiple at that) to improve his behavior and fix article-related issues. Copyright and self-promotion issues aren't outweighed by simply being a good-faith editor. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 23:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support As others say, a very painful situation to block a productive editor, but it seems that the chase-shiny mindset will not allow him to contribute in the form that he needs to. I completely reject the notion that a warning here would suffice, was that not exactly what the CCI case being opened against him was? An open CCI investigation was not enough, he continued to make more work, especially by having the copyvio-infested articles be GAs, and therefore inherently harder to work with. As firefly says, we must stem the flow of the copyvio. I would love to see Doug come back at some point, and become a productive editor once more, but only after clearly demonstrating he understands what he did wrong and the issues with his mindset. At this juncture, I think an indefinite block is necessary. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum12:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The editor's quite productive, doesn't seem to be running into civility issues, and is quite competent. The issue with copyrights seems to be the hangup (for good reason), but the more narrowly tailored action of removing his autopatrolled right would surely enable us to provide accountability for any future issues with copyright; this is something that New Page Patrollers do check for. The point of blocking someone is to prevent future disruption, and I don't see a CBAN that would be enforced as an indef block as being anywhere close to a narrowly tailored way to prevent future disruption and not to punish users for past actions. I do think Doug is here to build an encyclopedia and that a block at this point is not justified. The expectation should be painfully clear that any copyvio will not be tolerated going forward and may result in escalating blocks, but an indef for a long-term good-faith user who had a clean block log at the time this thread started is plainly excessive. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)14:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comrade, I invite you to read the first two days' worth of this thread. You will see firstly that Doug pole vaults right over CIVIL by casting aspersions, accusing editors bringing up issues with his conduct of being jealous of him, and opening this thread to bring him down. You will also see that Doug is not entirely competent, as demonstrated by the copyright violations even as he apparently understands image copyright, and poor quality submissions to GAN. All of this can and has been worked through before, but I am sad to say that those cases are the minority with Coldwell's submissions. Please, read this thread and review your opinions. –♠Vamí_IV†♠15:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vami IV: I read the first two day's worth of this thread before I made my comment. The only place that Doug seems to have had civility issues (as far as anyone has brought up and as far as I can tell) is this thread, where he's frankly acting defensively and is reflexively pointing to the boatload of quality content he has written. The comment about jealousy was bizarre and is not acceptable, but I do not believe that this reflects a long-run civility issue inasmuch as it reflects being flabbergasted at being taken to ANI.
The other thing that you bring up is sending bad submissions to GAN; a solution to this is to have reviewers simply decline their submissions if they fail the criteria. If this is so overwhelming that it causes problems at GAN, then the proposal by Etriusus in the section below should suffice. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)16:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The evidence above convinces me that Doug either can't or won't abide by our copyright rules, and either way that's unacceptable. It's a painful situation but I don't think anything short of this will be effective. To Red-tailed hawk's comment just above: he has an open CCI, and after this thread started, when asked to clean up some articles before I checked them again, he left in multiple problems. That's not the behaviour of someone who is willing and able to comply with our copyright policies, which means anything short of a block won't be effective at preventing future disruption. As for being here to build an encyclopedia, I agree he's not deliberately breaking the rules because he feels like it, but per other comments above it seems his motivation is collecting GA icons much more than building an encyclopedia. I don't know if WP:NOTHERE is quite fair; it's not that he's here to damage the encyclopedia. But he's not editing in a way that improves it and there's no evidence he will, or even can, in the future. And finally, to your point that he's productive; yes, he's produced a lot of article text, and no doubt there's a lot of copyvio-free text in his work. But the work required at CCI, which may well be extended to many hundreds more of his articles, far exceeds the work he's put in. The net effect of his work to date is negative as a result. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that CCI is incredibly time-intensive, but looking at the CCI itself, there have been 50 articles checked so far. Out of those 50, 49 have been marked as not containing copyright violations. In other words, 98% of the articles that have been checked in that CCI's contribution survey were found to not contain copyright violations. In light of this, no doubt there's a lot of copyvio-free text in his work seems like quite the understatement. I just can't get behind indeffing an editor who commits violations of copyright/close paraphrasing in such a small proportion of the articles they write, especially when they have a clean block log—a warning with escalating blocks for future copyvio seems much more narrowly tailored to prevent future disruption.
The only thing that's separating Coldwell from other editors who have similarly low rates of inserting copyright violations into their work is that Coldwell is a prolific content creator, so any CCI is going to take a LONG time. But frankly that doesn't seem like a terribly good reason to indef him to prevent future disruption; having NPPers review his new creations going forward seems like a much more appropriate step that addresses the issue of infrequent copyright issues. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)14:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk see User talk:Doug Coldwell#Spotchecking your recent GAs (and subsequently this attempt at editing down) and Talk:Conrad Hubert/GA1 for extremely recent examples. Just found another one actually, and I only looked at the first 2 sources. This isn't blatant as others, but it still does not give me confidence. I don't think this is infrequent. The CCI also only goes to 2010, as that is what the previous range was identified as; either DC recently started closely paraphrasing/adding text, or this has flew under our radar entirely, even when investigating the case as normal. Once I get the time, I'm going to properly go through DC's GAs and see if this is recent only or not. As for the 50 articles checked; CCI usually does not check longer articles until near the end of the CCI, especially when we are faced with diffwalls and/or 10k+byte additions, and that is where most of the problems lie. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk (edit conflict) Not commenting on the rest of your argument or this whole discussion - I haven't read it all yet - but, "Out of those 50, 49 have been marked as not containing copyright violations. In other words, 98% of the articles that have been checked in that CCI's contribution survey were found to not contain copyright violations" is a misconception of how CCI works, could you please strike it? You'll note that the majority of the reviewed edits are at the bottom of the page, which is where the smaller edits go when a CCI is filled out. Smaller edits tend to introduce smaller sentences and non-copyrightable material, so it's practice to remove them first. You'll note the larger edits, at the top of the CCI, have mostly remained untouched; as with the majority of CCIs, that is where the majority of violations will be. Looking at a few of those quickly, this edit has several sections copied from here, and Kitch-iti-kipi is still close to this source. I see close phrasing on Antimonial cup, Daniel Van Meter, and a few other ones. I'm sure I'd find more if I was able to have a more in depth search. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)16:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will go through a variety of the articles listed on that CCI today. If the proportion of copyvios in those works is significantly higher than what it appears to be based off my math above, I'll strike my comment. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)16:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the first two articles on that CCI that I could obtain all the sources for turned out to have copyright vio/close paraphrasing issues, I've struck my comments above in line with Moneytrees's comment. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)17:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm not usually one to get involved at ANI but I came across this discussion today by chance and having skimmed it so far it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Clearly Doug is one of Wikipedia's most prolific and productive content creators, including in a number of highly niche/historical areas, and an indef block should be only the very last resort after other methods have been tried and failed. It seems to me the issue stems from the GA/DYK WP:Hat collecting (which then leads to substandard articles being rammed through GA and quality control issues) so a prohibition from nominating articles for GA/DYK for 1 year seems like the logical first step. Maybe a block of 1 month (noting that before this Doug has had a clean block log for however many years) would send a message that something needs to change especially on the IDHT/copyvio issues but an indef block at this time is excessively heavy handed and inappropriate. Satellizer el Bridget(Talk)15:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose indef - I've seen nothing from Doug that I would ever consider bad faith. I'm taking the copyright stuff quite seriously, but I'd like to see other things tried before going straight to indef. Doug Coldwell, I'd be willing to look over a couple articles a month before they're taken to GA, on the condition that they aren't nominated until it can be established that they're reasonably close (no copyvios, appropriate image use, general GA basics). Doug, is that something you'd find acceptable? Hog FarmTalk15:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support@Doug Coldwell: I read your post and was gobsmacked--not in a good way. You played it badly in making your sarcastic comment which demonstrated your hubris--not a good trait considering the situation you are finding yourself in. You are demonstrating disdain for this process.
Your haughty comment convinced me that this situation which you have created must end and so I vote "support" of the indef. And carefully note that you did not receive an "offer". You receive some minor (and a bit misguided) support. Don't count your desired "oppose indefs" until the "supports" are all counted. Osomite 🐻 (hablemos)00:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, to prevent further introductions of copyright violations, with the understanding that an indef does not necessarily mean infinite. –♠Vamí_IV†♠15:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the understanding that indef doesn't necessarily mean indef. The time for change to copyrighted content was when the CCI was opened last year. There are blatant copyvios as recently as last month. There were specific attempts to get the editor to improve the copyright violations in recent GAs, with no effect. I understand the desire to not indef a prolific editor, but when the width and depth of their contributions are suddenly thrust onto the community to fix due to continued non-compliance with copyright policy, how prolific a contributor is becomes a detriment, not an asset. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
People are wanting to block Doug because of clear copyright violations, without any acknowledgement from Doug that he understands the issues and will fix them. I'd argue, if Doug were to spend the time reviewing and understanding the copyright policy, and were able to appeal his ban to the community with the explanation that he knows what he is doing isn't compliant with policy, then indef doesn't mean indef. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase you are looking for is: indefinite doesn't mean infinite. An indefinite block is one that does not have a set expiration date (i.e. has no defined time limit). By definition, an indefinite block is indefinite. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When an editor is indeffed for copyvio, if they legitimately appeal, they are asked to explain copyright policy in their own words. Usually they're unblocked after that unless other outstanding concerns exist. Temp blocks haven't worked historically in general for this issue. Sennecaster (Chat) 16:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I know Doug's been given a chance to recheck some of his articles and has not done it adequately. But that's under the stress of the moment, which is far from ideal. I say give him a bit of breathing space, with no more new articles or GAs etc for now, and let him try to address the problems under kinder conditions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not doing anything *is* not fixing it adequately! And yes, I know what happened - but it doesn't change the fact that it's all in a very stressful environment, which is not a good way to judge how he might respond in better circumstances. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess that's where we differ. You give him the benefit of the doubt to improve because of his contributions. I don't, because someone with over 70,000 edits shouldn't need handholding to know they can't CTRL+C and CTRL+V material into an article. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You really don't need to lecture me on the obvious, you know. I can see we differ - I could tell that from the word "support" in what you wrote above. Anyway, I respect your opinion and I'm not trying to pick holes in it - so please return the favour and go badger someone else now, eh?Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, it wasn't unkind: Words on the screen don't always reflect the meaning behind them, I don't blame anyone for a misinterpretation, and I wouldn't blame you for getting pissed if that had been my intent. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose in favor of an indefinite but appealable GA/DYK as I outline in my !vote in the next section. I'd like us to try something else before going to indef. Yes, Doug had serious communication issues, which required a block (good block btw). My experience with him in the last couple days leads me to believe the block worked, as I have not really had any communications issues with him while working through content issues. For example, see Talk:New York Central and Hudson River Railroad No. 999#Bunker as well as Doug's recent edits to that article. Yes, he mentions the GA thing, but only once, and despite that, he engaged promptly and civilly, and made edits to the article that addressed the issues raised. It was a totally normal interaction from my point of view, and that gives me hope that these problems are fixable (see also the "Speed test" section of the same talk page, and Talk:Charles Grafton Page#Source checking and Doug's recent edits to that article). Now, even if the communication has improved, there are still other issues outstanding: source selection and copyvio/plagiarism/too-close paraphrasing. That's why I support a more limited ban in the next section. I think we should give Doug a chance to fix it all. Now, if he ignores everything, and just goes on editing as before -- if there are any new copyvio issues, for example -- then I would support an indef block. I feel like right now we should be at the step right before indef, but not quite at indef yet. Levivich😃16:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as long as other options are on the table. To be clear, though, the subsection I started above no longer seems to apply. This thread is still painful to read, but for somewhat different reasons at this point. We're no longer primarily considering how to handle a productive contributor who has a rather checkered history of on-wiki communication and made some mistakes regarding information about himself, but rather an apparently widespread problem with the content. I'm nearly always going to support trying something else first, before jumping to an indef/cban, however. There are some other possibilities being floated which seem like they may be worth trying. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really didn't want to fall under the support column here, but I just don't see a viable alternative. Indefinite is not infinite, and appeal after a few months should be left open to Doug should this proposal pass. If Doug had fully engaged and taken this seriously from the start, I'd be opposing this. The copyright issues also really push this over the edge for me. Until Doug can demonstrate he understands copyright, I'm afraid allowing him to edit here is a clear negative. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think an examination of the totality of the situation -- bad writing, bad communication, bad editorial choices, trinket collection, etc. etc. -- means that however good his faith may be, DC is really not a net positive for the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Their suggestion today that they were about to nominate another article for GA makes clear to me they absolutely do not understand or take seriously the issues raised here. Indefinite isn't infinite, but they need a complete 180° on communication and their approach to editing before they are a net positive to the project. Long term, I'm thinking some sort of restriction on the rate of GA submissions and a (30 day?) cooling off period of no submissions each time one is declined might help, but they still need to learn to communicate. It will take a long term to rebuild trust after the copyvios. VQuakr (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my god, DC is thumbing his nose at this "situation". The article he wants to nominate for GA is Flexible barge. It is currently Class C. DC made two edits on September 8, 2022, that didn't do much if any to improve the article. The last time he edited on that article was on May 18, 2014, over 8 years ago. Now, apparently as part of his standard operating procedure, he thinks it's time for him to collect another coveted GA for his user page just to show everyone how wrong they are because it is so "productive". While everyone is posting here about an indef, DC is ignoring you and continues to carry on as usual. Isn't it time to decide to stop this nonsense and indef block DC? Get it over with before DC thumbs his nose at everyone again. Osomite 🐻 (hablemos)01:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm had offered to pre-screen his GA nominations for him, further up in this section, and Doug agreed, so I don't think this as bad as it looks -- he's abiding by what he's agreed to so far. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a positive thing that his only response to this whole thing is to find one person who is willing to look through his GAs, and then stating his intent to submit another GAN, 4 hours after a discussion was started to topic ban him from submitting GAs. It seems that their entire focus while this discussion is going on (that at this point is going to determine their very ability to contribute to this project) is on submitting even more GAs. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just shocked that he was intending to submit an article with a dozen or so dead reference links (to a website called waterbag.com as well, sounds reliable). Expand: It is worth pointing out that Chrome just flagged that website as a phishing website for me, so maybe don't go there. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, while I haven't clicked on the waterbag source, it appears based on context to possibly be the (defunct?) product website of one of the examples of flexible barge that the article overemphasizes. So it's not totally out of left field, although still not great. Hog FarmTalk00:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I looked at the article I thought to myself that if it was at AfC then I would at least comment that I had concerns about it not being written in a neutral point of view and not giving a balanced view of the subject as it almost ignores the first product. Gusfriend (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously @Hog Farm:? "Not totally out of left field"? I guess you actually meant, "Did not totally come out of left field"--that is the exact metaphor you imply. Well, it did come out of left field. DC is doing his typical usual and strange behavior. He just continues on, doing as he pleases, as if he is not under the threat of an indefinite block.
Hog Farm, if you would take a clear-eyed unbiased look at the article Flexible barge, you would see that @Doug Coldwell: is being disingenuous about the quality of the article--it is currently Class C. It should stay Class C and perhaps be deleted. DC made two edits that didn't amount to anything and then showing his self-assured hubris and desire for his own gratification, he wants to nominate a definitely sub-par article for GA. Please review the facts, think about it, and determine if your support is justified. Osomite 🐻 (hablemos)01:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Osomite: - For one, based on your tone in this second paragraph, I don't think you actually read what I told Doug on my talk page - that this isn't ready and that he shouldn't nominate it without substantive work. As to the waterbag source, that's what I'm referring to on my talk page by and parts of the article rely too heavily on Spragg's promotional material for his invention. It's a promo source for Spragg's product, and I would not have told Doug that the article was clear to go unless that source was gone (and I would have also required that Doug restructure the article to be actually about the history of flexible barges, not coatracking about a couple commercial products). I have no idea what you're referring to by "your support is justified", because at no point have a recommended that Doug nominate that article in that state for GA. Hog FarmTalk02:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: "Based on my tone"? By "tone" you think you know what I read and what I have not read? How curious? I am being critical about a word you picked, but from the context of your post, it seems that I offended you.
Your post at 00:35, 9 September 2022, appeared to support DC. After all, above on this page at 15:47, 8 September 2022, you opposed the Indef which was "support" to DC and your "not out of left field" was also "support" to DC. Don't take my words out of context, claiming "I have no idea what you're referring to". I clearly said that you have to "DETERMINE if your support (to DC) is justified". I read what you wrote and I made my reply to what you wrote. Read what I write and reply to what I actually wrote.
Let's look at the facts. While writing my comment to your post at 00:35, 9 September 2022 above, I did see your comments to DC telling him to hold off on the FUBAR Flexible barge article GA Nomination. Your comment to DC on your talk page was at 20:00, 8 September 2022. And then you commented on this page at 00:35, 9 September 2022 (about four and one-half hours later). I read in the most recent post that you were saying the current situation with DC was all good. Is it? You said, "not out of left field" which I interpreted as "being all good"; there was nothing to worry about with DC. Using that metaphor you created ambiguity. You need to pick your metaphors more carefully.
I addressed my concern about the last thing you posted. If you had mentioned the posts back and forth between you and DC, the actual situation would have been clearer and perhaps I would not have commented. But it wasn't, so I pointed out that your position on the Indef should be reconsidered. If you take a position, clearly explain your position.
Considering the circumstance, perhaps you are too close to the situation and need to step back to gain perspective. To solve the situation with DC it is going to take more than telling him to slow down on the GA nominations. Osomite 🐻 (hablemos)04:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's also used as a reference for the book "Water, War, and Peace" at the end of the second paragraph under History. Wikiblame doesn't seem to assign that prose or reference to Doug though. Which, to me, actually is more concerning: He improved some parts of the article, didn't look at the rest of the sources (otherwise the dead links should have been addressed), and was going to submit it for GA review anyway. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:CVREPEAT and WP:CIR. I don't like supporting this either. However, at the moment their priorities seem to be mixed up. They need to be here giving assurances and, at the same time, show they understand the problems discussed here. Instead, they are focused on nominating another article for GA (as pointed out above). Hence, they are virtually ignoring this discussion. And they continued with copy vios and a lack of PD attributions after a CCI investigation was opened in 2021. Warnings don't seem to work as shown by talk page entreaties from long time contributors [24], [25] and this long ANI thread. Neither did a short term block [26], [27]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a last resort (are we there yet?). As much as I'd like to give him a chance to ameliorate his behavior and address his issues, and as much as I recognize that he's acting in good faith, Doug has expressed minimal willingness to improve his behavior as far as I'm aware; on the contrary, much of what I've seen him say regarding this discussion is about the fact that there are 200+ GAs and 500+ DYKs to his name. That's great, but what does that mean when they're all riddled with copyright violations, plagiarism, or are otherwise poor quality? Combing through his 200+ GAs for copyvios is going to be a daunting task, and it'll only grow more so if Doug isn't willing to address that this is an issue. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 23:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per my comments above. If the problem is that he writes too many bad articles, then an immediate solution would be to remove autopatrol, and a more severe solution would be to require him to go through AfC. If the problem is that he writes too many bad articles that are sliding through review processes (GA/DYK) unnoticed, then the problem is obviously with the review processes. If we are half-assing them on such an industrial scale that "just nominate a bunch of shitty articles" is a viable way to game the system and have them all approved, it means we are not actually reviewing them. Our project is screwed if we are just rubber-stamping the review processes for the sake of backlog. There are already GA criteria that nominations are to be checked for accuracy. There are already GA criteria that nominations are to be checked for copyright violations. If the nominations are garbage, we should be failing them. If people are malding at reviewers about their GA nominations being quickfailed, we should be enforcing civility guidelines. Our project is screwed if we are simply allowing reviewers to be buffaloed into accepting garbage. If the GA process is unable to handle people submitting bad articles to it, then our project is screwed, and our review processes are useless; indeed worse than useless, because falsely claiming something to have been verified prevents it from being checked and disproven later on. The solution for our project being screwed and our review processes being worse than useless is not to indef one single guy who happens to be submitting bad articles -- it's to unscrew the project and have actual review processes. jp×g01:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Oppose, per below, I believe Doug's behavior can still be corrected. We'll need to keep a short WP:ROPE for a bit but I think Doug is capable of making constructive contributions. Etrius ( Us)03:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:CVREPEAT, with the understanding that indefinite does not mean infinite. This is a preventative measure, to prevent more copyright violations (latest we've discovered is 10 August right now, but could be even later). We are expanding the CCI with at least every single edit from this year alone, if not further back pending more extensive manual review on the part of at most 5 editors. Every single time we say "last chance" it never actually is enforced, and people just commit copyvio as we lacksidasically clean it up and say that it's okay as is. I don't know how motivated Doug is by chasing GA/DYKs, or if the tban will act as a sban in that regard, but I'd rather not take the chances of more copyvio being added. If an indef does not gain consensus, I don't want to hear complaining and opposes to a block if he commits copyvio after this thread, because that is where we are right now. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with an emphasis that this is Doug's last chance. Despite his faults, this user is very productive, and it would be a net negative at the moment to see him blocked. Restrictions like the GA TBAN and others of that type are far more digestible at the moment. However, I would like to re-emphasis, this discussion makes it clear that the community is very fed up with Doug, and this is likely his last chance. Curbon7 (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – WP:CVREPEAT, WP:CIR. Has he said anything, at ANI or elsewhere, about the recently found copyright violations? Even if he doesn't nominate more articles, all of his large contributions to mainspace will need to be continuously scrutinized. And I do think it's more a problem with a specific editor than an actual systemic problem at GAN. Reviewers simply cannot scrupulously check every offline source, so we assume good faith – and that works >95% of the time. I more carefully spot check GANs by newer editors, but we expect experienced editors—here is someone boasting their 200+ GAs!—to not introduce copyright violations in their work. Ovinus (talk) 06:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Firefly, MER-C, and Sennecaster. The number one priority here is to stop him from committing anymore copyright violations. After so many repeated copyright violations, an indefinite block is the only appropriate action to stop the violations. Whether he knew what he was doing was wrong or not, an indefinite block is unfortunately the only way I see of stopping further violations. Signed,The4lines |||| (Talk) (Contributions)19:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
that's the number one priority Are you sure you've thought this through? (Stopping copyright violations is very very easy: delete the encyclopedia, bam, done; completely foolproof.) --JBL (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There were several problems with his editing, and the self-serving GA nominations were a major one. We have topic-banned him from that. Let's see if that is enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We are all volunteers and we should not look to indef another useful editor. The editor has already lost AP and that addresses whatever copyvio concerns there were. This editor is competent and this editor is 100% here to build the encyclopedia. This thread has spiraled into ratcheted up consequences that are clearly putative and not preventative. The editor had a clean block log before this chumming at ANI, and this feeding frenzy ought to stop. Lightburst (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How does losing Autopatrol fix the copyright concerns? It only means that someone will look at new pages that are created not that all of their edits will be reviewed. Gusfriend (talk) 09:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who mass produces work filled with copyvio is not a "useful editor" nor "competent", period. Removing AP is akin to putting a band-aid on the Titanic. His close paraphrasing almost entirely uses sources like newspapers.com that don't come up on Earwig's tool and need to be found by manually comparing each source with the text of the article. We're going to spend years cleaning up after Doug's careless copyvios. He's introduced copyvios as recently as less than a month ago. Banning him protects the encyclopedia from further copyright violations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DC will add hours of work to copyright cleanup efforts. It will take years to clean up. Your own CCI took us 3 years to complete despite being literally <200 pages. I didn't even have to worry about pissing people off because I'm removing blatant copyvio from GAs. Wanna extrapolate from there to a CCI that will be thousands of pages long? Doug has made no reassurances that he understands copyright policy and how not to violate it, and losing AP fixes nothing about copyvio. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lightburst. There's no way this rises to the level of an indef block. To do so seems retaliatory. I too have issues with the current GA/FA process (people making up their own rules). Now, is his editing clean? No. Is it in need of upgrades? Yes. If something needs such improvements, the appropriate action is to simply oppose his nomination and clearly state what isn't appropriate and where the guidelines of WP are not being followed. Buffs (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not needed yet. I'm interested to see how the GA/DYK + removal of autopatrolled sanctions will do. This whole discussion has caught a lot of eyes, and I'm sure some will continue to check the creations of Doug because of this, more detailed than what we normally do at NPP. If those won't be enough, however, then we can think about an indef block. ~StyyxTalk?11:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't think it's necessary for now considering the GA/DYK ban, which should get into the heart of the main issue. If it fails to be effective then perhaps a block proposal can be revisited, but for now we should probably see if the other measures work first. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 19:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a user that does not even understand why it is a problem to be making major copyvios in the pursuit of more GAs, should be blocked until they do understand and appeal. Andre🚐04:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, someone's gotta do the unpleasant job of closing this at one point or another. By my count there's 19 votes to indef and 19 votes to not. I voted to not indef, although I'm reconsidering now since he's still trying to collect more GAs (see this) instead of cleaning up his copyright violations. Any thoughts, guys? —VersaceSpace🌃22:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
VersaceSpace, the GA review in question was of a nomination made before the GA/DYK ban on new noms was enacted below, and was opened by a reviewer who had knowledge of said ban. Per Salvio's close of the ban, the seven pre-existing GA nominations were grandfathered, so they will gradually be reviewed until none remain; no new nominations are possible before September 2023 at the earliest. It seems likely that working on the reviews will involve fixing copyright violations in those articles, given the review you point to; if it doesn't, well, that'll be a useful data point. As far as closing this is concerned, I would have expected the entire report to have been closed by now; the two restrictions (autopatrol removal and GA/DYK indef ban) have been enacted, there's clearly no consensus for an indef Wikipedia block with such an even split, and the general discussions have wound down. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that there is consensus for an indef ban at this stage and think that it should probably be closed by an admin as such. It is worth noting that (a) they have not retracted their comments about how this is being driven by jealousy, (b) they have not engaged with the discussion, and (c) they do not appear to be working with others to solve the issues that have been identified. I would also like to say that just now I found some errors in their GA articles. For example these linked articles submitted for GA 4 weeks apart by the same person that contradict each other (and are sometimes internally contradictory):
Buckeye Manufacturing Company was nominated for GA and accepted on 6 June 2022 ([28]) and has defunct in 1917 in the infobox and under "Demise" says that that is when they stopped making "Lambert vehicles" and they were a defence facility from 1917 to 1919 then renamed "Lambert Incorporated".
