Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:41, 24 September 2022

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• Prohibiting the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects
• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Doug Coldwell and self-promotional editing

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

User:Doug Coldwell

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 . Last month, he added it again, and I removed it . Three days later, he added the same promotional material about himself again , 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 . 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 . 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)

I have to say, Preparation (principle) is one of our more inexplicable articles. EEng 00:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

It shouldn't even exist, but that's a whole separate issue. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Not really. It speaks to a complete misunderstanding of what constitutes appropriate content`. EEng 05:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I will say I question the competence of anyone who nominates the same article for GA 4 times and has their nomination fail all 4 times. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• 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 Misplaced Pages editor? If there's anything for AN/I to address here, it's a failure to communicate / subtle edit-warring. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 01:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  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.

  

  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)

• 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 . The prose is IMO a bit much indeed, but it and the photo have a bit of early/mid-00s DIY Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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). — Rhododendrites \\ 02:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  He hasn't touched a single relevant talk page this entire time. Not once. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think a ban is warranted per WP:ICANTHEARYOU. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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. Salvio 21:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  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)

  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... Salvio 21:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  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)

  Let's just say that it does not fill me with optimism, but I love being surprised... Salvio 21:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Salvio giuliano surprise, I guess. PICKLEDICAE🥒 22:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• I've nominated the article for deletion, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Preparation (principle). Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• • 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?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

    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?

    Editing in good faith and writing content doesn't exempt you from being competent or other basic policies, which you've failed to abide by, much less address in the last 15 years when this has been brought up before, from a wide variety of editors. PICKLEDICAE🥒 22:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

    Would you like to address the issues brought up here, or shall I propose a community ban of your account? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

I still don't see what the issue is that is the problem. My Talk Page has items concerning Good Articles. As you know I have made 234 Good Articles. My experience in doing these says that IF Travel Holiday were to be allowed to be seen by an editor that does Good Article reviews on a regular basis, that it would have only minor issues and I could easily solve those and the article would be promoted to Good Article. The following are regular GA reviewers that have reviewed several articles. User:Etriusus, User:Vocem Virtutis, User:Mike Christie, User:Vocem Virtutis, User:Mike Christie, User:Aussie Article Writer, User:The Rambling Man, User:Cleveland Todd, User:Whiteguru, User:Hog Farm, User:The Most Comfortable Chair, User:Etriusus, User:Vacant0, User:Bungle, User:Lee Vilenski, User:Maile66, User:David Fuchs, User:Shearonink, User:Aza24, User:Caleb Stanford, User:Ealdgyth, User:Hawkeye7 and User:JPxG. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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'. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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. EEng 08:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)? EEng 08:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

Doug, this comment is bordering on self-parody. jp×g 12:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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 bizarre shitpile you nominated for GA? EEng 15:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

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 Frederal Say Hi 16:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

• 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×g 12:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

• Looking at their most-recent article creation, Arthur P. Yates was 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. Levivich 23:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  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 ) 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)

  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. EEng 07:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Proposal (Doug Coldwell)

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)

• 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)

  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. Salvio 09:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  What I am saying is that I have a better idea what a Good Article is than those that have few or no Good Articles as this app https://sdzerobot.toolforge.org/gans shows the number of successful Good Articles from nominations of a particular editor.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  @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 Misplaced Pages 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  That's news to me, and makes me even more concerned about spotchecking his GANs, or even temporarily preventing him from nominating. But I don't see it at the list of open investigations; can you link it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  CCIs open on active editors are typically named by the date they were filed on rather than the editor's name as a courtesy, this particular CCI is at Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  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)

  @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. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  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)

  @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. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Doug Coldwell Even 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)

  What the fuck, Doug? That has NOTHING to do with why we're at ANI. We're here because you refuse to acknowledge or respond to any criticism. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• 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×g 11:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
• 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)

  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)

• 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 Frederal Say Hi 16:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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:

1. Do not add material about yourself to a Misplaced Pages article directly. If you want, you may propose it be added on the talk page, but do not add it yourself.
2. 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.
3. 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? — Rhododendrites \\ 16:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

• O.K. I agree. Let's move forward. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• 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. — Rhododendrites \\ 17:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  I dont think this is a good time to close it given Doug's non-response to concerns. PICKLEDICAE🥒 17:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain to us in detail what the concerns with your editing are, and how you intend to avoid repeating them? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Being able to explain in detail implies a particular understanding of the nuances of Misplaced Pages 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. — Rhododendrites \\ 17:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  No one wants him to "unlock a code," they want him to understand that he can't just insist he knows what makes a GA & dismiss everyone else's concerns about his writing. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

Proposal: Doug Coldwell warned

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)

How is that any different from what is already required of editors, or from what administrators can already do of their own accord? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages if he were banned over this. You don't get over 200 GAs just by bumbling around, he clearly has a knack for it.

Doug, I'm rooting for you, but please, please, please give us a more substantive response to work with here. Etriusus (Talk) 18:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

Not different at all. Any other editor would be warned about this, so Doug should be too. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

(Anyway, that's my thought - I'll leave it to the baying mob to do whatever they want now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC))

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)

And you've got that now, in the section above. What more do you want? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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. --Jayron32 18:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Close this

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)
  • Struck based on reading some more of the follow-on comments and seeing Doug's latter reactions. Protonk (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
• 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)

  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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
  • 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. EEng 05:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

    Very much agree with this. Of this entire thread, not much jumped out at me as much as that did when I first read it. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  Agree with JoelleJay whilst having no idea what sort of sanction is appropriate.Gusfriend (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  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)

• 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)

  I'd suspect he just feels like shit right now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  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)

  The source is self-published, questionable, and probably a copyright vio, and the offer to fix it is adding a period? FrederalBacon (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  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)

  Unfortunately, reading your comments there just further the need for concrete action on this. FrederalBacon (talk) 06:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support. He's a witch! Burn him!! The Rambling Man nails it, above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
• 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)

  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. Levivich 15:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  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. Levivich 15:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

Proposal: Remove autopatrol user right

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)

• Support I feel this would be the best solution to deal with Doug's more problematic contributions. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 20:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

  Further: The issue may be larger than we realize if going through his GAs finds that much "close paraphrasing" or public dommain copying at a brief look. There's defense of him because of his contributions, and based off problems people are finding with his contributions, I gotta ask: Why? FrederalBacon (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  There must be some appropriate action between going nuclear and doing nothing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

• Support as a bare minimum, with no prejudice against further sanctions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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 Misplaced Pages'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.

AddWittyNameHere 16:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• Support - obviously, at a bare minimum, but this alone is not sufficient. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support at a bare minimum. I think a main/draftspace block is warranted at this point. There has been way too much copyvio recently. Sennecaster (Chat) 03:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support as a starting point. Gusfriend (talk) 08:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support at a minimum. firefly ( t · c ) 09:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support At the bare minimum, way too much copyvio Signed,The4lines |||| 14:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support as bare minimum. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 14:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• 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×g 01:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

This was blatant copying from this Gale source (paywalled, needs TWL) that was subsequently edited down into close paraphrasing. Even with copyediting, this article still has substantial close paraphrasing; enough so that I have wholesale removed it from the article. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

In case it's not apparent, the article you're referring is one of the ones Doug told me earlier he had rechecked to be sure it was free of these problems. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

It was barely changed between my initial review (where I attributed the public domain copying) and that removal right there.Sennecaster (Chat) 04:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

Yes. Sennecaster (Chat) 10:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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 08:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. — GhostRiver 14:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

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. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

• 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×g 01:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposal : Indef block

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 08:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• 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:

1. Removal of auto-patrolled rights (proposed and consensus gained above)
2. Doug can continue to edit pages and propose that they be elevated to GA/FA but someone else needs to submit them for review
3. Doug cannot make a DYK submissions unless the article has been extensively reviewed by other editors (i.e. after a GA/FA review)

Thank you R333. Gusfriend (talk) 08:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

I am wondering if has reached the point to start a discussion at the Village Pump / ARBCOM? Gusfriend (talk) 11:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I would say that's premature. The community is handling it; taking it elsewhere bifurcates the discussion. Mackensen (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The community is handling the issue with this one editor. Who's handling the problems this is revealing with GA generally? Ravenswing 15:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@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. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

This sounds a bit like Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/Edelmand, which I only spotted because I found the print sources they plagiarised from. Had those sources been on the web, that user would have been indef blocked a long time ago. Ritchie333 12:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

@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. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

@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 Misplaced Pages 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. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

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. — GhostRiver 14:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• 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)

  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)

  @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)

  @Red-tailed hawk "...the boatload of quality content he has written." Re-review has shown that at least some of these are not really quality. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 10:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

  @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)

  @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)

  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)

  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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages'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  15:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• 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 Farm _Talk 15:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose indef - Hog Farm Yes, that would be acceptable. Thanks for offer.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

  What exactly do you mean by indef doesn't necessarily mean indef? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

  It's not that he didn't fix them adequately. User:Mike Christie and User:Sennecaster identified above that after specifically being asked to go through Walter Hunt (inventor) for copyright vios, he made no change, at all to the article, and said it was good to go. It's not even an inadequate fix, it's no fix at all, not even at attempt, to fix blatant copypaste. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  Believe me when I say I wasn't trying to badger, I sincerely apologize if it came across that way. I was just discussing the issues. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, I just came back to retract my unkind remark - I didn't quite make it in time, but better late than never. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  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)

  And I'll add that what Levivich says below is tentatively positive. I see no need to rush for the most severe sanctions just yet. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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. — Rhododendrites \\ 17:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. The only appropriate sanction for repeated copyright violations is an indefinite block - because the priority is to stop the copyvios. This is recommended by policy: Misplaced Pages:Copyright violations#Addressing contributors. Good faith or bad faith is not relevant. MER-C 19:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

  Thank you for the context. VQuakr (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  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)

  Yes, especially when the quality of that article is...not good. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  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)

  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 Farm _Talk 00:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  @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 Farm _Talk 02:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@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)

• 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)

  These are times when cool heads prevail. Let's not do this at ANI, this subtread is already long enough. Etrius ( Us) 04:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• 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 , and this long ANI thread. Neither did a short term block , . ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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×g 01:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• 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)
• Soft oppose per JPxG. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

  Noting copyright issues with one of the latest GANs, Talk:Washington_County_Closed-Circuit_Educational_Television_Project/GA2. Can someone please get him to say something about copyright? Ovinus (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per JPxG, Levivich and Rhododendrites - they covered it all. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, let's see what happens with the TBAN for GA and DYK first. —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• 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 |||| 19:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  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)

  This made me laugh, I've reworded my comment. Signed,The4lines |||| 22:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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. ~Styyx 11:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Ravenswing and Mike Christie. Doug's response to this situation strikes me as dismissive of the problem. Waxworker (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

  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 Misplaced Pages block with such an even split, and the general discussions have wound down. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, @BlueMoonset: my point is that withdrawing those noms and addressing the countless copyvios would be the better choice. —VersaceSpace 🌃 10:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  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 () 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 () (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.

  Gusfriend (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposal : Ban from GAs/DYK nominations indef

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)

Started a Village Pump discussion for max # of GA proposals. (spoiler nothing of substance was achieved, killing the village pump proposal) Etriusus (Talk) 18:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

  @Vami IV: I modified it to an indef. Etriusus (Talk) 16:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Replying to signal reception of this ping, and my approval of the amendment. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 16:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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. — GhostRiver 16:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support Should the above CBAN proposal fail to garner consensus, this is the next logical step. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support Bare minimum. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support per above. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support: The most recent GA issues are unacceptable. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support Clearly necessary, I'm afraid. Existing nominations should all be withdrawn as well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support - This is also appropriate, and should remain in place should the indef pass and DC subsequently appeals and returns. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support - Getting badges cannot be the only reason one edits Misplaced Pages. 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)
• 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)

  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)

• Support: This seems like the best option to me. The GA collecting is clearly a core issue here. --TylerBurden (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support, per everything above. JoelleJay (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support ban per the behavioral and editing problems noted in the above threads. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• 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×g 02:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  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)

  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×g 03:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Obviously Doug's pages will need to be reviewed. That's a WP:CCI and a Misplaced Pages: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)

  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)

  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)

  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 Misplaced Pages 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)

  ... and keeps renominating until he hits on a reviewer sufficiently lacking in alertness. EEng 01:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support per Premeditated Chaos. firefly ( t · c ) 10:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• 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)

  Indeed, I just identified blatant very close paraphrasing at Talk:Charlie H. Hogan#Copyvio. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  I also note that the Charlie H. Hogan page still contains the over 100 MPH claim for locomotive 999 that was raised as a concern at Talk:New York Central and Hudson River Railroad No. 999. Doug is aware of the concerns and has edited the page since. Gusfriend (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

  Technically, between their two accounts, they have over 140,000 edits. Gusfriend (talk) 08:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages record, talk pages and all, any more than they did mine or anyone else's. Ravenswing 05:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: Digging into the rights log, it seems he got it in 2009, grandfathered in from a list of editors whitelisted against a seemingly inactive bot, personally maintained by an admin, User:DragonflySixtyseven, who is still around. DragonflySixtyseven, if you have any further context from how it worked back then, then we would appreciate it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

shrug

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)

(To be more clear, the work he was doing in late 2008 still seems adequate to me.) DS (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

AFC lets through a lot of copyvios... I'd prefer main/draftspace blocks. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Implementation

Salvio giuliano As I write, Doug has 7 GA reviews queued up at WP:GAN - what should happen to those? Ritchie333 13:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

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. Salvio 14:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Does the topic ban apply broadly so as to prohibit responding to critiques on the existing GANs if the reviewer has questions? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Salvio 17:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposal - any restrictions applied to User:Doug Coldwell should also be applied to User:Douglas Coldwell

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 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.