Lambert Automobile Company was nominated for GA and accepted on 3 July 2022 ([29]) (which itself said defunct in 1916 in the infobox and 1917 in the text) says that Buckeye Manufacturing Company stopped manufacturing automobile parts permanently in 1922.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This isn't mutually exclusive to other sanctions that may be levied against Doug. User:Satellizer brought up the idea of removing Doug's ability to nom GAs and DYK pages. Likewise, it has been discussed how much his WP:HIGHSCORE mentality has gummed up the GA backlog. Between removing autopatrolled rights and throttling back his GA noms, perhaps we can get enough oversight to correct his behavior. Added based on User:Levivich's comment: The ban will be indefinite but is appealable. The ban will go for a minimum of 1 year and until Doug has resolved the copyvio/plagiarism/etc. issues raised here at ANI. In addition, following the end of his ban, limiting his GA & DYK nominations to 3 of each per month until he has demonstrated a track record of quality nominations (we are not repeating 60 GAs in 60 days). There likely needs to be a village pump conversation about an overall max to the number of Good Articles one can nominate at a time, but that is a separate issue.Etriusus (Talk)15:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, if only to provide some relief to GAN. My own experiences with Coldwell and many of the comments above make me wonder if this will have long term effect on Coldwell himself. I seriously doubt that this will encourage him to shape up, either, as he could just bulk up an article and then sit on it for long enough to get someone else to nominate it, or wait out the ban. –♠Vamí_IV†♠16:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support indefinite GA/DYK ban, appealable after problems are fixed - I like this idea but would prefer to tweak it slightly. The ban from GA/DYK noms should be indefinite rather than limited to any specific time period, and of course "indefinite" does not mean infinite. Doug should be able to request an unban, and in the request, should confirm that he has gone through all of his creations (yes, that's hundreds; yes, it will probably take a year) and fixed the problems raised here (including both copyvio/plagiarism and sourcing). Then editors can check and confirm and decide based on that whether to lift the ban. This would allow Doug to demonstrate to the community that he has made the necessary adjustments in response to community feedback. Levivich😃16:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What if he doesn't? There is no way to force Doug to go back and clean up all of his stuff, and there's nothing to stop him from continuing to make more content with this sanction, he just can't submit it to for GA review. Between this, and losing the AP tag, all these sanctions are doing is causing more and more work to clean up after this editor, while also not addressing the core issue: The copyvios. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course he can't be compelled to clean up his own mess. (That being said, what remedy do you suggest that would prove any good in tracking down the copyvios?) But if he doesn't, the answer is simple: the ban sticks until he does. ANY ban is conditional on the subject convincing various parties that they plan to fly straight henceforth. Very well, then, cleaning up his mess is how he convinces me. Ravenswing 23:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My concerns, elucidated above, are mostly targeted at the WP:HIGHSCORE approach that Doug takes to his GAs and DYKs, and by removing this aspect of the Wikipedia process, hopefully some other concerns will remedy themselves. Additionally, this will provide some relief for the CCI team as they work through his content, as well as GA reviewers who are burdened by the overflow of his submissions. — GhostRiver16:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
support This whole thing has been just frustrating to read. And its sad to see Doug take no ownership other than "Look how many things I've done." I think that Doug should be given a very short WP:ROPE and be given a chance to figure out how to correctly source and cite without copyright errors. If Doug can learn to craft GA quality articles without significant oversight, then I would love to see them appeal this, but I think some serious growth needs to happen, along with some ownership of the problem before nominations resume though. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, first choice to an indef at this point. Doug's obsession with getting DYK/GA credits seems to be the root of the issue. If we remove the incentive, combined with pulling autopatrolled, I suspect Doug will have much less reason to maximize speed while cutting corners on quality. If the CV issues continue following that, it should automatically default to an indef. I also feel it may be valuable to have some kind of speedy delist process for his GAs, rather than having to have a full discussion. What form that would take, I'm not sure. ♠PMC♠ (talk)19:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I am doubtful whether this will work but I can see it's an attempt to find a middle ground. It's better than just pulling the autopatrol right. I would feel better about supporting this if I had evidence Doug can edit within policy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The rapid-fire low-quality GA nominations have been a long-term severe drain on GA reviewer volunteer time, and a frustrating experience for reviewers who put time and effort into failing reviews only to see Coldwell renominate his articles quickly and get passed after a more superficial review. Additionally, the volunteer effort saved by holding off on new GA nominations is needed now, to check back through his many old GA passes. The pattern of articles made from lightly-reworded rehashes of sources, thrown together in something only vaguely resembling an organization, is by now so well established that I'm not convinced this setback would be enough to convince Coldwell to put more effort into quality over quantity, but if that happens too then so much the better. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as it seems to be that many of his problems stem from his apparent desire to pile on continued GA passes or attempts for bragging rights, quality or copying problems be ignored. Nipping this in the bud is needed to stop further poor GAs from infesting the system. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support to provide additional relief to the GAN system. Removing Coldwell's nominated articles (10 of the 396 unreviewed at last GAN report) will raise the percentage of pending GANs actually written to GA standards. Forcing an examination of quality, not quantity, will change the incentives around this process significantly. It is also clear that there will need to be an extensive process of reviewing the existing Coldwell GAs to ensure they meet standard. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have felt they have taken advantage of the GA process for a while. As well as flooding the process with low quality nominations they also don't review articles in return. While this may be a good thing given the issues, it just adds extra pressure to the system and speaks volumes to their approach to editing here. Aircorn(talk)22:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Getting badges cannot be the only reason one edits Wikipedia. Sadly, Coldwell has made it quite clear that GA and FA are perverse incentives for him when it comes to article quality. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: But this at a bare minimum; I worry that as other similar editors have done in the past, he'll just seek out a new area in which to rack up Game High Score. Ravenswing 23:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is entirely possible that a GA/DYK block has the same effect as a regular SBAN on Doug, if his motivations are indeed shiny thing collecting, as theorized above. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The solid wall of supports notwithstanding, I think it is important to note that, if everyone's comments here are to be believed, there is is a massive structural issue with our review processes. I've commented to this effect above, so I won't repeat myself. Perhaps a proper analogy here is if some random guy with no medical knowledge is performing heart surgery with a Bowie knife in his bathtub on the weekends (and all the patients are dying) -- yet he is a legitimately board-certified cardiothoracic surgeon, who earnestly went through their examination process and passed with flying colors. In this case, it seems obvious that the state's certification board is not doing their job -- maybe the guy should have had some more self-awareness after the first ten flatlines, but regardless, I would not feel comfortable getting a triple bypass in that state afterwards if the response were "that guy's license is revoked and no changes are made to the certification board". If the consensus here is just to keep running GA without reviewing them to see if they are good or not, maybe it would be more appropriate to rename "Good Articles" to "Articles"? jp×g02:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that ANI is the scope for this, with all due respect. Ideas do have merit, but this thread is long enough/there are other venues. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think AN/I is the right venue to deal with the issue either, which is why I'm not supporting a proposal to deal with it by AN/I remedies. It is a broader problem, that needs to be dealt with by broader action than is being proposed. jp×g03:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Doug's pages will need to be reviewed. That's a WP:CCI and a Wikipedia:Good article reassessment issue (God help the backlog this'll create). I hope, I pray in fact, this was an isolated incident, but I agree that there do need to be some checks in place. Ideally, we need to have a more robust set of rules on spotchecks. I tried to bring something up at the village pump but everyone cried WP:CREEP and said we should just go case by case. Frankly, something should happen but idk if any substantial rule changes would get enough traction. Etrius ( Us)02:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that instead of using the GAR system, there should be a dedicated unit for handling the Coldwell pages with non-CCI issues, with the remit to eventually analyze all of Coldwell's 234 GAs and bring them up to code or delist them (basically, GAR but for Coldwell without straining GAR itself). It could be called the Coldwell Cleanup Force (WP:CCF has never existed) or something. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also spot systemic issues with WP:RFP/A as well. Why is only one user needed to approve free passes out of further editor scrutiny? We've seen quite a few editors with large-scale multi-year problems pass unchecked partially because patrollers can't spot their poor-yet-autopatrolled edits as easily. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The usual check on the GA reviewing process, one that comes up pretty regularly and seems to work well, is that good-faith GA nominators (the ones who want to go through the GA process because it provides valuable feedback on their articles rather than a shiny green star) complain at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations about superficial reviews of their articles, and the more seasoned reviewers provide feedback to the reviewer, up to the point of in egregious cases revoking the reviews and starting them over. The problem here is, that mechanism doesn't work when the nominator likes superficial reviews and doesn't complain. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Just checking two of his newest articles (Charlie H. Hogan and Arthur P. Yates), I and others in the CCI channel on the Discord server found significant copyvio issues, as well as issues with sourcing and badly written prose, yet both of them were GAN nominees nominated by Doug on the day he created the articles. Also seconding Sammy Brie's request to remove Doug's remaining GANs CiphriusKane (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm strongly conscious that Doug comes to this encyclopedia with positive intentions. I'm also conscious that many of us edit here for different *personal* reasons; having a sense of achievement from one's work and wanting to publicly display that are not in themselves problematic. Again, these come from a sense of good intent. There's also clearly some quality control issues regarding GAN processes. Nevertheless, my own experience with Doug in a failed GAN accords with the issues raised here; the fact that despite repeated, long-term attempts to deal with recurring problems there has been no resolution, indicates that this option is necessary. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
The proposal in this section doesn't mention Hog Farm's offer in the previous section to supervise any nominations Doug makes. I take that to mean that if this passes and the indef does not, Hog Farm's offer does not apply, but since that hasn't been discussed I want to call it out. Even though it means perpetuating the star-collecting approach, the goal of this proposal is to get Doug editing productively, and Hog Farm would effectively be a GA mentor. I'd be OK with that; it would protect GA from being flooded with bad nominations and might have a better chance of changing the way Doug edits. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my problem with this. Mentoring is something we do for novices, or otherwise promising folk. Doug is so very far from a newbie he'd need a plane ticket to reach it. This is an editor who's been around sixteen years, has nearly 45,000 live mainspace edits, and boasts of a collection of article creations, GAs, DYKs and barnstars nearly a thousand deep. It is inconceivable that he's unaware of the rules of sourcing, copyvios, proper conduct and the like ... and doubly inconceivable that an educated Westerner could possibly reach adulthood without learning that plagiarism is unacceptable. What we're seeing is willful misconduct or a sense that the rules just don't apply to an editor as great as he is (heck, just look at the several quotes on his user page along the lines of "Rules are mostly made to be broken and are too often for the lazy to hide behind" or "Rules are for fools") ... take your pick. Either way, I've seen nothing to refute my strong feeling that a mentor would just be one more obstacle to figure out his way around in the grand quest for ever more green buttons, accolades and laudatory newspaper articles. Just another rule to be dodged, broken or defied. Ravenswing 23:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What Doug could possibly learn from one well-regarded user in a matter of months that he hasn't learned from the entire community in 16 years, especially after the display of IDHT (or total lack of competence) above? -Indy beetle (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely blows my mind that the solution is to give someone with 70,000 edits more time to figure out they can't copy-paste material into an article. That should not need to be explained at 70,000 edits. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I'm shocked about is how little scrutiny is given to nominations for autopatroller, a role whose explicit purpose is to avoid editor scrutiny. How was Doug granted autopatrolled in the first place when 15 years ago people were already complaining about his article quality, especially as it seems that these quality issues have not changed at all in 15 years of edits? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The autopatroller right, unless my memory fails me, was handed out pretty much by nothing more than 25 article creations. Oh, hey, look, the newest applicant in that giant wave has X article creations, Y edits, and a clean block log. Down comes the rubber stamp, and judging from old archives, as little as a minute or two after the request was posted. I don't expect the approver vetted Doug's entire Wikipedia record, talk pages and all, any more than they did mine or anyone else's. Ravenswing 05:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is, I must have thought that the work he was doing in late 2008 was at least adequate (and, indeed, it still seems that way to me). If he's gone downhill since then and isn't listening to advice about what he's doing wrong, that's regrettable. If something needs to be done about this, do it.
There was so much unpatrolled content in 2008 - literally tens of thousands of articles that were automatically being marked as 'patrolled' as a result of being left for 720 hours - and I was pretty much the only one handling it. That's why I argued for the creation of JVbot, which led directly to the inception of autopatrolled. DS (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if I might express my dismay with this proposal. We should not have to meet Coldwell in the middle of the road just to keep all the little green crosses he loves bragging about. Coldwell should, and it has been argued above that he does, know better. We should not have to do his work. This suggestion is especially egregious to me as Coldwell has, as is demonstrated above by Iazyges (talk) previously taken an approach of letting others do his work while investing minimum effort into making sure his work is up to par. I have now myself reviewed a few of Coldwell's articles (in the past previously as a GAN regular and now as a CCI guy), and they just are not good articles, even setting aside copyright violations. They flout the GAN criteria and reviewers there, myself included, have let him get away with that.
I understand the tragedy of badmouthing so productive an editor as Coldwell, like has been done in this thread. But let me be frank: that productivity is at this moment not a boon, and we should not have to invest the time to fix what shouldn't have been an issue in the first place. Call me cynical, but I don't think anyone will want to, either. A lot of us, like say Hog Farm (talk), are going to want to be writing their own, actually good articles. And if it is decided that it is necessary to do this to keep Coldwell on side, to remove copyright violations from his work among other corrections, remember that the policy response to CV is a block. So let me ask everyone reading this section: are you willing to invest your time to aggrandizing Doug Coldwell? –♠Vamí_IV†♠11:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if there would be support for a fixed length mainspace block. I think WP:CVREPEAT should still apply, but maybe a mainspace block would fulfill the preventative measure to stop the copyright violations from occurring, while still 1. Allowing Doug to work through the copyright issues he has with other editors, requiring close collaboration that may improve his overall understanding of the copyright policy, and 2. Allowing him to create articles in draft form, which would require a thorough check before being moved to mainspace, to ensure no copyvios exist. 3. Would expire automatically, meaning that there would be no need to appeal to the community, perhaps reducing the feeling some editors have of alienating a prolific contributor. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's for the reviewers to decide on a case-by-case basis, as this sanction only applies to future nominations; the nominations that Doug made before it was imposed are not covered. Salvio14:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, should we leave them at GAR, only reviewers who are aware of this ANI board should review Doug's pages. Perhaps leaving a link to this discussion in the Notes section of the noms so reviewers are aware to be extra cautious. Technically, the proposal doesn't say anything about his current noms, though we should figure out what to do with them. Etrius ( Us)16:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think this was ambiguous. The community wholly supported banning Doug from GA and DYK submissions. If we are considering that active from now, I think we should consider those noms withdrawn, due to clear community consensus he should have absolutely nothing to do with that process right now. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Expand a bit: It is also worth pointing out that just before this ban was enacted, one of his GAs noms were quick failed for copyvio problems, meaning they’re likely to be failed anyway, just remove them from the queue. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a dumb and petty suggestion that serves no constructive purpose except to punish. Also the administrator who imposed the sanction had already clarified this point 15 minutes before you posted. --JBL (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, the nominations that were made before the imposition of the topic ban are not covered by the restriction; so, if a reviewer has questions, Doug can respond without violating his sanction. However, if the GA nomination is rejected, he cannot re-nominate the article. Salvio17:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was looking at Charlie H. Hogan and just noticed the following edit [30]
by User:Douglas Coldwell which appears to be an alternate account of User:Doug Coldwell (with a talk page that redirects to User:Doug Coldwell). From what I can see they work in the sandbox of the User:Douglas Coldwell account and then copy the completed text as Doug Coldwell. It may also be a good idea to check for issue on pages that have been edited by thi user as well although they appear to be the same articles.
Comment: Can we get an admin here to explain exactly what this is. A public account? This obviously is an alt account (WP:ALTACCN), is there any documentation/notifications to ARBCOM of Doug running multiple accounts? Etrius ( Us)05:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blocks should be preventative not punitive. The ban from GA/DYK is enough at the moment. If copyright issues continue, then more action is warranted, but a full block seems kneejerk at the moment. Curbon7 (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's been such little movement on this since the TBAN was enacted, I wonder if this couldn't just be closed. Despite supporting the indef, I think it's a valid idea to let this thread go and give Doug the chance the community wants to give him. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Postscript
For the record, given the work that will be needed to set this mess straight ...
People have mostly focused on DC's copyvios, but , it's important for people to realize that the copyvios are just one dimension of what is truly a dire situation. One particular of DC's edit I ran into somehow synthesizes it all into one neat package.
The article is Washington County Closed-Circuit Educational Television Project; the diff is [31]; the inserted text is
Even though numerous studies showed that students that received supplemental televised instruction were consistently ahead of the normal learning curve the concept came to an end in Washington County, Maryland.
This single sentence checks every box on the list of reasons DC's articles are so frequently dismal to the point of unredeemability.
First, it's a copyvio. Here's the source's text [32]:
Although numerous studies and evaluations concluded that students receiving televised instruction were consistently ahead of the learning curve, taxpayers in Washington County refused to support it.
Second, even if this passage weren't plagiarized, it's worded in a way completely inappropriate for our articles. "Learning curve" is meaningless slang.
Third, it contains random stuff not in the source, which says nothing about "supplemental" televised instruction, or a "normal" learning curve (whatever that could mean). This happens a lot with DC: stuff just pops into his head and he writes it down.
Fourth, the source isn't reliable for such a statement. The source is a personal retrospective written by a school employee fifty years later, explicitly intended (in its own words) to "honor the memory of the 'Grand Experiment' and all of those who contributed so much to its success." It's full of self-congratulatory statements ("Emphasis was placed on professional quality productions") supported by absolutely nothing, and pushes a theme of how wrong it was that the program was eventually ended (because of "Public Pressure to reduce the Television budget" and "Taxpayers begin to complain about 'costs' of teaching with television" and "The public (taxpayers) continued to complain about the growth and costs of teaching with television" and "A lack of continuity and understanding on the part of school district administrators and local elected officials"). Given all this, it's beyond debate that our article cannot be repeating, in Wikivoice (or even as an attributed quotation), the completely unsupported claim that "numerous studies and evaluations concluded [etc] [etc] [etc]".
Fifth, the content of the inserted text is inappropriate. Articles don't go out of their way to juxtapose one fact ("Out program was a success!") against another ("But they cancelled it!") in order to imply some kind of injustice, foolishness, or irony.
So even if the source were reliable, and DC's text was faithful to it, and the wording was encyclopedic, and it wasn't a copyvio, it's not something that belongs in the article anyway. It's wrong in every way.
Like I said, this particular passage ticks all the boxes, but any one of the problems I listed is disqualifying, and almost every sentence DC writes suffers from one or another of them. It's like a kind of Midas touch in reverse.
compared me to a shooter: What is your purpose anyway? Do you hate Catholicism or Church history, or do you simply hate all Catholics? If all you want to do is destroy things why don't you just go away and stop bothering people. I'm wondering if you are live streaming your "editing" of people's lives, like the Memphis shooter last night live streamed his "editing" of people's lives. Maybe you just get thrills from killing?
said I was a potential child killer: He is a vandal. He is a destroyer, not a builder. He is also very fast, efficient, and dedicated at it, so there is no way to repair the damage he does. It's like having a raptor loose in your house. You just have to hope he somehow doesn't notice your next child.
After I have opened this ANI notice, the user stated about me: Trying to put out an apartment fire is a waste of time when the arsonist who who started it keeps lighting new ones on various floors. Sometimes the only thing left to do is to point out the arsonist and hope someone who is faster and stronger can catch and stop him. This is not an attack on the perpetrator, it is a desperate attempt to save the building. It is your behavior that I am against, sir, not you personally.Veverve (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is a metaphor. I did not call you a child killer. The children in the metaphor are the calendar pages that you are, in fact, killing. Is it wrong to assume people know what a metaphor is? Megalonzerg (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No attack at all. Is hating Catholics a crime? It's been going on for centuries. All I did was ask a question based on evidence. I am trying to understand the man in hopes of finding some common ground for communication. I am somewhat miffed that you are personally attacking me as an attacker with no evidence of that at all, but I will assume you didn't mean to do that and let it go. Megalonzerg (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it wrong for you to have some perspective on all of this? Leaving aside that you have precisely 18 mainspace edits over the course of 13 years (a total many an editor can manage over an hour, and one that doesn't precisely qualify you as a builder), and that you yourself have never contributed to the pages in question, the encyclopedia is not going to stand or fall on the page length devoted to what the Catholic ecclesiastical calendar was in 1960.
Thank you for noticing my contributions to this work, even if it is in a condescending and insulting way, and especially for noticing that I don't spend hours undoing other people's precious work based on my opinions of how important they are to me personally. As a user and financial contributor to this important site I know what is useful and important to me and to people in my life. The pages and the much appreciated hundreds of hours of work of others which I have been defending in my recent comments have been the most important and useful to me of anything on the site for at least the last couple of years at least. The fact that they have been decimated of all useful information by a single "editor" in a single weekend, with no discussion in advance, and over the objections of others besides myself, should be something that gets us support from you, not your insults and rancor.
Apparently both you and Veverve look at Wikipedia strictly as editors if you think it is not a "webhost". To any user of the site, it is a web host of information and ideas. The more useful information it can catalog, reveal and make available to the curious seekers of knowledge in the world, the better it becomes. Suggesting that too much information is a problem and less information is a good solution to that is exactly the opposite of what a frequent user of the site is thinking. The user's experience on any web site is always more important than the creator's experience. Without the user, the creator is meaningless.
Like I said before, if a lack of sourcing is a problem and someone wants to solve it, how about doing some sourcing, instead of wholesale hacking. If someone genuinely wants to improve something, cutting should be a last resort, especially cutting information that is probably 99% correct (yeah, that's why I never worked on those pages). How about asking the originator of the material to add sourcing, or asking users of the page for sourcing. How about at least threatening to destroy it if there is no sourcing added, before gutting it completely? I think this is a reasonable approach.
Telling me to "get a grip" is also a personal insult and attack on me, which is somewhat ironic considering you are threatening to block me over things that are objectively much less offensive. It is a little bit encouraging, however, to know that somebody out there may actually have the power to block someone who is destructive to the project. It gives me some hope that the vandalism of these pages I'm trying to defend may yet be stopped and reversed. Ban me for defending what I love if you want to. Otherwise you may expect me to continue to do what is right until I am convinced my cause is futile, at which time, I will gladly ban myself. Megalonzerg (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is different from something else. My point is that Wikipedia is a web site that provides encyclopedic content. The good think about it being a web site vs. a printed book, is that there is not a limit to the number of pages it can contain, so it doesn't have to leave out information that fewer people are interested in, in order to make room for other information that more people are interested in. It can have all the information that anyone is interested in, so minorities can be served too.
Another thing that makes it better than a printed book is that if it includes fake news, the readers can expose that and dispute it. These are the things that have always drawn me to it. I am used to discussions and disagreements about things like grammar and politics and I like that I can look at the discussion page to see the views of people whose views have been excluded from the main page by those who have more power. This is something that is not possible with printed books.
But what I am not used to is seeing resources that are highly valuable to me and others, resources that I use every day, completely deleted with no discussion at all, like pages torn out of a book from my library shelf, by someone who simply doesn't care about them and is willing throw them away rather than work to repair whatever shortcomings he thinks he sees in them. Are you really defending this behavior? There may be some way to justify it technically and legalistically, and he certainly can enforce his will by sheer power, experience and tenacity, but is it the right thing to do? Is it the best thing to do? Especially after he is informed that someone else loves the material he is discarding, and for reasons that (he admits) over 50% of Wikipedia could also be immediately discarded? Please tell me that you can get passed your personal dislike for me enough to admit that it is at least not the best possible solution. Megalonzerg (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pisarz12345: violation of WP:BURDEN, says I am "blind", answers the same one-liner
I explained my removal ([39] and [40]) with policies.
The user restored the content, stating See: Eastern Orthodox liturgical calendar. I then explained to them why those information were not acceptable ([41], [42], [43])
I tried to confrond the user at their talk page about their lack of argument and poor communication, and they told me: You are blind (User talk:Pisarz12345#Repeating)
It is a metaphor. He is not saying you are physically blind. He is saying that the obvious facts are in front of you and yet you choose to ignore them. I understand where he is coming from. Don't take it personally. Megalonzerg (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve: from what I can tell, you seem to be edit warring against multiple editors (across a range of related articles), while being under the impression that you gained some kind of consensus, when it's clearly not the case (as pointed out by Elizium23). Have you taken the views of all those who reverted your edits into consideration? M.Bitton (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me summarise what I've found so far. Talk:General_Roman_Calendar#WP:NOTDIRECTORY has been going on for a bit. There's definitely been solid progress, but clear consensus is yet to be reached. Veverve and three different editors have edit warred over a variety of different calendar-related articles, with Veverve making around sixteen reversions. The first edit war was at Talk:Thomistic_sacramental_theology#Sort_out_required. A E Francis (talk·contribs) wrote a short message on the talk page [44] and did another revert immediately afterwards without discussing. This is the first canvassing instance Veverve pinged an editor from another discussion that agrees with them [45]. Following A E Francis's failure to engage in discussion, Veverve took it upon themself to restore their preferred version [46].
12 hours later, Veverve also reportedMegalonzerg (talk·contribs) to AN/I for personal attacks. Megalonzerg's behaviour is very uncivil, I'm of the opinion that while it's bordering on the personal attack line, it's still leaning towards disruptive incivility.
Pisarz12345 (talk·contribs) now began edit-warring with Veverve on a few different 'Calendar of saints' articles. Veverve warned Pisarz12345 and less than an hour later started another AN/I thread (this one). Pisarz12345 made no attempt to communicate.
There's also a few other instances of generally poor conduct, such as on Subpoena duces tecum by A E Francis, canvassing by Veverve [47], and more, which I took into consideration in my decision.
Phew. That was a lot. I've decided to come to a few BOLD decisions:
I've blocked Veverve (talk·contribs·page moves·current autoblocks·block log) for 1 week for edit warring going back multiple days, not waiting for consensus, and failing to properly discuss the issue. The week-long block might seem high for some considering Veverve tried to discuss the issue, or low for others considering Veverve's edit warring block in March and very high number of reversions, but I find it a good middle ground.
I'm leaving the threads open so people can feel free to endorse/object to my decisions, as well as possibly discuss calendar-related topic bans for the editors involved. DatGuyTalkContribs16:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add that you're all mostly good editors. The blocks are solely preventative to prevent additional disruption and help you realise how harmful edit warring on this scale is. Take it on your chin and come back better, I know I have. DatGuyTalkContribs16:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW this seems like a comprehensive collection of decisive actions that hopefully will get the job done. The only thing that surprises me is the decision to warn rather than block Megalonzerg, given the quite sustained incivility and personal attacks that they engaged in over several days. JBL (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1st, "they" is always plural. I am not schizophrenic. I am "he". "He" is the non-gendered correct form for referring to a single individual whose gender is not known. The head of the English Department at the local University has assured me that this is still the case. For most people who were schooled before the year 2000, it is like a flaming sword through the heart to see or hear a single individual referred to as "they".
2nd, as to claims that my communications are not civil, this is completely incorrect. I attempted to communicate with Veverve and he curtly dismissed me with no attempt to discuss any of my concerns, with instant "undo", and pasting condescending links and acronyms instead of engaging in actual conversation. I have since noticed that this is his common method of operation with anyone who disagrees with him and that they often realize their efforts are futile after the first try and just give up. Since his tone toward me was so openly hostile I replied with slightly more conviction to try to get his attention and induce him to actually discuss the thing. Instead of trying to work with me and find a solution we both could be happy with, he started accusing, reporting and threatening me. I only stated facts where known, and asked questions about things that were not known. I was no more hostile to him than he was to me, I was just more honest since I didn't have his years of experience being cleverly "uncivil" without drawing notice.
My questions did have the effect for which they were needed, however, and since they have informed me of how sensitive he is about being challenged, and the sort of behavior he is likely to resort to, I am done challenging him, and will be more careful in the future about offending people. Megalonzerg (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They is not always plural and it's very commonly used as a singular pronoun, there's even an article about it at Singular they.
What kind of craziness are you saying that "he" is not gendered? That's just laughably untrue, as the pronoun is definitely masculine. Plenty of women on Wikipedia would be annoyed or offended at being referred to as he in place of the non-gendered "they". Hey man im josh (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
as to claims that my communications are not civil, this is completely incorrect.
Again, "killing" was obviously a metaphor. I was asking the man if he just enjoys ruining things as a prompt to get him to reveal the real reason he felt "compelled" as he said, to completely dismantle in one day the hundreds of hours of other people's work by making a metaphor that would hopefully make him understand how other people feel when someone literally wastes their lives in so cavalier a fashion. The use of metaphors is absolutely civil and is in no possible way a personal attack. If anyone is so unfamiliar with the English language, ordinary conversation, and normal debating techniques as to genuinely believe this was intended as a personal attack, then I apologize for hurting anyone's feelings. To me, your suggestion that I was making a personal attack is, in itself, a personal attack on me. Since you say you are against that sort of thing, even while apparently engaging in it, I will assume this is a misunderstanding and dismiss it as such.
As for "he" being gendered or not, you are apparently quite young and the English language is not. We were always taught in school, up until very recently, that the word "he", like the word "men" was gendered or not depending on usage. If it was obviously used to mean a male person, then it was gendered. If there was no way to determine the gender of the person being represented, then "he", or "men" would be the proper word to use. "God regretted making men." did not apply to only the male population of humanity. "Men" can mean male persons, or it can mean all of "humanity" depending on context. In a case where using he for the unknown gender might seem awkward, "he/she" or "he or she" were commonly used. This was normal usage for centuries. Surely you have read a book printed before 20 years ago when all the Orwellian "newspeak" started, and know this all to be true. If not, we are further lost than I thought. Refusing to use correct grammar for political reasons is one thing, but pretending it has always been this way is quite another. It is "offensive" to be told that a novel way of thinking is correct because a couple of poorly educated people are otherwise offended, and so it is all right to offend generations of other people whose whole lives are now incorrect. Megalonzerg (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am neither young, nor male. I am also an English major and former educator. So, let me educate you slightly. 1) They can, indeed, be singular. And often is when gender is unknown or unavailable. Or just to add some variety to language. 2) English is an old language- but it is also one that is constantly evolving- you would serve yourself well to evolve with it. 3) Along the lines of the evolving language- it is now considered grammatically INcorrect to attribute gender until one is sure of which gender to attribute- hence the movement to use the singular they more than it has been in the past. 4) The use of male pronouns to represent females has been shown to be an act of repression- of minimizing the female experience and contributions to society. When we were a male dominated society- that was perfectly acceptable because the people deciding what was acceptable were.... male. Now the conversation has expanded to include men, women, non-binary, gender fluid and more. So- the language we use must also expand. Now- you can not like that all you want, and you can refuse to participate in a conversation that uses language you are unaccustomed to or dislike, but what you cannot do is assert that your archaic interpretation of language is the only factually correct usage of it. Also, don't talk down to others or you may find you are not, in fact, the smartest person in the room and someone will come along and give you the same treatment you tried to give others. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely NOT talked down to others. I am the one being talked down to. When I try to defend my point of view as merely valid, I become an attacker. Apparently on this site expressing a contrary opinion is all it takes to make someone an attacker. I have not experienced this in any other aspect of my life.
I know in some circles it is considered incorrect now to continue using they/he/she the traditional way, but I also know how damaging it is to the sensibilities of the majority of people still, to hear the language used in a way that was specifically condemned their whole lives as the most stupid of all grammatical errors. That is why I often reword scripts and presentations to avoid the issue altogether, trying to offend no one, as I keep checking periodically with "experts" like the heads of English Departments at various Universities to see if this new usage, which has been considered even acceptable for only a comparatively few years, is actually considered an official evolutionary change, or just a political fad. As far as I can determine the plural they has not gained official consensus yet. It is certainly not an "archaic interpretation" as you called it, as even 30 years ago it was the only acceptable usage. In fact, the last University professor I talked to said he would quit his job if it came down to it, rather than be forced to use "they" as a singular form.
In my world among the people with whom I live and work, this modern idea that "minimizing the female experience and contributions to society. When we were a male dominated society . . . the people deciding what was acceptable were.... male" is completely a political view with no basis in history or reality. This includes almost every female I have ever known. My strictest English teachers and professors were all women. I have only ever met three or four people who ever expressed adherence to this idea as you expressed it. The common believe where I live is that in the US both men and women have both dominated aspects of society in their own ways, and that the balance has been good for everyone - and that the recent push toward racial and sexual "equity" has generally been bad for everyone, and the traditional rules of language oppress no one.
I have not said, and I don't think that my knowledge, life-experience, and opinions are superior to yours or anyone else's. I just think they are no less valid and should not be attacked and dismissed as intrinsically wrong or evil. Megalonzerg (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's make this easy [[48]] Go read the MOS- WP has already decided on gender neutral language. Your circles mean nothing. You care so much about the damage done to people who got used to using demeaning language- you don't give a damn about the damage that language has done and continues to do to others. I also spent decades being conditioned to use a certain type of language. I grew up with a grandfather- born in 1911 in Arkansas who used a certain term for people of color because its what he was taught- but you know what- his 8 year old granddaughter telling him in 1990 that he shouldn't call her friend that term because its mean- managed to teach him new ways at 79 years old. If he can learn to be a kinder person and change his language- so can you. And if you can't- you can either follow the WP MOS or you can stop editing- frankly, at this point, I don't care which. Oh, and BTW- thank you for man-splaining to a woman that using the word MAN does not lesson the female contribution. I so appreciate a big strong man telling me that my experience is invalid. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I sat and stewed on this for most of the day and tried to let it settle, but I can't. First of all, your comment about equating the erasure of edits should no way delineate the heinous murder of innocent civilians. It is not a metaphor, it is simile. Regardless of the term you want to apply to it, it is not and should never be acceptable to try and indirectly accuse someone of supporting a vicious crime. It starts a slippery slope towards defamation. That is where the claims of incivility are coming in. I would ask that you build a little more empathy toward other editors, no matter how much you disagree with them. That is the true measure of being an editor that others will want to work with. Inomyabcs (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Equating the wholesale unilateral deletion of hundreds of hours of someone's work across multiple topics with "erasure of edits" is by far a greater exaggeration than my metaphor usage. A simile contains the word "like" or "as", at least that was the rule when I was becoming a professional writer and published poet. As for slippery slopes, wasting hours of other people's lives, and taking away things that add value to people's lives are both progressions down the slope toward actually killing. They both show a frightening disregard for others. If you steal the last 100 hours of a man's life, it is murder. If you steal 100 hours in the middle of someone's life it is not considered murder, but it is another version of the same crime. That was the point I was trying to make. The most common use of metaphors includes exaggeration in order to warn of the dangers that some situation can be leading toward. If a metaphor was exactly the same thing as the thing it was intended to illustrate, there would be no reason to use them. I never said someone else's point of view was wrong. I simply tried to express my point of view. If someone said "I find your comparison to be exaggerated and even offensive" I would have said "I'm sorry. I didn't mean to offend anyone." But if someone says I am attacking someone by simply expressing how I feel about their behavior toward me and others, I will defend myself against such blatant falsehoods. Megalonzerg (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DatGuy: (or any other admin) I request a quick glance at Megalonzerg's editing today (their first edits following the civility warning); in my opinion, 4/5 show incompatiblity with a collegial and collaborative editing environment. --JBL (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you are actually reading my comments, you have seen that I consider being referred to with the plural pronouns "they" and "their" to be highly insulting and an attack on my upbringing and my way of life. "He", "him" and "his", in accord with generations of English speaking people, are what I prefer. Please show at least this small amount of respect while you are otherwise disparaging me. Thank you. Megalonzerg (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ratcheting back the angst a bit would help in the respect business. Being born in the 1950s and taught English in an old-school environment, the use of "they" to refer to a singular person irritates me, never mind its use to refer to a singular person whose gender has either been disclosed or is obvious through the conversation. But phrases like "Orwellian newspeak" or to talk about flaming swords through the heart is the kind of shrill nonsense too often mouthed by touchy cranks unable to comprehend that language, like the world around them, changes. (Are you comfortable with me deciding that I'm offended, and that you're being highly insulting, based on your conformity to 1960s eastern Massachusetts slang and idiom? Given how casually you assume that every woman on Earth was thrilled about being generically referred to as "he" for centuries?)
Certainly if your aim is, after being warned for incivility -- and after more than one editor was taken aback that you weren't indeffed as being WP:NOTHERE -- to convince us that you are capable of editing in a collaborative environment without picking fights, this isn't a great hill to die on. Nor is doubling down on your combative remarks with cracks like [49]. Ravenswing 17:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My aim is not to "convince anyone that I am capable of editing in a collaborative environment without picking fights", since that is quiet obvious. I never picked a fight. I only put up my arms to block punches. My aim is to get several editors who keep personally attacking and disparaging me (in the very way they falsely accuse me of "attacking") to "ratchet down the angst" against me. Mocking my ordinary use of metaphors used to illustrate how other people's attacks against me feel to me, and then referring to my perceptions and life experience as "shrill nonsense", while comparing me to "touchy cranks unable to comprehend the language" seems deliberately insulting to me. It seems like what you are telling me that I need to not do, yet you have no problem doing it yourself, and nobody else out here is correcting you when you do it to me. Then, you add the absolute lie about me "how casually you assume that every woman on Earth was thrilled about being generically referred to as "he" for centuries" which slanders me to anyone reading your comments who assumes this accusation is based on something that I said, when in fact, I never even suggested anything like that at all. And what you disparage as my "conformity to 1960s eastern Massachusetts slang and idiom" is just the way everyone I know here in Kansas talks. I have never in my life actually spoken to a live person who used "they" as singular in conversation. I only experience that usage on websites that are trying to conform to the novel standards currently being set by a minority of media and academic intellectuals who want to reshape our culture faster than normal evolution could. English is a living language, and a great part of its charm lies in the fact that it evolves over time. Contrary to your insinuations, I love natural evolution of the language. What I do not like is deliberate, artificial manipulation of language for political purposes, which is currently subverting its natural evolution. As I see it, of course.
So, here's an idea: If you don't want someone to be combative, stop punching him. He would likely go back to just fixing grammar and spelling and adding English equivalents to metric only measurements like before, and remain quietly unnoticed year after year. Megalonzerg (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, buddy, if you want everyone to stop "punching" you, maybe you should stop being combative, take criticism onboard and say something like "sorry, my metaphors were offensive, I shan't use them in a future" and "sorry for lecturing you all about pronoun usage in English"? Sounds like much better plan than posting walls of text about how you are right and everyone are wrong, uneducated and oversensitive, don't you think? a!rado (C✙T) 18:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Hey, buddy" Really?
"Uneducated and oversensitive" ?? Sounds combative, especially considering that I never criticized, insulted or even communicated with you at all about anything previous to this objectively sarcastic, rude, exaggerated and insulting attack against me.
They drew first blood in all this, and now you are piling on for some reason. I was attacked first but tried to work it out with that one person instead of running to Mommy. He decided to get offended and started all of this with exaggerated "official" reports condemning my wording rather than addressing the issue. When I saw that he was unwilling to discuss any of my concerns about his editing decisions and methods but was instead becoming irate with me, I immediately surrendered to avoid conflict. Then the various attacks against me ensued. My "walls of text" are all defensive, including this one. I have attacked no one, and I have already apologized to anyone who may have taken offense at anything I have written, as no offense was ever intended to anyone.
All I tried to do in the first place was to defend other people's hard work that I saw being unilaterally torn down without discussion or adequate reason from my point of view. Most recently I offered to surrender again, to which you responded by kicking my dead body. Can you just be nice and just let me die in peace? Megalonzerg (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Megalonzerg: If you prefer being referenced as "he", make sure you update your user profile. Right now, if I look at your profile, your stated preference is Use gender-neutral terms when possible (e.g. "their contributions", "that editor"). See WP:EDPRONOUNS for the policy. — rsjaffe🗣️19:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JBL. Anyone who feels they can change an entire encyclopedia because they don't like the direction the English Language has evolved and who talks down to anyone who disagrees with them does not add to a collaborative environment. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've read over this whole ordeal a few times and unfortunately I am unwilling to come to a decision about blocking Megalonzerg. I feel they either deserve a very long or possibly indefinite block for disruptive behaviour, or no block at all. I'm recommending any passing administrator to make a decision before archiving this thread. DatGuyTalkContribs20:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Single-point disruptive editing (IP range)
Raise your hand if you want to plow through all of this! This is indeed originally a content dispute (as was said at an ANEW thread), but it has become a dispute about disruption, and discussion it on ANI was justified. I doubt Navarran's claim that "There isn't any single disruptive edit", but I do not see what an administrator can or should do right now, esp. given the enormous size of this thread. One thing we can do: semi-protect the articles. The editor has now registered, and User:Navarran94, you should NOT ever edit any of these articles without logging in again, OK?
Further, such logged-in editing will make it easier for disputes and discussions to be more focused. Navarran94, I am warning you: you need to be much more concise in your comments. Many an editor has been blocked for excessive talk page posts, and for being overly aggressive on talk pages. I don't have to tell you that it would be easy for any administrator to block you from the article, or from the talk page, or both. In fact, it would be easy also to simply block you indefinitely, but I am hoping that my warning(s) here will prompt you to simply tone it down. I might add that you might already have been blocked for edit warring also, and if an earlier ANEW thread ended in semi-protection before you had an account, you should take that as a hint: you were disruptive. Finally, speaking as an editor also, you need to become better in your assessment and application of sources and our sourcing requirements. There is no "official" source for a man who died in 1526, and even if there were, it wouldn't mean a thing. When other (seasoned) editors tell you about sourcing and sourcing requirements, you should consider listening instead of edit warring. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Range of single-point IPs with defiant/aggressive attitude, including personal attacks, and several behavioural issues, with erratic edit summaries (content and form) and removal of sourced content, false claims on content (misrepresentation of sources, "non-existing sources", among others), walls, basically related to removing "Basque" as a nation/nationality, or "Basque" altogether. Seems to have been before in the EN Wikipedia. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have used these IPs as I use unlimited mobile 5G data and my own ISP changes my IPs on a daily basis. Now I've made myself this account (as well as with my personal gmail, if any mod can prove that, since I'm not a fake account and this is my first account in Wikipedia excluding the anonymous edits) but since I want to edit that article as well as others I prefer to have it in an account.
What @Iñaki LL: says is not true. There isn't any single disruptive edit (perhaps my edit reasons were too long) nor I have never done any single personal attack as well as I have never tried to delete anything related to Basque as it was me who inserted "Basque ethnicity" in Elcano's page, because Iñaki LL and another user want to shoehorn his Basque origins, I said it's ok (most of the most valuable historical sites don't even mention it) that page is a verbatim copy of the biased Basque Wikipedia where they reclaim Elcano was a Basque born in "Euskal Herria" (a Basque nationalistic term invented in the 19th century yet Elcano was born in the late 1400s) lets forget the fact the English page of Juan Sebastián Elcano is 95% a verbatim copy of a biased version and that it doesn't include the most useful sources for the page (such as the Real Academia de la Historia) but searching for third sources to make a specific point.
That page, as I have specified in the talk page and in an ANI another user made against me (wanting to ban me, yet the admins just blocked the page and didn't revert anything as I didn't delete sources nor made anything wrong as well as I didn't make any "personal attack" despite having false accusations) that page was modified with disruptive edits made from a WP:SPA account whose all 17 Wiki Edits were made in the same day in the same page. This is the account: Mpub(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)
As noticed by other users in the talk page, Iñaki LL and Theklan always patrol this page to revert/undo everything they don't agree with (especially Iñaki LL) unless pro-Basque nationalist edits such as that SPA account I've posted above.
The lead of that page said "Elcano was a Castilian marine of Basque origin" the SPA account changed 2 weeks ago to "Elcano was a Basque marine" and every attempt any user made to revert to the previous version, was again re-reverted by Iñaki LL ignoring what the sources say as except for 2 speficially picked sources, all mention Elcano was Spanish as well (check the National Geographic source) no one is trying to delete anything Basque, is just that I want to keep this article neutral to keep the truth and historical accuracy. It's even plain ludicrous the Wikipage doesn't use the best sources (such as the RAH) but regional newspapers like the Basque Elcorreo to prove a point in the lead??
Also please check the "attempt to resolve" inserted by Iñaki LL. Other users have attempted to resolve that page (that is different from any other Wiki except for the Basque one, which is "casually" also edited by the same 2 users as in this page) Iñaki LL ignored that page for more than 2 years, as well as he now inserted again a RfC regarding Carles Puigdemont, someone that denied being Spanish.
I have asked, is there any source to prove Elcano ever denied being Spanish? No one provided anything and for these 2 users that's disruptive and a personal attack.
I have asked, is there any source saying Elcano was part of the "Basque Nationality" (which doesn't even exist as it's an ethnicity) ?? No one provided anything and for these 2 users that's disruptive and a personal attack. The fact that the sources mention other sailors mentioned he was Biscayne (not the same as Basque) doesn't make him a member of the "Basque Nationality" and I repeat again, please check that page and its talk page, I have NEVER deleted nor trying to hide his Basque origin/ethnicity, it's just that there is no thing such as the Basque nationality and no source says that, also this user (and the another one) try to erase the Spanish/Castilian background of Elcano, he was born in the Crown of Castile and when he died the Spanish Empire already existed, in fact Elcano died in an expedition trying to gather more lands for the Spanish Empire in order from the Spanish King (when he returned from the world expedition the Spanish King made him a national hero and has remained like that even now after 500 years) I' just trying to add factually accurate data that's backed up by the sources as well.
Even nowadays Elcano is considered a Spanish National Hero. 3 days ago there was a big navy parade (assisted by the King of Spain) where the Spanish training ship Juan Sebastián de Elcano) was shown as well. He is considered Spanish in the history books. Spain considers him a national hero. He was born in Spain and died in Spain. What's wrong in my edits? That a Basque Nationalistic user claims he was just Basque when I literally didn't remove but maintained that claim as well? He says I remove everything "Basque" when the history of my edits and the edits are there, the way he tries to twist up thing just because I wasn't a registered user is astonishing. I've only removed "Basque" from the Kingdom of Navarre page. His sources talk about the Basque Language, Navarra was a kingdom of it's own, not a "Basque kingdom" (another alternative fact that's not backed up by any reliable source) I have changed medieval for basque, since it was a medieval kingdom. Navarran94 (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to ask why this users says I'm a SPA (when I've edited several articles before I've made this account) and why he doesn't consider a SPA a real SPA user with all of his 17 Wiki edits made during the same day and in the same article (the one I've linked above) who changed the stable lead of that page.
I would also like to ask why the most reliable, useful and factual accurate source about Juan Sebastián Elcano (from the Real Academia de la Historia) is not leading the article. Like I said before, check Elcano's article in the Basque Wiki (you can check it with Google Translate) and you'll see the English Wiki is a verbatim copy of that wikipage, using less reliable sources just to avoid mentioning Elcano was Spanish. In the Basque Wiki it even says he was born in "Getaria, Euskal Herria" while Getaria was part of Castile in the 15th century and later part of Spain. Euskal Herria is just a political/nationalistic concept invented in the 19th century. We even agreed on letting he is of Basque origin/ethnicity (albeit it's only required by 2 users, but okay) but why trying to manipullate historical accuracy and why are we dismissing the most reliable sources regarding the biography of Elcano? Here is the most reliable source on this topic, which is actually missing in the lead whilst regional Basque newspapers are there... https://dbe.rah.es/biografias/6481/juan-sebastian-elcano Just because I edit the Wikipage according to what the sources say I'm disruptive? Because I point the lack of accuracy they accuse me of personal attacks? It makes no sense. --Navarran94 (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will be clear, I did not come here to discuss contents, for which I have contributed with long hours and verifiability, but to request protection from an evident all-out attack on me (and another veteran editor) by the IPs (or Navarran94 now) that has contributed nothing but noise, accusatory claims and poisonous editing environment, including name calling and breach of Assumption of Good Faith altogether, plus the points I made clear above.
It thus breaks all possibilities of a cooperative framework. For what we know explicitly, the IP has contributed nothing so far to the WP, but for his relentless POV pushing on a single point looks to me as if he was serving some outside purpose. My request based on the evidence, which includes self-entitlement for edit warring (see diffs above), is complete ban, failing that temporary ban for a month. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You and other user have been recalled for imposing your POV in that article for over 3 years (by different users) you have been asked to engage in a consesus in the talk page more than 2 years ago (in early 2020) which you deliberately ignored until 2 days ago when you tried to make me retake my edits instead of even engaging in a friendly talk.
You are not telling the truth again - it's all registered in the wikiedits, I have never called you any name nor I've didn't breach any assumption (why do you keep repeating such false claims just to get me banned because I'm against your biased POV which has been recalled by many users either in the talk page or in edits in that page??) In fact you constantly attack me saying I'm a SPA user and that I don't make useful contribs to the Wikipedia and that I'm disruptive, until the point you invent I have "called you names" or "I made personal attacks" do you realize everything gets recorded in Wikipedia right?
I would kindly ask any admin to see my edits, the reasons and the content, to see I've never broke the WP:NPA rule and to prove everything I've said is true, like this user thinks Juan Sebastián Elcano wiki page is like his own page or something, just look at the edits over the past year where he deletes/reverts anything he doesn't like yet he didn't even partake in the edits the WP:SPA mentioned above did, because these edits are biased on one side (even if such edits broke the stable lear) I would even like to request an admin action for that Mpub(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) SPA account to see if it's maybe someone's sockpuppet as it's too strange to see an account registered in late August 2022 who made 100% of his wiki edits on the same page on a 2 hour span and then disappeared.
PS: And this is a simple content dispute that can be solved in the talk page (as I said for the first time) yet the proof is here, the only thing this user wants is to get me permently banned (he even says it above) just to be able to edit that page the way he wants to, because there wouldn't be any reasonable reason why is he publicly asking Wiki admins to ban me just because I have returned to the stable lead that page had before 26 August 2022 when a SPA account changed it. And the false accusations of personal attacks my lord, I really ask you to please check my edits if I ever called this user names like he is claiming now. It seems he didn't like the fact I said that page is just a copy from another Wiki where he edits together with the another user that's involved as well.
The other user reported me and the page got blocked and an admin himself said that must be resolved on the talk page, now this user opened this ANI against me for literally the same reason (when an admin already said that's content dispute) and his only scope is to get me banned for no real reason, as I can see above he is making suggestions on that... I might not have hundreds of edits like he has, but I know this is not how Wikipedia works. I even made this account with my personal gmail and I have recognised I was these different IPs (I have never tried to hide it) since I use mobile data, my IP is constantly changing so that's why I created an account for myself. Navarran94 (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You understand that the odds that any admin or other interested editor is going to wade through that massive wall of text is slim to none, right? Ravenswing 03:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This issue has a long story with a very long background behind, that started 3 years ago as it can be proven on the page's talk page. I would appreciate someone to read it... But ok, then let's resume it fast:
Another user opened an ANI for the same reason which ended in an admin saying that's content dispute that must be talked in the talk page. That's why I got no block and the page got protected (for everyone) during 1 week.
A WP:SPA account broke the stable lead of the page 2 weeks ago (as well as he inserted some pro-nationalistic data) and no one did no action, but when other users tried to (including myself) we got reverted by Iñaki LL for no real reason.
The user who made this ANI ignored the talk page of that wikipage for more than 2 years, until 3 days ago just to blame me, despite being recalled to engage there. I see in this ANI he claims "attempt to resolve in the talk page" which is completely false as it can be seen in the talk page's history or Nationality section, which is the one he mentions and where he left users unanswered since 2020.
This ANI is for no other reason than a lack of desire to solve anything I'd say (since an admin already took action in a similar report 3 days ago) Iñaki LL is trying to evade how a content dispute has to be solved (talk page) and instead of that, he requests my ban/block as said above by himself in the last reply he made. For this I don't even need to put any proof since it's above my last reply. And just because I have pointed that article was lacking a WP:NPOV we are here instead of talking anything in a proper talk page.
And self-entitlement goes on relentlessly. An elephant in a china shop, on a mission. I am familiar with this tone, since I have been subject to attacks before, most notably by Asilah1981 (User:Inactive user 20171), a prolific troll on a payroll, banned 2017. All trust is broken for a collaborative editing and the case is clear. The profile created by the IP "from Navarre" with a Basquish name... fake as wooden coin. Iñaki LL (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This gets funnier... first you say WP:GOODFAITH and no WP:NPA but now you say I'm a troll and that I am fake. You even address to my personal info inserted in my own user page saying I'm a liar. This gets better and better. Now instead of trying to solve a content dispute that wasn't backed up by any source, inserted there by the edits of the WP:SPA account (the one you didn't revert) you are here making personal attacks and accusations against myself. Great!
So your excuse to not to engage in the talk page was for some inactive user when you were recalled by several users in 2019-2020 (I even see an user pinging you and asking for your reply in May 2020, a reply that never came back, and that user is still active nowadays) really these are your excuses? You made an ANI trying to get me banned because with that, you think you'll be again able to edit that page the way you want... but that won't happen again. Wikipedia is made to insert real data based on reliable sources. Read Wikipedia:Neutrality given the fact the stable lead was changed by a SPA user (which you casually support) is enough evidence to leave it as it used to be before... which is exactly as it is right now. Navarran94 (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've just wrote a new comment on that page's talk page with a brand new BBC source, yet to prove my intentions are not the ones I'm accused of, I won't delete anything.
I also urge Iñaki LL to engage in the talk page instead of using this ANI for personal attacks, suppositions and block requests. If I was a troll (like I was called above) why would I bother to make all of this? Let's solve things talking instead of throwing rocks at eachother's rooftops. I prefer to talk and discuss, as it has to be done in Wikipedia. Navarran94 (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The atmosphere is poisonous and the newly created username's behaviour totally unacceptable, for which I am very specific, I refer back again to the diffs above. It seems the username attempts to exhaust editors and admins alike. I see Theklan has also been affected, for which I call him if he has something to say on this issue. Iñaki LL (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, @Iñaki LL. I filled an incident about edit warring some days ago, with the result of the page being protected instead of blocking the IP. Since I filled the incident, I have seen many comments breaking further the most basic rules of conduct at Wikipedia. The user has admitted that he used more than one IP (actually, I filled the incident for one IP and answered with another one, while he was discussing in the page with both at the same time), he has said that he has been long ago around (what is not supported by the contributions made with the range of IPs), he has called me names directly, hided behing giant walls, not assumed good faith, and deleted referenced content. I would support Iñaki LL's claim here, and ask an admin to take action. Thanks. Theklan (talk) 06:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are the 2 users I was referring above, that have been recalled by several users thinking Juan Sebastián Elcano wikipage is like a page they own, while other people (including me) just want WP:NEUTRALITY the one these 2 users don't show in that page.
I see especially Iñaki LL has a clear lack of interest for the contest dispute, he still makes assumptions and attacks against me.
It's hilarious to see they accuse me of personal attacks and not assuming good faith while they didn't assume any good faith in any of my edits (check the fast revert albeit giving strong reasons and telling the data they edit is not backed up by any of the sources from the page) and they constantly attack me (especially Iñaki LL who said I' a troll and I don't make any useful edit for Wikipedia) while constantly attacking me and trying to trash every thing I write.
Now the second user also backs up Iñaki LL (like I said both edit on the Basque Wiki, personal contact outside of Wikipedia between both users is not discarded) he also falsely claims I have personally attacked him and called him names. Can they provide proofs of this? I think they should be punished just for trying to manipullate this to an extreme extent.
Where are the personal attacks and the "name calling" accusations I have been constantly accused of and that have been repeated in every single edit these users did both in the ANI and here? Especially Iñaki LL. Can you provide the edit diffs? Everything is registered on the Wikipedia, there is no room for manipullating and this should be punished. I have been falsely accused and insulted by Iñaki LL and he still claims I have personally attacked himself yet after 3 days he hasn't been able to provide any single proof... while I have been attacked even in this ANI by this user. Navarran94 (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the proofs were enough, but if you insist, I will give them once again:
Edit-warring and disruptive editing (deleting sourced material)
This has been done with more than one IPs at the same time (multiple accounts), and this account have been engaged in discussions as if they were two different users.
I will include in the "personal attacks" section just the comments written in this discussion, and the most interesting is the last one, where he accuses me of "knowing" Iñaki LL (both edit on the Basque Wiki, personal contact outside of Wikipedia between both users is not discarded). Knowing someone outside Wikipedia is not forbidden, but using the possible personal knowledge of another user is a clear sign of the kind of personal attacks you are doing.
Personally, I don't have anything more to add. I have been around at Wikimedia projects since 2006, I have done 428.400 editions at Wikidata, 334.000 at Basque Wikipedia, 37.600 at Commons and, indeed, much less at English Wikipedia (my English proficiency is not perfect), but still more than 1.000 editions here. I'm an admin at Basque Wikipedia, and this would be a really clear case for blocking. But, again, I'm not the one who decides in this wiki. I only hope that the admins see the case as clear as I can see it.
Thanks Theklan for your evidence and clear-cut approach. I have also been in the WP, Commons, Wikidata, and participated in several Wikimedia activities and events locally and worldwide, since 2008, as well as writing articles on WP projects. My general profile Iñaki LL is there for anyone to check. I have always be open to talk, but obviously there is little one can debate when a range of IPs comes profiling me and accusing me of doings, not-doings, shouldering the burden of proof on me and adding inaccurate and noisy edit summaries. The username does not like me, that is clear. I will be more explicit in description of each diff (some repeated), and hope not to come back here:
1 Breach of assumption of good faith, profiling of editors / WP:BATTLEGROUND 2 Breach of long-standing consensus for "Gipuzkoa", breach of guidelines for Help:Edit summary 3 Breach of AGF, profiling of editors, vague claims, Wikipedia:IJDLI, false rethoric (e.g. Euskal Herria, ""that have even written in the Basque Wiki that Elcano was born in "Euskal Herria" and not in Castille, the first being a concept invented by Sabino Arana in the 19th century", well... just check [63]) 4 Removal of sourced content, self-entitlement 5 Defiance, profiling, WP:Battleground, self-entitlement, erratic and vague discourse ("So "the concept of Spain didn't start until the 18th century" argument anyways overlaps the Basque nationalist movement that started in the late 19th century, now Iñaki, Theklan or the other one, are you able to debate and to prove factual arguments like you've been required for years? The time of your dominance in this Wiki page has ended") 6 Reference to other Wikipedias, WP:Battleground, calling my name, erratic rambling ("Spain and Gupizkoa didn't even exist in the 15th century", yes, Gipuzkoa did exist [64]) 7 Calling names, profiling, rambling ("it's curious how a non-Spanish person (according to Theklan and 2-3 other Basque nationalists editing this Wiki) died giving his life for the Spanish Empire") 8 Breach of AGF, vague talk and rambling altogether 9 Breach of AGF ("Of course, because his edits are ok with your pro-Basque Nationalistic POV"), personal attacks, like above (see Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack? for further details on what a personal attack is
Edit warring: 10 Erratic/noisy false edit summary content (WP:BATTLEGROUND, anachronic "Iberians" replacing Basque; "the only Basque name of Pamplona is Iruña", well check historic record and Basque Academy of Language's ruling/style gidebook 11 Erratic/false edit summary content ("Fair enough. I was referring to the Iberian Peninsula, but it’s better to leave it as a kingdom alone. It was a Kingdom, a Navarrese kingdom, not a basque one (no reliable source says that, it was added by a Wiki user) letting just “kingdom” is factually accurate.)", verifiability provided long ago and added further (see here) 12 Erratic rethoric 13 Erratic rethoric, WP:Battleground 14 Erratic rethoric ("he was Iberian") 15 Erratic rethoric, rambling ("The "Eneko" name has no source and he was Navarran, not basque"), check the rules and lists of the Basque Academy of the Language for a clue ([65]), check the Britannica for a clue ([66]) Iñaki LL (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am also pinging Srnec and Ohnoitsjamie, they may like to add something here related to their interaction with the editor in question. The editor will also have to clarify whether he was actually also 83.39.244.169 and 79.145.113.84 or not, almost identical in tone and content to his interventions in the edit summaries and talk page. I add the diffs corresponding to these IPs in the article Kingdom of Navarre:
No, that's not me, even the ISP is different. As for the accusations made by Theklan I've recognised from which IPs I edited from as I use mobile data, that's why I've made this account.
I recognise I've made mistakes and I have used the edit reason to explain long things, yet I haven't made any single personal attack to anyone. I didn't delete anything "Basque" in the page Elcano, just in the page Kingdom of Navarre in the lead, where I've changed it for medieval (it was a medieval kingdom) I didn't change anything else. As for the other page, I've seen the edit reasons of the user Srnec and I didn't delete/revert anything again.
Also making hundreds or thousands of edits doesn't remove the fact anyone has to respect WP:NEUTRALITY in all wiki pages, just as making WP:SYNTH from a ton of different sources is not accepted. The fact @Iñaki LL: and @Theklan: you're preferring the new lead inserted by the WP:SPA account Mpub(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) instead of reverting/deleting it (as you do with most of the other users) shows that lack of neutrality me and other users have referred to over the past 3 years, anyways now there is an official source that's more valuable than any newspaper. Navarran94 (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the interest of admins, he is again removing sourced content. And adding a reference which states just the opposite he wants to argue. Would it be possible to have an answer here, not that we know that he is lying ( I didn't delete anything "Basque" in the page Elcano where there are diffs above clearly showing that, indeed, he did it sistematically)? Theklan (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This user claims to have done "thousands of edits" yet he is here lying about my edit which is recorded as all Wiki edits.
This is the edit I've made which according to @Theklan: is "removing sourced content"
This is his edit saying the official Spanish History Academy (Real Academia de la Historia) is not a reliable source hence deleting the source and reverting my edit.
So my edit was inserting a reliable source without deleting anything and his edit was reverting my edit saying an official academy is not reliable whilst he accuses me of "deleting sources" while I've added content.
Now the user @Theklan: has made an edit war and he is on the edge to break the WP:3RR in the page Juan Sebastián Elcano by deleting an official academical source (saying it's not reliable) and also add the false claim made against me here saying I'm deleting sourced content when he has done that and I've just added a new reliable source.
He has also made WP:SYNTH to prove his edits, because some of them collide between eachothers.
Instead of coming to the talk page or trying to resolve anything here he is trying to impose his POV on that page, let me remind again the lead he supports was added by the SPA account "Mpub" and he'll probably get backup by the other user, saying the most reliable Spanish History Academy is "not reliable" as I've shown in the edit diff from above. You can find it in Elcano's page history. Navarran94 (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a source claiming that this man was a captain fighting in the Mediterranean when he was 8 years old is not realiable. But even that source says the opposite you claim. It doesn't matter, it seems that no admin is coming here. Theklan (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, in two different edits you've literally said that an official institution created in 1738 to study history (read Real Academia de la Historia) is "not reliable, Spanish nationalist source" this just proves how far from WP:NPOV you are.
You have lied again regarding the edits I've made today (saying I've deleted sourced content while I've only added a new source and I didn't delete anything) I'll leave the edit diffs below.
2. The edits we made today, mine is "deleting sourced content" according to you , it can be proven I insert that official source while he reverts it with no strong reason at all.
"No, that's not me, even the ISP is different. As for the accusations made by Theklan I've recognised from which IPs I edited from as I use mobile data, that's why I've made this account." A, no? Not you? ISP? Well, I do not know any exact behaviour of ISPs or their ranges, but it seems it is pretty flexible (ENWP). Here is anyone's guess: it has a trunk hanging from the head, has tusks, large ear flaps, pillar-like legs... you are right, it is an elephant...