Apologies if this is already known and dealt with by policy. Gusfriend (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

It's in a Ubx on the main account's userpage. FrederalBacon (talk) 06:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Oops, missed that, thanks for catching it. Etrius ( Us) 06:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended discussion

• I would block this user asap, and then see if there is ANY improvement going forward.--Malerooster (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • how about a block from mainspace only? lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 23:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
    • @Lettherebedarklight: you could propose that. I think that may be a suitable sanction until he can give us a hint about where to start with all these copyright violations. —VersaceSpace 🌃 00:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  I also supported the indef and agree with closing the thread.Gusfriend (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Postscript

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

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 ; 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 :

  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 ".
• 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.

The sad thing is that Misplaced Pages really needs stuff like New York Central and Hudson River Railroad No. 999 -- articles like that are what makes Misplaced Pages great. But not when every word of every sentence is unusable. EEng 08:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah well, the community got their wishes, causing a good faith editor to disappear. Well done all of you. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not a popular thing to say, but good faith isn't good enough: WP:Competence is required. Levivich (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Beat me to it. Competence and Communication are absolutely crucial. Good Faith is such a touchstone here but its also really slippery if you try to define it. Isn't everyone honestly trying to right great wrongs editing in good faith? What about everyone who wants to contribute but fails to adhere to the tone of the project and the sometimes bureaucratic systems? What about everyone who just doesn't have a good grip on the language? Believe me, my heart goes out to everyone who really wants to do something good on the project, but is just frankly incompatible with the systems in place here. Nobody is saying DC is a bad person. GabberFlasted (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

and communication is required. Good point! WP:Assume good faith but WP:Competence is required and WP:Communication is required. Levivich (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Alright, enough of your circle jerking. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I don't see how that was called for. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 23:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, the continual hounding of Doug should stop. I agree with you. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd really like for us to develop better ways to deal with good faith editors like Doug Coldwell or Clem Rutter who have lots of time and dedication for Misplaced Pages, but can't seem to overcome some fundamental difficulties (like close paraphrasing or text/source integrity). After a few years, editors tend to assume that their mode of editing is fine (given that they have successfully done it for years) and then it becomes extremely hard to convince them that they need to change their ways. This is especially true if the problem is crystal clear to other Wikipedians but our long term editor is blind to the mere existence of this problem, leading to complete failures of communication. Can we make it easier for seasoned editors to comprehend why their long term editing is suddenly considered problematic? —Kusma (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@Kusma: I'm very sympathetic to your comment, and not sure if reading between the lines you are maybe already silently brainstorming something and trying to gauge support here. If so, I'm of like mind, and would like to help (but not lead) an effort to improve this, if you or someone starts this. Imho, the venue could perhaps be a task force under WP:WikiProject Editor Retention. I'm data-oriented, so when trying to scope a problem, the first thing I want to do is gather data and examples. One example to add to the list in your first sentence is Adamdaley, a long-time editor recently indeffed. Three is a start, but maybe a Task force could expand this, make a longer list or table or something (a request at WP:QUERY would probably net lots of examples), try to discern patterns, and then maybe bootstrap ourselves from data-gathering to an analysis phase, maybe leading to some conclusions on how we might do better in the future if we see any of those patterns forming with other editors, maybe written up as findings or essays by the Task force to provide the benefit of our experience, and some guidance. Is this something you'd like to kickstart? Ping me if you do, and I'll help. Mathglot (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC) Another example: Henia Perlman, prof. of Holocaust history, indeffed despite the best efforts of User:CaroleHenson and myself. Mathglot (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I wish I had a plan. I would really like not to have to watch the same slow motion car crash over and over again. —Kusma (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

As we know from our experiences in non-Misplaced Pages environments, giving constructive feedback and listening to criticism are very difficult tasks to do well. In a collaborative environment, there is selective pressure to get along with each other, which means compromising on some undesirable characteristics while emphasizing favourable ones. When we have no personal connection to an editor whose actions are contrary to community standards, it's tricky to have an open discussion, where the editor is vulnerable and thus a natural defensiveness can arise. I once floated the idea of having a catalogue of sample conversations, so the critic could benefit from seeing some best practices. However I didn't get much feedback, and the little I did were from editors who said they'd never use it. I also spent some time thinking about how to get someone to have a quiet word with the problem editor. I had the idea of a pool of editors who would volunteer to be a resource to process requests and proceed with ones that seemed reasonable, but I think it would might be perceived as a clique (or actually become one). For new editors, another idea I had was to identify promising editors and have an active mentoring process to assist them, but given the large amount of effort that would be required, I think this is beyond the capability of volunteer editors to implement. More fruitful ideas are welcome. isaacl (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

It's amazing to think that we have such a depth of critics here suggesting WP:CIR while we also have a shedload of GAN and DYK reviewers who have sanctioned Doug's work, myself included. Perhaps CIR should now be applied to all of those who signed off the hundreds of GANs and DYKs. We have totally destroyed one individual here, and I hope those who have actively worked to do so are now proud of themselves. The processes here clearly aren't fit for purpose in such circumstances. You all just went all in against someone and now they're gone: an elderly man doing his very best in the image of what Misplaced Pages stood for in the good old days: "the 💕, which anyone can edit". And now you are all so pleased with applying negative process and dismissing him. Well done, you disgust me. Little wonder the project is dying on its arse. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

You and I remember the "old Misplaced Pages" very differently. Mackensen (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Weird, I remember old Misplaced Pages being a place which encouraged anyone to give it their best shot, and collegiate attitudes to improving their contributions in line with progressive guidelines. I don't remember it being singling out one good faith editor who has been subject to literally hundreds of reviews and then vilified, strung up, and chased off Misplaced Pages. Perhaps you're a very different person to me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Most serial copyright violators are editing in good faith. They're either in a hurry, or don't understand copyright, or both. I think Doug falls into both camps. I don't doubt his good faith. I don't think anyone does. I do doubt his understanding of the issues raised here, and his ability to change. Many editors above tried to work with Doug to help him understand what he was doing wrong. He's not blocked because people want to give him a second chance. People are literally bending over backwards to help someone. I don't think raising the temperature in this discussion was helpful to Doug. Mackensen (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

So you need to address the issues unilaterally, clamp down on the facilitators, like me, who worked with him on niche topics to give him the confidence to continue. Your vilification of a good faith user is pure contrary to the essence of Misplaced Pages. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...)

Well, I tried to work with him at New York Central and Hudson River Railroad No. 999. He didn't really engage, although other editors did. Much work to be done there. I'm not sure what's unilateral about that, or any other aspect of this discussion. Mackensen (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware Doug disappeared on his own accord. Misplaced Pages is the 💕, which anyone can edit but that doesn't mean that policies and guidelines, such as communication and competence being required, as well as not adding copyvios, are thrown out the window. Doug is clearly not a bad faith editor! XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 23:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, he hasn't edited because you've all made him feel like a piece of shit. Well played. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Can we please just let this go and Close the thread? I get that not everyone is happy with how this ANI thread went but at this point, we aren't getting anywhere productive with these arguments. We have a mess to clean up and Doug has been invited to join in should he desire. Its not a happy outcome, but often times compromises leave both parties wanting more. Just stop playing fisticuffs with the thread; no one is happy to be here. Etrius ( Us) 00:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

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. 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. 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..

The editor is currently advocating 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..

In previous discussions:

1. Comments which have shown clear personal bias around this subject matter, rejecting RS provided by other editors.
2. Multiple warnings from editors (myself included) around WP:HORSEMEAT.
3. Several warnings to avoid WP:IDHT behaviour.
4. Several warnings to refrain from WP:OR.

This editor has previous sanctions and has had DS warnings posted on this subject matter:

1. DS for gender-related disputes
2. Previous block for WP:EDITWARRING

cc @Horse Eye's Back:, @Shibbolethink:, @Pokelova:, @Protonk: @Aquillion: who have been involved or in other threads (I am probably forgetting some). Another editor, @Kyohyi:, is making similar arguments though has not been similarly disruptive in previous threads. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 17:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

• FYI, this thread isn't intended as another content discussion. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 19:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

• See also Talk:Libs of TikTok/Archive 3#The Advocate, Talk:Libs of TikTok/Archive 3#Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2022, and Talk:Libs of TikTok/Archive 3#"Groomer". Courtesy pings to

  This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived until 00:50, 22 January 2035 (UTC).

  {{subst:DNAU|Zaathras}}@NebY:@Reesorville:@SamuelRiv:@X-Editor:@Mebigrouxboy:@Firefangledfeathers:@Iamreallygoodatcheckers:@Zaathras:@Czello:@Peleio Aquiles: who participated in the threads and either responded to or were responded to by Korny O'Near. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• 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. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 03:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  @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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

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. 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)

@Peleio Aquiles: could you provide a diff of the Trevor Project comment you're referring to? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

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 gay schoolteachers, who post on TikTok about getting their pupils to talk about gender pronouns, are groomers". . 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". SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 13:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think that was it. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages. If they keep this behavior up, a TBAN would definitely be in order. — Shibbolethink 12:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Korny isn't going to drop his beliefs just because of a warning on Misplaced Pages. 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)

I suppose a warning is fine by this point because... yikes! I do agree on taking action with this behavior, then. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 10:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• 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." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

Given that you agree with Korny that there isn't a conspiracy theory nor a disinformation campaign here that doesn't surprise me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

What is disruptive is promoting a homophobic conspiracy theory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

What is disruptive is casting WP: ASPERSIONS. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not casting aspersions. What is disruptive is when people deny basic well supported facts which don't conform to their personal POV and then edit the comments of other editors to conform to those views. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Calling a living person Homophobic is a BLP violation, that you agree with calling them as such doesn't make it fact. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

We have nearly a dozen sources which call Raichik/LoTT homophobic, transphobic, or anti-LGBTQ. I bet if you do a deep dive you can find a lot more than that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

And yet you've cited how many? If you're going to make the assertion, you have to make the case. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

How can one be Anti-LGBT without being homophobic? The G stands for gay. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I am so confused, are you now disputing that Raichik/LoTT is anti-gay? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

What part of it's your responsibility to back it up with sources are you not getting? --Kyohyi (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

Aspersions tells us they should be defendable and backed up by evidence, both of which are lacking. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• WP:AE may be better suited to this sort of thing. — Rhododendrites \\ 13:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  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)

• 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." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• Korny is now at Misplaced Pages talk:No Nazis with the usual funny business, can someone stop the train so I don't have to keep narrating this train wreck? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
  • 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. — Rhododendrites \\ 16:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Don't forget anti-LGBTQ in what the ideology was based on as thats the crossover with the concern here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• @Horse Eye's Back: Why this case isn't requested on the AE just yet? Since this is only the best course of action it seems. MarioJump83 (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• You're right, it does make more sense to open as an AE. I can look to do that. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 13:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Fuzheado

On 30th August, admin Fuzheado reinstated the ongoing COVID-19 ITN item on the main page against what was pretty clear consensus. Soon after, admin Amakuru asked Fuzheado to reconsider . Instead of reconsidering, Fuzheado accused the admin Spencer of having removed the ITN item in "poor faith" . This was noticed by admin floquenbeam but Fuzheado failed to correct/retract the "poor faith" accusation . I noted in this discussion that I felt the pull was an abuse of admin privilege (going against consensus) . 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 . 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.

In the "Rogue admins" discussion, admin Black Kite pointed out that Fuzheado has made previous ill-considered admin actions at ITN, despite visiting infrequently. I copy their examples here: Pulling something that had obvious support, Wheel-warring whilst accusing another admin - who hadn't wheel-warred - of doing the same, Supervote and criticism of another admin, guess what the final result was. Black Kite suggested Fuzheado should - at the least - voluntarily step back from using their admin bit to impose their own opinions. Otherwise a discussion about a topic ban is clearly indicated.

Admin Spencer posted further evidence of poor admin judgement by Fuzheado which I copy below:

• Misplaced Pages:In_the_news/Candidates/February_2020#(Pulled)_RD:_Orson_Bean - premature posting, pulled due to lack of citations
• Misplaced Pages:In_the_news/Candidates/February_2022#(Posted)_Super_Bowl_LVI - premature posting of an article relying on primary sources with CN tags
• Misplaced Pages:In_the_news/Candidates/April_2021#(Re-posted)_Tianhe_launch - premature posting, later pulled due to lack of citations, later re-posted after quality improved
• Misplaced Pages: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."
• Misplaced Pages:In_the_news/Candidates/March_2016 "Zaha Hadid" prematurely posted, and pulled due to lack of citations
• Misplaced Pages:In_the_news/Candidates/January_2021#(Pulled)_2021_Portuguese_presidential_election Prematurely posted, pulled due to quality issues.
• Misplaced Pages:In_the_news/Candidates/March_2020#(Reposted)_Italian_lockdown Prematurely posted before consensus settled, pulled, later re-posted.
• Misplaced Pages: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 .

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.