See also "There is no historical source saying the Navarran Kingdom was a “Basque Kingdom” your sources speak mostly about the Basque language" in diff [67], with misrepresentation of sources (removal of "Basque", adding instead "medieval"). Also, as everyone with a bit of knowledge in the field knows, the Kingdom of Navarre was not only medieval. Sources existing in the sentence, for anyone to check:
This has been made by you with an intensive tryout to get me banned and since it didn't work, you don't know what else to add now? Now you accuse me of being the one behind these old disruptive edits made by people with different ISPs as easily proven by clicking on them? You don't get it, these IPs have a different ISP/Company (Wikipedia links to a tool called WHOIS) you're in a dead end here, just as I've had no hesitation to say which IPs were mine in my from (I made an account for that, to stop editing with different IPs) I've assumed the edits of the IPs that were me as I have a dynamic IP and this account is to prove I'm not any anonymous troll like you called me before, which is another breach of the Wikipedia NPA rule.
You did neither engage in any talk page as required by the admin who closed the previous ANI opened by Theklan. It's obvious you know eachother from before as you edit together in the Basque Wikipedia. Fortunately the admins in the English Wikipedia are more neutral. Navarran94 (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravenswing: With all due respect, I understand you deal with loads of input, but I took the pain to get the diffs and evidence as required. Still if noise and walls pays off, I do not know what the point is really of bringing the issue here. The IPs/Navarran94 appears to be familiar with internal mechanisms of the EN Wikipedia, which I did not even know after 15 years in the EN Wikipedia. No action in this venue, toxic atmosphere just escalates, the jungle. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also understood that the comment was directed to Navarran94. Nevertheless, a week has gone and no action was made, so the list of diffs continues growing, and we shouldn't be moving on (sorry, I added content to the article) till the ANI is solved. Theklan (talk) 06:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is your problem with me? Will you stop these personal attacks based on your assumptions trying to prove an erratic point?
I have never used such words "nazionalists" the ISP company is different, I ask any admin to prove the difference or to check my account to see that wasn't me.
Oh and Mpub(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) (the user that changed the stable lead, whose edits you support) surely is a WP:SPA since all of his Wikiedits were made in the same article during the same day in a 2-hour span, as can be proven on the contribs.
Since this user is deliberately claiming I'm the same as past disruptive IPs (notice how my IPs always start with 84.125.XXXXX but even the ISP company is different as proven by WHOIS/Geotools) can someone check if Mpub is someone's else account?
It's very suspicious to see how the edits of that SPA account were allowed by both of these 2 users that make "heavy patrols" in that page. Also at this point it's seneseless to see how between both users I've received false accusations and claims, one saying I'm a disruptive troll and the another one saying I deleted sources in my last edit when I've added another one and he deleted my source. Navarran94 (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Continuous BLUDGEONing, IDHT, and OFFTOPIC commentary on Talk:Libs of TikTok
On Talk:Libs of TikTok, @Korny O'Near: has been aggressively WP:BLUDGEONing an argument in Three other hospitals. The argument is in clear disagreement with RS, that the article subject (the Twitter account "Libs of TikTok") is not distributing falsehoods about various hospitals. The editor has has several of their previous threads on this talk page hat-ted as off-topic and I've found it's at the point to solicit outside opinion on how to handle their behaviour and this deadlock specifically.
For context, current wording in the article is:
The account has targeted other hospitals with false claims about gender-affirming care, including a children's hospital in Omaha, Nebraska, UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, and Phoenix Children's Hospital, leading to phoned-in threats and harassment. After Libs of TikTok's targeting of specific hospitals, other pediatric facilities including Chicago's Lurie Children's Hospital have faced harassment and false claims about care they provide.
This is supported by sources which state (Washington Post, Axios, and Daily Dot, in order): After gaining a large Twitter following in the spring as she baselessly accused LGBTQ teachers of being pedophiles and “groomers,” Raichik began criticizing children’s health facilities earlier this summer, targeting a hospital in Omaha in June and another in Pittsburgh in August. The attacks resulted in a flood of online harassment and phoned-in threats at both hospitals.[68]Pediatric facilities nationwide, including Chicago's Lurie Children's Hospital, are facing harassment and false claims about the gender-affirming care they offer. The harassment is driven by Libs of TikTok, a Twitter account whose posts are amplified by the conservative group.[69]Disinformation posted by transphobic and homophobic Twitter accounts about the types of gender-affirming medical care hospitals provide has prompted a deluge of harassment and threats against multiple children’s hospitals around the country. The hospitals being targeted include Boston Children’s Hospital, Phoenix Children’s Hospital, UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, and others. The effort is part of the broader trend of hateful rhetoric, legislation, and physical attacks increasingly targeting the LGBTQ community nationwide. Anti-LGBTQ Twitter account Libs of TikTok, which is run by Chaya Raichik, is leading the charge against children’s hospitals.[70].
The editor is currently advocating [71][72][73] for other editors on the page to effectively ignore these sources because they do not explicitly quote the tweets in question.
I have considered opening an RfC, but given the persistence of this editor specifically, and previous issues with them chasing off-topic arguments, bludgeoning their opinions, or ignoring arguments of other editors, I am opening an ANI instead. (This is my first time taking this course of action, so if this is the wrong place for this notice, I am happy to redirect elsewhere, or revert to e.g. RfC.)
Edits on the mainspace have gone against consensus and I told this editor that I would open an ANI on the topic of this editor's behaviour given continuations of this behaviour.[74].
In previous discussions:
Comments which have shown clear personal bias around this subject matter, rejecting RS provided by other editors. [75][76]
I think an RfC would have been better, but I'm looking forward to hearing what people have to say. I just want to point out one obvious factual error in what SiliconRed wrote: The editor has has several of their previous threads on this talk page hat-ted as off-topic. I think it was two threads that got hatted, and neither one was "mine", in the sense that I didn't start either one. I did participate in them, along with a bunch of other people (including SiliconRed). Korny O'Near (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This ANI highlights the SYNTH issues currently present at the article. First the Omaha hospital, The only source that covers it is the washington post, and it does not say anything about false claims, just that the she targeted that hospital with criticism. The second source says that Lurie's is facing harassment and false claims, and that libs is leading the harassment, but does not include libs on false claims. The third is more ambiguous with the source saying that libs is leading the charge, but does not go into any detail of libs actually engaging in false claims. Basic WP: OR says the source needs to directly (meaning explicitly in the source) support the material being presented. This material is not being directly supported, but is being inferred by those wishing to include it. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. But enforcing content policies is not bludgeoning, IDHT, or other behavioral misdeeds. So it might be worthwhile to highlight how content fails our content policies, especially when the discussion you are initially referring to is about the content in question. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to largely be a content dispute. I have seen this editor get a little bludgeony sometimes on the talk, but this a heated talk page overall. I'd recommend to Korny to just take it down a notch and get a little less passionate when discussing and giving their views on the article. I don't believe any sanctions are needed. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk03:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Siliconred I think you should tell the editor to also not believe in accusations against groups like Trevor Project unless there is a reliable source for proof, and argue about what counts as grooming (which is defined as sexual exploitation with a minor). Even if something is bad for different reasons, I don't want this user to continue any further arguments. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 08:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Korny has given voice to some fringe ideas in the talk page, insinuating, for example, that the Trevor Project is a front group for LGBT adults to groom and prey on struggling LGBT youth. He's either being deliberately provocative, or is just intensely hostile to LGBT people. In my view, he should be topic banned from LGBT-related entries on Wikipedia. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting, that the Trevor Project is a front group for LGBT adults to groom and prey on struggling LGBT youth is identical to the claims made about the Trevor Project by Libs of TikTok[86]. It may well be that the apparently superhumanly boneheaded inability to accept that LoTT was promoting conspiracy theories isn't because they just don't get it, but because they genuinely do not believe that they're conspiracy theories. In which case WP:NOTHERE is unfortunately required reading. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong Peleio but I believe you're referring to this thread, starting with Korny's assertion that there's a world of difference between "all gay people are groomers" and "these 50 [or whatever it is] gay schoolteachers, who post on TikTok about getting their pupils to talk about gender pronouns, are groomers".[87]. In later comments in this thread, Korny argues that calling specific teachers "groomers" is not a conspiracy. This culminates a comment from Korny implying, in no uncertain terms, that the Trevor Project is plausibly "grooming" children: Whether or not this is evidence of grooming is up for debate - but clearly there's a context for the (since-deleted) accusation that's far from simply, "they support LGBT causes, thus they are child predators".[88]SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 13:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really think the user shouldn't believe in accusations, that sound like uncomfortable rhetoric. I think a topic ban should be in play for now. Maybe warn them they have uncited claims about LGBT+ groups and people that feel disruptive? Not sure. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 08:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a TBAN from LGBTQ pages, but I think overall a warning is probably fine. A shot across the bow to keep ideology and credulous belief in controversial subjects out of Wikipedia. If they keep this behavior up, a TBAN would definitely be in order. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)12:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Korny isn't going to drop his beliefs just because of a warning on Wikipedia. If anything, he's just going to find new, more subtle ways to insert his extremist beliefs into entries and discussions without running afoul of moderation. And he's already plenty good at that, I'd say. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They have refused to desist, they are still arguing against the existence of a generalized conspiracy theory "Not true, and not backed up by the sources. I think the evidence shows that Libs of TikTok has always used the term to describe (rightly or wrongly) people, gay and straight, who work with children in some capacity; and never, say, gay accountants."[89]Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how you get "arguing against the existence of a generalized conspiracy theory" out of that. I read it as them saying "The sources do not support the assertion "Libs of TikTok has appropriated the term "groomer" as a pejorative to characterize...". --Kyohyi (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about you walk back your WP: BATTLEGROUND and actually defend how you got "arguing against the existence of a generalized conspiracy theory" out of that. Splitting editors up into what you believe to be believers and non-believers of the existence of a conspiracy theory is disruptive. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not casting aspersions. What is disruptive is when people deny basic well supported facts which don't conform to their personal POV [90] and then edit the comments of other editors to conform to those views. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said before we cite nearly a dozen such sources in the article, all sources which you have supposedly read over the course of your intense interaction with this topic. You know that Raichik/LoTT is anti-LGBTQ, you can't not know that by now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, our article doesn't say they are homophobic. How about you put up, and stop trying to get other people to do the work for you. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We repeatedly use the broader term (encompassing of homophobia) anti-LGBT or a variation thereof in the article, are you saying that you are not aware that Raichik/LoTT is anti-LBGTQ, haven't actually read the numerous articles you've either discussed or challenged on the talk page, and now need me to provide them for you? That stretches AGF a fair ways. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh Anti-LGBT therefore homophobic. Sorry, you're WP: OR doesn't pass muster. Stop violating BLP by ascribing names to living people due to your personal beliefs. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the L stands for Lesbian, the B stands for Bi, and the T stands for Transgender, and to group of them together typically means a political coalition of all four groups. Anti any of these things could be ANTI-LGBT, and still not be homophobic. Note the requirement is for you to demonstrate sourcing for Homophobic, not for me to demonstrate any of these other things, so I won't be. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not what it means... It means that someone who is anti-LGBT is anti-lesbian, anti-gay, anti-bi, and anti-trans. If they just dislike or are prejudiced toward some but not all then they aren't anti-LGBT. The common term for anti-gay is homophobic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TERF's fall under Anti-LGBT. Are TERF's Anti-lesbian? No they are not, because you don't have to have all the characteristics to be Anti-LGBT. If you want to call them Anti-Gay, find sourcing to back up your claim and don't rely on fallacies of division. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ASPERSIONS doesn't really apply to ANI. Explicitly what ASPERSIONS tell us is that such accusations should only be made on user talk pages and at ANI. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)14:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
100% agree, ANI is never very useful for things like this. A very tight, well-reasoned, concise set of accusations at AE will likely be far more useful in defining the border of what is acceptable behavior here. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)14:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They continue to deny the conspiracy theory and insist that there is a real logical basis for the claims being made: "The missing part is that the people being called groomers are those who want to teach (or are actively teaching) kids about sexuality. It's not just LGBT people, and not just their supporters. That's a crucial distinction to make, whether or not the "groomers" description is at all accurate."[91]Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's going to sanction anyone for saying silly things on an essay talk page. The idea that an ideology based on fascism, antisemitism, racism, and eugenics is equivalent to an ideology based on everyone being required to share (as brutally or wrongheadedly as people have tried to turn that ideology into a government) is pretty standard far-right (and increasingly just right-wing) fare in the US. The case for a CPOV-based AP tban would be in articles and article talk pages. When focusing on talk pages, you typically want evidence from more than a single page IMO. For what it's worth. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for raising this. As I said in the merger discussion, I don't see how general discussion that's not about improving our article is appropriate anywhere; that's what social media is for. And if discussion is about the article, why is a new user talk needed? It could occur on the article talk, or anywhere, really. I'm struggling a little to understand the motives here. Vanamonde (Talk)08:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read through the links on the user talk, which I really should have done sooner. If that's the sort of crap the account is peddling, an indef is appropriate, and we should consider sanctions on the parent, too. Vanamonde (Talk)09:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Misuse of Wikipedia. The account has explicitly been created not for editing, but for the sake of its talkpage, which is intended for "published reports of allegations of Love Jihad". That page is the echo chamber. Its purpose seems to be get out from under all normal source requirements and get to post stories from some of the most propagandistic outlets and blogs I've seen here — Voice of the martyrs, Catholic Herald, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Persecution.org, etc — all of them linked in Fabrickator's own "report" here. No Wikipedia page should exist for such a purpose. Use Reddit. Bishonen | tålk08:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]
No page at Wikipedia should be used for this kind of POV fork. If material is not suitable for the article, or at least as an actionable and plausible proposal for the article on its talk, that material should not be at Wikipedia. The account should be blocked and the page deleted. Johnuniq (talk) 09:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't looked at the sources. That's appalling. A topic ban from the area might be appropriate now, but if not now if this is repeated in any way. Doug Wellertalk09:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a textbook example of gaming the system to me. Rather than accepting that consensus was against them in the discussion they have instead started looking for loopholes in the talk page guidelines that they can exploit to create the same forum under a different name. The page should be deleted and User:Love Jihad Echo Chamber blocked per the previous consensus. Fabrickator's comments in the discussion were getting close to the point where I thought AE sanctions would have been appropriate, what with the constant baseless accusations of disruption by others, the inability to AGF and the constant bludgeoning of the discussion with the same points repeated over and over but I think this definitely pushes this over the line. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 10:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Their alt talk page was replaced by a standard welcome but now says “ Welcome to the Echo Chamber[edit]
Hello and welcome to the Love Jihad Echo Chamber. You are welcome to post any questions or comments that are pertinent to this topic. Please abide by the usual rules. Thank you. Love Jihad Echo Chamber (talk) 5:41 pm, Today (UTC+1)” Doug Wellertalk17:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For their misuse of Wikipedia and their gaming of the system for tendentious purposes in creating the account User:Love Jihad Echo Chamber, Fabrickator should in my opinion be topic banned indefinitely from all pages relevant to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Note, you may well think this proposal would look more comfortable at WP:AE, but since Fabrickator has not been given a discretionary sanctions alert, bureaucracy prevents, and it's up to the community. Please opine below. Bishonen | tålk21:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Support - Strictly speaking AE is not the only venue for issuing discretionary sanctions (and in my AE research I've seen a few instances where sanctions were instead levied at AN/I). All that matters is they are (1) on notice and (2) have committed an infraction that, in an uninvolved admin's eyes, warrants sanction under the DS regime. —Jéské Courianov^_^va little blue Bori02:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Long history of not getting it, and when I thought they had, they went and pulled the stunt above. If you're unable to understand WP:NOTFORUM and the related principles, you shouldn't be editing contentious topics. Vanamonde (Talk)11:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm involved here, as the one who initially proposed getting rid of the talk subpage (and was accused by Fabrickator of disruptive editing for my trouble). If I weren't involved I'd just make this an IPA DS ban and be done with it. Initially I thought Fabrickator was taking a misguided approach to the very reasonable goal of keeping the talkpage clean of conspiracy theories. As time has gone on, though, it's become clear that their actual goal is maintaining a safe haven for those conspiracy theories on Wikipedia. They cannot be trusted to edit this topic area constructively. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)22:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support like Tamzin, I'm involved, but this editor shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the topic area, particularly given the sources they seem to think are acceptable. Doug Wellertalk16:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A user with a bit less than 100 edits unfortunately is here not to build encyclopedia but to engage into pro-Ukrainian edit-warring presumably thinking that POV pushing on Wikipedia would help Ukraine to win over Russia. The whole page is full of warning by many different users. Specifically, today all questions were at Kazimir Malevich, pushing an idea that Malevich was not a Russian avantguarde painter three edits, reverted, revert of a revert, reverted, revert of the revert, reverted, last, not yet reverted. Academic sources of course describe Malevich as the key figure of the Russian avantguarde, and no sources outside Ukraine descibe him as a Ukrainian painter. I could have gone to AE, since the are is under discretionary sanctions, and the user has been made aware of them, but given a relatively insignificant and poor quality contribution, we can probably deal with the user here. We probably need either a block or a topic ban for everything Ukrainian, given the history of disruption. Ymblanter (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And now, after I have filed this report, we got this edit, which I would define as POV pushing so strong that this is borderline vandalism. They just insert their own opinions which is aligned with propaganda into the article and remove academic definitions which are not aligned with propaganda. The user apparetntly thinks this is the best reaction to the complaint about their poor behavior. Ymblanter (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could have been a Russian supporting Ukraine, but no, I am a Dutch citizen. Usually people who call me "Russian" here suggest that I am a Putin supporter, which I am obviously not. Ymblanter (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know this issue is probably resolved, but even though I've had some very abrasive exchanges with Dmytro91, for which I sincerely sympathise with Ymblanter (my complaints are there to see on Dmytro's talk page!), I don't believe he's here to troll or to aggravate people on purpose. His edits often fall foul of wiki policy but he at least tries to source them. Sometimes his sources are not up to Wiki standard, and he usually replaces, rather than adds, stuff (which is the most problematic part as it breaches WP:NPOV, since he's usually replacing something he considers pro-Russian for something that can be perceived as pro-Ukrainian). However, I do not believe he acts out of malice, but mostly due to the fact that he's unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies (and, from my experience, with the use of article talk pages - I managed to reach an agreement with him on an edit, but we literally had to discuss the issue via edit summaries), that his English is perhaps not as good as that of other editors (which might hamper his attempts to justify his edits, and also contribute to him losing his patience), and of course that the current war between Russia and Ukraine has more than likely made him "jittery" and prone to judging everyone who disagrees with him as an enemy. Of course, he is responsible for dealing with these issues, not other editors, and I'm not here to "vouch" for him (because I can't!), but on his talk page, even though he stands by his opinion regarding a "pro-Russian bias" in the English wiki (which I do not share, but he is entitled to his opinion), he expressed a willingness to familiarise himself with wiki policies and act accordingly in the future. Maybe he'll not change his attitude, we cannot know, but I don't think he should be labelled as someone who is WP:NOTHERE just yet. Ostalgia (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Persistent disruption and harassment by User:Skyring
User:Skyring has persistently followed users edits to revert them, ignored policy, attacked users as ‘political actors’, made inflammatory statements on talk pages, and refused to adhere to dispute resolution processes. If they have any issue with edits they do not make small changes but often revert huge amounts of well sourced content without leaving constructive feedback. This is a longstanding issue so collating every example of this behaviour would be quite difficult, but I’ve tried to include a fair bit.
Their disruption is focused on topics that involve Aboriginal Australians, where they continually revert and dispute content based on their point of view and do not add anything at all. They have not expressed any professional, academic, or personal understanding of First Nations topics – except that they happen to live in Australia. This is a problem because they persistently make inflammatory mistakes and then insist people must prove them wrong. They persistently attack users as not following NPOV, being biased political actors, being ‘woke’, and being single issue editors. This is despite them clearly having a political agenda to their edits – 'clearly' because they frequently express it. They have not stopped using this inflammatory language despite being asked repeatedly not to. This went as far as attacking me directly with a new section on the Australian Wikipedian’s noticeboard.
This has been ongoing for I’d say a year or so, including their persistent following and reversion of an Aboriginal Wikipedian’s (User:GadigalGuy) edits.
I have tried repeatedly to find compromise and resolve disputes with Skyring and I have no reason to believe that they are acting in good faith and will accept any edits that are not within their worldview. I have talked to them extremely extensively, and for the most part from a good faith and civil perspective, including on article discussions, talk pages, and their user page (which they reacted with hostility to). I have asked an admin for help rather than going to ANI, and I have created an RFC that took months. They have been persistently disruptive during and after these processes and have not sought to find compromise or consensus that is separate from their POV. I understand I myself have a perspective, but I am looking for ways to resolve disputes because I am willing to compromise so I do not spend years of my life arguing with someone on Wikipedia.
Skyring has not shown this good faith himself, a major example being the results of the RFC. A major editing dispute with Skyring is around using Aboriginal names in the lead sentence of articles. They would continue to make the same arguments again and again, so I started an RFC.
This RFC took months and a huge amount of user time, and is only one of the many extremely long discussions Skyring has been involved in or started. They quickly started disputing the legitimacy of the RFC for not being clear enough and having poor formatting. This is despite them praising me for starting the RFC on my own talk page. They then questioned the RFC as illegitimate on the request for closure page, as they said the formatting was poor. This is despite them formatting the RFC themselves shortly after it was posted. They also repeatedly falsely represented that the RFC was about ‘mandatory inclusion of names’, despite it being explained to them several times that this was not the case. After the closure which concluded consensus did not fit their point of view, they immediately started disputing the policy that supports inclusion of Indigenous names in the lead. This is a policy that they have repeatedly ignored in the past, and would not respond to when others had posted it, but they knew enough about it to start disputing it. They also said that the result of the RFC was that there was no consensus, which I said was not true and sought input from the closing editor. The closing editor (User: ScottishFinnishRadish) stated that the RFC did support the inclusion of Aboriginal names when well sourced. Skyring both ignored this, and continued to use every avenue they could think of to challenge these names – avenues that have many, many, times been discussed with them. They are now disputing clearly good sources (as they can do that forever), and questioning the intent of policy. Confusingly, their responses are erratic like when they have sometimes acknowledged the results of the RFC as a good result and then continue arguing against it.
Skyring’s behaviour is an example of the greater problem of systemic bias on Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation has been clear they want to diversify views and cut bias on Wikipedia, but it is not a welcoming space for the people it needs to include. While the Wikimedia Foundation has given funding to Australian researchers to promote First Nations content and research systemic bias, the only openly Aboriginal editor on Wikipedia that I know (User:GadigalGuy) has been persistently hounded and had their edits reverted to the point they quit editing until recently.
While I don’t think Skyring is consciously racist, they have said several deeply racist things on talk pages to support their edits and are openly hostile to Aboriginal content on Wikipedia. One example of this is Skyring repeatedly referring to Aboriginal people as people of British descent who are confecting a fake cultural identity. When called out on this behaviour Skyring feigns ignorance and insists they are absolutely happy to have Aboriginal content on Wikipedia, and then continues on with their behaviour.
Due to their persistent disruption and harassment, and their complete lack of compromise or contribution, at the least, Skyring should be banned from editing on topics involving First Nations peoples.
Thanks for your time. Users affected by Skyring's behaviour include, among others: User:GadigalGuyUser:RandwickedUser:HiLo48User:The Drover's WifeUser:The Logical Positivist.
I thank Poketama for his effort in raising this issue. It is true that his efforts as a single-purpose editor have met some opposition from me but I have always looked to Wikipolicy as a guide for both of us - and indeed all editors.
My position on Indigenous placenames is quite clear as stated here in a draft essay to which I have consistently sought input. This is a topic we need to get right and playing political one-upmanship games is not the way forward. Currently I am seeking to have some wording in WP:PLACE clarified - see my request for help here. Poketama takes it to give broad authority for including Indigenous place names as co-titles in positions of Wikiprominence and I can't see that this is the intention of those who drafted the policy.
I am all in favour of giving Indigenous place names more inclusion, not less, but I think that we need better sources than town council and high school websites and the like, and that this information properly belongs in "History" and "Naming" sections, rather than dropped into the first sentence of the lede like ticking some box. It is a complex and sensitive issue with only a few regular participants and one in which perhaps more editors could usefully contribute. --Pete (talk) 11:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through most of the diffs presented. While it is true that your arguments always refer to policy and I'm not seeing the level of disruption claimed, I do see some issues. For instance, in this diff you say We need reliable sources and I suggest that if we accept a modern source such as a city council or a heritage board or whatever, we need to look at what their sources are rather than say that these groups in themselves are knowledgeable in the relevant Indigenous languages, culture, and history. That's not how sourcing works; if a source is an RS then we accept what it says; if it isn't, we don't. We don't look at a reliable source but critique where they got their information from. If there is contradiction in the sources then we discuss the various points of view in the article and summarise them in the lead. When it comes to personal interactions, calling a culture someone identifies with illiterate and stone-age may well be technically accurate but it's hardly tactful or collegial. On the question of how to understand WP:PLACE, as far as I can tell you're flat out wrong. What else should we understand by the words used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place than people who were indigenous to that place?
Both sides of this need to tone it down a bit. Well-sourced material should be included (without a deep inquiry into the nature of otherwise-reliable sources) and material that can't be well-sourced shouldn't be included. In this particular case, the lack of written records in the indigenous culture does mean that there will be cases where sourcing something is hard; that's unfortunate but just the way it is. Both need to AGF and not see personal attacks where they are at best ambiguous, if not entirely absent (quite a few of the diffs presented seem to me to fall into this category). I can understand that frustration makes it easy to see attacks everywhere, but it's not the way to go about editing. GoldenRing (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that the invocation of PLACE is misplaced, and I think Skyring's application of it means something like "old names still have to be meaningful", with the added notion that "Indigenous Australians have changed so much it doesn't matter anymore" (see [95]), or something like that. I'm paraphrasing, obviously. But if that is the idea, "it doesn't matter anymore", then this baffling edit supports that, and suggests an unseemly bias. And "some crusader [who] has to insert an Indigenous name regardless of wikipolicy", "Those pushing for a different name are pushing some political or cultural agenda", those certainly are personal attacks and violations of AGF--and note that in the latter case, edit warring over Melbourne (article was protected by MelanieN in April 2022), it wasn't "pushing for a different name"--it was adding the indigenous name, so even the very phrasing suggests bias. Yes, it's a long report, too long perhaps, but it's not without merit. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of points. I'm not sure that some names being put forward as authentic Indigenous names have the merit claimed. As I noted in discussion there, the name of "Naarm" for Melbourne is problematical. One feature of Aboriginal place names across Australia is that repetition is used to indicate importance or size or plurality. Hence Wagga Wagga. So if Port Phillip - a sizeable body of water - is "Naarm Naarm", then how was the random piece of land along the banks of the Yarra that became the village and later city of Melbourne named "Naarm"? The name indicates a more generic application. There is some concern that this is a modern back-formation. Most Indigenous names, I think, are well-founded, but some are problematical, especially names for cities which didn't exist before European settlement. This is why I want solid sourcing rather than something like this which quotes a tertiary source. The danger of persisting error is, I trust, obvious.
The wording in WP:PLACE - "…that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place…" - is on the face of it referring to Indigenous names. The problem here is that this wording has been discussed extensively there and I can't find any mention of it being used for pre-existing Indigenous names. It's all about European cities occupied by different nations at different times and using different names. When the wording was introduced in mid 2009 there was no discussion of Indigenous, Aboriginal, or native usages. Normally these sorts of naming conventions are prime examples of nit-pickery by nit-pickers who know their topic well; the sort of community elders we all rely upon. If this wording was or wasn't intended to include Indigenous place names in the lede sentence, some clarification would be very useful.
My distrust of WP:SPA using Wikipedia to push a particular ideological or commercial barrow, leveraging our substantial page-rank, is well-known, I think. I'd like to see this topic treated carefully so that we can shine as a beacon of scholarship and integrity rather than using lightweight sources such as this one (diff here). --Pete (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC))[reply]
And so there, in your last paragraph, is that violation of AGF. "SPA"? I also have a single purpose: to improve this beautiful project. If including indigenous names is reduced to "pushing an ideological barrow", then you are actively working against our purpose, to make knowledge available for free, and the guise of combating ideology becomes its own ideological slant. I'm setting aside the concerns about sourcing: that is a different matter. You could have just said "they used bad sources", but that's not what you are doing. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong, Drmies. I have no problem at all with including Indigenous names. I am all for it and doing a good job. I've mentioned my draft essay above; perhaps you haven't read it. Please do so. Apart from a few tweaks as per talk page discussion it is all my work and I stand by it. Indigenous placenames firmly belong in every Australian place article where we can source information about the First Australians before Europeans arrived and screwed them over.
A recent example is my contribution to consensus-building in discussion at Sydney. See my straw poll section here where I'm on record as supporting an expansion of the names and Indigenous territories in the body, summarising that in the lede, but not including a swag of marginally useful information in the first sentence.
If you think I am opposed to including Indigenous place names and information on Indigenous people in Australian articles, you are dead wrong; this is information we need in our articles because it enriches them, gives them a solid grounding in the human story of the land, and - if we do our job properly - helps to give good, reliable information on this important topic.
Where Poketama and I come in conflict is that I don't think we need write every Australian article from an Indigenous perspective. That would be giving WP:UNDUE prominence to a fringe perspective. Measure and balance is what Wikipedia seeks to provide.
Looking at WP:SPA I think you are interpreting the tag more widely than generally accepted, in fact to the point of losing all meaning:
A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose. If you are in this situation and some editors directed you to this page, pointing out that you made "few or no other edits outside this topic", they are encouraging you to familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia guidelines about conflicts of interest and advocacy. This is because while many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest, a significant number appear to edit for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favored point of view, which is not allowed.
Your analysis of Naarm / Melbourne is a good example of what I'm objecting to. Can the name be reliably sourced? If so, it goes in. If not, it doesn't go in. If the RS disagree, we explain that in the article. I don't care how the name relates to other nearby names. It's that simple. GoldenRing (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had suggested here, when asked about my close, that disagreements be brought to RSN. If consensus there is that the source is reliable for the statement then it would certainly meet the threshold for inclusion, per the RFC I closed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we can always get more eyes on a question. The example of Sydney is one where there was a lot of discussion before an excellent source was brought forward: Val Attenbrow's book Sydney's Aboriginal Past which is authoritative and well-researched.[96] The problem there was that the land now occupied by the greater city of Sydney - five million or so people now - was the territory of various different Indigenous groups. If you look in the appropriate part we have a table showing who lived where and what their names were, an excellent solution. The discussion on Melbourne is not quite so well-managed but progress is being made with some good sources being brought out. Some of these lightweight sources try to present a simplistic XXX = YYY equivalence, where the actual situation may be more nuanced. Modern Melbourne sits astride an ancient boundary between two different pre-European peoples each with a different language, so of course there are different names for various locations.
Discussion and consensus is always the first objective, with as many points of view as possible being brought in. RSN and RfC processes are available to resolve disagreements in the regular way. More experienced editors understand how these things work whereas someone with fewer edits under their belt puts forward a tertiary source from Google's first page and feels personally challenged when asked for something better, especially if they feel they have the definitive answer already within themselves. WP:RSN is an excellent way to find a definitive wikisolution, if only because it gets some fresh eyes on a question after the discussion starts to go around in circles with no end in sight. --Pete (talk) 12:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your advice ScottishFinnishRadish and I'll do that in the future, but with Skyring it's just so persistent I don't have time to deal with it. They will use this excuse for anything that they don't like to the point of absurdity. I don't have much time to find examples, but here is one of a solid government source they dismiss as worthless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clyde_River_(New_South_Wales)
I don't have much to add to this other than that this diff is concerning to say the least. Is the implication here that articles should only exist if they are related directly to the English-speaking world, or what? Perhaps I am misinterpreting but that seems to me to go against the core mission of Wikipedia itself, which is to spread free knowledge. An article isn't irrelevant on the English Wikipedia just because it doesn't have to do with English-speakers. Even more confusing is that the article is Australia related, Australia is part of the English-speaking world the last time I checked. TylerBurden (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, but "Czar" is an English word. It would be hard to find a dictionary that does not contain it. Even pretty basic texts. Not that we're a dictionary, just an encyclopaedia that happens to be written in English. I don't think Arweet is notable enough to need an article by itself; that's my point. --Pete (talk) 07:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While not attacking, this talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boonwurrung is an example of the kind of disruptive and frustrating behaviour that Skyring brings to the table. What am I supposed to do with this feedback and reverting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poketama (talk • contribs)
I apologise I was curt, I didn't make any personal attacks. A huge amount of my work had again been deleted without any reason given except 'This article reads like an advert for some alternate system of sovereignty'. Can you look at the diffs and understand where I'm coming from? I feel there's a pretty big difference between me saying "Very helpful, why don't you improve the page" and them saying "It's biased and full of editorialising. We're not in the business of writing propaganda.". Poketama (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A fresh start
Drmies is a wise guy and he has made some good points with me. I have been regarding Poketama as a SPA - with good reason, I might add - and for that reason it's difficult to AGF and I have been a bit hasty on the revert button. Some of Drmies' criticism is valid and I'll accept it from a person of their experience and jovial wisdom.
Poketama, I see you as pushing a political barrow, one where Australia has some sort of parallel Indigenous administration and everything must be reframed according to that dogma. Indigenous place names have equal authority to those in common usage, ancestral tribal lands still exist and the power struggles in Aboriginal Land Councils are every bit as important as a cabinet reshuffle. Maybe I'm stirring the pot a little there but if you're honest with yourself there's a fair bit of truth in my assessment.
You won't agree with me on every point but I see Wikipedia as reflecting reality not ideals, at least in topics devoted to physical constructs such as geography and human communities. The modern day reality is that we live in a land where British law arrived with Governor Phillip, Aboriginal sovereignty was extinguished by conquest - as William the Bastard demonstrated to the English - and the descendants of those living here in past centuries and new arrivals from all over the world live together in a rich mélange of cultures and ethnicities. Just as we Australians share a land, and all must pay the taxes, obey the road rules, vote in the elections, so two must we as editors work together to build an encyclopaedia.
I have little love for political activists but I do like wikipolicy which enables people of diverse backgrounds, experiences, and desires to work together to build a free encyclopaedia which is perhaps the crowning achievement of the internet.
Is there some fresh start we can make where we coöperate to construct a better Wikipedia instead of throwing rocks at each other? --Pete (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you trying to reach out. However, the things you've said are another example of what I'm talking about and why it's difficult to work with you. You made a whole bunch of huge reaching assumptions about me, went on a political diatribe of questionable truth, call me a SPA political activist, and then ask for us all to get along. I write about a few different topics, including Aboriginal cultures in Australia. I have not once professed any of the views that you have attributed to me, that I am someone seeking to change the country, the reality of history, or whatever you think I'm doing. The Boonwurrung article is a good example where I've significantly expanded an important article, written well-sourced content on things like how animals are hunted and you've reverted it instinctively because what; you think I want to overthrow the British Crown through Wikipedia? The way you're attributing personalities to editors, and ignoring them when they tell you otherwise, makes it very difficult to work with you. Poketama (talk) 11:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"…you think I want to overthrow the British Crown through Wikipedia…"
No, I don't think that at all. The High Court wasn't able to put an exact date on it but sovereignty passed from the Imperial Parliament into the hands of the Australian people a long time ago. I listened to the arguments in Sue v Hill and studied the judgement with keen interest. The effective point here is that with the passage of the Australia Act, the UK ceded the last vestiges of sovereignty here and cannot take them back. The monarch has no significant power here, despite what one may think on reading the Constitution, a creation of a very different world. We hold our destiny in our own hands, at least insofar as we can control the effects of the wider world on our shores.
But that's by the bye. It is the phrasing, the word choices, the language used which makes me consider you as a political actor, whether you see yourself as one or not. Words choices can be flags, signalling attitudes to those knowing the code. The people arriving unannounced on our shores can be refugees, asylum-seekers, or illegal immigrants, depending on what message the speaker wants to send. You'd be all too familiar with the notion of "dog-whistling" where messages are sent through apparently innocuous phrasing.
I was wrong on Boonwurrung. The language used in this version was of some concern, so I dropped a neutrality tag on it. Other editors made changes - see diff here and then you made a large addition with an edit summary - "Added back in information…" - that I took to be a revert to the previous version. I was wrong in my assumption and I should have examined your changes more carefully. You were wrong in removing the template without gaining consensus; discussion there would have saved a lot of trouble.
I am sorry I reverted your careful work. I feel bad about that, and I am grateful to Drmies who made me take a closer look. I'll take more care in future.
I'm afraid I've had too much contact with politicians and their supporters to take what they say at face value. They sing their tribal songs - as if they are cheering on their football team - and they admit no wrong and every fault belongs to others. Sometimes it seems as if they are talking entirely different languages, as we currently see with the supporters of the former US president and more rational beings.
So of course I view people playing a political game through eyes of doubt. That applies here in Wikipedia where people often do abuse the power given them to edit articles. I'll open my eyes a bit wider in future. --Pete (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So...by way of attempting to bury the hatchet and in hopes of future collaboration, you openly accuse them of political bias, make a political statement of your own, make yourself appear the bigger person, and then say that you're willing to work with them, despite the political bias? FrederalBacon (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC) Withdrawn FrederalBacon (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is interesting to me, though probably not for the reasons you imageine. Care to elaborate, if you think that will help? --Pete (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You weren't unclear; I was merely interested in what impelled you to make such an extraordinary statement. Not to worry. --Pete (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have unarchived this discussion as there wasn't a conclusion and I'm not convinced Skyring will change their behaviour at all given their responses thus far. Poketama (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
they won't. Their block log makes that clear. A topic ban is probably the only solution, although it isn't a longterm one either because much edge case dancing will ensue StarMississippi17:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that if no action is taken on this issue on this, its third go-around, that it not be revived again. If admins don't see any reason to act now, it seems unlikely that they will change their minds if it's brought back an additional time. Just consider it to be like a Presidential pocket veto and move on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything happening here either, because the behaviour under discussion is merely a symptom of a bigger problem - that being the marginalisation of Indigenous voices on the English wikipedia. I'm not going to go looking for specific examples (because that would mean I have to notify a bunch of other editors which will just prolong this inevitable pointless exercise) but this presumably happens all over the colonised English-speaking world. In a New Zealand context one manifestation of this is how long-standing place names which have had a Johnny-come-lately English name overlaid upon them are increasingly being stripped from articles on those places, leaving only the English place names.
The reason this is a bigger issue than may appear at the first glance is because (due to concerted attempts to suppress Indigenous languages) many Indigenous people are only fluent in English, making the English Wikipedia their default quick Internet source of information. Various Wikipedia policies are used to marginalise Indigenous information sources - which aren't as easy to locate as coloniser sources. Wikipedia is thus at a crossroads - does it attempt to address this structural and institutional bias, or not? Either way, this is a bigger problem than AN-I can fix. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree there are specific policy issues that need to be fixed, this is a case of a user repeatedly ignoring policy and being incivil over a long period and creating a lot of disruption. The biggest problem I've had with Wikipedia's policies is that there is no recourse for that, and I guess if Star Mississipi and Beyond My Ken are right that this is simply not an issue admins are going to act on, then its a bigger problem. If the policies that we do have are either not enforced or very difficult to get enforced, why bother trying to improve policy? That's what I mean when I talked about the huge research funding to reduce systemic bias, why bother if you are not going to take action? Poketama (talk) 10:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it doesn't. Wikipedia can only rely on published sources, so voices without such publication are hidden. The solution is not Wikipedia though, it's to give those voices more publication so that Wikipedia can then report on them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it standard practice for admins to just not respond to something if they disagree with the importance of the incident? I wasn't reviving because I was being obstinate, but because I didn't get a response. Poketama (talk) 09:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Admins are voluntiers, just as we are. They will use there time as they best see fit. So if you get no answer it is because no admin thought this worth their time. I would guess they do not see enough here to be actionable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My read: this is a longterm content dispute on top of Skyring's mannerisms. The latter isn't going to change, and ANI isn't for legislating policy change. There is nothing urgent for admins to act on, which is what this board is for. Perhaps if/when the behavior resurfaces, it will be more urgent. StarMississippi14:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Poketama: From what I've read, I don't see the primary problem being the content dispute or the policy issue, but rather the behavioral issues. I think the long road here is to try dispute resolution, and if that fails (as it probably will, given the intransigence of the editor involved), take it to ArbCom with a case request which focuses entirely on the harassment and personal attacks -- accusing someone of wanting to bring down the British Crown is a straightforward PA completely devoid of any AGF, which should be enough for some admin to issue a warning, if not a temporary block. {Remember that ArbCom deals only with behavior and cannot change policy or mediate content disputes.) It will take time, but at this point it's probably your best bet.) And provide as many diffs of specific offending edits as you can. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reporting 66.65.110.16
Closing this. As pointed out, this is a content dispute which should be settled on the article talkpage. Both users (Lolkafka and IP 66.65) should remember to be civil, and not cast aspersions. If this becomes a user conduct issue then a new report can be made.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is the second time I post on an incident regarding the IP Address 66.65.110.16, whose edits on the Jonas Mekas page continue to obscure the filmmaker's past. He has repeatedly erased my contributions regarding his World War II activities and removed well-sourced, cited information. 66.65.110.16 is obscuring Mekas's role in working for two far right and Nazi-collaborationist newspapers during World War II in Lithuania, both in the lead section as well as the controversy section. This is a very serious violation of Wikipedia's ethics and norms. Lolkafka1888 (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with LolKafka’s charges is that they have repeatedly manipulated the page to favor one person’s claims. These claims have been disputed by a distinguished historian of the Holocaust whom LolKafka has no problem citing elsewhere insofar as it serves their agenda of libeling Mekas. That is a gross violation. It was acceptable to leave Casper’s claims so long as they had been challenged by a more seasoned scholar. When I added Suziedelis’ criticism of Casper, LolKafka moved it to the controversy section. Thus, Casper’s claims belong in the controversy section.
Mekas did not “work” for Nazi newspapers. Suziedelis’ review of the newspapers proves this.
In the scholarly community, when one scholar’s claims are shown to be fallacious by subjecting it to the scrutiny of another scholar, one calls it a “controversy” and treats it as such.
Suziedelis is a distinguished and respected Holocaust historian who has been honored. LolKafka’s efforts to diminish Suziedelis’ review of Casper’s claims is an affront to serious Holocaust research.
This entire effort is an attempt to defame Mekas because LolKafka has decided Casper is the more credible source. What qualifications LolKafka has to make this harsh judgment remain in question.
Wikipedia is not a forum for LolKafka to impose their preferred account on Wikipedia readers. They have been warned in the past about the problem with placing so much weight on one account, but have chosen to ignore those warnings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.110.16 (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sorry to hear that this IP address (who doesn't contribute to wikipedia except when it's regarding the Mekas page) thinks I've made a decision on the topic. As a Wikipedian, I think his edits are self-evidently geared towards protecting a figure who has contributed to Nazi and nationalist newspapers during WWII in Lithuania, and is using Wikipedia as a platform to manipulate the views over Mekas' work. I think this is highly unethical, if not a form of Holocaust revisionism, which I have been trying to counter-balance. If you look at my edits, they are only geared towards not creating a one-sided account of the "controversy," adding accurate sources, and citing properly. Lolkafka1888 (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The very fact that LolKafka has decided this is a form of “Holocaust revisionism” betrays a bizarre worldview. Given that LolKafka (presumably) accepts Casper’s finding that Mekas did not write anything to stoke anti-Semitism in the newspaper, it’s unclear to me how he was involved in the Holocaust. That is, of course, unless LolKafka believes everyone writing for newspapers in occupied Europe was complicit. How can this be an issue of Holocaust history if there is no evidence of Mekas’s involvement in the Holocaust? LolKafka clearly holds to a far more expansive definition of the Holocaust than Casper.
Moreover, if LolKafka does not regard Suziedelis’ research on Mekas as credible as Casper’s, on what grounds do they justify citing Suziedelis’ expertise on the Lithuanian far-right elsewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.110.16 (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, unknown IP address, but there is plenty of evidence for the involvement of Mekas in these newspapers, as well as the nature of the newspapers themselves. Feel free to read any of the sources I have cited, in Lithuanian and in English, that are not Casper's article. I think Wikipedia has the duty to inform the public regarding the controversy, but I am also pretty sure that deleting other editor's contribution and creating a bias account of the facts (as you have) is in violation of the guidelines. Lolkafka1888 (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDragonFire300: Please don't close a thread on legal threats when there's been no discussion of whether anything needs to be done to the article. I've removed the content about alleged abuse per WP:BLPCRIME and WP:UNDUE. A lot of it was indeed sourced to tabloids, including red-tier RSP ones. (Lol1VNIO, please be more careful about what you restore. It included a WP:PAGESIX cite and a seriously negative claim about Cummings' ex-wife, sourced only to him.) Some of it can probably be restored, but best that be sorted out on talk. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)20:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDragonFire300: I've had that one, and the one where I wake up desysopped, but the scariest Wikipedia dream I've ever had came when I was in the hospital recently, feverish and sleeping one hour out of every two. One night I awoke in a cold sweat, momentarily stuck in a reality where someone had casually tasked me with designing an edit filter to prevent caste-warring. The change in namespace balance from August to September is not a coincidence. /gen-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)00:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Plutonical is an editor that is long overdue for a CIR block. I previously raised concerns about their messing about in project space and inappropriate comments regarding user blocks and unblocks back in February. Despite that discussion they continued to get in trouble and make messes, with unhelpful, incorrect and sometimes just bizzare edits. A selection of examples: they nominated the main page for deletion just to see what would happen, incorrectly tagged pages for speedy deletion under criteria that didn't apply because they couldn't be bothered to check if the page was actually a copyvio, replying to ancient talk page vandalism for some reason, they received a telling off from BBB23 for messing about with sockpuppets, such as on this talk page, and a warning about leaving inappropriate comments in edit summaries while editing DS topic areas. Following that mess and more they vanished for six months. They seemed to have just returned, and within a week and a dozen edits we're back to seeing disruption in project space, replying to month old IP troll comments on policy pages and jumping back into block discussions while missing or misunderstanding the entire reason a block has been proposed, e.g. claiming that "advocating the killing of poor people isn't a Nazi view, so it's not a WP:NONAZI policy violation and they can't be blocked for it". This is all despite despite being given explicit advice to steer clear of policy debates, unblock requests, ANI and similar areas, unless you absolutely must comment because an issue directly involves you in the last ANI thread and being given repeated advice to stay out of administrative areas. They seem to be unable to avoid mucking about in project space despite not having a clue what they are doing, which has simply turned into a mess and a time sink. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support indef block per WP:CIR. Seems incapable of adhering to his own self-imposed TBAN, much less understanding basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines, even after being here for long enough.--🌈WaltCip-(talk)13:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to block of any duration as user in question. I agree with the decision to block me. I've been at AN/I multiple times and seeing all the evidence gathered against me I'd rather not waste any more of other editors' time. If this is going to end in a block, it might as well end gracefully rather than in a drawn-out argument. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ14:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per what Jayron said in the Feb ANI: Seriously, stop screwing around. I know you're having fun, but it's a bit of a pain for the rest of us having to clean up your mess. Take the project seriously or find something else to do. No one is amused. Unfortunately they didn't stop. Levivich (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I support indef block over a WP-space TBAN or pblock. If someone is so incompetent or otherwise disruptive in WP-space to merit a TBAN/pblock, I don't think we should unleash them on our readers in mainspace. At a minimum we're creating a task for ourselves: monitoring their mainspace contribs. I'd prefer a WP-space TBAN to be an unblock condition, if it got that far. So, that's a second choice for me behind indef block aka siteban. Levivich (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indef from WP namespace, but since all the above is about the WP namespace and not article space a full indef seems a bit much. Scalpel, not sledgehammer. nableezy - 16:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get the idea of someone being incompetent to work in WP: space but competent in article space. Competency (in my humble opinion) is a binary thing. Dennis Brown - 2¢18:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see it as basically a topic ban, something we do all the time. We say you are not a positive in this area, but we arent going to deny ourselves any benefit you might be able to bring to another. If somebody shows some issue not related to project space then sure, but right now I see a discrete topic (WP:*) that this user is out of their depth in. So remove the user from that topic. nableezy - 20:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Competency" is not quite the right term for me here, but I generally agree that action is needed. nableezy, I appreciate and applaud your attempt to narrowly tailor a sanction, but given that there's a seeming level of compulsion here, I am not sure I could support it because I feel like it would only be a matter of time until that compulsion spilled over into article space. That said, I will defer to consensus and/or the wiser heads around here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point. If the issue is actual competency, then it should be a site-wide block. If it is a partial block, it can't be for competency. CIR is a very specific thing, even if it covers several "problems". Dennis Brown - 2¢21:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a number of issues here, CIR might not be the exact right term for it but the outcome is the same. There's an impulsiveness and a tendency to do things without thinking them through or doing due diligence, there's an incomplete and often slightly dodgy understanding of policy, an inability to listen to advice or stick to self-imposed topic bans, a lack of good judgement and common sense, a desire to boss other people around and give advice (despite such advice often being wrong) and so on. I think the fundamental, underlying issue that ties everything together here is a lack of maturity. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While User:WisdomWizz's manner and edit summaries have been aggressive and hostile, their command of English isn't great, and it would be interesting to see what evidence they have for claiming to have the rights to a picture, how would having uploaded a picture -- which I don't see evidence of their doing either, as to that -- constitute COI? Ravenswing 17:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am neither hostile nor aggressive.
Nor i am trying to advertise, but including INFORMATION is the whole point, and you jumped off and deleted everything, and marking all sorts of marks. You may be the paid person to only keep certain artists and attack others. That is not fair, and you attacking the article because i add legit information is shocking. Keep doing what you do, this seems a snake pit, and you may be the only people benefitting from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WisdomWizz (talk • contribs) 17:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Golden
On 1 August 2022, User:Golden was given a formal warning by User:Dennis Brown that read: "You are being given a formal warning that your actions in the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area have been disruptive as per this report, and that the next minor infraction will result in a topic ban, block or both, likely without the benefit of an AE report. This warning is a type of sanction, and will be logged in the AE logs."
Within the past day on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict article, Golden removed text stating Svante Cornell runs an organization that is financed by Azerbaijan with the reason of "rmv OR linking" for one source, but there was clearly another Dagens Nyheter source that was still in the article. This means Golden removed that a figure, who is accusing others of having an Armenian bias, is himself affiliated with Azerbaijan. Golden also changed that Azerbaijanis had an "evacuation" to an "explusion". The citation for that sentence clearly reads, "on most occasions, [Armenians] walked into empty towns and villages after the Azerbaijanis had fled" (Black Garden, pg. 215).
Around the same time on the Nagorno-Karabakh article, Golden removed the massacre of Armenians in the Sumgait pogrom, his only explanation being "shorten per WP:UNDUE" without explaining how the European Parliament's own resolution is apparently undue.
These articles are very contentious and have extended protection, so naturally a discussion or at least proper explanation would've been appropriate before removing this info, but Golden provided neither, and regardless I'm having a hard time seeing how some of changes can possibly be justified. --Dallavid (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, taking the diffs one at a time:
The wording about Cornell arguably runs afoul of WP:SYNTH, which is part of the policy Golden cited (WP:OR). I'm not going to prejudge whether it is SYNTH or not, but it strikes me as a colorable argument.
Changing "evacuation" to "expulsion" and (not mentioned above) removing de jure from the sentence Some of these territories are de facto controlled, and some are claimed by the breakawayRepublic of Artsakh although they have been de jure internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan are much more troubling, especially given that the former is similar to the conduct Dennis warned Golden for in August.
Shortening that particular paragraph as UNDUE also seems not-unreasonable, again without prejudging whether it was a good edit.
So the first and third of these three edits should be resolved through the normal editorial process. The second, though, is blatant POV-pushing. Dennis was clear in his logged warning that a sanction should be imposed for any future misconduct in the AA2 topic area would result in a block or TBAN, and again, Golden is particularly on-notice to be careful about word choice when describing displacement of civilians. Given that Golden has already had an AA2 TBAN lifted once, I am going to issue an indefinite TBAN. However, in recognition that this is a nuanced case, I elect to go for a scope narrower than the full AA2 topic area: conflicts involving Armenia or Azerbaijan, broadly construed. Similar to Dennis' note in his logged warning, if Golden causes disruption anywhere else in AA2, the TBAN should be broadened summarily. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)21:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, you can only tban for 1 year without an admin consensus as per DS authorization, but maybe a consensus of two will be adequate to keep the indef. SupportDennis Brown - 2¢21:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin It's ambiguously worded in the DS pages and could be interpreted either way. The exact wording from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#sanctions.user is Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place: revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. The "one year duration" clause could be interpreted to apply to just the "blocks" clause, or it could apply to everything in the prior list, I'm fairly sure that the intended meaning is that just blocks are supposed to be time limited. If indef topic bans as an individual admin action are supposed to be disallowed under DS we have a big problem, given the number of them present in the enforcement logs. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Under the new discussion about DS where we rename everything, and you and I get to relearn everything, as it will be done differently.... it seems it will be one year for unilateral and indef for consensus regardless. Anyway, it looks like there is a consensus developing below, and a consensus action is always stronger than a unilateral one. Dennis Brown - 2¢23:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: I've explained my reasoning for changing "evacuation" to "expulsion" properly here. The source cited for the sentence uses the word "expulsion", not "evacuation" and that had been the wording until a few months ago, which I've restored according to the cited source. I removed "de jure" as "internationally recognised" is already in the sentence. "De jure" and "Internationally recognised" are 2 same words and thus using them together is redundant. None of these issues could not have been explained when asked, and I'm saddened that a TBAN has been imposed without even a response from me. — Goldencall me maybe?21:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Golden: Casually making a contentious change like that (obviously contentious, if it was a revert of a previous edit), with an edit summary wherein the operative part is simply "evacuated"?, after previously being warned for how you describe civilian displacement in that conflict, is an issue regardless of if you're right. And no, "de jure" and "internationally recognized" do not mean the same thing. When we describe something as "de jure internationally recognized", generally what we mean is that the recognition may be true more on paper than in practice. For instance, Taiwan is de jure recognized by the United States as part of the People's Republic of China—a statement true as a matter of law, but not really true in practice. See wikt:de jure.As to the decision to sanction: In other contexts, yes, it might be preferable to explain things, but you've already been indeffed, un-indeffed with TBAN, un-TBANned, and formally warned for your context in this topic area. You were entirely capable of asking others questions or starting discussions, rather than leaping in with edits you knew (or ought to have known) would be contentious, and you chose not to. There's really nowhere to go after that but sanctions. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)22:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin, I am not experienced in Wikipedia yet, and I appreciate your authority and expertise, but I felt compelled to respond since the rapid sequence of events surprised me. I honestly feel that rather than acting quickly, this should be investigated deeper, considering how things get heated in topic areas like these.
The user, who had some previous history with Golden, raised ANI charging Golden of disruptive edits without making single attempt to discuss matters before bringing them here. (17:45 - wrote on the talk page. 18:06 - filled ANI). I reviewed the provided diffs and do not find them disruptive. Some of them I find as improvement, some as arguable, but non of them disruptive. WP:OR and potential WP:BLP were removed in one situation, for example, and calling this good faith edit disruptive would be incompetence. The evacuation case is likewise an improvement, as it is not supported by the source. I won't repeat what Golden has already explained, but is this how Wikipedia works? Someone makes an edit, and you don't talk to him, you don't ask for explanation, you just raise ANI?
Only the removal of "de jure" is debatable among all the edits, but to be really honest, your explanation of it was news to me as well, but again, someone making good-faith edit, and what we do? we do not talk to him, nor we start discussion on the talk-page, but we file ANI straight away? Is it correct to say that a user who has received a final warning might be T-Banned just because some user, who even did not bother to start a discussion, found his edits disruptive? Even if they were not disruptive and this user was wrong? A b r v a g l (PingMe)23:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that, when we give a user a logged warning, if admins don't then respond promptly with the sanctions threatened in that warning when justified, logged warnings cease to be effective. Dennis' instructions to other admins were to block or TBAN for any further disruption. Making a poorly-explained edit that favors a nationalistic POV is disruptive. If it was merely careless, rather than deliberate, I don't think that changes things. Golden was already on their last chance in this topic area. This wasn't someone getting TBANned straight away for a single violation. This was someone getting TBANned for a last straw after years of back-and-forth. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)23:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin Just adding my 2 cents here, I am a bit dismayed by Golden's indef ban. I genuinely don't believe he had a malicious intent in his recent edits – Holistically speaking, I've noticed that Golden has contributed significantly in improving Azerbaijani articles on EnWiki, particularly in his fantastic Location Maps, as well as his Good Articles Flag of Azerbaijan and Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan. From his user profile you can see that despite his poor recent edits, overall he is a praised as an exceptional editor who has a genuine interest in improving the state of Wikipedia in all areas. Perhaps it would be more apt to reduce his ban to 6 months which I believe will give him sufficient time to reflect on the quality of his edits whilst improving other corners of Wiki. – Olympianloquere11:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Olympian: What you're describing is the reason I made this a partial AA2 ban rather than a full AA2 ban. Golden is still able to edit both of those articles, with the exception of a few sentences in either that deal with military conflicts. Indeed Golden can edit most articles about Azerbaijan. Given that there is a history here of warnings and sanctions but issues persist, limiting the scope of the TBAN, rather than the duration, seemed the more reasonable way to acknowledge Golden's positive contributions in this area. Making the TBAN time-limited would just be kicking the can down the road, again. And of course "indefinite" does not mean "infinite"; they can still take that time to reflect and improve, and then put together an unban request showing why the issue won't recur. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)12:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: Is there a reason the ban is conflicts involving Armenia or Azerbaijan, broadly construed rather than conflicts involving Armenia and Azerbaijan, broadly construed? I'm a bit at a loss for how this sort of editing would impair Golden's ability to write about civil conflicts (i.e. protest movements) in Azerbaijan or to write about disputes in Azeri-Iranian relations. If the issue is the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, why not tailor the TBAN more narrowly?— Red-tailed hawk(nest)07:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk: I think this is already more narrow than most people get in comparable situations. Given the complexity of ethnonational conflicts in the region, the idea of making it "and" rather than "or" seems awfully prone to wikilawyering. That's not a slight againt Golden; with TBANs there's as much the issue of others trying to wikilawyer things in as there is the issue of the subjects trying to wikilawyer them out.If Golden wants to edit about something that would fall under this TBAN but he feels is not closely related to the conduct that led to the sanction, he's welcome to ask me to narrow the sanction, and I will approach such a request with an open mind, especially if it comes after a reasonable period of good behavior. But I've seen enough TBANs where narrowness got the subject in trouble that I wouldn't want to go narrower than this sua sponte-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)09:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to outline a pattern a tendentious editing/civil POV pushing of User:Nemov, repeatedly removing reliably-sourced content relating to the trial of a Bald and Bankrupt, YouTuber.
This the last diff. of him reverting the article: [[97]]. He says that it has been discussed last year in an Rfc about the trial. Yet, he completely ignores the two other new (since the Rfc) separate local newspaper sources, in addition to a previous news article, that were provided. He outright says that the sources are the same as before. Furthermore, he tells to suggest an edit on the talk page first.
He staunchly opposes and reverts any addition referring to the particular trial the subject has been involved in (even though the trial is public, noteworthy for the image he has built as a YouTuber and that he is a public figure (YouTube star)). In last year's discussion on it, he claimed that it lacked multiple secondary sources. It was true: the only source was a web news article. However since then, additional multiple local newspaper sources in addition to the website have been found covering the incident. I cited them properly and verified all the points of WP:BLP, but he was quick to multi-revert, and ask an admin to lock the page.