Best wishes, Polyamorph (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

Note: Notification of this discussion has been left at the aforementioned thread Misplaced Pages talk:In the news § Rogue admins.—Bagumba (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)
• Comment I agree that there is a problem with driveby impositions of admin will/supervoting and would like this to stop Bumbubookworm (talk) 05:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• 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 Misplaced Pages: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)
• 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)

  Sent Fuzheado an email in case they are not aware of this thread. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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 | Talk 15:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  @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 Misplaced Pages-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)

  @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)

  If you're going to be away from Misplaced Pages 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)

  I agree with Levivich that if work and personal obligations are such that it is impossible to devote time to Misplaced Pages 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)

  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)

  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 Misplaced Pages: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)

  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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

  They are a collection of their administrative actions at ITN. Admins are accountable for their judgements. —Bagumba (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  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)

  • 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)

    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)

    • 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)

      His "real life circumstances" did not prevent him from making several dozen Misplaced Pages 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)

I take issue with your opening line when you say I acted "against what was pretty clear consensus." That is incorrect. I go into more detail in the extended response. If Spencer themselves says "I would additionally like to apologize to all for premature reading of consensus in the previous discussion; it was poor judgment on my part and muddied the discussion regarding the nomination," then it was not "pretty clear consensus" at all. Do you have a response to this? - Fuzheado | Talk 04:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Note I responded to this below, I agree this was my personal POV which was both shared and opposed by others at ITN. Apologies for not being clear in my OP. Polyamorph (talk) 09:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I'm confused why we're here. The proximate incident that prompted this discussion saw Fuzheado reverse 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 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  07:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

I have now posted an extended reply addressing the "poor faith" comment - the user themselves said it was "poor judgment on my part and muddied the discussion regarding the nomination." So I don't know why it is so alarming when the same word is used in both instances. Regardless, please read the entire response for more context. Regards. - Fuzheado | Talk 04:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrative actions...

—Bagumba (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@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  16:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

As others have opined above, an admin should not be taking controversial actions if they will not be available to explain those actions. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

A two-week international travel that allows them to do other edits but not deal with this? See this from BK. GiantSnowman 14:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

@Fram: Not saying there has been any, but in there event that there is any off-wiki communication/canvassing, should this be declared? Polyamorph (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Fram: Is that a conspiracy theory, a personal attack, a bad-faith comment, or all three? You should consider redacting your comment, especially as the outing part has already needed to be oversighted. Ed  16:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: The oversighter later restored the information.—Bagumba (talk) 09:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

'Oversight??? Then perhaps someone should inform Gamaliel, self-declared Board member of Wikimedia DC, that Robert Fernandez, board member of Wikimedia DC, is impersonating Gamaliel in his Cv on the Wikimedia Dc page, 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)

@Ed17: perhaps you should also contact oversight forCommons and especially Wikidata , which was repeatedly edited by Gamaliel. Apology accepted. Fram (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@The ed17: previous ping was incorrect. Fram (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Two WMF members turning up in this discussion is an interesting development. Polyamorph (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@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  16:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Especially when neither is a regular at ANI, indeed Ed has not posted here since December 2020. Must be a coincidence, though. Black Kite (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

How did an outing not result in an immediate block? — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps because it's not outing when the information has been revealed on-Wiki by the person "outed"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

At the time of my comment that material was oversighted, so it appeared to be a legit outing. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: Who is outing who? Nythar 19:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Fram posted a comment mentioning Gamaliel's real name, and that was oversighted. It appears that was later restored, once it was established that Gamaliel linked had previously his account to his real name. With that resolved, we can move on from this tangent. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

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. — Rhododendrites \\ 18:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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?

. Nearly three weeks later I am still awaiting their response. I would like to hear this.Polyamorph (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Given that the failure of adminacct is still ongoing, yes we are seriously talking about it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Sigh ... look. No-one is asking for Fuzheado to stop editing Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages we could all go to the pub and close this. Black Kite (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Exactly this. Polyamorph (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Here here. One of the biggest criticisms of ANI is someone's friends coming out to bat for them. I hope that's not what is happening here. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

And now if we choose to TBAN Fuzheado from ITN, must we fear WMF retaliation? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

All that is needed at this point is for Fuzheado to acknowledge and address our concerns. Just like any editor. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

  Fuzheado's been on Meta today, fixing a Wikimania volunteer page. Nythar 03:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's disappointing, because they are pages about Wikimania 2023, which isn't until next year. This seems more urgent. Levivich (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think you folks are not realistic enough about the attitudes of olden day admins, especially those who are not really here, but self-identify as 'intellectuals', 'strategic thinkers' or the like, but have a tendency to intervene sometimes to 'save' us plebs. Many of the ITN regulars who are rightfully not happy about what has happened will have had direct experience going back to the 2000s when there were some arbitrators got into power due to terra nullius but who were absent almost all the time and had the temerity to self-evaluate in semi-public forums that them and their factional colleagues were the 'foundation' or 'cornerstone' of WP or somesuch. Now, any competent POV-pusher or spammer knows that there is one WP for hat-collectors and pseudointellectuals who lie about their qualifications (typically people from a certain type of demographic background), and another where the POV-pusher/spammer can actually have their impact on washing whatever articles they need to, but the impact that the hat-collector and pseudo-intellectual has on the world of Misplaced Pages is a lot more limited than they think. There are a few amusing instances of old arbitrators delusionally running for re-election and being hauled out a la Marcos/Ceaucescu/Gaddafi etc Bumbubookworm (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

No response comment @Gamaliel: ...but I don't see any evidence presented that they historically have not responded to queries. (It was too unwieldy for an indented respone to your original comment above) There seems to be at least one prior incident of no response from Fuzheado during the wheel-warring over the George Floyd blurb, which also did not receive a response on their related user talk page thread.—Bagumba (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Also User talk:Fuzheado/Archive 18#Close at Talk:Warren Clinic shooting from June 2022. The more I look at this, the less I see it as a wheel warring or ITN issue, the more I see it as a chronic WP:ADMINACCT issue. Levivich (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Their lack of communication is strange. Nythar 19:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

At this point, it appears intentional. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

If they wait long enough, this section might be archived and forgotten without them responding to it. Nythar 20:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment It's three weeks since I first posted what was a very reasonable request, asking Fuzheado to consider some concerns about their admin actions at ITN. Its been two weeks since my reminder and it's been three days since I posted here. Fuzheado has still not responded. They have indicated this is not their priority. Two of their WMF friends have coincidently appeared in Fuzheado's defence to tell us there is no problem here. I am now kindly requesting some indication of what the next steps should be. We cannot wait forever and it's a waste of everyone's time - we also have priorities of our own! Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Polyamorph: There seems to be some confusion: Fuzheado is not a WMF staff member. As far as I'm aware, the only volunteer here who is also staff is me. See also Rhododendrites's comment above. Ed  22:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• There is no confusion on my part. Polyamorph (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Polyamorph: Then who are these "WMF friends" you're referring to, and what exactly do you think led to me "coincidentally" appearing here? As I previously told you, your casual references to the position that pays my bills are inherently intimidating. I'd love to get direct answers from you so I can address any misconceptions and move on from this discussion. Ed  05:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• You don't have go be paid by the WMF to be associated with the WMF and have friends at the WMF. I have asked you to declare any off-wiki communication that might have brought you here, but that didn't get a response. I am not intimidating you in any way, that is a vert serious accusation. Polyamorph (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Yes - with 30-odd edits to Meta in the 50+ hours since the above "not a priority" message it is effectively sticking a middle finger up at the enwiki community. I have no idea why some legacy admins, especially those with WMF links, appear to believe they are exempt from policies like WP:ADMINACCT (Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards...). At this point, options appear to be (a) a discussion on a ban from using tools at ITN (which could be technically achieved with a partial block from the single page Template:In the news), and (b) a trip to ArbCom as a last resort. Black Kite (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  Please try assuming some good faith. I'm on the Wikimania organizing team and we had a deadline for volunteer sign ups that just concluded. As such, we need a clean ordering of sign ups in order to be ingested properly into our database or things don't work correctly. It is simple as that, which is why edits to meta are required to fix those problems. Now that the influx is over, and our systems are setup I can turn my attention to other things, such as the issues raised here. - Fuzheado | Talk 04:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

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

• Intention to enact a topic ban: Based on the multiple concerns raised by multiple people in this discussion, I intend to topic ban Fuzheado from T:ITN if they do not reply in this thread in the next 24 hours. That will have given them 4-1/2 days to respond in more detail to the concerns raised here (and 20 days to respond to the note on their talk page). If Fuzheado has more important things they are dealing with right now - which they very well may have, I know nothing about Wikimania's timetable - then such a topic ban will have no immediate effect on them, while it will temporarily solve the problem that multiple people have brought up here, without leaving this thread and everyone in it dangling, and getting more upset. Once Fuzheado has more time for en.wiki, if they want to edit T:ITN again, they can ask at WP:AN for the topic ban to be overturned, and we can have this discussion then. Since the problem seems to be that Fuzheado is busy, I won't enforce this with a partial block, but by closing this and leaving a note on their talk page. If 24 hours go by, and I haven't done anything, feel free to ping me. I'll notify Fuzheado of this on his talk page. if this doesn't seem fair to you, let me know here; I won't impose it in the face of reasonable opposition if I've misread the conversation so far. But this is not a unilateral decision, I believe some kind of action has consensus, based on the discussion so far, and this seems like a balanced response respecting both sides. (after edit conflict with User:Black Kite: if Black Kite thinks this is short-circuiting his suggestion, let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• No, that's fine - indeed it's exactly the same sort of thing I would have done myself had I not been involved in the issue. Black Kite (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  This sounds sensible in the short-term. GiantSnowman 20:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I haven't read this whole thread in detail but what I gather is a main concern is the admin conduct part, in addition to any concern over ITN. I think at this point in time since we haven't heard anything, a block from the whole en.wiki is appropriate. Once we get an explanation (even during the whole discussion phase) the site block should be removed pending community discussion. Admin conduct is something that is important and shows that users should not be blown off. We should show that violating that isn't acceptable. Sir Joseph 20:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse TBAN as proposed by Floq

-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I will be replying in the next 24 hours. Thanks. - Fuzheado | Talk 22:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Support especially as one of their edits at Wikimania () was to request administrator and bureaucrat rights which has since been granted. Gusfriend (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Endorse Floq's proposal. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Reasonable plan, which also might prod an anticipated formal response as well. —Bagumba (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended Response from User:Fuzheado

Response to User talk page message

This was originally drafted as a response to the User talk page message, so it is best read in that context as a preamble to the longer response.

Thanks, I welcome any and all civil conversation regarding any of my admin edits.

A quick comment on the idea that a user may act "against consensus." As seen in the COVID "Ongoing" discussion, many folks in that debate should re-evaluate their declaration of broad/wide "consensus."

The early removal of COVID from "Ongoing" went against a basic understanding of ITN customs, as was echoed in the many comments that followed. BilledMammal correctly pointed to the early close, and things happening so quickly, as being at odds with Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Levels_of_consensus:

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."

It is a policy page, and not just a guideline or an essay. Logically, "premature reading of consensus" is not consensus. Those were Spencer's own words, and he later wrote:

"I would additionally like to apologize to all for premature reading of consensus in the previous discussion; it was poor judgment on my part and muddied the discussion regarding the nomination."

I appreciate the recognition of "poor judgment" here. 13

This is why I am confused why saying "poor faith" was problematic when Spencer themselves used the term "poor" to describe their actions. I have nothing personal against Spencer.

I employed the word "poor" very carefully to mean substandard. It was not an ad hominem attack, and was specifically chosen instead of a much stronger accusation of "bad faith," which is a serious term tied to intent. If that seemed too subtle, then for that I do apologize. If I really meant "bad faith," I would have said it, but I specifically did not. I believe we can all make unpopular debatable decisions and we don't rake people over the coals for it (see the irony). In this case, I reverted to the status quo that many others in the discussion were demanding and didn't make it a personal issue. Again, I apologize if it was seen as being too harsh, as the words were carefully chosen and that was not the intent. But I recognize that it was likely too subtle a distinction to lean on.

I will continue to participate at ITN and associated pages within community guidelines and accepted ITN customs. I am not reluctant to talk about any of these issues, but do understand that we are busy folks and that may affect my ability to respond immediately to all the concerns.

"You never know what someone is going through, so be kind." I hope folks take that to heart, in both directions.

- Fuzheado | Talk 04:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Fuzheado: Thank you Fuzheado for your response. I did not report you here because of the covid removal, but I added that information for context. I tried as well as I could to explain the context of what brought us here, but you're right the "against consensus" comment is my POV. Regarding your poor faith comment, I appreciate your apology and explanation. Regarding your activities at ITN, I believe the community would appreciate if you voluntarily commit to not using your admin tools to impose your own opinions. Please could you consider this? Polyamorph (talk) 05:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  If the request is to "commit to not using your admin tools to impose your own opinions" then I would certainly concur and agree with that. The tricky part is that evaluating consensus often requires judgment calls indistinguishable from opinion. However, I have been fine working with contemporary RD sourcing requirements and can aim to minimize the "opinion" as much as possible. - Fuzheado | Talk 05:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you Fuzheado! As far as I'm concerned that is a fair and reasonable response to my original request on your talk page, and this ANI thread should be closed as my initial concern is now resolved. Polyamorph (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, very much appreciated. Be well! - Fuzheado | Talk 05:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Bad faith is defined as "intent to deceive". Your choice to use "poor faith", as opposed to poor decision, read as bad faith by Spencer, but comes off as bad faith on your part.—Bagumba (talk) 05:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's fair. As I said above, I chose "poor faith" because I didn't think it was even close to "bad faith." But I can understand how "poor faith" and "bad faith" could be seen as nearly synonymous, and I would avoid this risk in the future. That said, I most definitely did not intend to deceive. - Fuzheado | Talk 06:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• I am not reluctant to talk about any of these issues, but do understand that we are busy folks and that may affect my ability to respond immediately to all the concerns: The facts are that 17 days elapsed since a request was made on your talk page, with a courtesy reminder included, before you gave a cursory response after the ANI case was initiated. Your formal response followed 3 days later, coming soon after the topic ban was proposed. Can you see where that might appear to conflict with WP:ADMINACCT?—Bagumba (talk) 05:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I get why the delay could be seen that way. However, I've explained already the two week period was especially bad and if I had to do it over again, I'd at least leave a one-liner saying, "Acknowledged, will answer soon," even when on the run. My last note asked for patience, and my response was already 90% crafted when I was informed of the "topic ban proposal." Regards. - Fuzheado | Talk 06:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  Hiccups are generally excusable. However, there are at least two other cases listed earlier where you also seemed to not provide a response: 1) User_talk:Fuzheado/Archive_16#Wheel_war? 2) User_talk:Fuzheado/Archive_18#Close_at_Talk:Warren_Clinic_shooting.—Bagumba (talk) 06:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  You're right, characterizing the single action as wheel warring was in error and I apologize to KTC for the unnecessary fracas around that. For the Warren Clinic shooting question, although it was not an admin action, I could have elaborated better. The ensuing move discussion at Talk:2022_Tulsa_hospital_shooting had answered the questions around NOYEAR and historic perspective, but I could have responded directly as well. - Fuzheado | Talk 11:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Response to ANI

Introduction

Thanks for being patient and waiting for a full fledged response. It wasn't easy given my schedule and obligations, and I wasn't expecting such a demand for my time with this matter. Let me elaborate.