He deletes talk page posts that brought up the situation. (specific diff: [[98]])
A year-and-a-half ago, he initiated another Rfc to delete the article, which you can see here. This does not make sense, since he put and continues putting a great deal of effort in maintaining the article. This is why I think his priority is having the article and info about its subject gone and so that there might be conflicts of interests.
Finally, he is very quick to claim an external campaign to modify this article (in order to justify reverting), even when edits are properly sourced by WP:BLP standards (In my understanding, the doctrine of not "righting great wrongs" applies for weakly sourced material, which is not the case here -- see below)
Speaking about the trial in particular, it is definitely noteworthy as this YouTuber is manifestly part of the Pickup artist scene (as he himself states frequently in his public YT videos), associates/makes videos with PUA-genre YouTubers (ie. JohnnyFD, TallTravels). His association to the Pickup scene represents a significant minority viewpoint and running gag in his videos, in counterpart to his travel-oriented persona.
Regardless of everything else, the edit that Nemov reverted is a pretty poor synthesis of the sources. Not even a mention of the not guilty verdict, just that the subject was charged in 2000? Uhai (talk · contribs) 23:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At best, this is a content dispute grossly inflated. At worst, the filer is attempting to use WP:SYNTH for an endaround of WP:BLP, has assumed bad faith repeatedly -- see the accusation of a conflict of interest with no evidence and the bringing up of the AFD -- and has decided that they get a supervote on the old RFC based simply on a new consensus that they have self-declared. I make no comment on the edit dispute itself, as this is not the proper forum for content disputes, but the filer ought to withdraw this complaint and reach a consensus on the talk page in an appropriate fashion. If the sources are strong enough to satisfy WP:BLP, the filer ought to be able to convince others in a discussion without invective. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there was an RfC and things have allegedly changed but there remains dispute then the solution is further discussion and perhaps another RfC if needed not simply ignoring the continued opposition and trying to edit war the content into a BLP without first achieving consensus. The one talk page comment deleted that was highlighted by the OP seems to be justifiably deleted since it talked about other nonsense and included BLP violations and didn't even directly mention these alleged new sources. It'd note that the problem is not simply that we had only source in the previously RfC. We infact had none since the sole source shown made no connection between the YouTuber and the court case, not surprising since YouTube did not exist. It's impossible to establish from that source the court case was about the same person. Until and unless editors find sources which establish a connection it's unlikely there is anything you discuss. Nil Einne (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On 30th August, admin Fuzheado reinstated the ongoing COVID-19 ITN item on the main page [99] against what was pretty clear consensus. Soon after, admin Amakuru asked Fuzheado to reconsider [100]. Instead of reconsidering, Fuzheado accused the admin Spencer of having removed the ITN item in "poor faith" [101]. This was noticed by admin floquenbeam[102] but Fuzheado failed to correct/retract the "poor faith" accusation [103]. I noted in this discussion that I felt the pull was an abuse of admin privilege (going against consensus) [104]. The reinstatement by Fuzheado caused significant disruption to the discussion, other editors including WaltCip, noted that this was not the first time they had made a decision at ITN going against clear consensus [105]. The discussion was closed by Amakuru and can be read in full here. In the second discussion there was once again clear consensus for removal (despite some bludgeoning by one user of that discussion).
A discussion was opened by LaserLegs at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Rogue_admins. At the start of this discussion Fuzheado appeared to defend their actions here. However, even if Spencer's closure was premature, that does not justify Fuzheado reverting it after further discussion had taken place and consensus remained pretty clear. Regardless, we all make mistakes, even admins. That's fine. The issue here is Fuzheado appears to be unable to own and correct their mistake.
Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/April_2016 (multiple issues with postings, related to citations and another with an orange-tagged article, resulting in both to be pulled) see the sections related to "Kollam temple accident" and "Merle Haggard". This prompted users to comment, "I have no problem with the condition of the article now, but Fuzheado's posting (and re-posting in wheel war fashion) without attempting to form a consensus sets a very uncomfortable precedence here." and "Fuzheado this is the third time in a week or so that you've rushed into making bad decisions."
Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/January_2017 RD nom for "Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani" - prematurely posted, pulled due to referencing issues as well as BLP issues ("This absolutely cannot be posted anywhere on the main page in its current state. Not only are there huge slabs of unreferenced text, but a number of BLP issues. Please don't do that folks")
After some discussion with Sean Heron it was clear that the "Rogue admins" discussion at the ITN talk page was not very fair on Fuzheado as it didn't really give them a fair chance to respond. In light of this I posted a notice on their talk page asking them to address the concerns about their use of admin tools per WP:ADMINACCT[106].
I received no reply from Fuzheado after 1 week. I asked at ITN talk what I should do and admin Bagumba suggested I leave a polite reminder, which I did. Over a week later Fuzheado has not responded to this reminder either. This is not what is expected per WP:ADMINACCT.
Only a few number of users at ITN have admin tools required to edit the main page. It is therefore important that any admin retains the trust of the community that they will use those tools responsibly. I believe that trust has been lost. It is very regrettable that I must bring this here, but Fuzheado will not engage in discussion.
It's unfortunate that to date, Fuzheado has failed to respond promptly and civilly to queries, as per WP:ADMINACCT, prompting this noticeboard post. Still, I hope they can respond here.—Bagumba (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I'm involved in this in a minor way and mentioned above) - I think on its own, the COVID ongoing removal incident could be excused - a lot of editors were unhappy with Spencer's early close of the debate, and we can debate whether reinstating it 24 hours later once a lot more consensus had developed was correct or not (I didn't think it was, hence why I asked Fuzheado to reconsider). Clearly the accusation of bad faith against Spencer was not acceptable, though - even though Spencer later apologised and said it would have been better to wait longer, their initial decision to pull was very clearly made in good faith (and indeed, that was the consensus outcome later, when all the dust had settled). WP:ADMINCOND mandates admins to be civil in their interactions with other editors, and the bad faith accusation was not that. So for this incident alone, I'd say a WP:TROUT is in order and nothing more. However, we also have to consider all the other incidents mentioned above - particularly the wheel warring and the bad-faith accusation that another editor wheel warred when they didn't, both of which are further breaches of WP:ADMINCOND - and I think with all that, it elevates to something more serious. If Fuzheado comes here with a full acknowledgement of where they went wrong in the above incidents, and promises to change, then we might possibly be able to move on with a warning, but failing that I think at the least a topic ban from ITN would be in order, which we could enforce here at ANI, and possibly elevating this to Arbcom to consider whether Fuzheado still enjoys the trust and confidence needed to be an admin. WP:WHEEL is supposed to be a bright-line rule, after all. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say "possibly." An admin who was TBANned from any area raises grave concerns about their ability to use the tools wisely and well -- what are the odds that any tbanned editor could gain as much as 25% support at RfA? -- and a desysopping inquiry should be axiomatic for anything of the sort. And it's tough to make excuses for Fuzheado when a glance at their contribution list shows around 80 edits since Polyamorph first touched up his talk page. Ravenswing 10:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I am also mentioned above). I've complained before about Fuzheado's subpar decisions at ITN and I really think it's time it was addressed properly, as it's been going on for years as can be seen above. Making mistakes is one thing - I've posted ITN noms before and had them pulled because people pointed out things I hadn't noticed (one happened the other day in fact), and I'm sure that's happened to every regular ITN admin - but as can be seen from the examples above, this is a more basic problem of "I think this should be posted, so I'm posting it, regardless of consensus and/or quality, and I'm going to treat objections with bad faith". The Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani incident and the wheel-warring one were really not good at all. I'm ambivalent as to whether this rises to the level of whether Fuzheado should be an admin per se (I don't see any other tool issues and they don't use the tools much otherwise anyway), but I would definitely - as I've said before - suggest they give ITN a wide berth in future, hopefully voluntarily. Black Kite (talk)10:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WHEEL, INVOLVED comment The wheel-warring incident mentioned earlier (full thread here) is troubling. Fuzheado accused KTC of wheel-warring after KTC pulled the initial post. WP:WHEEL applies to undoing a reversal, not to the initial reversal: Do not repeat a reversed administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes. Clearly an unwarranted accusation. Fuzheado then re-posts, reversing KTC's pull; it's Fuzheado who actually wheel warred. Moreover, Fuzheado was already WP:INVOLVED in the discussion, having !voted support for the post at 21:26, 20 April 2021. It seems inconsistent that Fuzheado re-posted when the ITNC discussion had only been about an hour. Only a couple of weeks prior to that at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/April 2021 § (Posted as blurb) RD: Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Fuzheado pulled a blurb with the rationale of ...a rapid posting in an hour on the front page should only be done with little to no opposition, but that is not the case here...—Bagumba (talk) 11:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Holy moly That got my attention. @Fuzheado: This wheel warring thing is quite serious. Please deal with this quickly. I think the least remedy we can look forward to is a TBAN from ITN stuff.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
INVOLVED comment - Personally, I hope Fuzheado are able to engage with community concerns resulting in some lessons learned and we all move on. If however Fuzheado are unable or unwilling to do so however, then I share other editors concerns here about a pattern of behaviour which is non-ideal. -- KTC (talk) 11:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing comment From the links in the OP, Fuzheado has been overlooking sourcing deficiencies in their ITN posts since at least 2016, and the problem has continued. In one 2016 incident (here), they posted a blurb within a few hours after just one support !vote, which was then pulled due to BLP concerns. In another apparent WHEEL, Fuzheado unilaterally re-posts soon after without any new !votes at the time.—Bagumba (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quick response (copied from User talk) - Consider the talk page note acknowledged and I have now seen this ANI thread. As you can see from my largely dormant on-wiki activity since September 1, I was away from the Internet for U.S. Labor Day weekend, involved with the Wikimedia Summit in Berlin for another five days, and then filled with work obligations ever since I've been back. I will respond when I get a chance, but with all respect, do understand that I consider a response to these is not the highest priority right now. Thanks for your patience. - Fuzheado | Talk15:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuzheado: of course, people will have sympathy and give you some leeway if you have real-life commitments that mean your on-wiki time is limited. However, I would also point out that WP:ADMINACCT has a requirement that "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings". So while I imagine the community can be somewhat patient if you're busy, that won't be unlimited. And certainly when it comes to on-wiki activity, engaging with this discussion should be your highest priority at this time, if the community is to maintain its confidence in you and your accountability as an admin. — Amakuru (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuzheado: thank you for your response. I appreciate you are busy and have other real life priorities, but you have been on-wiki since the note I left on your talk page and WP:ADMINACCT requires your prompt response. So please could you reconsider your priorities? Polyamorph (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to be away from Wikipedia for a while, that is of course understandable. Please don't take any controversial admin actions on the day before you leave. Levivich (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Levivich that if work and personal obligations are such that it is impossible to devote time to Wikipedia to answer to inquiries, then you should not be taking any admin actions that would indicate a heightened level of discretion and judgment being applied. 🌈WaltCip-(talk)17:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your mileage clearly varies, but personally if I was informed about a discussion that cast doubt on my ability to use the tools, I would be making sure that one of my very next edits was to at the least acknowledge it, as opposed to making 75 edits over a period of two weeks before even doing so (66 of those edits after a second reminder), and then that acknowledgement - by which time it's escalated to ANI - to say "yeah, whatever". Black Kite (talk)18:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was thinking much the same. After Polyamorph's initial post to his talk page, Fuzheado found the time to tinker with the Don McMillan article on September 2nd, and make page moves on the Indira Lakshmanan article on September 6th. Afer Polyamorth's reminder post, Fuzheado found the time to put in a couple dozen edits on Wikipedia:GLAM and the Women's History Edit-a-Thon on the 13th, 14th and 15th, before segueing to a few dozen more edits and chiming in with an impassioned defense on an AfD.
Fuzheado was quite accurate in stating that answering such questions is not high on his priority list. But they sure as hell should be higher on his list than random Wikitinkering, and he should well be aware that there will be scrutiny of how many edits he makes between now and when he next deigns to respond here. Ravenswing 19:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well as thinking that replying to the concerns of another editor whilst involved with an Edit-a-Thon would be a wonderful teaching moment and a great way of showing everyone how important consensus was. Even if the edit was done privately and it was just mentioned in passing conversations. Gusfriend (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As someone who only witnessed the whole drama as lurker, I find the accusations against Fuzheado in the covid19 case quite ludicrous. The admin who initially removed covid19 from Ongoing acknowledged himself that his action had been premature and he should have let the discussion run for some more time, and there were many people that wanted the discussion to continue. Those unhappy with Fuzheado's decision started a thread on the Talk page entitled "Rogue Admins" - doesn't that say it all about the presumption of good faith in Fuzheado's actions? Khuft (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about Fuzheado's reversion of the COVID19 ongoing news removal, but his subsequent accusations of other admins acting in "poor faith", other ill-considered admin actions at ITN, and wheel warring. Regarding the "Rogue Admins" section, I had some discussions with several users, including Sean Heron (User_talk:Polyamorph#I'll_make_myself_more_clear_-_Re_engaging_with_ITN_admin_you_view_as_"rogue") and Bagumba at the ITN talk page about the title of the section (created by LaserLegs) and the neccessity of giving Fuzheado a fair chance to respond to the concerns. It is precisely for this reason that I initiated the User_talk:Fuzheado#ITN thread at Fuzheado's user talk page. I continue to wait and look forward to their response per WP:ADMINACCT. Polyamorph (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is this about wheel warring or not? If it is then we shouldn't be listing a grab bag of complaints going back six years that have nothing to do with that. And what is a "premature posting"? Who decides whether it is premature and whether consensus has been achieved? It's a judgement call, not a vote, so those declarations of "premature posting" listed as misdeeds are just statements of opinion. If this really is about wheel warring, then those complaints should be struck. Gamaliel (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ADMINACCT they demonstrate Repeated or consistent poor judgment. Note only admins can edit the main page and it's concerning if they consistently do so against consensus. There are four concerns I originally raised at Fuzheado's talk page: 1) pulling/reinstating items against consensus, 2) wheel warring, 3) unjustly accusing others of wheel warring, and 4) labelling another admin action as "poor faith" Polyamorph (talk) 04:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Poor judgment in your opinion is not necessarily a policy violation. If people are going to conclude it's poor judgment they are going to need more than a declaration from an involved party that the judgment call was premature. Gamaliel (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
er, wheel-warring is a policy violation and poor judgement. But that's why we are here. Also, admins are supposed to timely respond even if the person seeking a response is off-base. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being clear, I was talking about the "premature posting" issue and how that is clearly a matter of opinion. The timely response issue has already been addressed, I believe. It is unfortunate timing, but the mop is a volunteer position and people should be given some reasonable leeway for real life circumstances. Gamaliel (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
His "real life circumstances" did not prevent him from making several dozen Wikipedia edits in that time frame. I'm at a loss as to why you keep bringing up those "circumstances" while ignoring that, as well as ignoring the several editors and admins (this isn't just Polyamorph popping off) who have concerns in this matter that we are waiting for Fuzheado to deign to address.
Beyond that, yes, the mop is a volunteer position: one which you have to seek out, undergo an exacting process to obtain -- requiring securing the community's trust to do so -- and carrying serious responsibilities in terms of conduct and communication. Meeting those responsibilities is not a matter of doing so only when you feel like it, or only when you can find the time. If Fuzheado does not have the time to explain his actions, he does not have the time to be using the tools. Ravenswing 15:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm confused why we're here. The proximate incident that prompted this discussion saw Fuzheadoreverse a premature admin action, taken before consensus was established, by reinstating an item on T:ITN. These facts are clear—the admin who later reverted Fuzheado has said it was a "premature reading of consensus," and a brief look at the discussion reveals multiple editors who either opposed the item's removal or supported its reinstatement. Rather than being against any policy, Fuzheado's decision gave the discussion time to come to a consensus that the item should be removed. (The subsequent "poor faith" comment isn't laudable, but it also doesn't come close to violating the usual interpretations of our civility policy, so I'm unsure why that's being prominently cited above.)
So, let's look instead at the diffs cited above. Many, if not all of them, seem to refer to relatively minor issues/concerns and/or reasonable differences in admin judgement. For example, let's look at the Prince Philip ITN removal. Fuzheado reverted the addition to ITN because "a rapid posting in an hour on the front page should only be done with little to no opposition [and] that is not the case here." That ... sounds like an entirely reasonable reason to revert, slow down, and let the discussion continue to develop for more than 55 minutes. It does not sound like a problem requiring action at ANI, and similarly quick ITN postings for other/non-British royalty topics have been roundly criticized in the past.
So what's actually at the heart of the concerns laid out above? We could look to the relatively loose rules that govern ITN's discussions and posting, and find that we're here today because the significant room for interpretation has led to predictable disagreements. That's not a problem ANI can solve—that's something ITN has to address for itself. Ed[talk][majestic titan]07:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we are here is because Fuzheado has not responded to attempts to discuss these legitimate concerns. There are a number of incorrect assessments in your comment above - no one reverted Fuzheado until after a second discussion. There were actually many more editors opposing the item's reinstatement. Fuzheado was given several opportunities to retract their "poor faith" comment, they declined to do so. I think I explained the situation as well as I could in my OP so I'm not going to keep repeating. Polyamorph (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused why we're here: Because Fuzheado has not responded to prior queries on other talk pages. I'm more interested in first seeing their explanations for their administrative actions. Per WP:ADMINACCT:
...unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions...
@Polyamorph and Bagumba: "legitimate" is an interesting word to use there. First, judging consensus—or a lack thereof—is not vote counting. But even if we engage in that exercise to keep this comment shorter, counting the votes reveals a significant minority of editors that are against removing/for reinstating, all in a discussion that's gone on for less than 24 hours. So no, the most recent concerns are unobjectionably not "legitimate." As a result, we're now looking at an ANI that asks an admin to expedite an explanation for alleged issues that are at best seven months old, and that is in my view not appropriate. Ed[talk][majestic titan]16:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to the ping. I await a response from Fuzheado. The lack of a response has lead us here only after consulting with admins that is appropriate to do so. Polyamorph (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fuzheado has already responded that they are in the midst of international travel, I believe. That is certainly an understandable reason why they have not provided an in-depth response to the current matter. There are also a grab bag of allegations going back to 2016 but I don't see any evidence presented that they historically have not responded to queries. Gamaliel (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bother trying to convince Wikimedia DC Communications Committee and Fundraising Committe member Robert Fernandez (Gamaliel) that Wikimedia DC Communications Committee and Fundraising Committee member Andrew Lih (Fuzheado) might possibly have done anything wrong, the chances of that most toxic of chapters (together with Wikimedia UK probably) choosing reality over friendship is nil. Fram (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Oversight??? Then perhaps someone should inform Gamaliel, self-declared Board member of Wikimedia DC[108], that Robert Fernandez, board member of Wikimedia DC, is impersonating Gamaliel in his Cv on the Wikimedia Dc page[109], including linking to his twitter account, "wikigamaliel". Speaking of conspiracy theories, that oversight is completely ridiculous, can you tell me who thought this a reasonable use of that extreme tool? Fram (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Polyamorph: This is not the first time someone has tried to intimidate me on-wiki based on my employment, and I'll tell you the same thing I have everyone else: I've been a community member for a lot longer than I've been with the WMF, and I have plenty of my own views that are separate from those of the organization. (Who even is the other WMF staff member in this discussion?) Ed[talk][majestic titan]16:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've done nothing of the sort! I just find it interesting. Any off-wiki communications with Fuzheado should be disclosed though, if they should occur. Polyamorph (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would respectfully submit to all that we should focus on the matters at hand and arguments thereabout, rather than the identities of participants, or insinuations of improper behavior. Just a thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and no. I am not an admin or a WMF member, I am the least intimidating user here. We have a WP:COI policy in article space. Does that not also apply here? Eitherway, you're right. I apologise for any insinuations on my part. Polyamorph (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it should first be made abundantly clear that nobody in this thread has attempted to intimidate Ed. Intimidation is a serious accusation, and it should not be made lightly. This thread is about concerns with the lack of accountability displayed by an admin who also happens to be a WMF staffer. When two other WMF staffers show up and dismiss the concerns expressed by numerous editors, they should expect that eyebrows will be raised. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeesh, this place. Unless I've missed the news, Fuzheado is not a WMF staffer. Ditto Gamaliel. They are, unless I'm mistaken, volunteers who help out at WMDC. For anyone who may be confused/misled about what that means: For most affiliates, being on the board is basically someone telling you "hey, so I see you're pretty involved as a volunteer -- would you be willing to help out with writing annual reports and stuff, too?" Like writing articles, uploading photos, fighting vandalism, and copyediting, volunteering with an affiliate is one of many, many ways people support the project. I'm on the board of WMNYC, which I joined about a decade after I became a Wikipedian. If I were an admin/arb/whatever and a fellow board member found themselves in a sticky situation on-wiki, I certainly wouldn't take any formal admin/arb actions about them, but since we're ultimately just volunteers together, I'd expect to be able to have an opinion without a bunch of people insinuating some corruption either directly or by "just asking questions". YMMV. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 18:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, but since the last time you posted at ANI was three days ago, as opposed to four months or nearly two years, I'd assume that you became aware of the discussion through your normal editing activity, as opposed to any other route. Black Kite (talk)18:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, after taking a second look, I'm not so sure as I initially was.
Contrary to the OP, the Aug 30 reinstatement of the COVID ongoing was not "against consensus" in any way. Take a look at the thread at the time of reinstatement. The thread was posted at Aug 29 13:19 and ongoing was removed at 16:48; at that point it was a near-unanimous "support", but as everyone--including the admin who pulled it--now agrees, that was too soon, only a little more than three and a half hours. After the removal, the following !votes were much more mixed, almost half calling for reinstatement by my quick count. Not at all a clear consensus; if anything, it shifted far more towards "reinstate" after the removal than in the first three hours. Fuzheado reinstated it the next day 12:37 Aug 30. I think reinstatement was the right call: the initial removal was premature, and the "consensus" was split 50/50 at the time.
The most-recent other instance of Fuzheado doing anything wrong provided in this thread goes back to April 2021. I initially misread that as April 2022.
If the only time Fuzheado did anything wrong with his tools in the past year and a half was to not answer inquiries in response to the Aug 30 reinstatement... while he should have answered more promptly and fully, this is a nothingburger.
So are we seriously talking about one failure of adminacct in 18 months? Or is there anything else relevant that's happened this year? Levivich (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the query I posted on Fuzheado's talk page. The Aug 30 reinstatement is not in itself what I asked Fuzheado to explain. This is what I asked
Only a small number of users at ITN have the elevated rights required to edit the main page. It is therefore important that any user using admin tools can retain the trust of the community that they will use those tools responsibly. After discussion with Sean Heron on my talk page, it is fair that you are provided with an opportunity to respond to the concerns per WP:ADMINACCT. These concerns are that you have historically made controversial admin actions at ITN, including pulling/reinstating items against consensus, wheel warring, and accusing others of wheel warring. Most recently you stated another admin (Spencer) of acting in "poor faith". I'd like you to consider whether this is something you would like to retract. Black Kite has suggested you might voluntarily refrain from using your administrator tools to impose your own opinions. Is this something that you would consider?
Sigh ... look. No-one is asking for Fuzheado to stop editing Wikipedia, no-one is calling for him to resign the tools, no-one is shouting for them to be dragged off to ArbCom. All they are are saying is "look, there's a long history of you editing Template:In the News in a controversial way so perhaps you could, you know, stop doing that?" If Fuzheado gave that assurance and then returned to doing whatever they do at Wikipedia we could all go to the pub and close this. Black Kite (talk)17:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not an admin and have only been here about a year but would like to say a few things:
With great power comes great responsibility.
As someone who has never been involved with ITN or heard of Fuzheado before I have appreciated the additional context that concerns about their previous actions provides.
Consensus maters and part of that is explaining your reasoning. It may be an admin action or explaining why you declined an article at AfC as it had no references.
Communication matters.
The community matters.
Whilst in no way indicating that this is the consensus of the community or starting a formal proposal, Fuzheado does not have my personal support for continued use of their admin tools at ITN
I admit that this is all way too early as we have yet to really hear from Fuzheado, but we have yet to really hear from Fuzheado.
Apologies to all. Gusfriend (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gusfriend. Honestly I find the lack of any meaningful response from Fuzheado indicates (to me) contempt for the community daring to ask them to be accountable for their admin actions. Note Fuzheado has been active elsewhere on wikimedia but still cannot find the time to respond. Polyamorph (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dentren was warned against issuing stale warnings by El_C.
Issuing warning templates for conduct from over a week ago is not appropriate, (regardless of whether the issuing user was blocked at the time the conduct ocurred) and can be seen as aggressive or confrontational.
Yeah. Almost two weeks ago. What's the point of warning now? (Other than actually making a point at my talk page). So far they have not returned to edit warring, but such first edit after being unblocked may suggest what they're up to. Bedivere (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct. However, I did not precisely say they returned to edit warring. Just pointing out that, just after returning from a month long block, voila!, the first thing they do is issue a warning on the talk page of the user who reported them last month and got them blocked. OK, I assume good faith, but this just doesn't fit. Bedivere (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Several breaches of 3RR by Oluclen
Oluclen has been engaging in several edit wars for months at Italy national football team, often resorting to using IPs to avoid breaching 3RR. Their behaviour is non-constructive, and several users have had issues with them. The IP used in this instance of edit warring is 85.165.43.152(talk·contribs·WHOIS).
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Since they're editing other related pages, sitewide. Nehme1499, there needs to be 4 reverts, not 3, in order to contravene WP:3RR, although that's a bit of an aside here. Still, for future reference. Please feel free to contact me directly if they continue to edit war following this block. El_C13:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tony Greenstein is a controversial figure in the British far left. For nearly half a century, he has been at the centre of campaigns against fascism, in support of Palestinian rights, against Zionism and against poverty. Many of his detractors have accused him of antisemitism - a characterisation strongly refuted by Greenstein himself and his supporters. But few, even among those who strongly oppose his views and statements on Zionism, have attempted to deny his key role in the anti-fascist struggle, particularly in Brighton, over several decades. But now a new, and apparently single-purpose, account is repeatedly doing just that. Charliebrown757 was created on 15 September, and has so far made five edits. The first three of these[123][124][125] were to add the term "self-proclaimed" to the lead's description of Greenstein as an anti-fascist, citing NPOV as justification. The fourth, in response to my post on the article's talk page questioning this,[126] was "Did he fight Mussolini or something? Every communist defines himself as "anti-fascist", whatever that means (usually means anti-capitalist). Attribution is fundamental per NPOV policy."[127] (The description is verified and attributed in the body of the article - which nowhere claims or suggests that Greenstein is a communist.) And Charlie Brown's latest edit was simply to remove the term anti-fascist altogether, with the edit summary "Fails NPOV".[128]. Is this behaviour acceptable, or is it, as I believe, a breach of BLP policy? RolandR (talk)22:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like there should have been a lot of steps between where you are and an ANI report. You're both edit-warring, and I've warned you both. Nothing about this has reached the level of a BLP violation; normal DR options like WP:3O would have been a good choice. I also think you're substantively right, and have made an edit to the article accordingly. JBL (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted, my reverts were to remove a breach of BLP - the addition of "self-proclaimed" to the description of Greenstein as an anti-fascist, implying that this was untrue - and thus a legitimate exception to the rules. And I opened a discussion on the talk page, explaining this to the other editor, whose reply was a sequence of ad-hominem insults followed by a further BLP-breaching revert. RolandR (talk)00:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with JBL here. Also, for something that might be a BLP violation like saying that someone is anti-fascist, I would be happier if there was a reference from one of the top tier UK papers, BBC, etc. rather than smaller regional newspapers. Gusfriend (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been debating whether to post this for a while. Mahakal17 has been warned several times before for adding unsourced content and other disruptive behaviour.
They have repeatedly recreated Ravinder singh balyan after it was deleted at AfD, a person with whom they appear to have a conflict of interest (they tagged the person's portrait as their "own work").
Going through their edits, I've found many that are either unsourced or the references don't back up the added content. For example, see [130]; both the "early life" and "personal life" sections are not supported by the given references.
I've blocked them indefinitely for WP:DISRUPTION. Misrepresentation at WP:PERMs is the last straw, really. After reading through the talk page, there are too many issues that have been raised there. Misrepresentation at WP:PERMs cannot have a good reason behind it. Any admin should feel free, of course, to change block or unblock at their discretion, without prior discussion. A ping would be nice. Best.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a long-established convention for determining the titles of Wikipedia articles on places in South Tyrol: WP:NBZ. The convention was designed to be as precise and easy as possible, in order to avoid the constant edit warring that had affected the articles roughly one and a half decades ago. It settled the matter in simply establishing that the name of the local linguistic majority should be used as the article title.
Staiolone started to disrupt the established order by moving two (out of a triple digit number of articles...) on 5 September:
Please not that his second move's explanation official name of this town with the current Italian law is nonsense. All two or three town names are official and protected by specific laws, but this is not the point.
Subsequently I reverted based on our convention and discussed matters with Staiolone here. Please note his aggressive tones: You are obsessed against only Italian names of towns which stay in Italy: your hate against Italian language is blatant and absurd regarding this point...
On 16 September Staiolone moved again the same articles (with the same nonsensical reasoning):
No signs of even trying to discuss the matters. But honestly, I'm not sure what is there even to discuss, given that the cases are crystal clear and settled by WP:NBZ. Mai-Sachme (talk) 07:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I reported user Mai-Sachme to administrator and we discussed in User talk:Ser Amantio di Nicolao#Names of towns and today I reported him again. The focussed towns are in Italy and their official names are in Italian language: in their official sites stay names in Italian language obviously because towns are in Italy. User Mai-Sachme put Ladin name at Ortisei and German name at Bressanone but in all other versions of various languages of wikipedia the names are in Italian, except German version because Germans use their own language but here we use English language. User Mai-Sachme is on blatant wrong point. These are links of official sites https://www.brixen.it/it%20 and https://www.comune.ortisei.bz.it/it --Staiolone (talk) 07:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given their persistent failure to understand our guidelines and procedures, I agree some kind of sanction (tban or limited block?) against Staiolone for a mixture of WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE is in order unless we have a word from them that they will no longer seek to change these articles' names. Nardog (talk) 07:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A cut and paste move is also bad and means that an Administrator has to go through the process at WP:HISTMERGE.
Wikipedia is all about consensus. Being WP:BOLD is ok and even encouraged but if anyone has concerns then the next step is discussion an trying to get consensus for what you are trying to do. See WP:BRD for a good approach to how to handle things.
The fact that WP:NBZ exists is an indication that there is an already at least a base level of consensus when it comes to naming. Going against what is said there requires gaining consensus ahead of time.
If you want to make changes then starting a WP:RM would be the way to go.
Adding to my comments above, I would suggest that Staiolone should also read WP:CANVASS as they have posted on the Talk pages of Nardog, Archenzo and Cavarrone about this discussion. Gusfriend (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rule is this: "We recommend choosing a single name, by some objective criterion, even a somewhat arbitrary one. Simple Google tests are acceptable to settle the matter, despite their problems; one solution is to follow English usage where it can be determined, and to adopt the name used by the linguistic majority where English usage is indecisive".--Staiolone (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User under that IP has been retroactively 'ukrainising' Nekrasov, Bulgakov and others since this morning. I would appreciate it if he could be stopped and some sort of protection added to the articles in question. I believe I'm entitled to exceed 3RR under the vandalism clause, but I would prefer not to Ostalgia (talk) 09:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(from AIV) Many believe to be entitled to exceed 3RR Ostalgia, as this isn't a biography of a living person, there was probably no need to keep reverting 8 times. 217.175.223.15's edits have been at very least disruptive, but it wasn't the type of "obvious" vandalism ("such as page blanking and adding offensive language") that is exempt from 3RR. Please avoid doing this in the future. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is all good and well, and as mentioned, I would very much prefer not to do it, but the article is still unprotected, and the same behaviour continues from another IP. Ostalgia (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ostalgia, if you prefer not to do so, then please simply don't. There was no need, no force, no policy that required you to revert.
There is no need, no force and no policy that requires me to contribute to the wiki at all, either, yet here I (we) am (are)! I freely admit to going a bit ham on the reverts on the Bulgakov article, but I do believe a single, anonymous account with persistent edits and no attempt to engage or stop when asked to could well be classed as vandalism in the present situation. This being a touchy subject I preferred to err on [what I considered to be] the side of caution - you'll find that the talk page on Bulgakov includes arguments between Russians and Ukrainians, between Ukrainians and non-Ukrainians who they consider pro-Russian, and between Ukrainians and other Ukrainians over whether Bulgakov was a rabid Russian chauvinist and ukrainophobe, and most of this is even before the war. Anyway, it's all beside the point now - the users in question are blocked and the article on Bulgakov is protected. Ostalgia (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ostalgia: you're missing the point. While there is no policy that requires you to contribute, there are various policies and guidelines that you do have to obey when you do contribute including WP:3RR. If you fail to do so, then you will eventually be blocked and if you still don't get the message this block will eventually be indefinite. And there is a policy that forbids you from contributing when this has happened. In other words, you either need to obey our policies and guidelines and contribute, or not contribute. It's as simple as that. You don't get to come here and say because there are no policies requiring you to contribute you get to ignore the policies and guidelines which apply when you do contribute. The "side of caution" when it comes to 3RR except when it's a clear cut BLP violation or something else with clear and immediate harm for leaving it up for even a few minutes is to not pass the 3 revert limit. If another editor is behaving inappropriately seek help at suitable venues e.g. WP:AN/EW and wait for others to decide if there is a problem. It's not to do 8 reverts on spurious grounds because no one is forcing you to edit so you can do whatever you want when you do edit. If something is a "touchy subject", all the more reason not to set anything off by making even more of a mess than there need to be. Give others a chance to take action rather than thinking you need to urgently fix something which has no urgency and in doing so, making more of a mess than there needed to be. And there's no good reason to think the editor was a vandal, as opposed to someone acting in good faith but with a strong PoV who had even less understanding of our policies and guidelines than you. I mean you yourself seem to know how strongly the depth of feeling there is here given everything else you said. Such editors are highly problematic but should but not be confused with editors acting in bad faith to harm the encyclopaedia. Bear in mind spurious accusations of vandalism are personal attacks. Nil Einne (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Indirect accusations of being affiliated with the "proud boys" and unreasonable defense of a loaded description
Talk: Otoya Yamaguchi
This has been an issue on this page for a very long time with many people.
I asked for this to be changed to be *neutral*, and User:JesseRafe accused me of being affiliated with the proud boys for saying that such a detailed, loaded description of a group reenacting a murder should not be in an article about the murderer. This is getting out of hand. Too many people have tried reasoning with him and he seems to have taken it personally to make sure that section which isn't even mentioned in the Japanese version of the page stays up, in its current form, with which multiple people have taken issue, all of which he has shut out and not taken into consideration. He is not interested in a discussion and is now insulting people by indirectly claiming they're affiliated with a far right, fascist organization because they do not want something that reads like a twitter post on wikipedia. 23.241.30.108 (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a wikipedia editor, but I've been on wikipedia for most of my life. I've read some talk pages out of curiosity so I know the most extreme rules.
Everything I learned on how to use this site was as of today. I probably did some things wrong or incorrectly.
I'm sure if there's some way you can see what pages I've viewed, you'll find things from medicines to US naval vessels to obscure bands to random historical figures
I was curious as to why so many countries in Asia became communist while Japan, to my knowledge at the time, showed no risk. My first thought was that it might be the US preventing it. I did some reading, and the assassination came up as a factor. So I did some more reading.
Then i come across something that reads like something off twitter on what's supposed to be an encyclopedia. I l look at the talk page.
I see this has been an issue for what looks to be a while. I offer to open a discourse on this, and get implicitly called a proud boy.
His stance appears to be either "everyone who disagrees with me is a proud boy" or "this is a coordinated effort by the proud boys to defend their hero on the page about a kid who assassinated a politician, rather than on his page itself(?).
I believe the behavior of User:FDW777, who is also involved in working to keep that paragraph up in the "legacy" section of Talk: Otoya Yamaguchi should be addressed. I went and checked a bit deeper and multiple times over, on the old talk page, this user has reverted edits, asked to first form a consensus, then shut out any discussion, then accused others of edit warring. I do believe that this is of note that much of the reversions, and claims of "no consensus" have come from this individual, and *supported* by the individual that defamed me. The "consensus" seems to only be these two. 23.241.30.108 (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated disruptive editing, non communicative pageant editors (September 18)
Unfortunately I have been unable to get a response from this editor via their talkpage. They have repeatedly been making unsourced changes or using references to fansite social media like this latest one that I have reverted. Please help get the message to them this is not OK. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked both accounts indef. I don't think there's a point in setting an expiration to these blocks when there's been no communication whatsoever. Because it's likely that they'd just sit out the blocks, bringing them back here again, with the same WP:GS/PAGEANT problems as before. El_C15:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dur Godiva and canvassing
I linked an email account to my profile a few weeks ago to communicate outing concerns to arbcon. Since then I have received a number of unsolicited emails from Dur Godiva, an editor who as far as I can tell I've never interacted with. I haven't responded yet the emails keep coming. These emails attempt to solicit my support in edit wars and content disputes, confusingly not always ones that they are involved in. Their most recent email directs me to Zionist antisemitism which does appear to have an ongoing conflict, but no edits from Dur Godiva or myself in the edit history. From their talk page it seems that their canvassing isn't limited to me, there are at least three other editors there complaining of receiving unsolicited emails[132][133][134] and yet they continue. I would like to either see the editor blocked for canvassing/attempted meatpuppetry or their email privileges revoked if that can be done. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Complaint about New Page reviewer draftifying work while I'm still working on it.
I want to raise a complaint about a New Page reviewer who is jumping on people's work within a matter of seconds after they save their initial edit. I'm not going to identify the NPR yet, in case there's physically nothing you can do about them, but to keep a long story short, I started a page about a church, saved the initial edit with a clear edit summary, stating that I was still working on it while getting more information for it. I was in the middle of adding that information, and upon trying to save, was presented with an edit conflict, stating that someone else had edited the page; it'd been moved into draftspace, and left me in a position where I almost overwrote the reviewer concerned. I've since had the draft deleted (at my request, G7), because I simply can't be bothered to tell people what I'm trying to do, only for them to totally ignore it. Do I have any recourse to complain about the reviewer please? Note, that they have previously had pages unreviewed by other reviewers for similar things. Thanks! Dane|Geld17:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DaneGeld: per WP:DRAFTOBJECT you could have the draft moved back to mainspace. Any admin will be able to restore the deleted content for you. You can also place the {{In use}} template at the top of the page you are working on. Any editor patrolling the page should give you time to complete your expansion. Polyamorph (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, DaneGeld. You have access to your own sandbox space as well as draft space to develop content that is not yet ready for the encyclopedia. Please do not place unreferenced stubs into the main space of the encyclopedia. I see nothing wrong with the NPP reviewer draftifying your unreferenced stub. Cullen328 (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. I understand I have access to my own sandbox; the reason for getting the stub in place so quickly, was that I'd updated the template for the diocese in which the church is situated, and did not want to leave that template with a red link in it. I think they could have given me another few moments to finish what I was doing, before taking their tools to it. I kept a copy of the source code, and will add references to it, per Polyamorph, and then tag it with an in use. I'm not leaving that template with a missing article in it. Dane|Geld18:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I consider an unreferenced two sentence stub that makes no claim of notability to be a bigger problem than a red link. Best practice is to gather and format references sufficient to show notability first, and then write the article by summarizing what those references say about the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just don't update templates or put other links in mainspace until AFTER the article itself is ready to be there. You are working out of order, and there was nothing wrong with moving an article not ready to be in mainspace over to Draft. The reviewer was following standard NPR procedures. MB18:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, MB. The reviewer did not follow best practice for draftifying the stub, which states that it may be moved if: the topic has some potential merit, and the article does not meet the required standard, and there is no evidence of active improvement, and the article does not contain copyright violations, or when the author clearly has a conflict of interest (per WP:COIEDIT). I never even got to the third stage, "there is no evidence of active improvement", because the article wasn't there long enough for me to improve! I was doing it when the reviewer moved it. I'd only created the page barely 3 minutes earlier, and I understand that ALL of the first 4 rules that I quoted, must occur, for the article to be draftified. There's a lot of things I am, a robot isn't one of them! Dane|Geld18:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While draftifying the stub so quickly may not be "best practice", neither is creating an article directly in mainspace. Best practice is to create it elsewhere and move it to mainspace later. Even if your intent is to create a stub so that other can expand it, there is no reason not to first develop it enough so that there is no risk of deletion. MB21:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The NP reviewer did their job. It was an unsourced stub. It's better to start an article with at least one or two sources, or it will get pushed into draft space, where it belongs. It was you that requested a speedy delete, not the reviewer. Why you requested a speedy delete of your own article, I have no idea. You could have simply fleshed it out then moved it back. Dennis Brown - 2¢18:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I requested the G7 on my article because it seemed futile to continue it there and then, if it was just going to get hammered. I'd made my intentions clear in the edit summary that I was still working on it, and the reviewer simply just "nope"'d it out of there and dumped it. Do they actually read edit summaries, or are they just interested in getting 1-up on someone else? I left the CSD template with this rationale: "Can't be arsed. Give people a chance before you smack their work." That's just how I felt. Dane|Geld08:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Myself, I've always felt the tendency of the overanxious (whether it be NP reviewers or people aiming to be the fastest CSDers in the West) to pounce on new articles within seconds is totally obnoxious, and that they show a marked disinclination to work from the back of the list. But they're not contravening policy to do so. Ravenswing 18:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I may pitch in - a few days back I posted a fairly developed article (not a stub) about a recently deceased legal philosopher of some prominence, a man widely considered an authority on the subject in his home country, published in several languages by reputable editorial houses (including by OUP in English), who received several awards, etc. I did not properly source it because I was simply too tired to go on, so I sent it to mainspace with edit commentary to the effect that I would be adding all the sources first thing the next day, under the hope that the fact that it was a relatively developed article on fairly notable individual (a quick Google search would probably bring up several hits) would work in my favour. Of course, by the time I woke up the article had been draftified, which I found quite irksome (and I was not as kind to the NPR as I could/should have), particularly since before sending my own article to mainspace I had spent several hours that day improving another, one that had remained unsourced and an orphan since 2012!
Needless to say, I am responsible for sending an unsourced article to mainspace, and as you mention the reviewer did not break any rules. However, I find that over-eagerness to be counter-productive, especially when there's no harm in waiting for a day or two when there's still stuff from ancient times that needs to be dealt with. Ostalgia (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that should become policy then, Ravenswing. It's disheartening to be in the middle of doing something constructive to bring your article to standard, to have some nobody in the middle of nowhere, who can't see what you're doing, shoot first and then tell you they've done it, rather than talking to you first. It makes you feel like it's really not worth it. Dane|Geld18:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the reviewer moved too fast to draftify here. Unless there is something obviously harmful in an article, there's no reason to not wait several minutes (I will usually avoid drastic action until hours or days have passed). The advice given by other editors about how to avoid unwanted draftification are nevertheless valid as a way to reduce friction between editors and editing processes. signed, Rosguilltalk18:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of the issue is that NPPer's are a bit overwhelmed with the sheer volume of new articles. I create articles, some of them are stubs. Don't think I've ever created an article without at least one reference which shows that it meets notability criteria. That being said, I don't think any action needs to be taken here. Onel5969TT me18:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified Bruxton, the reviewer in question, about this discussion. If this were a broader conversation about draftification that was taking place at another venue, it would be fine, but DaneGeld is specifically asking about "recourse to complain about the reviewer" and discussing Bruxton's past NPP reviews. It's odd to have the subject of an ANI discussion be so easily identifiable without them being notified at all about it, and I don't think it's really fair to start a "complaint" thread in which someone's edits are criticized without letting them know about it and giving them the opportunity to respond. DanCherek (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't identify the reviewer because I wanted originally to know if anything could be done about what they'd done, Dan. I guess now you've id'd them, it's obvious that they need informing. They were only identifiable because you went looking for who they were. Dane|Geld19:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was obvious from the very first post, where you said that they are "jumping on people's work" and pointed out that "they have previously had pages unreviewed by other reviewers". I happen to agree with Rosguill above that the draftification, two minutes after the page was created, was hasty, but that doesn't mean that Bruxton shouldn't get a chance to respond to these statements. Practically every ANI discussion is started by an editor who is wondering if something can be done about what another editor has done. DanCherek (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, Dan. I guess I should have flagged him from the start. I pinged him from his note on my talk page, but when I looked at his contribs after he didn't respond, he'd stopped editing 2 minutes after moving my article into draft. As it is, it's going to take a little more time to get the bits together now, because I can't remember the pages I got the info from now; I closed them when Bruxton moved my article, and didn't bookmark them! Guess it's going to be in my sandbox for a while, although I may go back and visit the church again on Tuesday before I go back home, they have some information about the construction of the church there. Might be wise to get an appointment with the Priest too. I'm sure they'd be happy to help with the building of a WP article! Dane|Geld19:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh crud. I forgot about that. That's original research, isn't it? Bum. Looks like I'm gonna have to do some reading through Newmarket's history. This might take longer than I thought. Still, for a properly referenced, creditable article, it's got to be worth it, right?! Dane|Geld20:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Official guidance for NPPs doing front of queue reviewing is to wait 15 minutes. Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Care, Outside these exceptions, an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. In the past I created a user script that NPPs can install to help with this: User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/NotSoFast.js. Bummer that this made it to ANI; this could have been posted at WT:NPP or WT:NPPR and gotten the same answer with less of a high stakes atmosphere. I oppose any sanction for the reviewer, I'm sure we can just ask them to be more careful about this in the future. Anyway, hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is so wrong about creating articles at AfC – that is the proper venue, as is SANDBOX. Why attempt to create in mainspace when you are not ready? Atsme💬📧21:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftspace is a safe place to work on articles that are not yet suitable for Wikipedia. What's wrong with an article going to draft? If an article is in a fragmentary state, it's less likely to get negative attention or actions while in draft, which gives you some time to spiff it up without being bothered too much. — rsjaffe🗣️22:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I ask myself this question at least 2 or 3 times a week. I wish we could send more articles to draft so editors could better access resources and learn some best practices before we have cases like this spring up. There is nothing wrong with starting an article in draft and this should be encouraged. Dr vulpes(💬 • 📝)23:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, here's my answer to that. There's only one article I've ever worked on in draftspace, and that's because that I had doubts I could prove the subject's notability. Every other single article I've created, I've had zero doubts on that score. I'm nearly eighteen years away from being a Wikinewbie, and I don't expect to have an article I'm starting taken to CSD because I answered the telephone or put my wife's dinner in the oven (or, like Ostalgia, it strikes me that it's long past midnight, and I can always finish up in the morning) before putting in the citations. Except that it's happened all the same on a couple of occasions, and both from overzealous idjits jumping on the front end of the New Pages list, both within a minute, and no doubt thinking that people handed out barnstars for the most article creations shot down.
New page patrol is important. I've put in stints on it myself. But if there are patrollers working from the front of the queue instead of properly from the back (yes, I get it, articles at the back of the queue you actually have to put in a little work to verify, instead of just hitting the button, shouting "Gotcha, ya bastid!" and pouncing on the next new page, elapsed time four seconds), and they're ignoring the 15+ minute rule, then at the very least there needs to be a heavy trout slap, with the expectation that a repeat performance will result in the right being pulled. Ravenswing 23:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ravenswing - First, you're autopatrolled, so you'd never appear on the NPP queue. Second, as editors with more expertise than I have already said, 2 minutes is way too quick to draftify. However, I don't think it's a "do it again and got shot in the head" offense. Over the past 3 weeks, I've put about 100 articles off to the side which had major problems, but I felt were too new to take action on. And I would go back to them either much later that day, or the next. Out of all those articles, many of them which had been tagged for issues, do you know how many were improved? Zero. The reviewer needs to have a word or two said to them, and if it becomes an issue over several weeks or months, then action can be taken. I think we both see the issue pretty much in the same light, it's just the degree of severity on which we differ. And I also agree that most NPPer's should be focusing on the back of the queue. Onel5969TT me01:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dr_vulpes, Onel5969 and other NPPers: When draft space was first introduced, I saw it that way: a place to build up an article before mainspacing, especially useful for those working with bad connections or little bits of time. But it's become a place for NPPers and other patrollers to sling articles, and there's a protocol/policy chokepoint with how to get the article from there to mainspace once it's ready; does one need to submit it via AfC (whose standards have become quite high in practice, quite apart from the length of time waiting for a review) or can one simply move it back? I have the impression that some of the people who move articles to draft believe that means the article requires AfC submission. I've improved several draftified articles written by others, usually by editors who have since been blocked so they can't fix the articles themselves, and have had some miserable experiences trying to get them reviewed and passed, exacerbated by the fact I really don't want to get the credit template if they are passed, because they were originally someone else's draft. I've recently given up and just mainspaced them myself. And I'm one of very few people working on draftified articles. The way draft space is currently widely regarded, draftification is not a neutral act, it has a very high percentage chance of resulting in the article being deleted 6 months later. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
O yeah I feel you, I had one guy get upset saying that by sending their article to draft I was ensuring a bot would delete it. During AfDs I try to send articles to draft that clearly need some love or the support of resources that aren't online, it's only happened once which is too bad as the draft process has a lot of potential. I've even offered to personally review the drafts AfC when it's ready but that doesn't even encourage them. Dr vulpes(💬 • 📝)04:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yngvadottir, Drafts do not have to be submitted to AFC. That is recommended for an inexperienced user so they can get feedback and be given a chance to improve the article further. The "problem" NPPers have with editors bypassing AFC is primarily with articles that haven't been improved at all and are just put back in mainspace in the exact same state they were before being Draftified, sometimes under a different title, usually by someone desperate to get their article on some NN subject published. MB08:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MB: Thanks for that feedback. I'm not sure those who draftify articles would agree, but if I've indeed been worrying unnecessarily, that would explain why I haven't got into trouble for giving up on AfC and just mainspacing. The thing is, it can be harder to clear AfC than AfD. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi... as MB said, draftified articles do not have to go through AfC. But many do. If the editor who created the article (or other interested party) reaches out to me, and they have improved the article, I'll do the actual AfC review myself. One other thing, when you do submit someone else's work on AfC, you have the option as submitting as yourself, or as the article's creator, so that would alleviate the problem of you getting the credit template. Hope this helps. Onel5969TT me09:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DaneGeld, just out of curiosity was there a reason you were unable to just move the page back to mainspace with your edits? Like, it just feels like I'm missing something here. I promise I"m not trying to be a jerk or rude, just trying to get all my ducks in a row here. Dr vulpes(💬 • 📝)04:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr_vulpes - I didn't move it back into mainspace, because it would have overwritten someone with a granted right that I don't have and didn't understand. I didn't want to create the impression of my forcing it back into mainspace. As Ravenswing hints at above, some NPPers are clearly not following established guidelines, and it needs to be a given for them, that they patrol from the back of the NPP queue, not the front. This has been a very disheartening process for me. It's no wonder some users are scared to edit here because of the bureaucracy that goes with it. It's like having snipers on the rooftops. Dane|Geld10:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So let me make sure I'm getting this correctly. You published an article to mainspace that was not finished. It was sent to draft. The reviewer made a mistake and should have waited ~12 additional minutes. There were options available to you to address this problem. You could have sent it back to mainspace with corrections, reached out the the reviewer in question on their talk page, or gone through the dispute resolution process. Instead you deleted the article in question and we are now talking about it here. Maybe going forward if this happens again you could try some of the previously mentioned remedies. We all make mistakes and that's ok this is a collaborative project afterall. Something something assume good faith something something. Dr vulpes(💬 • 📝)20:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Dennis Brown and Deepfriedokra. I'd be glad if my article was draftified if I released an unsourced stub into Wikipedia mainspace. To work on an article we have the sandbox, userspace or draft space. Unsourced stubs are not good for Wikipedias reputation as an encyclopedia.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with creating an article and developing it in mainspace. No patroller should be draftifying within minutes of creation. If they're going to work from the front of the queue (despite best practice being to work from the back of the queue) then they need to exercise some restraint, per the NPP instructions that they should be following. Polyamorph (talk) 06:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Point of view, one can assume good faith or complain. I assume good faith. And that the wikipedia guidelines enable or even defend the release of unsourced stubs into mainspace, I'd see as not helpful for the project. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftifying content within minutes of creation, while it is still being developed, is not helpful to the project either as it demoralises constructive editors. No one is suggesting leaving unsourced stubs in mainspace, just don't draftify them within a few minutes of creation - they will remain in the NPP queue. Polyamorph (talk) 06:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In which case you should also assume good faith on the part of article creators, should you not? But that being said, perhaps you would answer whether or not you think that defying the guidance of Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Care to draftify an article within seconds of its creation -- a time frame in which no human being could possible make an adequate assessment of its notability or sourceability -- is either acceptable practice or one which we ought to encourage? Ravenswing 08:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I assume good faith on both sides and also after reading Wikipedia New Page patrol#care. The reviewer didn't tag the article nor nominate it for deletion but moved it to draft space where the editor could expand the article in peace. The draftify template is worded in a welcoming constructive way. DaneGeld is not a new editor but on wikipedia since 2016 and has created several articles already. That he chose to delete the article, is not the reviewers fault.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who said it WAS the reviewer's fault, Paradise Chronicle? I certainly didn't. I chose to do it because of what the reviewer did, it didn't seem worth making the article if it was just going to get hit by an overzealous "idjit" as Ravenswing eloquently puts it. I don't see the point of leaving edit summaries that the editors don't read, in favour of adding another mark to their score sheet. Dane|Geld14:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - I think an admin needs to close this thread with a note that the NPP reviewer has learned to wait until a new article has been in mainspace for at least a week a day or two so the new article creator can tidy-up a bit. At the same time, the article creator (who is not autopatrolled, yet) has learned that we have both the {{in use}} and {{under construction}} templates when creating in mainspace, and better yet, one's Sandbox as it keeps the new article out of the NPP queue, which is already quite frightening because of the backlog. I think that is a fair compromise, and it's easy peasy. Atsme💬📧17:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)strike and update 11:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be fair, @Atsme:, once the New Page Reviewer comes here and acknowledges the problem. They were alerted by DanCherek yesterday, and have still not made an appearance to say anything at all. I accept what I've been told, I'm just waiting for an acknowledgement from the reviewer, of the same. Dane|Geld18:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I agree, but I would still like the NPR in question to acknowledge that they screwed up. It's all very well for Atsme to say "the NPP reviewer has learned to wait", but I have seen no evidence of that. The editor has been pinged concerning this thread and hasn't even bothered to show up, I replied to his message on my talk page last night, and he's still not replied there. Something tells me he's avoiding this thread. Dane|Geld21:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, while an appropriate apology would wrap this up quite nicely, ANI is not in the business of extracting apologies from editors by force. Given that it's been established that the editor's actions are not a major violation of editing standards, unless they establish a pattern of rapid-fire draftifying articles going forward, they are in fact entitled to avoid this thread if they so choose. signed, Rosguilltalk21:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DaneGeld I would highly recommend you check out this essay on being high maintenance as well as review the civility policies. Your tone and attitude are bordering on bullying which wouldn't be acceptable. Sometimes it's hard to see context when working through issues here it's why we all assume good faith and understand mistakes happen. We also all have things to do in life other than wikipedia. Dr vulpes(💬 • 📝)23:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally disagree with the requirement about having to wait a week- the NPP queue is huge as is and having to wait a week for what is likely DRAFTIFYable as-is is just going to make things exponentially worse. PadgriffinGriffin's Nest03:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't see how it's helpful (in terms of actually reducing the backlog) to hack away at the low hanging fruit at the front, instead of actually tackling the queue from the back. Time to close this discussion though. Polyamorph (talk) 05:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have been disappointed to see that Bruxton ignored this AN/I. Several people have noted that by reviewing an article within minutes of its creation, they were not following NPP guidelines; and it was almost inevitable that they would thus run into someone who adds the references after laying down the prose. It isn't wise, but it's common. People work in different ways; as I type, there's a section below about another article that was created as a lead paragraph only, and then a second edit a couple of minutes later added a ton of prose and many references. Unfortunately, DaneGeld didn't appreciate not receiving even a response from Bruxton—and I agree, they had reason to expect an apology—and then being told they were being high-maintenance. I do not know whether Our Lady Immaculate and St Etheldreda's Church, Newmarket is notable; the fact they alluded to having had many tabs open to reference it suggests it is. I can't judge whether what they saved asserted notability, because in the heat of the moment, they had the draft deleted. Assertions of notability are also susceptible to individual judgement; some may regard any sufficiently old church as automatically notable, others many require it to be at least Grade II listed. But I would hope we could all agree as project participants that we need editors who are willing to write new articles, and also that having one's new article summarily draftified within minutes of first saving it, then being told one is being high maintenance by caring about it and by expecting at least the courtesy of a response from the reviewer who erred by doing so (there is general agreement here that it was an error), is hurtful. This is referred to as a "drama board" and worse, but one person's "drama" is another's thing they care about. After receiving no response from the reviewer, Bruxton, DaneGeld brought this here as a query, trying to understand. They deliberately didn't personalise it by naming the reviewer. They listened to advice and said they would recreate the article with the references (in their eagerness, they forgot that asking the priest for information would be OR). They said they would be satisfied with an apology. But after being told off for making a fuss, they have now retired. That leaves us down one willing article writer as well as one potentially useful article. I appreciate that NPPers volunteer to stick their faces in front of a fire hose. I appreciate that Dr_vulpes meant well. I appreciate that Bruxton probably has nothing against churches. Maybe they usually follow the rules and don't jump the gun by reviewing brand-new articles, and this was just a one-time mistake. But I don't know, because they don't appear to have responded in any way to DaneGeld or this AN/I. This has not done the encyclopaedia any good, and I think we let DaneGeld down badly. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri (Advocate of the Holy Sepulchre)
I posted a new article Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri (Advocate of the Holy Sepulchre) on Wikipedia yesterday. It was immediately flagged for deletion. I contested it and contacted the reviewer Velella. It has now been removed by Justlettersandnumbers. What is going on? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TSventon I am sorry that Justlettersandnumbers and Velella are so offended that I was trying to find out what you did to my article. Apparently, they had plenty of time to change things without explanation but no time to respond to my trying to understand what they have done. As you can imagine, when you spend a lot of time writing an article and have it summarily dismissed might cause a person to wonder why. Here are the facts:
I posted a new article yesterday fully sourced and independent of any article currently on Wikipedia. It was immediately flagged for deletion and yet did not appear on the AfD list. I followed the process to protest the deletion. The article was then deleted and the title was redirected to Godfrey of Bouillon which contains a one-paragraph discussion summarizing the article.
I have written hundreds of articles for Wikipedia and each has gone through a review process for consistency followed by technical assessment by users in the field. Please restore this article to where it was when first posted and allow the process to continue. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Velelladraftified the article as unsourced and patently not ready for main space. Highly probably that text should and doule be acommodated in Godfrey of Bouillon. Title also appears contrary to WP:MOS. As the version of the article that was moved to draft has 123 citations and an extensive bibliography, the reason for moving to draft doesn't make sense. Per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, Velella should move the article back to mainspace. Issues with the title can be dealt with on the talk page. Schazjmd(talk)22:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record it did make sense at the time as the move to Draft was made after the first edit. There would appear to have been an edit conflict between my consideration and completing my edit and the considerable addition of material by the article's author. As the article stood, it was a short unsourced stub. I didn't delete it, nor did I propose it for deletion at that time, but the same article immediately re-appeared back in mainspace and I did ask that that be speedily deleted as an unneeded fork of Godfrey of Bouillon. I was content that the Draft could be worked on to provide clear water between the two articles. VelellaVelella Talk 22:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the timeline of the article on 17 September:
16:25 Article created
16:27 Article populated with 90k+ amount of text
16:28 Velella moved article to Draft saying "unsourced and patently not ready for main space."