I considered the proceedings at the very end of August at ITN about COVID in the "Ongoing" section as a settled matter.

The first "remove COVID from Ongoing" debate I was involved with was closed inconclusively (more elaboration below), and there was another fresh request for the removal of COVID from "Ongoing." The discussion went on for just over 24 hours, which I intentionally stayed away from to let it run its course. I saw it was closed as "remove" by Rockstone and removed.

I considered it as settled, and there to be no pending issues on my part, knowing I would be fully occupied for the next two weeks and more. (I find it puzzling someone implied I should not take "controverisal action" before leaving. The proceedings had all been closed by then and actions taken.)

Concerns

Let's turn to the concerns listed by Polyamorph in the ANI filing.

We don't get off to a good start. With all due respect, Polyamorph starts by saying I went "against what was pretty clear consensus." This is factually incorrect.

As stated previously, Spencer said, it was "premature reading of consensus in the previous discussion; it was poor judgment on my part..." So already, we are starting with an inaccurate portrayal of the situation. I'm not sure what "faith" to label this.

However, I'm going to take the high road and assume good faith and treat this selective telling of my ITN activities as a particular POV of the situation. It may be one person's version of what they see as the truth, but I will present another angle that I trust will give another perspective on the list of "rogue" actions given.

Even a small inspection beneath the surface provides a different context - in more than 150 edits I've made to ITN, the vast majority of those have been uncontroversial: adding blurbs, recent deaths, correcting grammar, updating stats, reformatting posts, adjusting images, collaborating on WP:ERRORS requests, et al. Additionally, many of the ones that are listed here as "poor admin judgment" had plenty of support from those involved with discussions, making the "rogue" label dubious, even while being repeated for effect.

Let's start first with the premise of these proceedings, and the curious demand of an urgent response to this query and while analyzing all my on-wiki moves.

As mentioned above, I considered the "Ongoing COVID posting" a settled matter before I left for the U.S. Labor Day holiday period, a trip to the Wikimedia Summit in Berlin, and ensuing obligations related to work, an edit-a-thon, and the Wikimania volunteer deadline I was supporting. An inspection of my on-wiki edit history shows this unambiguously. (Some folks also want to hone in on a tiny sliver of editing on the run (a redirect, a page move, and one referenced statement) during that two week period. Very odd, but I'll take that in stride.)

The point here is that there was no evasion but simply a heavy set of obligations that had to take priority. and given the length of the response below you'll see why I needed a large chunk of uninterrupted time to prepare a response.

I'll address the issues brought up in order from the list that was quoted by Spencer, including the overall COVID Ongoing issue.

Ongoing: COVID

Without wanting to rehash this case, the actions at the first Ongoing debate were hardly rogue, as I was in full dialogue and explained my actions - many folks asked for and agreed with the revert to the status quo. I explained my actions, many others concurred, we talked policy, and discussed WP:CONLEVEL. ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 )

Spencer's own words were:

"I would additionally like to apologize to all for premature reading of consensus in the previous discussion; it was poor judgment on my part and muddied the discussion regarding the nomination."

This is pretty clear that a reset was justified, and I hold nothing against any editors personally.

Orson Bean - February 2020

• Stated POV: "premature posting, pulled due to lack of citations"
• Response: Concur with pull, acknowledging ITN's RD norms

This is one of the scenarios where given the letter of ITN law, I concur with pulling the RD item that I posted, even though the rationale would strike outsiders as unintuitive. Why? In the ensuing discussion, nominator User:7&6=thirteen points out the flaw of ITN - the strict sourcing requirement on the '-ology/-ography' section of an artist creates a problem where highly notable celebrities with long careers never appear on Recent Deaths.

We've seen it with stars such as Alan Thicke, Norm Macdonald, Fred Willard, and Orson Bean who, counterintuitively, got left out of RD because while they were household names, and had a long resume, they did not have enough on-wiki enthusiasts to completely reference their extensive filmography/discology sections.

In our ITN discussions, folks have noted that even without an RD mention, traffic to these Misplaced Pages biography articles still sees a tremendous spike. (See the discussion with Merle Haggard referred to below, in a thread with Andrew Davidson). People are still organically visting these Misplaced Pages articles with the incompletely-sourced filmographies. The solution is not easy and merits a longer discussion, but the fact is today the Orson Bean article has the same unreferenced filmography it had 2.5 years ago.

We work by consensus, so I respect this "Alan Thicke" filmography guideline as the custom at ITN since this case in 2020, and continue to do so. To the best of my recollection, I have not been engaged with any RD sourcing issues since then.

Super Bowl LVI - February 2022

• Stated POV: "premature posting of an article relying on primary sources with CN tags"
• Response: After my posting, there were three post-posting support votes and no pull !votes. Folks concerned about game recap "primary sources" or saying it was "premature" were in the minority.

This is a case of the Super Bowl being an WP:ITN/R, meaning it was set to be uncontroversially posted as a recurring event. Some users wanted to delay posting, debating what makes a game recap properly sourced, but the consensus was that the article had proper sourcing and was suitable for a blurb. Users such as Muboshgu, Masem, LaserLegs, Amakuru, and WaltCip supported its posting and had no problems with the sourcing/game recap issue. After it was posted, there were no requests to pull it, and it only got post-posting supports.

Tianhe (space station module) - April 2021

• Stated POV: "premature posting, later pulled due to lack of citations, later re-posted after quality improved"
• Response: I'll take the hit on this one, as there were still missing references at posting time.

Three consecutive "Support" commenters said it was in shape to be posted, and that the CN tags had been resolved. I take the blame in reviewing it quickly and not looking closely enough at the last section and it would have benefitted from some extra time for sourcing. It was pulled, but reposted after improvement.

April 2016

• Stated POV: snippet "(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"
• Response: Kollam temple accident (today Puttingal temple fire) was quickly sourced and reposted in 16 minutes and stayed up after that, but I would do it differently today.

The temple fire article was short, and sources were easily fixed before being reposted. In retrospect, to be consistent we should have waited longer for consensus, and I would do it differently today even if it was obvious this tragedy was a global front page story on every news outlet. This would be consistent with the standard discussed with Spencer, and the recent straw poll about the minimum time required for an ITN item to be open before posting. So for this, I regret the short period and would wait.

For the "Pfizer & Allergan merger called off" story, I'm not sure what to conclude. There were no opposes and five supports when I posted in less than 6 hours. One person voted to pull it two days later without any explanation. No one else had an issue. It stayed up.

For Merle Haggard, as stated previously, this dispute from 6 years ago predates the Orson Bean issue, and since 2020 I work with the "Alan Thicke" ITN RD guideline.

Zaha Hadid - March 2016

• Stated POV: "prematurely posted, and pulled due to lack of citations"
• Response: Concur, I respect the "Alan Thicke" ITN RD guideline for ITN.

As stated previously, this dispute from 6 years ago predates the Orson Bean issue, and since 2020 I work with the "Alan Thicke" ITN RD sourcing guideline.

Portugeuse presidential election - January 2021

• Stated POV: "Prematurely posted, pulled due to quality issues."
• Response: As an ITN/R item, there were 6 supports and 1 oppose, with tags all cleaned up when posted. Pulled with a questionable interpretation of guideline/policy around "quality issues."

While it was supported by six editors and opposed by an anon, this item was pulled because four editors said there is "no prose for the results." While this may be a format they prefer, it is not prescribed by the ITN posting guidelines and may be an interpretation of this:

"Articles which consist solely or mostly of lists and tables, with little narrative prose, are usually not acceptable for the main page, and prose should be in narrative style, not "proseline"-type writing." - Misplaced Pages:In_the_news

However, this was not the case with this article, which was full of prose and had a full narrative description at the top of the article including describing the results, such as, "President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa was reelected as President by a landslide winning 60.7% of the votes. He won every district in country, all 308 municipalities..." If there is written documentation about the "Results" section requiring written prose, I'm open to its guidance.

Italian lockdown - March 2020

• Stated POV: "Prematurely posted before consensus settled, pulled, later re-posted."
• Response: After the pull, all eight !votes were support for reposting, with no opposes.

I'm not sure what "consensus settled" means here. After it was pulled, there was a steady set of support comments including:

• Support per above. Top of all news, article good. Kingsif
• Support as a significant development. Meets ITN criteria of updated, significant, and quality. Kees08
• Strong support - How has this not been reposted yet? Nice4What

It was eventually re-posted by Amakuru.

Summary

So in the end, where do we stand?

• The inaccurate opening line for the ANI, saying I acted "against what was pretty clear consensus," already gives me pause. It accuses me of being a policy violator when that was not the case. In fact the closer said, it was "premature reading of consensus in the previous discussion; it was poor judgment on my part..." Again, no hate or blame but the basis for initiating this case is in question.

• A series of "Recent Deaths" and biographies cases from 2016. The case of Orson Bean (more than 2.5 years ago) was the last time there was a disagreement about RD posting. Since then, I have followed the custom of ITN on RD sourcing putting the 2016 issues in the past.

• Puttingal temple fire from April 2016 - While it was posted and reposted for good after 16 minutes and no opposition, I would do things differently today and wait longer to be consistent with the WP:CONLEVEL policy as discussed in the recent COVID "Ongoing" case.

• Tianhe (space station module) from April 2021 - I will take the blame for posting this without noting the last section of the article was lacking references.

• Consensus for posting. The cases regarding the Super Bowl and the Italian lockdown had popular support and stayed up on ITN in the end.

• Inconsistent guideline interpretation. The Portugeuse presidential election was consistent with policy and had support votes but ended with a questionable pull.

This brings us to why this is at ANI, which is dedicated to "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." From this list, we are left with two main mea culpa cases from 2016 and 2021, and a concurrence on the Recent Deaths sourcing standard that hasn't been disputed since 2020.

I'm open to more discussion, but I am not clear whether ANI is the right place for it to persist. I am open to feedback on my admin actions, at ITN or anywhere else and welcome good faith dialogue. Thanks. - Fuzheado | Talk 04:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• I had hoped I was clear why I brought his to ANI. It was because your lack of response at the time was a violation of WP:ADMINACCT. I thank you for providing your explanations. Polyamorph (talk) 05:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for your thanks, and I do really mean that. It was not evasion on my part whatsoever, as this 2-3 week period was particularly challenging for the reasons listed and beyond. I look forward to continuing the dialogue. - Fuzheado | Talk 05:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• RD: Orange and red tags For the the Merle Haggard RD (at your #April 2016 above), you wrote ...since 2020 I work with the "Alan Thicke" ITN RD guideline. However, at the RD discussion, the objection by The Rambling Man was please either follow the instructions (Usually, orange and red level tags are generally considered major enough to block posting to ITN...) or seek to have them modified so we post items in such states. At the time of posting, the page had multiple orange tags, and many other unsourced lists weren't even tagged. AFAICS, the rule on orange and red tags existed before 2020. This does not appear to be a new standard that evolved in 2020.—Bagumba (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  The point of that statement is that the Merle Haggard issue was from 2016, but since 2020, I've agreed to be consistent with the stricter sourcing standard before putting things on RD, whether that is unsourced discography, orange tags, citation needed, etc. Hopefully that sheds some light on that. - Fuzheado | Talk 19:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

An ANI manifesto of sorts

Sorry for the new section but I am not sure where the best place to include it would be. Whilst I can only say what I personally think, I believe that I am correct in saying that no-one who spends time at the ANI page wants any new items to be added here and would prefer that new items do not raise to this level. In fact I long for days when nothing new is here (as much as it can seem like a gladatorial arena sometimes). The people who comment here view it as part of giving back to the community to help with consensus making just like making comments at AfD, working at ITN, recommended merge discussions and the like and take it seriously especially considering the possible impact (I have seen about a half-dozen productive long term editors indef banned so far this year and each one stings even when there is consensus which you support). In the last couple of months we have seen at ANI more than a few users who required a block to get them to respond to concerns that have been raised here, also a stern measure to take. All of this happens with a heavy understanding of the glorious responsibility of the discussions taking place here.

As such, a comment from an administrator, do understand that I consider a response to these is not the highest priority right now, whilst a totally understandable response, and not necessarily inappropriate, does not match my understanding of the gravity due the locale. I am not arguing for a sanction nor am I saying that I believe that this discussion needs to keep going but I wanted to share my perspective, if only so it is here for an essay later on.