16:33 Velella requested speedy deletion
18:43 Velella asked for an explanation on their Talk Page
No answer was received for the request for an explanation until 26 hours later after a second request.
18 September
20:23 Article deleted by Justlettersandnumbers with no warning
20:28 Justlettersandnumbers asked for an explanation on their Talk Page
20:41 Second request to Velella for an explanation
20:51 Response from Justlettersandnumbers: Yes, if you'll allow me enough time write an answer, I'll reply. Please be aware that you are not the only pebble on the beach.
20:52 Response from Velella: Responding when I am not online I have always found to be problematical. Are we done?
21:39 Response from Velella to Admin Board: For the record, I have received no notification of this discussion even though I am named. However, I have nothing to add.
Comment It seems that this dispute is a content dispute (and thus outside the remit of ANI); is this notion correct? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I really don't think this is a content dispute. This is not an area I edit in, or I'd attempt to re-mainspace the article myself. The primary rationale for moving it to draft space (that it was unreferenced) was invalid once the move had been made; Velella should have realized this was so after seeing the result of the edit conflict, apologized, and self-reverted. I agree the title is non-standard; moving the article to either Latin or English would have fixed that. Although much of the article does go over material covered at Godfrey of Bouillon and at King of Jerusalem (I would advocate cutting almost everything before "The title of Godfrey"), so far as I can see (for some reason I can no longer search pages on Wikipedia), the material about his various titles is not covered at Godfrey of Bouillon; it's briefly alluded to, and since the conversion of Dr. Grampinator's recreation to a redirect, that article contains a circular wikilink. The A10 speedy nomination also seems unjustified to me; the article does not substantively duplicate Godfrey of Bouillon, in my opinion, and if Velella thought it did, why draftify the original version rather than converting it into a redirect? I see Justlettersandnumbers agreed with me about the A10. People can differ on whether Godfrey's title deserves a whole article—as I say, I don't edit in this area—but it was draftified for what turned out to be an invalid reason after the move went through, then A10 was invalidly asserted, and those are missteps, the former of which is yet to be rectified. Whether the topic is independently notable should then be discussed in some talk space (as a proposed merge?), or if necessary at AfD. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Erm ... you're taking other editors to task for acting in haste, at the same time as you sending a shrill "Please respond to my query" post to Justlettersandnumbers, exactly nine minutes after your initial query (never mind kicking off this ANI complaint eight minutes afterwards)? Seriously? You are not new here, with over 13,000 edits and six years in. We are all volunteers here, and you have little excuse for being unaware of it. None of us are paid to sit at the keyboard, and none of us are required to provide you with <5 min response times to your inquiries. Whatever the rights or wrongs of your dispute, you need to seriously slow your roll. Ravenswing 09:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if people thought I was shrill, but I posted a new article and it was immediately flagged for deletion. No discussion, nothing. I responded to the AfD message and then the article appeared to have been deleted. Again, no discussion. I've not had this experience where these actions were hurried without coordination. What actions, in your mind, should have I done and when? And the others? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely well within your rights to have asked those editors for an explanation; no one's going to give you a hard time for that. And then you should have waited for an answer. As in waiting for a couple of days. If a couple days went by (and especially if the editors had made other intermediate edits without addressing your inquiry), that's when you send a follow up "Excuse me, but may I get an answer here?"
ANI, by contrast, is just about the last resort for this sort of thing. Did you see the blurb at the top of the page stating "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." (emphasis in the original) It is sure as hell not for situations where you didn't get an answer within eight minutes of asking. Ravenswing 00:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I was under the impression that people mentioned on this board were supposed to be notified? Anyway, here's the reply I made to Dr. Grampinator on my talk-page:
I haven't deleted anything. Your page is at Draft:Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri (Advocate of the Holy Sepulchre); you copy-pasted content from there into this redirect, which was then nominated for speedy deletion; I simply reverted your cut-and-paste move, and then re-targeted the redirect. I suggest that you obtain some sort of consensus that the long text you have written is actually needed, and suggest Talk:Godfrey of Bouillon as a possible venue for that discussion. Just a thought: you might consider whether the use of so many long quotations is really justified.
I forget to mention either there or in my edit summary that in reverting the cut-and-paste I was also declining the A10 speedy nomination, which I considered to be inapplicable (sorry, Velella!). It took me perhaps a couple of minutes to write that reply, during which time I was asked to hurry up and respond; just my opinion, but a little patience goes a long way. Dr. Grampinator, I'd have hoped that as an experienced editor you'd know that copy-pasting between pages risks muddling the page history or creating parallel histories, and that for that reason we instead change the title of a page by moving it. You or anyone else is free to move the draft to mainspace, preferably under a title in one language rather than two.
Ysovain has persisted in adding questionable material regarding the birth year and day of Joanna Simon. (see [135] and [136]). The source in question does not verify the date of birth as October 20, 1936 as no day or year is given for Joanna Simon's birth in the source, just an age. In contrast, we have two high quality sources where Simon is the main subject which specifically give both the day and year of her birth as October 20, 1940 in New York City (see article). Ysovain has created a "birth year" controversy from essentially original synthesis based on a 1963 newspaper article about her sister Lucy where she is mentioned offhand as being 26; a fact which is questionable given that more authoritative reliable academic sources directly about the subject disagree. I therefore removed the content as contentious material per policies at WP:BLP and WP:No original research. Given the history of edit warring and page protection on the articles on the Simon sisters in regard to their ages, I would appreciate some support even if just to prevent the material from being added again by having admins watch the article. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the newspaper gives the date it was published, and the age of the person, we are allowed to do math to deduce the approximate age. Since the month and date are not contentious, only the year is, and the newspaper is dated and providing an age, this isn't an BLP violation nor original research. This is no different than a company that publishes they produce 10,000 items a year and have for 50 years, so you can say they made 100,000 in the 1990s. It's just math, which is allowed. Dennis Brown - 2¢01:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dennis Brown, I think you are missing the point. The edit in question identified the exact day as "October 20, 1936" but no such date exists in the source itself. (only an age) Hence an original synthesis of the source being used. An age does not tell you the day, month, or year of a persons birth. We can only extrapolate an approximate year(s) the person could have been born; in this case potentially 1936, 1937, or 1938. That isn't what Ysovain did. Further, as I said, the source wasn't about Joanna Simon directly, so I don't think we can give it much credence as opposed to biographies on Joanna Simon which give the exact day of her birth as October 20, 1940. Presumably the researchers publishing her birth day in a biographical entry on Joanna Simon published by Routledge deserves more weight than a concert review of her sister's performance in a small regional newspaper. Considering the quality of sources and the weight we give to sources is important per WP:RSUW and WP:BLP.4meter4 (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're splitting hairs. Then drop the day and month and just give the year. Or include all of them. Or none of them. My point (which YOU seemed to have missed) is that we are allowed to do math in determining approximate age. Dennis Brown - 2¢20:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She lies about her age. All the Simons do. With a subscription to Ancestry.com, anybody can look it up. Joanna was born on October 20, 1936,[137] Lucy on May 5, 1940,[138] and Carly on June 25, 1943.[139] Check out the 1950 census and the facts line up.[140]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ysovain (talk • contribs) 03:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is enough doubt about the birthdate that we should probably be leaving it out of a biography completely; here, for example is an image in Vanity Fair that says she was 11 in 1950, which doesn't fit with either 1936 or 1940. I note that Carly's birthdate is in doubt as well, and I can see claims that Lucy was born in 1940, 1943 or 1944 (and the photo just mentioned doesn't fit any of those three either - someone who was 8 in 1950 was born in 1941 or 1942!). We repeatedly have this problem when celebrities adjust their age or other personal details - if reliable sources report what they say, then the reliable source is reporting an unreliable one. See, for example, Amanda Tenfjord, who claims she was born in Greece despite the existence of a birth record from Norway. Black Kite (talk)11:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I remember reading an interview once where a reporter asked something like "what do you think of all these changes on WP about your age?" and article-subject replied something like "well, I've been lying about that so many times, so this is probably karma catching up with me." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...and revert every edit that I made last week for apparently no reason...: They had 4 reverts of your edits, which is not every one of your (many) edits last week. As they provided an edit summary, I recommend you following WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION. Per WP:BLANKING, users are free to delete content from their own talk page.—Bagumba (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot more to NorthDownsSon beyond a need for dispute resolution. They posted a racially derogatory term on the article about Ann Dunham with an edit summary of "corrections" [146]. Is that enough for one of you to take action? OrgoneBox (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have indefinitely blocked NorthDownsSon. The reverts were obviously retaliatory, and the vile racist slur on the biography of Barack Obama's mother was utterly unacceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From the looks of their edit summaries, it looks like they are trying to change the dates when dinosaurs lived based on their own personal preference. Some of them (e.g. That poor jobaria is too nervous to be in the Jurassic period. He says: I don't care, I'd much rather stay in the Cretaceous with Afrovenator.; fyi, both Jobaria and Afrovenator were originally thought to be from the Cretaceous, but are now considered Jurassic) sound like they're trying to say the dinosaurs themselves want to choose their own time period, making me think this is a kid who watched too much Dinosaur Train. Normally, I wouldn't go too hard on them, but most of their edits have been reverted, and include adding original research, telling other editors not to revert their edits, and most recently, shouting. Whatever their age, they are clearly not compentent enough to positively contribute to Wikipedia. 2001:4453:525:3400:7C38:DBDA:71D9:5326 (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is this a legal threat?
Xuenkitze (talk·contribs) has been going through indigenous peoples articles adding "tribal" and "sovereign tribes" I believe inappropriately as not all tribes are sovereign in Central and South America nor are all indigenous people tribes, eg the Maya peoples. See for example the change in the short description at Indigenous peoples[147] and the edit summary "Some tribes are still sovereign why os sovereign tribes as a term being erased. Tribes is a term used in ancient Greece and Rome at the 1rst Century b.c.e. as sovereign city states. This is a violation of international law to not be acknowledged."
They have also been adding original research, eg [148] where they change "the geographic region called the Darién Gap" to "the geographic region called the Darién Gap by foreigners]. I realise this is a different issue than the possible legal threat. I think this is a good faith editor trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Doug Wellertalk10:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it's a legal threat, but a very weak and strange interpretation of international law which they seem to use in an attempt to justify their position. All of their edits appear to include a bit of PoV pushing, perhaps not with malicious intent, but probably detrimental to the purpose of the encyclopedia. Going by their own description and the edit summaries they drop around, they have "skin in the game", so to speak, and are editing articles about themselves. Ostalgia (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Joe Woods page has libel and I can’t remove it. It says position is “Worst defensive coordinator of all time!” but that the page is locked because of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.5.110.9 (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was vandalism of the article, of course, but be careful about slinging words like "libel" around. Quite aside from nudging up against our firm policy of not issuing legal threats, if calling a sports figure the "worst of all time" at something was libelous -- which it most certainly is not -- every sportswriter and commentator on Earth would be in court. Ravenswing 12:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At around UTC 09:00, the amount of disruption and vandalism on several IT related articles increased to a level that is statistically unlikely to have happened by chance. There were multiple users involved, usually registered shortly before beginning their disruption, but usually being discarded after one or two edits. One or two IPs also seem to have participated.
I am mainly posting here for the benefit of any checkusers who may wish to dig into this, and hopefully prevent (or increase the difficulty of) a recurrence. The articles that seem to have been targeted were:
The rapid rate of sock creation and disposal would suggest someone who is not a newbie at this sort of thing. (I haven't notified these users, since notifying a bunch of throwaway socks is not really in line with the purpose of the notification) Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 12:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the type of edits they've made, I wonder if it's a school class that has been asked to "edit a Wikipedia article about what you're learning in Computer Science". Black Kite (talk)12:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it's not vandalism per se, more like the exact thing you'd expect if a bunch of 12-year-olds were asked to add something to a page. Still disruptive, obviously. Black Kite (talk)13:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See this AN. If they're not related then I'm a unicorn. This time however, we can definitely relate it to an educational institution. Again there's a bunch of spare accounts. What to do, eh? -- zzuuzz(talk)13:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After two attempts at subtle POV pushing on Talk:Libs of TikTok[151][152] they dropped all pretense of editing in good faith or respecting NPOV and posted this:
I have given up on this article. The discussion archived above has amply shown that the cognitive divide has reached such an extent that we seem to live in different universes. Apparently there exists a sizeable minority or even majority here who is complete unable to concede that the term "gender affirming care" (which includes not only primary sex surgery but also things like mastectomies and chemical castration (aka puberty Blockers) is an ugly euphemism for mutilation of children (which by definition is always involuntary since children can not possibly give informed consent to something destructive and far reaching like that). So while folks like me, who are disgusted and revolted by what these hospitals do to children, see LOT as a courageous whistleblower and critic, the above mentioned group sees her as a hatemonger and is motivated to paint her in the worst light possible. There is no middle ground here - "gender affirming care" is the new lobotomy craze, and its practitioners are the Mengeles of our time. You either get that or refuse to.
In such a situation, especially with the "paint in worst light" part, Wikipedia's policies just do not work. The admin-supported left wing rules by majority, even though there is no policy allowing such, NPOV on this particular topic is even hard to define, let alone implement, in such spirit, and this part of Wikipedia has essentially been captured as the left's propaganda arm. I came here with a good faith suggestion to make this article more NPOV, and that was roundly rejected. Now, given there is no consensus, I would have as much right to be bold and just change things as all the left wing "owners" of this article who do this all the time, but the practice is different. While non-consensus changes by me would, given enough persistence on my part, result in me getting banned, the exactly same actions by the lw majority would and constantly do have no such consequences. The mostly lefty administrators and the various informal councils make sure of that.
And that is that. We as Wikipedians collectively get the Encyclopedia we collectively deserve, and right now, that picture is less than pretty. All I can say on this point is good luck with this article. Wefa (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which to me says that they're not just done editing that talk page but its time for them to say goodby to the project as a whole, I guess I would accept a topic ban from anything related to sexuality, gender, or politics but they appear to intend to disrupt more than just those topic areas. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is hardly evidence of anything. In my personal experience, no person who ever tried to go against NPOV in any serious capacity (i.e. not straight up vandalising) did so by openly stating that they have an axe to grind. Ostalgia (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a poor look, IMHO, to hand someone a topic ban (or worse, an indef) for no other cause than that he's expressed sentiments on the talk page that you don't like. The best way to refute Wefa's belief that the Thought Police are running Wikipedia -- and seeking to suppress opinions they don't want anyone to hear -- is not to prove him right. Ravenswing 00:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fair point, and I am not sure I favor a ban, but when you start accusing your interlocutors of being in league with "Mengeles," to my mind it is something more than expressing a sentiment that people don't like. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unless they set off carving a path of distuption across the encyclopedia, there doesn't seem to be any point blocking, and while they have been playing at the edge of stuff that can get users banned, they haven't gone there yet. Based on what they've said, they might have been NOTHERE (on that page anyway), but they apparently aren't there anymore anyway (i.e. they left). Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 06:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gun law in North Macedonia
Kluche changed multiple times a stable version in Gun law in North Macedonia that was there for more than 2 years. I asked them to first form consensus if they want to make a change, and they ignored me. The stable version of Gun law in North Macedonia has been reverted only once in the past, and the administrator Number 57 reverted back to the current stable version that starts with "North Macedonian law" in the first sentence. After multiple reverts, Kluche wrote on the talk page, and then Local hero reverted my edit again and removed "North" from "North Macedonian law".
It is suspicious that Local hero appeared in a page with a small number of edits within a few hours to comment and support Kluche. The recent edits of Kluche and Local hero show that they collaborate quite often to push their POV. Jingiby has written on the talk page of Kluche that the edits are suspicious (perhaps both accounts are handled by the same person).
Kluche changed multiple times a stable version in Gun law in North Macedonia that was there for more than 2 years. I asked them to first form consensus if they want to make a change, and they ignored me.
This is a straight up falsehood, I started the consensus talk, so saying that I 'ignored' it is false.
The stable version of Gun law in North Macedonia has been reverted only once in the past, and the administrator Number 57 reverted back to the current stable version that starts with "North Macedonian law" in the first sentence.
Consensus changes, a fact acknowledged by Wikipedia and its guidelines.
It is suspicious that Local hero appeared in a page with a small number of edits within a few hours to comment and support Kluche. The recent edits of Kluche and Local hero show that they collaborate quite often to push their POV. Jingiby has written on the talk page of Kluche that the edits are suspicious (perhaps both accounts are handled by the same person).
That statement is completely taken out of context - @Jingiby was reffering to another account, @Ivanavram, not @Local hero.
In the talk page, both Kluche and Local hero falsify the content of WP:MOSMAC which suggests "North Macedonian" especially on first introducing the topic, and the edit war is about the first sentence of the article.
We have both stated that the topic is introduced by the title, and that there is no issue with ambiguity, which aren't falsehoods.
I'd like to also point out that Carpainola has also broken the three-revert rule in ~24 hour timespan. It is also suspicious that a two year old account has roughly 20 edits. Kluche (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Carpaniola, while you're both edit warring, Kluche seems to have stopped reverting, so, unless you agree to stop reverting until a clear consensus has been reached on the talk page, you risk being hit by a WP:BOOMERANG... Salvio19:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through this, editors are trying to remove the word "North" from "North Macedonia", Carpaniola is trying to keep it in. I don't see why you would refer to the country North Macedonia as simply Macedonia, and it does appear to go against MOSMAC, specifically The country will be referred to by its short name North Macedonia. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MOSMAC says that the shorter form can be used where the topic of the country is already established in context when specifically referring to the term "(North) Macedonian". The context is already given by the article title still containing "North Macedonia". — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're referring to the law of the country. That falls under "State-associated and other public entities" to me, since you're talking about laws passed and enforced by the state. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's absolutely true, and the edit warring should stop. I do not see any overt 3RR vios though, but Carpaniola is clearly testing that limit (5 reverts in 48 hours or so) in a way that could earn them a block anyway. It's a content dispute that doesn't need to be here, either way. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As TheresNoTime implies, a warning is a warning, whether it is issued by an admin or anyone else. If this user continues to edit-war then admin action may be necessary, but we're not at that point yet. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reminded of a long time ago when I lived close to a Greek Orthodox church (those of you that know Melbourne will be unsurprised to find it is in Brunswick) and as I bicycled past it on some weekend on the way to the law library, I noticed that it had been graffitied. Like, who writes graffiti on a church? But there it was, in big black spray-painted letters: ΠΑΟΚ. <facepalms in Greek>--User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Need Article Restoration for List of compositions for viola: A to B (and other letters of the alphabet)
My apologies if this belongs on one of the noticeboard categories above. An editor, Why? I Ask (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Why%3F_I_Ask), recently nominated a set of pages for deletion (List of compositions for viola A to B and other letters of the alphabet); please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_compositions_for_viola:_A_to_B. This was closed as Keep, and the closing editor started a review of the close that endorsed the decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_September_1. The nominator still went ahead and merged the existing pages (effectively deleting the existing content) while the review was underway. As part of that DRV discussion, one of the admins asked the nominator to "Please take the opportunity to restore the article to the post-close status yourself, now that you have been notified your actions were at best premature." Two editors also posted to the nominator's talk page asking them to restore the article; all of these requests have been refused. The nominator has also made it clear through multiple outlets that they care only about their opinions related to this matter. I am not an experienced enough editor to revert the changes myself and was directed to this outlet by an admin for help in getting these pages restored to their original state.Dbynog (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)dbynog[reply]
I'm not going to revert my edits because there's no reason to (yet). There are some editors that like my changes and some that don't. That's why I've already started an RfC based on that particular admin's recommendations at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Music to gauge consensus. If it seems there's consensus against me, then I'll change it back. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Revert If keeping the A-B viola list as a separate article was endorsed twice in a row, consensus to do anything else should be confirmed before performing the controversial merge in the first place. Since the contested merge defies the previously settled consensus at DRV, it should be reverted until a new consensus is reached. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't endorsed twice in a row; read the deletion discussion or deletion review. It was closed as a keep, but many commented that they felt it was a notable topic with a bad presentation. The deletion review just argued whether or not the closing admin's decision to close it based on the feedback was right. There was no consensus to keep the page as it was. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me how they were inappropriate. Tell me how they were not a good faith improvement. I don't see you offering to discuss my actual changes anywhere, just the nature of how I enacted them. You quite literally said it yourself "[i]t's too long and comprehensive" is an inherent admission that, if consensus permitted, the list could be trimmed to notable entries, and thus, deletion is not the only option. I quite literally did just that. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, you quite literally didn't. I have zero relation to this topic, but it caught my eye and I read both this post and the original discussion. I got the very distinct impression that your approach is "my way or the highway". And now you're trying to justify your most recent actions by pointing to someone's suggestion of trimming the page. It's like beheading someone and saying "but it was you who suggested the haircut!" If you were truly interested in improving the article you could've tried to consensually determine what was worth keeping and what was not (which is what was actually suggested) Good faith or not, you're coming across as uninterested in (or incapable of) collaborative work when you're not calling the shots. Your complete refusal to accept you could be in the wrong or to assume any sort of responsibility for your actions only buttress that interpretation, and I would be quite shocked if this doesn't end in some sort of restriction to your ability to edit. Ostalgia (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I left them a NLT warning (and previously gave them a COI notice as they noted they are a "fellow industry professional" of an article's subject) asking them to clarify what they mean as I am on the fence if this constitutes a legal threat (though am leaning towards it being one as why else would you reference FTC/FCC tickets in an edit summary). We will see if/how they respond though, if other sysops believe this is a legal threat and would like to block, I have no objections to them doing so. Best, Mifter (talk) 05:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I have stated on my talk page in response to this particular set of “users”, I shared my contributions to Wikipedia directly with their brass including the CEO and the CTO. Wikipedia has not determined that I am in violation of their policy. To the contrary, they’ve encouraged my thorough editing of articles. Moreover, I have found unwarranted edits - occurring with the immediate request for the denial of access, i.e. blocking. It has only been when filing with the FTC did the block become removed in part to Wikipedia’s direct assistance. Please keep in mind that, as an online community in accordance with Wikipedia policy, we are creating a nurturing environment for learning. I have cited every edit, offered in-depth explanation, and sought to treat people fairly. I have never made an accusation or sought reprisal against anyone because of an edit or inversely on their talk page. Jasonwalkertyler (talk) 06:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This all doesn't add up and sounds like a load of trolling bollocks, frankly. Your claims that you are in direct contact with the "CEO of Wikipedia", your claims that you were blocked but that the block has been removed "in part to Wikipedia's direct assistance", your claim that the CEO and CTO of Wikipedia actually "encouraged" your "thorough editing of articles", your claims that "This article is being spammed by bots" and "A bot created this major revision to the Samara Weaving article " at Samara Weaving... Topic ban from that article might be the best solution, let them add to the talk page and we'll see if anything useful is added there. If the same behaviour continues there as well, just block. Fram (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jasonwalkertyler, I note that you haven't responded to the Conflict of Interest question on their talk page apart from calling the question "spamming" ([153]). Do you have a COI? See WP:COI for more. You should also read WP:BRD about one of the approaches to work on gaining consensus when your edits have been reverted. It is also worth noting that whilst Wikipedia encourages everyone to edit, the English site has specific policies and protocols to be followed. At this point I think that a TBAN from the mainspace page Samara Weaving and requiring edits to be requested via the Talk page would be a reasonable approach. Gusfriend (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no conflict of interest. However, it is peculiar that a newer user is having to defend a well-cited article that provides facts and not misconstrued information. It is Wikipedia policy to offer the benefit of the doubt to which I have not been given. I will appeal the block as I have before. Again, citing “ unwarranted edits - occurring with the immediate request for the denial of access, i.e. blocking.” Jasonwalkertyler (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was blocked by an editor following the constant reverts by Glane23 who in fact was disruptive editing. I appealed the block outside of the forums. Many accusations were made here not adhering to Wikipedia policy that I should be acted upon in “good faith”. I have not given any reason to believe conflict of interest or legal threats. Furthermore, I have explained both toward your edification and that of others. Jasonwalkertyler (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will appeal the block as I have before. According to the block log this is your first block. Do you have an alternate account you also use? — Czello09:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your Jasonwalkertyler account was never blocked, and you have not interacted with TheresNoTime either, so what are you going on about? Do you have any evidence at all for all the claims you are making about what happened to you and who you interacted with? Fram (talk) 09:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You said you are an industry professional, so you have some interest here. If you have been in communication with someone at the Foundation and they endorse your conduct, please ask them to contribute here under their official WMF account. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I note that on your page you said that you contacted the FCC and FTC due to the IP addresses who have edited the page. I would encourage you to read WP:IPHUMAN and note that editing Wikipedia via an IP address rather than an account is allowed under policy. Gusfriend (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It might help if you could stop adding claims that drag the thread off-topic. I don't see any of the "trolls, bots, spammers, etc." that you say you are refuting. It might help if we could return to the original issue that started the whole thing: Is Samara Weaving married or not and what should our article say about this? The best place to put reliably sourced evidence either way would be Talk:Samara Weaving. —Kusma (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jasonwalkertyler that this thread is becoming a little heated, so would ask that we all take a step back a moment. @Jasonwalkertyler: the word "blocked" on Wikipedia means something quite specific — I have a feeling you may be using the word to mean something along the lines of "having your edit removed/undone", am I correct? If so, your statement that you've been blocked before would make sense, as you've certainly had your edits to Samara Weaving undone multiple times. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 10:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't match his claims though, e.g. " It has only been when filing with the FTC did the block become removed in part to Wikipedia’s direct assistance." Then again, hardly any of their claims seem to have any basis in reality. No idea why we are still entertaining them. Fram (talk) 10:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not just the CEO, also the CTO, as said in this thread: "I shared my contributions to Wikipedia directly with their brass including the CEO and the CTO.". I guess they will soon edit here and stop us from flaming this thread. Fram (talk) 11:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate you lifting the block as I have answered that I have no COI or LTs. You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Samara Weaving) for abuse of editing privileges.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here [[User:Jasonwalkertyler|Jasonwalkertyler]] ([[User talk:Jasonwalkertyler|talk]]) 10:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)}}. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC) Jasonwalkertyler (talk) 10:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who is “we”? You specifically said in the first post you made here “Please keep in mind that, as an online community in accordance with Wikipedia policy, we are creating a nurturing environment for learning.” If this is a group account then it’s in violation of the one account one person mandate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B196:F9DC:9C62:6D46:B99F:76BA (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This thread is becoming a mess to reply to.
I'm not convinced of the claims that there is no conflict of interest at play here (nb. even less so given the latest comment here). Jasonwalkertyler is able to make edit requests on the article's talk page. Anonymous users are (on the most part) permitted to edit Wikipedia, so claiming "I contacted [the FCC and FTC] in regard to the amount of anonymous editors monitoring said page." is a touch too close to a legal threat for my liking, and I'm sure to the liking of those editors in question (though what the FCC can do is beyond me, and as such hasn't resulted in me applying the normal sitewide block). We're just going in circles and wasting time — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 12:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They have indeed violated WP:NLT, as that covers any sort of real-life "reporting to authorities" does it not? The aim is the same, regardless of whether the FCC and FTC will just chuck the report in the "spam" folder, to have a chilling effect, and to disrupt the normal collaborative building of the encyclopedia.
User:Anaima-Enaima is clearly their account given the same behaviour but they seem to have stopped using it after making only 2 edits from it. So messaging it seems pointless now (regardless I've done it anyway).
Can you link to some examples? He seemed pretty calm and level-headed on your talk page. You can't expect volunteers here at ANI to wander across the website looking for violations... Sergecross73msg me14:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"You need top read wp:npa and wp:soap, you might then be able to figure out why the post was deleted." This is insulting and condescending and rude. Especially after he deleted my comment to the Talk:QAnon page and then reposted trying to claim my suggestion as his own while deleting the fact that I had given a reasoning for suggesting. 76.142.93.168 (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Took a cursory look while coming here to see if my complaint had been replied to. But Slatersteven isn't doing anything you suggest. At the best he's being a bit sarcastic which isn't anything unexpected considering you have been in dispute with him for a while. Also he can reply to you on your talk page to hash it out and advise you where to report. It isn't insulting, nor is telling you your complaint won't work is insulting.
Especially considering you're arguing merely over what needs to be in the first sentence of the QAnon article and accusing him and others of various things over it. I'm not trying to act like an admin or trying to be insulting, but this is a waste of time for everyone. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have not been "in a dispute with him for a while" Roman Reigns Fanboy. He was insulting and rude from his first private message sent after he removed my comment from the article talk and then reposted trying to claim my suggestion as his own while removing my reasons post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.142.93.168 (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I never claimed anyone one's suggestion as my own, as I said on your talk page " what I did was to ask the question you wanted within the confines laid down by our policies (you may also have a valid point)." [[166]]. Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because you have been insulting and condescending and rude. Spamming is still rude. I am well familiar with bullies who act this way trying to get someone to be up in anger in response so I am doing the responsible thing and reporting you. 76.142.93.168 (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing about his messages is insulting and rude. He's just telling you the plain facts. And btw repeatedly leaving and restoring comments that have a political bias when you're told not to is a "dispute". Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trolling and your insinuation that I am trolling is similarly condescending and rude. I gave reasons for the suggestion to the change to the article and provided links showing how Wikipedia's information affects other sites and the information needs to be as accurate as possible. 76.142.93.168 (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You were the one who linked here. So fine. I reported you here. Like you said. I will not give you what you want which is an angry response to your bullying behavior. 76.142.93.168 (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Warned against issuing 
Stale warnings: User_talk:Dentren#Warning. El_C 13:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Since they're editing other related pages, sitewide. Nehme1499, there needs to be 4 reverts, not 3, in order to contravene WP:3RR, although that's a bit of an aside here. Still, for future reference. Please feel free to contact me directly if they continue to edit war following this block. El_C 13:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely: lblocked. El_C 15:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Ostalgia, as this isn't a biography of a living person, there was probably no need to keep reverting 8 times. 217.175.223.15's edits have been at very least disruptive, but it wasn't the type of "obvious" vandalism ("such as page blanking and adding offensive language") that is exempt from 3RR. Please avoid doing this in the future. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