As always this is purely my perspective and apologies to those who feel differently. Gusfriend (talk) 08:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

As I have stated above, Fuzheado has now addressed my talk page request and I am satisfied with their response and how they intend to approach future controversy at ITN. Their WP:ADMINACCT obligations have been met. Fuzheado has indicated that in the future he will acknowledge any similar requests in a timely manner indicating that if he is unable to respond right away he will be providing a full response in due course. As far as I am concerned this matter is resolved. I think this also addresses their other past failures of WP:ADMINACCT and I don't think it is worthwhile to impose sanctions now for long past issues. I propose we move on and trust Fuzheado on his assurances. Polyamorph (talk) 08:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

"not the highest priority": Yes. Consider their previous response: 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. I am still determining what was the intent of the underlined part, as "I will respond when I get a chance", alone, would have been understandable. Are they guilty only of being brutally honest, or were they being passive-aggressive about WP:ADMINACCT: Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrative actions...—Bagumba (talk) 08:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

That's an understandable comment and if what you say is true ("a half-dozen productive long term editors indef banned so far this year and each one stings") then I share your lament. As for the phrase I used, there really is no nefarious intent or passive-aggressiveness. It was meant to be taken at face value as life circumstances "priority," and not on-wiki "priority." My previous comments alluded to this:

• "You never know what someone is going through, so be kind." I hope folks take that to heart, in both directions.
• this 2-3 week period was particularly challenging for the reasons listed and beyond

The goal is not a pity party, so I'll leave it at that for now. Thanks. - Fuzheado | Talk 11:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is really very complicated. If you take an admin action, and someone asks you about it on your talk page, respond. Don't let it sit for three weeks as you just did. Don't make us threaten sanctions at ANI to get your attention. Don't edit elsewhere while not responding to messages about admin actions on your talk page, and certainly not if there's a thread at ANI. And, again: if you're going to be away and unable to respond promptly, don't take admin actions right before you leave. Ok? Ok. Good talk. Levivich (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

That would make an excellent addition to an ANI related essay. Gusfriend (talk) 04:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Mmmm. I note there isn't a comment about the incident where Fuzheado wheel-warred whilst accusing another admin (who hadn't) of the same thing or the posting of a blatant BLP violation as an RD (section "Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani"). Perhaps they were a bit too tricky, but I'd liked to have seen them addressed. Black Kite (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Note Fuzheado apologised above (at the end of the "response to the user talk page message" section for the wheel warring error, in reply to Bagumba. Polyamorph (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Polyamorph, and I agree that in 2017 Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani was posted in a substandard condition, something I would not do today. Thanks. - Fuzheado | Talk 19:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

But Fuzheado didn't directly address his own wheel warring in that incident. —Bagumba (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

For some case context: after the George Floyd case verdict was pulled, the immediate comment from Bongwarrior was, "There is already consensus," followed by two immediate support votes for reinstatement. After I re-posted the item, the next nine expressions of opinion were in support versus one to pull before the discussion concluded. There was clear consensus to post, as was noted in the close message. I hope that sheds some light on the fact that posting was supported by the vast majority of contributors and was not a rogue action.

That said, I do regret inaccurately calling the pull wheel warring and for causing an unnecessary fracas. I know KTC in real life and we have always interacted productively in Wikimedia event settings, so having this as an open wound is a bad state of affairs. Please accept my apologies for the mischaracterization KTC, and I hope our interactions are only good ones going forward. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I hope we don't have to end up here again. Black Kite (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your engagement here Fuzheado. We're fine. :-) -- KTC (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

With much thanks! :-) -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

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|Geld 17:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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|Geld 18:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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. MB 18:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

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|Geld 18:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

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. MB 21:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

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|Geld 08:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• FWIW, I created a blank article. It was deleted before I could flesh it out. Exasperating. At least now we draftify instead. What was said above is true. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

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|Geld 18:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• 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, Rosguill 18:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• 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. Onel5969 18:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• 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)

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|Geld 19:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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|Geld 19:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

You can't reference the priest, of course. Secretlondon (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Benefit of clergy, is that? EEng 19:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

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|Geld 20:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

You can use what the priest tells you as clues pointing to other sources, though. And maybe the priest has clippings. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Official guidance for NPPs doing front of queue reviewing is to wait 15 minutes. Misplaced Pages: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)

• 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)

  Draftspace is a safe place to work on articles that are not yet suitable for Misplaced Pages. 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)

  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)

  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)

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. Onel5969 01:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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. MB 08:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@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)

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. Onel5969 09:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@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)

@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|Geld 10:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

Per Dennis Brown and Deepfriedokra. I'd be glad if my article was draftified if I released an unsourced stub into Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

Point of view, one can assume good faith or complain. I assume good faith. And that the[REDACTED] 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Of course, I assume good faith on both sides and also after reading Misplaced Pages 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[REDACTED] 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)

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|Geld 14:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You could have assumed good faith and seen it as a sign on how efficient and constructive the Misplaced Pages process can deal with unsourced short stubs. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

  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|Geld 18:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  Let's be careful that the close summarizes consensus. I don't see consensus for a week. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  A week is too long. If it takes you a week to improve an article to the point that it belongs in the main space, then it should have been in the draft space to begin with. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  Agree this thread has made a mountain out of a molehill. Dr vulpes 20:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  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|Geld 21:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  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, Rosguill 21:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  @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)

  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. Padgriffin 03:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri (Advocate of the Holy Sepulchre)

I posted a new article Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri (Advocate of the Holy Sepulchre)‎ on Misplaced Pages 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)

Dr. Grampinator, I would have recommended asking Justlettersandnumbers. I see you have already asked at User talk:Justlettersandnumbers and they have responded there. TSventon (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I have received no notification of this discussion even though I am named. However, I have nothing to add.  Velella    21:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

It appears that Velella draftified 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)

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.  Velella    22:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted, it was moved to draft: Draft:Advocatus_Sancti_Sepulchri_(Advocate_of_the_Holy_Sepulchre). It does appear to have been draftified quicker than the NPP guidance calls for. It can be moved back to mainspace to replace the current redirect to Godfrey of Bouillon. I'm not one to know how to properly do that, though. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

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.

It seems to me that Velella and Justlettersandnumbers acted in haste with incomplete information, and refused to even consider an explanation. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

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 Misplaced Pages), 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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

For the record, as I understand it, the version Velella elected to draftify was this, and that doesn't in itself seem to have been anything but correct, even if the timing was unfortunate. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Except it was a few minutes after the first save. Secretlondon (talk) 11:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

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 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 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 Weller talk 10:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not clear to me, so I'll wait for Xuenkitze to explain the intent of their statement.—Bagumba (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

Agree with Ostalgia, not a legal threat but a possibly misguided statement about sovereignty under international law. CMD (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

So it appears this person is still editing profusely across several articles and seemingly has a fetish for the concept of "tribe". Their unsourced and unsupported edits most certainly fall under WP:RGW, and while I have no reason to assume bad faith, they're not useful, but quite the contrary, and given that they are are getting reverted left, right and centre, their persistence borders on vandalism. Perhaps a temporary block from articles related to the indigenous populatons of the Americas could force them to engage with fellow editors and understand the way to go about their business on Misplaced Pages? I wouldn't count on that, in all honesty, but I don't think their "misdeeds" justify taking stronger action at this point, nor do I believe they can be allowed to just edit articles to their liking. Ostalgia (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Libel

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)

The article mentioned is Joe Woods (American football) and I have replaced it with Defensive Coordinator. Is that his correct position? Thanks for pointing the vandalism out. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

There are bigger issues here. That vandalism was introduced here by Red boat96 (talk · contribs) with an obviously fake edit summary. The same editor also is trying to WP:OWN the same article . OrgoneBox (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The "worst defensive coordinator of all time" vandalism didn't originate with Red boat96, but with this edit by SlayerTank99 (talk · contribs). It persisted through the next several versions until being removed by Troymacgill here. Red boat96's subsequent edit restored it. I think Red boat96 was manually reverting to their previous version where the vandalism was present (compare their two edits here). I'm not sure why they were manually reverting since the disruption had been removed and the page protected at that point, but that's how it looks to me. Squeakachu (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Wefa and nothere

After two attempts at subtle POV pushing on Talk:Libs of TikTok 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, Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

I have left a DS notice for WP:ARBGSDS. Not looked into the comment much more than to see it was under the scope of that DS. Dreamy Jazz 14:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

This person hasn't disrupted anything, and they're arguing for NPOV, so I don't see any reason to ban them from anything. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

That is not an argument for NPOV. In fact, it's the opposite, a call to slant the article towards the conspiracy theory. — The Hand That Feeds You: 20:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages -- 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)

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)

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)

That was yesterday and they didn't leave, they were removed. Note User talk:Shibbolethink#you hid my talk page text on Libs of Tiktok where Wefa castigates @Shibbolethink: for removing their rant from the talk page. Also note they're now disrupting their own talk page, how is this not carving a path of disruption across the encyclopedia? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Treating them preferentially because they've invoked baseless conspiracy theories is a bad look, its effectively a get out of sanctions free card. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

They aren't commenting here but they don't seem all that worried about our enforcement action... From their talk page (emphasis added):

You are basically making my point. That article is constantly changed without consent, against the objections of a the conservative editors present, and no editor nor admin saw need to call out, let alone threaten, the editors doing that. AGF was immediately violated by other editors who called my position transphobic; "transphobic" itself is a left wing fighting term trying to pathologize dissent. There is no such phobia, conservatives simply recognize that there are men and women, and, if we ignore the extremely rare cases of biological nonbinaries, nothing else.

But as soon as I point out the discrepancy, as well as the fundamental problem with editing Misplaced Pages under such circumstances, several people jump at me, you with all your administrators might threaten me on my own talk page. Where was such threats/warnings for those who called all conservatives "transphobic"?

Yep. Thanks for making my point. Wefa (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Fringe editors who can't set aside their fringe beliefs have no business editing the encyclopedia because they are incapable of consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

If you're referring to this user's apparent belief that people with XY chromosomes are men and people with XX chromosomes are women, I don't think that can be called fringe for any standard definition of "fringe". Korny O'Near (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Generally wikipedia's definition of WP:FRINGE is things which aren't accepted by mainstream medicine, science, and/or academia. Such as the opinions you just elucidated. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Wew, you're just going for every checkbox on the "how do I get banned" bingo, aren't you? — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Overall, I agree with editors here that Wefa's conduct is disruptive and pretty clearly not here to build consensus. It amounts to the my way or the highway style of argument. But I also agree that the best way to deal with this editor is to stop giving them what they want. This user engages in long drawn out time-wasting culture war arguments. So why don't we all stop engaging? Either they will run out of steam, or they'll edit article space against consensus or in a disruptive manner, thereby justifying their own WP:NOTHERE block. If they, instead, decide to edit more productive and less vitriolic areas of the encyclopedia, it's a win for everybody. To summarize: WP:DFTT. Honestly I would apply this same logic to several other users in the space as well. If they bludgeon, edit against consensus, or otherwise break rules, then that should be dealt with appropriately. If all they’re doing is spouting out loud culture war arguments in support of their conspiracy theory, then collapse, delete, or ignore.— Shibbolethink 16:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

you would be wrong in your assumption. My note on that talk page was to explain why I would refrain from further editing the article, and was prompted by someone else's comment on the talk page asking for my input. Unfortunately someone had deleted my comment from the talk page near instantly, so the majority of editors there probably did not even see it. Wefa (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that the best course of action is to just let it go. I'm not seeing anything particularly actionable. I just see an editor who is tired of being contested, which is fairly understandable. When you get into the weeds of controversial or political topics on WP it's hard to internalize that we aren't here to preach the truth, we're here to aggregate information from public sources. I think just letting them storm off is best for everyone. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Wefa: It's best to just not make such editorializing comments on talk pages. Just state your opinion about the content dispute and move on. That's all you can do. If you continue to make such comments you will likely be topic banned rather soon. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 01:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• that is basically clear to me, too. I just underestimated how fast the Misplaced Pages landscape on that matter had changed. Only a few years ago there was a consensus that mutilating children was completely out of question and unacceptable for the Trans community, but on the progressive side of things that seems to have changed 180 degrees. I explained here - clearly I think - why in the context of Misplaced Pages, its rules, and the people currently interpreting and enforcing those rules, editing under such circumstances leads nowhere. I originally came there to make a suggestion to improve NPOV, but went down in flames quickly.

BTW - thanks for the ping - I had missed this debate here completely. Wefa (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it's unfair to claim that Wefa is NOTHERE. They've done good work on a wide range of articles through the years. That doesn't mean that they aren't about one poorly-worded comment from a long-term DS block, though. Stop comparing other people to Nazis, take a break, edit articles that aren't going to raise your (and everyone else's) blood pressure, and keep being a valued member of the community. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

"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."

That is one of many such comments, and though you do not say it explicitly, I would caution against seeing this as weighing their other "good work" to this disruption. The net positive fallacy is pervasive, and is unhelpful.

The comment, and others, aren't even an attempt to discuss what's supported by reliable sources, it's pure culture war soapboxing. It should be considered in the context of the harm caused, not in the context of their other work.

It's one thing to disagree on how we include reliable sources, it's another for Wefa to compare people to Nazis when they disagree with him. Accusing other editors of being part of "the left's propaganda arm" when consensus is against them, is also not constructive, nor are the many other implicit and explicit accusations of bad faith.

The trend here, i.e. Wefa's insistence that people either agree with him or are acting in bad faith, is not indicative of intent to contribute constructively to Misplaced Pages. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 17:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I don't weigh the other good work against the disruption. I just say that the other good work tends to invalidate the NOTHERE accusation. You can be HERE and disruptive at the same time. Wefa has been very thoroughly warned of the community expectations at this point: it's their choice if they're going to listen or if they need to be separated from the community for a time for the good of the encyclopedia. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Thats fair but someone can also be NOTHERE and have made productive contributions to the project. This isn't exactly new behavior though, two years ago they were at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard with a very similar rant about "The current debate climate is not conductive for a solution. For the time being we have to live with Misplaced Pages's erosion of NPOV, and see it slowly become Leftopedia on political matters. And that includes the constant low key disparaging of conservatives in their respective BLPs." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

2018 at Talk:Rape in Islamic law "the article goes to great lengths to 'not' spell out what Islamic Law thinks about the rape of slaves, even though we can guess it from peripheral parts. This is unencyclopedic". From what I'm seeing in their edit history the vast majority of their edits are not constructive at least from 2018 to the present. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support WP:NOTFORUM/WP:NOTSOAPBOX warning. Levivich (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
• Considering the message posted by Horse Eye's Back, and their decision to continue that kind of narrative here, a topic ban from gender and sexuality seems more appropriate. Isabelle 20:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. I’m in support of a topic ban from gensex with a warning for wider soapbox issues. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 21:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• We have lots of editors in the GENSEX topic area, of all manner of POVs, who are good at separating strong private feelings from their encyclopedia editing. This does not strike me as such an editor, and an indef GENSEX TBAN under DS seems reasonable. I've been minimally involved (viz. I made two "gain consensus first" reverts) in a dispute over whether puberty blockers are chemical castration, so probably shouldn't be the one to impose that sanction, if only to avoid an appearance of impropriety; but if another admin wishes to do so, I think that would be in keeping with recent "jurisprudence" in the GENSEX area . -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 22:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Erythros_Leykos

Hello! Isn't this offence worthy of a warning by an admin? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Warned them (you are also welcome to leave user warnings) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 19:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

https://www.90min.com/posts/6089821-greek-giants-olympiacos-readying-summer-move-for-liverpool-outcast-lazar-markovic

https://obaatanparadioonline.com/james-rodriguez-joins-greek-giants-olympiacos-on-a-season-long-loan/

https://fcbayern.com/en/news/2015/09/profile-group-stage-opponents-olympiacos

https://www.ftbl.com.au/news/greek-giants-olympiacos-to-play-victory-294432

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/greek-giants-olympiakos-bore-gifts-1691806

https://soccer.nbcsports.com/2018/09/02/yaya-toure-returns-to-greek-giants-olympiakos/

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/barnsley-chronicle-9ZZ3/20220715/282578791763357

READ AND LEARN

your warning is nothing, you dont know nothing. have a nice day Erythros Leykos (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Pblocked indef by Cullen328 from James Rodríguez. dudhhr _contribs (he/they) 20:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

  παοκ? yeah, its a girlfriend name Erythros Leykos (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

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/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/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/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

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• 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)

  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)

  You were advised that your editing actions were inappropriate. This is the logical consequence of your WP:IDHT response. Jclemens (talk) 03:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  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 "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)

  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)

  You know what? Fine. I'll revert the pages, and keep my version as an overview article as Gerda suggested (repertoire and lists are different). I don't care enough about this particular article anymore. And besides, the RfC I started looks like most of them will end up being deleted or trimmed anyway. If there's issues about my conduct, I admit there are some ways I wish I could have done better. (But in my opinion, it's better to be BOLD and apologize later). However, the fact that no one has discussed my actual changes in a policy based-sense is frustrating. That's why I have continuously doubled down. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  Your RfC is not neutrally worded and hence invalid; I'm disappointed that no one else seems to have notified you of this sooner. It will have to be closed and restarted neutrally if you want it to be considered normative. Jclemens (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  I mean, I asked in an edit summary if was neutral enough, and no one seemed to have an issue with it. If you have an idea of how to neutrally word it, then go ahead. But it also seems unnecessarily bureaucratic. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that your preamble to that discussion is far from neutral. Why not just ask the question, without pre-empting it by laying out your experience with this topic? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  In the future, I'll be more careful to neutrally word the RfC, but at this point, it really does not matter. I doubt anyone's opinions in the discussion were swayed by my comments, and to start it over seems pointless. Requests for comment should be about discussion and gauging consensus. Not continuously pointing out technicalities that have no affect on the former. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  The fact that you think it doesn't matter... doesn't matter. The RfC is invalid, and if you want to get a valid one, you have to start over and follow the directions you should have followed in the first place. If you try to take action based on an invalid RfC's supposed consensus, you'll be reverted, and if you edit war over it, you're likely to be blocked. Mind you, this is not a threat (I don't edit in the topic, and haven't been an admin for almost a decade) just a prediction of what will happen if you don't take the time and understand how consensus works. I encourage you to reconsider your trajectory here, because you're straying into WP:IDHT and WP:DE territory, and I would much rather see you participate appropriately than be sanctioned for not getting it. Jclemens (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think there's anything written that says if an RfC doesn't have a neutrally worded statement, then all of the discussion is thrown out automatically. Nothing I did precluded a chance for consensus to form. And at this point, restarting a week-long RfC because the preamble to a statement was not neutral serves nobody but people obsessed with "the rules" (and other editors agree). I will, of course, work to make any RfC I start neutral in the future, but I have to ask why you care so much about this one in a discussion you still have refused to actually participate in? Why? I Ask (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  This discussion has been open for a couple of days, and NOT ONE user has seen fit to weigh in and support your perspective, while the original requestor, myself, and three others have politely told you that you're wrong. If you want to blame someone for a week's worth of work being thrown out, that would be you, who failed to read the rules and use a neutral opening statement. While many people would undoubtedly contribute the exact same thing to a new RfC, there's simply no way for you to rehabilitate one that's inherently flawed--this is not a new thing, it's happened plenty of times before, and is probably the most common problem I've seen with RfCs.

  I haven't "refused to actually participate in" anything. I don't care that much about classical music, have no strong opinion on the topic, and so my participation is unneeded and irrelevant; your WP:FAIT behavior while a DRV was ongoing brought your user conduct to my attention, and I happened to note that it made its way here. This is forum to discuss user conduct issues, including yours. Again, I'm happy this discussion is focused on educating you that the way you're going about trying to impose your will on Misplaced Pages isn't how we do things around here, rather than undoing any disruptive editing. Your end goal might indeed be the best overall for Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic coverage of classical music... but your attempts to bludgeon the system to achieve that result are not compatible with collegial editing. Jclemens (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  And I reverted my edits, did I not? However, I only initially did my edits to begin with because there was weak consensus to trim the pages down. I'm also not a fan of your accusation of WP:FAIT. It was not difficult to reverse at all nor did I justify my edits based on the fact of the supposed difficulty. I justified based on the fact that there were editors calling for it to be trimmed (and I can quote them or ask them if needed).

  However, for you to complain about my RfC (as opposed to me not reverting the viola page) is an entirely different matter and belongs either on my talk page or at the actual RfC. But I fail to see your logic. If everyone would just undoubtedly contribute the exact same things to the RfC, then what the heck is the point of starting a new one? Policies and guidelines are great... However needlessly pointing to one and saying "see!" when they ignore the principle of consensus building is not. I could have had my preamble to the statement directly below it, people would see the exact same thing, and it would have been peachy keen. But only because it's placed above the question and listed options does it now invalidate a couple weeks worth of discussion. Also, your last point: your end goal might be the best overall for Misplaced Pages.... Have you learned nothing from WP:IAR. I feel like if you say something along those lines, then I'm forced to cite that pillar. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Problematic new editor

It seems Nitin Malik Nitinmlk is created to troll me and to disrupt this project. I have cleaned up a lot of WP:BLP violations and other disruptive edits of a highly disruptive Koli sock master (Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala) on 18 September. And Nitin Malik Nitinmlk was created merely a few hours later on 19 September. So a CheckUser would be helpful here. Note that, along with general disruption, this user is blanking well-sourced content with misleading summaries, i.e. see here, here, here, etc. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Nitin Malik Nitinmlk indefinitely blocked by Bbb23 for impersonation. May still be worth a look by a CU. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Edits are a mixed bag of good, 'meh', and terrible. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to Bbb23 for acting so quickly. BTW, from the editing pattern, the timing of account creation, and even one of their peculiar habits, the impersonator seems like a sock of Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala. As there is an anon suspect as well, I emailed the SPI to GeneralNotability so that WP:OUTING can be avoided. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I was reverting some of their edits, as they were causing categories to empty out and be tagged for CSD C1 deletion, and noticed that blocked editor User:Tushir Jat made some similar edits. Both accounts are blocked now but I think it might be worth a CU check for sockpuppets interested in editing articles about Jat people.

Think there might be a connection to this SPI case? Liz 21:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Nitin Malik Nitinmlk (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is  Confirmed to the Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala group. Did not check Tushir Jat, they appear to have a different POV from the Jhala group. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to Bbb23, Liz, GeneralNotability, & Mako001. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Legal threat?

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

Is this edit summary considered a legal threat? "Opened ticket with FTC and FCC" Adakiko (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

Thanks. Does the FTC & FCC even look into stuff like that? If so I'd think many "news" sources would be shut down. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 05:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

As I have stated on my talk page in response to this particular set of “users”, I shared my contributions to Misplaced Pages directly with their brass including the CEO and the CTO. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages’s direct assistance. Please keep in mind that, as an online community in accordance with Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages", your claims that you were blocked but that the block has been removed "in part to Misplaced Pages's direct assistance", your claim that the CEO and CTO of Misplaced Pages 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)

I am certain that this post violates Misplaced Pages policy cited in WikiBullying. Jasonwalkertyler (talk) 09:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Jasonwalkertyler, I note that you haven't responded to the Conflict of Interest question on their talk page apart from calling the question "spamming" (). 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

No COI. Jasonwalkertyler (talk) 10:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

pBlocked from Samara Weaving — fairly sure there's a COI here, that odd FCC reference was designed to have a chilling effect and their edits to that article have been disruptive. Happy to review and remove the block once they've proven able to constructively make edit requests — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

@Jasonwalkertyler: What previous block are you referring to? Link or diff, please. Adakiko (talk) 09:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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? — Czello 09:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe Misplaced Pages may have erased the block for the reasons I just explained. However, it did occur and have posted in response to User:TheresNoTime. Jasonwalkertyler (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

I responded to the block put in place by User:TheresNoTime incited by this thread that is becoming flamed. Jasonwalkertyler (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

No I do not have any interest here and my attempt to refute trolls, bots, spammers, etc. is being met with hostility in violation to the WikiBullying policy. Jasonwalkertyler (talk) 10:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages via an IP address rather than an account is allowed under policy. Gusfriend (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I am writing to you from an account. This thread is being flamed and not resolved. Jasonwalkertyler (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

WP: AGF Jasonwalkertyler (talk) 12:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I am. Are you? —Kusma (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages’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)

Are you tellinge me they haven't been in contact with Misplaced Pages's CEO? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Not just the CEO, also the CTO, as said in this thread: "I shared my contributions to Misplaced Pages 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)

At this point a WP:CIR block might be in order. Padgriffin 11:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Yep. In fact it is hard to see this ending in any way besides Jasonwalkertyler being indeffed. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:DENY Jasonwalkertyler (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

WikiBullying Jasonwalkertyler (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

WikiBullying. Repeat offender. Jasonwalkertyler (talk) 11:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

|_ flame Jasonwalkertyler (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

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 ] (]) 10:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)}}. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC) Jasonwalkertyler (talk) 10:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages, so claiming "I contacted 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)

WikiBullying. WP: DE Jasonwalkertyler (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

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.

Also, their responses to comments here would suggest that they don't intend to either participate constructively, or address the concerns raised Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

You're quite right — increased to a sitewide block — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 12:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Beat me to it. —Kusma (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive IP at film articles

This IP user has been making repeated unsourced changes to the box office gross of the film Thor: Love and Thunder despite them being informed: , , , , , , .

They've also repeated the same behaviour at 2022 in film: , , , , .

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).

They clearly won't desist. User: General Ization has informed them thrice on User talk:203.81.241.235 and I informed them once on User talk:202.142.121.230. I was going to request a protection but they've been doing this at multiple pages like The Amazing Spider-Man (film) and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 per General Ization. There are probably other articles they've made disruptive edits to. Please take action after an investigation. An IP ban might be in order at this point. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• WP:rangeblock /22 for one week. Any admin should feel free to unblock or modify block at their discretion.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven is being insulting and rude.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:76.142.93.168 Slatersteven is being insulting, condescending and rude and acting like a bully. I need assistance. I went to report it to Help Desk but Slatersteven then insultingly followed me and said "The correct place to report a user is wp:ani, I would advise against it." So fine it has been reported here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.142.93.168 (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

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... Sergecross73 msg me 14:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

"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)

Asking new editors to familiarize themselves with the rules is not frowned upon. This is nowhere near actionable. If that's all that's here, this will be closed up pretty quickly. Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain they are concerned with the latter clause. Strictly speaking its wording or even inclusion was pretty unnecessary, and a tad bit inflammatory. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe you are finding yourself in a rough start to Misplaced Pages. I understand you are frustrated that your contributions are being removed, but I hope you can come to understand that Misplaced Pages follows a quite stringent set of guidelines and policy, and a large quantity of them at that. I think it would be helpful if you created an account, as it seems you operate from a dynamic IP, and from there you might find some help to learn the ins and outs of wikipedia. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

I did tell you not to do this. Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

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)." ]. Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Links their first comment ], this was reverted ]as a PA, they then posted this ] followed by ] I then reverted as a PA ] they then reinstated ] and added this ]. They also removed my edit war warning with this ]. Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

This is the latest in a line of IPs that have been recently been trolling at Talk:QAnon. I recommend a short semi protection for that talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages'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)

You simply added one YouTube video and claimed based on it that it represents a risk about not informing the public about QAnon being involved in violence because it's not in the first sentence. Every report about QAnon isn't always supposed to be about violence. And if someone can't read past the first sentence it's their own fault. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I will add the OP did not issue me with the ANI warning, I found out about this as I was following what they were doing due to this ]. Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

You are supposed to inform someone you complain. That's a requirement listed at the very top on this page. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Fine the. The notice has been put even though Slatersteven was the one who linked here. Any other giant hoops that new people have to jump through while they are trying to report a bully? 76.142.93.168 (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and note the edit summery ]. Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

 Note: This is a clear personal attack (by the OP). M.Bitton (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

No just a statement. Slatersteven is trying to bully me into angry responses. 76.142.93.168 (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh a friend on FB just linked me to this when I asked why[REDACTED] people act this way. Now I know what you're doing Slatersteven. I'm new so you see me as vulnerable and easy to mistreat. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers 76.142.93.168 (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Being "new" doesn't explain or justify your behaviour, nor explain why my question (below) has been ignored. M.Bitton (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I was not bothering with your question below because I already answered it above. Slatersteven deleted my post explaining why Misplaced Pages's first line in the article is inadequate since it is being used to put up text as warning labels on sites like Youtube. Then Slatersteven posted himself trying to claim the suggestion while deleting my reasoning. Then he posted "you might then be able to figure out why the post was deleted" a condescending and insulting comment in his very first PM to me. 76.142.93.168 (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

If that's all you have (i.e. much ado about nothing), then my guess is that this report will be closed with no action. M.Bitton (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

It might help you to remember that this isn't a casual forum like you might find elsewhere online. WP tends to hold most editors to some level of decorum. Most editors try to maintain a somewhat professional demeanor, meaning (essentially) no name calling, excessive swearing, or accusations (what WP calls casting aspersions). This kind of attitude is very much looked down on and for good reason. If you really want to positively contribute to WP it might be best for you to take a deep breath, step away for a few minutes, and come back picturing other editors as less like people at a bar and more like office workers. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3A76.142.93.168&type=revision&diff=1111348631&oldid=1111348449 Slatersteven was the one who PM'ed me the link here. As well as posted it to the Help Desk page. 76.142.93.168 (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven to me at least has been explicit about what you're doing wrong and that you won't succeed at what you're doing with such a behaviour. You're making it worse by doing the same things you're accusing him of. There's no justification for leaving behind dismissive statements like "here's your notice". Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

YOU were the one who demanded I put it up even though Slatersteven posted the link here. I'm going to assume you're just playing games with me because I'm new, setting it up as a trap where there's literally nothing I can do that's the "right" thing. It's a bullying tactic, and the only thing I can do now is walk away. So I've deleted my PM page and my comment on the Qanon page. You BULLIES win, I give up. 76.142.93.168 (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to leave dismissive comments at his page. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• I don't see what you're referring to. Could you please provide diffs to substantiate your claims? M.Bitton (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Any reason this IP isn't blocked yet? They are defending a "different" IP whose rambling and utterly ridiculous edit requests were rightly denied, who then with a different (now blocked) IP started attacking the editors keeping such nonsense out of Misplaced Pages ("Wikipedifascist qanon sympathizers cover up yet again"), calling MrOllie a "rv qanon sympathizing nazi", and then this IP comes along, with "some of their language was over the top, but they made some good points that should have been treated with respect rather than the treatment they got." Wasting time, abusing editors, and acting as if any respect should be given to people calling you a nazi? We shouldn't keep their company any longer and show our support for Mr Ollie and Slatersteven in this situation instead of letting this drag on any longer. Fram (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

And this ]. Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

If anyone is bullying it is the IP. That is now clear. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

And wp:ownership issues ]. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for 72 hours for harassment and semi-protected Talk:QAnon for 72 hours. Cullen328 (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Carpaniola and WP:NPA and WP:AGGRESSIVE

I'd like to voice my concern on Carpaniola (talk · contribs) beheviour, particularly reply (breaking WP:NPA in my opinion) and in edit (one of the instances breaking WP:AGGRESSION in my opinion). I would like an admin's opinion on this, and if needed the suitable sanction to be imposed. Best regards. Kluche (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Kluche, anybody who makes an accusation of sockpuppetry is expected to present solid evidence at the correct noticeboard, which is WP:SPI. This applies to you as well as the other editor. I will give you the same advice that I am giving the other editor: Do not conduct yourself like a nationalist POV pusher. This topic area is subject to discretionary sanctions, which you have already been informed of on 15 August 2022. You need to comply, in spirit as well as in the letter, with WP:MOSMAC and the Prespa agreement which underlies it. Quibbling about adjectival or noun formulations is inappropriate wikilawyering. Just recast the sentence to comply with the guideline. You need to edit in accordance with the neutral point of view which is a core content policy, and if you choose to conduct yourself as a non-neutral editor regarding Macedonia and North Macedonia broadly construed, your ability to edit in that topic area will be restricted. Everything that I have written here applies to Carpaniola as well. Cullen328 (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328 I do admit that is an oversight on my behalf, ableit I'm not accusing them of sockpuppetry here. I have also been suspected of sockpupeptry, without any report or evidence (to my knowledge) provided. You can freely check that on my talk page. I have no intent of being a nationalist POV-pusher. Even per WP:MOSMAC, and backed by a couple of editors - the adjectival form which can be used is 'Macedonian' (context is provided with the title and there is no issue with ambiguity). Even in MOSMAC, it says that the Prespa Agreement preffers 'Macedonian'. It's not broad construsion, nor a violation of NPOV. MOSMAC deals with the name of the country and the adjectival form seperatly. Anyhow, this is completly off from what I voiced by concern about - did Carpaniola (talk · contribs) break WP:NPA and WP:AGGRESSIVE? And if so, will they be suitably sanctioned? Kluche (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Kluche, are you willing to recast the sentence to remove the adjectival form and include the consensus formulation "North Macedonia" as described in the guideline, or will you continue to oppose it? You are asking for sanctions against an editor for personal attacks and aggressive editing, while it looks to me like you are engaging in personal attacks and aggressive editing yourself. Should I sanction you as well? Let me offer you another option. Correct your own behavior before asking for sanctions against your nationalistic opponents. This kind of behavior is precisely why discretionary sanctions exist in this topic area. You must be cautious. Cullen328 (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328 I think that it should be waited for a few more days in order to have more time for people to voice their opinion on this matter. If the consensus stays the same (albeit an argument can be made that the consensus is not so clear cut), I'll be willing to change the formulation of the sentence and I'll continue to modernize the article. I'd like to be pointed towards the personal attacks I have commited towards another editor in the talk/this discussion, since I sincerly fail to see them (again, I have no intention of being aggressive lr insultive). Best regards. Kluche (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Kluche, you wrote Carponiola, stop with the blatant false information and slander and then you wrote Your tone also borders passive-aggression and then you wrote I'm also worried that a 2 year-old account, with around 20 edits (even less prior to this whole ordeal) is a sockpuppet. Those are not the words of a blameless, neutral, collaborative editor but rather looks like me to be from someone who shows a lot of signs of pushing a nationalistic POV. You never filed a report at WP:SPI, did you? You just made unsubstantiated accusations that are simply not acceptable. Those are the kind of words that stoke nationalistic divisions. Can't you see this obvious reality? Cullen328 (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328 The first one I wrote on a basless accusation that I wanted to remove everything with 'North' infront of North Macedonia. I have never disputed the country name. The second one is a warning that I would report them if they continue with (in my opinion) passive aggression. The third one I admit - is made more from concern rather than anything else, which I do take resposibility for my wrondoing. That doesn't change the fact that I think that the points I've made on WP:NPA and WP:AGGRESSION stand. Kluche (talk) 07:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Kluche you are in a page with a lot of experienced editors and you falsify WP:MOSMAC and the Prespa Agreement, like you do with the rest of editors. Instead of doing that, I would recommend you to read the Prespa Agreement which says that it applies only to official context. The Prespa Agreement does not recommend Macedonian, it only says that Macedonian may be used without saying North Macedonian cannot be used. Article 7 of the Prespa Agreement says that nothing changes for unofficial context, people can still call the country Macedonia etc, and common sense explains that, how could an agreement tell us what to do? In the disputed sentence of Gun law in North Macedonia, "North Macedonian law" is not an official organ and therefore the "Prespa Agreement" doesn't recommend any of "Macedonian law" or "North Macedonian law". For wikipedia, the names used in articles are a decision of its editors and reflected in WP:MOSMAC, and I recommend you to read WP:MOSMAC before you make your next edit. You keep saying Macedonian can be used, and nobody says it cannot, but MOSMAC suggests North Macedonian especially on first introducing the topic. You tend to interpret every sentence you own unique way. Carpaniola (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Carpaniola Again, me stating that per MOSMAC, the Prespa Agreement says that 'North Macedonian' should be generally avoided is not a falsification. I have said countless times - the topic is introduced by the title, something which has the backing of a couple of editors. Kluche (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but the claim is the title is enough is so silly that it doesn't even have really been considered in the guidance. Do you really need us to update the guidance to address such a ridiculous suggestion? Can you not just take it from Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section which is clear that "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." and does not suggest in any shape or form that the lead does not need to repeat content already in the title. Or to put it a different way, are you really claiming when we say the lead should stand on its own, what we actually mean is it should stand along with the title and both are needed to understand the lead? Nil Einne (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Nil Einne I agree with your points. I would also like for the original subject matter of this talk to be answered - has or hasn't Carpaniola broken WP:NPA and WP:AGGRESSIVE, and if yes, will the needed sanctions be enforced by the administrators? Kluche (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

All I'm going to say here is that it seems the adjective form is being deliberately used, as there is some leeway in MOSMAC when doing so. However in this case even that is false, as the first use should be North Macedonian. MOSMAC is quite clear on that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

ActivelyDisintrested, MOSMAC stipulates that official institutions should be reffered to as "North Macedonian" and all other cases, in the absence of a consensus, the fuller form should be used. In this case consensus has not been fully established in my opinion, while context is not given by the title. Kluche (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

As I said at the article talk page, discussions around how MOSMAC should be interpreted are probably best held at a more central location than an article talk page. Either way it's not appropriate for ANI. That's my fault I should have left that part out of my reply.

Separately I believe the addition space between date and month in you signature is blocking the reply function from working. Could you fix that? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I do agree that it is not a subject appropriate for ANI. About the signiture - I think I fixed it. Kluche (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I have started a discussion about which adjective form should be used in the first sentence of an article at the MOSMAC talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I have started an SPI for this user and five likely sockpuppets. Please see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Pratishthana where the user has already admitted abuse. Thanks. --Local hero 13:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Two IP ranges from Monterrey, Mexico, evading partial blocks

• 2806:109F:16:0:0:0:0:0/48 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2806:109F:13:0:0:0:0:0/48 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

The range Special:Contributions/2806:109F:13:B9D:0:0:0:0/64 was given a partial block from the article Ensemble cast for one week. The person behind the disruption couldn't wait a week, and started using a couple of other ranges, restoring the disputed material.

This person has a long history of WP:NOR violations, especially related to Saturday Night Live, its players and its various seasons. For instance, they added conjecture about the streaming schedule two days ago, and edit-warred to restore this conjecture. They commonly violate WP:SYNTH by pulling together disparate facts including future facts. This person adds false material such as Robert DeNiro appearing as a lounge pianist; the media described the skit but did not mention DeNiro. Another frequent target is the Entertainment One article which they plastered with unsupported film projects. They add many other kinds of false information, for instance listing an uninvolved country at a film article.

To me, it looks like we should give up on partial blocks for this person and instead set up rangeblocks. We are long past good-faith editing. Binksternet (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I blocked the two /48 ranges above for a month. The /64 has not edited for a few days so I'll leave that. Let me know if it restarts. Next time, as well as the good outline presented above, please show at least two attempts to communicate with the person behind the IP. Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'll work on my communication skills. Thanks for the rangeblocks. Binksternet (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Unresolved ANI case

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

This case is still very unresolved, and is a obvious case of a user violating multiple guidelines. Can someone please take a look at it? . You might also want to see this recent thread --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

User Iampharzad continued the edit war and removed reliable sources from the article Hazaras. His explanation: "your edits are a racial bias", "your contents and resources are not correct". I guess that allegations of racism and deleting sources that meet the requirements of WP:RS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP without a corresponding discussion in WP:RS/N is unacceptable.--KoizumiBS (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: You are more familiar than I . Recommendations? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

This is the reason. It is by no means clear that the Hazaras spoke Mongolian until the 19th century. Either Turkic or non-Persian. About the Hazaras, said In this reliable source, which is based on genetic research, it is very clearly said that the Hazaras are close to the people of Central Asia and are more related to the Turkic peoples than to the Mongols and the people of East Asia.--Iampharzad (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Iampharzad: What about the other sources that have been presented that stated that they did speak Mongolian? You deleted either one or two reliable sources published after the date of the source you cite. Your actions could easily be interpreted as cherry-picking to favour a particular point of view. —C.Fred (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Respected @C.Fred: Most of those sources are from the books of old authors, contemporary historians do not agree with them very much. For example, this genetic research taken from Hazara people is the best evidence to reject them. Thanks--Iampharzad (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Iampharzad: You'll need to demonstrate that the newer sources are solely relying on old data, and the way to do that is through dialogue (and providing additional sources to support your claim, as necessary) at the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Further, this talk page message and others raise substantial doubt on whether Iampharzad is editing in good faith. Since Afghanistan is involved, this is, broadly construed, an area subject to discretionary sanctions. —C.Fred (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: What about this editing in good faith--Iampharzad (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Iampharzad: I don't see anything bad faith there, especially since it's just repeating what you said at the article talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

So this is nothing strange or bad. This is not bad behavior at all. Thanks--Iampharzad (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Iampharzad: No. That's what you said at the article talk (which I already said raised red flags) and the same text you put on his user talk page. I am saying HistoryofIran was entirely in order to remove that from their talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Skimming through, I see a content dispute. Considering the persistence of the problem, and what looks like bludgeoning and incivility on the part of Iampharzad, Ima WP:partial block from Hazaras. I see CFred is engaged in discussion, so I will wait a bit. This will be a regular admin action appealable w/o the Sturm und Drang of formal sanctions. Any other admin may do as they feel fit. Life's too short for all this fussing and fighting. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Per the exchange above, Iampharzad is on a trajectory for a sanction of some flavour, whether it's a partial block, site block, or topic ban. —C.Fred (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Start with least restrictive and work our way up. Take a minute to fill out the paperwork -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. partial block Hazaras. regular admin action -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra:/anyone else: Iampharzad has thrice attempted to get HistoryofIran to proxy edit for them at Hazaras (diffs: 1, 2, 3), despite being told not to post at HOI's page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

...and now the forth attempt . This is really bizarre. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Make that five . In the edit summary of t he diff, he is literally asking why I am deleting his comments. WP:CIR anyone? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

And now they've breached 3RR with their 5th such edit. Has this ever happened before? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The comment must be answered on Talk page, but it was deleted several times.--Iampharzad (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I left a comment on the user page to write a solution to the problem somehow, but they delete my comment.--Iampharzad (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Can you explain why you are removing my comment from your Talk page. or --Iampharzad (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Was "don't write in my talk page" and the multiple reverts by various users not explanation enough? You are literally trying to harrass me into answering you, if not doing your bid. You have now attempted to add the message a whooping 9(!) times in my talk page. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Indef block Iampharzad. Edit warring on HistoryofIran's talk page, trying to evade a block, WP:CIR. Looks pretty clear to me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

You see, I left a message, but disrespectfully deleted my comment without a reply. Please see --Iampharzad (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• I've extended the block site wide due to continued disruption.-- Jezebel's Ponyo 22:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Iampharzad: Users are allowed to remove talk page messages. This looks like harassment to me. Looks like you are WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE with editing Misplaced Pages. Welp, I guess this is the result of me 1) not taking heed and 2) going least restrictive. Thanks, ponyo for cleaning up my mess. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Cleveland IPs adding false music sales and certifications

• 2603:6010:7706:1A00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone in Cleveland has been using the IP range Special:Contributions/2603:6010:7706:1A00:0:0:0:0/64 to inflate the sales and chart successes of music articles. For instance, a Gold album was inflated to Platinum, and unverifiable sales figures are frequently added.

The person was given two Level 4 warnings a few days ago at User talk:2603:6010:7706:1A00:CC05:2F3B:1FB2:5649 but picked up again today at The Sound of Revenge. I think the /64 needs to be blocked. Binksternet (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• This is also block evasion; I've reblocked the /64 for 1 year.-- Jezebel's Ponyo 15:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Embocomm

Embocomm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a WP:role account which as been used for over 14 years by staff of the European Molecular Biology Organization. The account's 158 mainspace edits have all been to articles where there is a WP:COI: Fiona Watt, European Molecular Biology Organization, EMBO Gold Medal, The EMBO Journal, Life Science Alliance, EMBO Reports.

On 1 February 2020‎ @Randykitty posted a COI warning on User talk:Embocomm. That did trigger some updates to the page User:Embocomm, adding a further item to the COI declarations, but it did not halt the COI edits: since that date, User:Embocomm has made 58 edits just to the article about itself European Molecular Biology Organization, plus other edits to conflicted pages.

I became aware of this today, when @Embocomm posted on my talk page, at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Wikipedia_entry_on_Fiona_Watt. That discussion was not encouraging, which is why I escalate this to ANI.

As I noted on my talk page, continuing to push the line like this after so many years is the sort of conduct which I associate with dodgy startup companies engaged in marketing, not an international scientific association. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

PS I have added COI tags to several articles edited by this account: Fiona Watt, The EMBO Journal, Life Science Alliance and European Molecular Biology Organization. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you object to the substance of any of their edits? --100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

They have made many edits, this one for example ] is primary sourced promotion. Theroadislong (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Changing "travel grants" to "lecture, travel and childcare grants" does not strike me as particularly promotional. The very heavy reliance on primary sources is a problem for WP:DUE (and perhaps notability), though -- I've nuked the section. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion on BHG's talkpage reflects well on the user, FWIW. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how editing in breach of COI policy for 14 years is in any way at all a good reflection on any user, let alone someone employed by an organisation of scholars. I would expect that any such employee should have been more than capable of reading and understanding COI policy.

So I'd say that this reflects badly on them and on their employer. But other editors apply lower standards. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Noting for the record they have been reported to WP:UAA by Theroadislong. — 3PPYB6 — 14:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  I have softblocked this role account. Cullen328 (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Jacobolus

User:Jacobolus and I have a disagreement on the page tangent half-angle substitution. I had edited this page before, but recently went back to make some changes. In particular, I sought to remove original research and some accusatory or non-neutral phrasing. Jacobolus reverted me, so following the guidelines for WP:BRD, I tried to limit my proposal to just the removal of what could count as WP:OR in this edit. All the extra books he listed are still there in the "Further reading" section. He reverted me with a rather aggressive comment. I have tried to have a civil discussion with him on the talk page. Unfortunately, it has not been easy thanks to this aggressive attitude.

I would appreciate it if a neutral third-party were to give this dispute a look. Thank you! Nerd271 (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

This kind of escalation is in clear bad faith, an attempt at a “win by superior bureaucracy” because you (Nerd271) have no interest in arguing the merits of your case. This discussion has only been at the page in question for a trivially short time, no other editors have even had a chance to see it, and Administrators have no context or special interest/expertise in this topic. You should instead ping Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mathematics where other editors with interest and past participation in this topic are likely to see. –jacobolus (t) 19:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Having seen this from the article page, this seems to be primarily a content issue, although surprisingly heated. Dispute resolution should happen on Talk:Tangent_half-angle_substitution, and bringing it here is a needless escalation. WP:3O or eventually WP:DRN may be helpful. Ovinus (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

jacobolus has opened a discussion at WP:MATH; I think it would be good if both parties disengaged until other editors had a chance to weigh in. (Surely this is not an urgent question.) --JBL (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Possible LTA user

The Number Line (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Doesn't appear to be a new user, see their first edit and please block them. Nythar 22:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Definitely has the whiff of an LTA, but more immediately actionable is the fact that they're evading a block placed earlier today.-- Jezebel's Ponyo 22:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

My heroes have always been cowboys -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

User:D Pastor2014

D Pastor2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user, registered in 2015, exclusively edits the Darin Pastor article, but has denied being the article subject in an edit summary. That in of itself is clearly problematic, per the Misplaced Pages:Username policy. Recently though, after appropriately sourced content was added to the Darin Pastor article concerning the subject's legal troubles, User:D Pastor2014 has taken to repeatedly removing said content without explanation. Something clearly needs to be done about this. I would suggest that at minimum, the user needs to be blocked from editing the article, and informed that they will either have to change their username, or give an honest answer regarding what appears to be a blatant conflict of interest, if they are to be permitted to edit Misplaced Pages at all. I generally have some sympathy for BLP subjects who find working within Misplaced Pages's strange ways difficult, but in the circumstances here, we clearly cannot continue with this charade indefinitely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this SPA as not here to build an encyclopedia. Also, disruptive editing, edit warring, repeated removal of well referenced content, a username violation, and conflict of interest editing. Cullen328 (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The indictment states that Pastor and Johnson maintained an online Misplaced Pages page for Pastor that misrepresented his net worth. Besides the D Pastor2014 account, there is at least one another SPA (Trigger449) involved in that page that claims his name is Darin Pastor, and that account has at least one edit () that appears to directly act as if it were D Pastor2014. If the indictment is correct, there should be at least one other account, associated with Johnson, that also has been editing that page. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Other than KCDPR, a long-dormant account that also belongs to D Pastor2014, I don't see any SPAs on that page. However, KCDPR, D Pastor2014, and Trigger449 among them dominated the editing of that page for many years. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Trigger449 has not edited in nearly seven years. Cullen328 (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a bit too concise in my comments. I'm not concerned about sock puppetry. What I am concerned about is that the press release by US DOJ makes it clear that they believe Misplaced Pages was an unwitting accomplice in the fraud. And the editing history shows clear COI editing from the very beginning until the news of the illegal activities broke. This is not a discussion for ANI, but, in my opinion, Misplaced Pages does an excellent job with highly trafficked pages, no matter how controversial they may be (e.g., COVID-19 related pages), but a poor job at less-trafficked pages. The current mechanisms for policing serious issues (such as biased editing, particularly associated with COI) do not work well for less-trafficked pages. There needs to be a serious look at what tools can help detect these issues (e.g., ability to screen for SPAs or screen for edits that have an unduly positive or negative tone). I'll stop here. As I said, this should be discussed in a better venue. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

95.141.17.30 abusing Talk Page

Hi Admins, the IP 95.141.17.30 has been abusing his/her/their talk page by posting legal threats after being blocked for the very same reason....and blanking the page every time editors reply. He/she/they claims that WMF is bound by UK law, and based on his rhetorics, I do think that his/her/their talk page privileges be revoked. InvadingInvader (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I would also additionally like to note that the user has used personal attacks against me; in Revision 1111630895, they asked me to remove what they thought of as libelous information and called me a "a holier than thou, basement dwelling, know it all". InvadingInvader (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Page blanked. TPA revoked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Disruption at Don't Worry Darling, looks like a single editor using multiple accounts

Playing good cop/bad cop by vandalizing, then reverting. Blocking all the socks may be more to the point than protecting the article. Someone who's WP:NOTHERE. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:D600 (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

All three users have been indeffed and the page protected by EdJohnston. dudhhr _contribs (he/they) 04:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

AFC/HD Bludgeoning

WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#09:47:55, 18 September 2022 review of draft by Concernsavant - We have an IPv6 who's veered from advocating for their article to mindlessly bludgeoning the conversation, making incoherent accusations of bias, repeatedly throwing up massive walls of sources and text (some of the text I strongly suspect is copyvio and all of the sources are rubbish so far as I can determine) and either refusing or being unable to acknowledge the criticism they're receiving. I'm looking for a 96-hour page-block from AfC/HD to get them to stop with their pattern of power-posting sources and incoherency for as long as the thread remains on the page. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 03:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Recommend the IP be escorted off of Misplaced Pages, entirely. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I blocked 2001:4455:164:700:0:0:0:0/64 for a week as their repetitive comments show an inability to hear what others are saying. Johnuniq (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Expedite this unblock request please

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

Unblock request at User talk:Jenkemhuffer could probably use expediting for drama reduction. Reasoning is pretty obvious from editor's contribs. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked. DanCherek (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Request to revert a couple images to earlier revision

Hi, not sure where else to request this. Can someone please revert two non-free images to an older/original revision that is now hidden? In this case, two files are uploaded by a problematic user. One photo was AI-upscaled and the other (source) was badly edited to remove background. Neither edit is useful unrealistically manipulating a historic photo. I don't think this is controversial, but I don't have the rights to do it myself. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 11:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems that a bot reduced the size of both images according to guidelines for non-free images. See the bot's talk page for more details. As for the one with a different background, the original versions are available at "source", lv:Attēls:IrbitisK.jpg, which you linked, if you wish to download from there, modify as needed, and re-upload here on en.wp. —Bagumba (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Yes, the bot reduced the images after the new uploads. I reuploaded File:Kārlis Irbītis.jpg (and the bot can reduce it again). But I don't have an obvious source for File:Mstislav Vsevolodovich Keldysh.jpg. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 12:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I reverted to the original version of File:Mstislav Vsevolodovich Keldysh.jpg. per your request. This is not an endorsement of that version, and any objections can be discussed at the talk page there. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Help on article Comparison of EDA software

I would appreciate if somebody could give a look to the article Comparison of EDA software. Every little advancement requires an overwelming amount of effort, patience and dead-end discussions (not to say bullying and offenses). The atmosphere scares off anyone who seriously wants to contribute. In fact, Misplaced Pages just lost yet another valuable contribuer. Thanks, Goitseu (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

It is a content dispute around the requirement for packages to have their own article. An edit notice requires that, Goitseu is fighting that. The Banner talk 11:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

To throw a serious allegation such as bullying and offenses requires evidence; evidence which is missing from your filing as is. Please provide them in the form of diffs. Otherwise, content disputes are not adjudicated on ANI in any manner; we are only concerned about any violation of policy or guideline here, and you have not presented any evidence to suggest this. Please also be warned that actions that you have engaged with can mean you are sanctioned, and filing this does not give you immunity. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Forget bullying and offenses: they are hard to catch without following the full discussion. Focus on overwelming amount of effort, patience and dead-end discussions by checking the talk sections here and here. Read in particular which behaviour of user:The Banner caused a valuable editor already to quit Misplaced Pages. I'm interested if you consider this all fine. Thanks, Goitseu (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that this IP was a valuable editor? I see no evidence of that. The Banner talk 13:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

From the arguments he brought here and here for example he is in my opinion very competent. He has also been very proactive, constructive and willing to contribute. Do you have a different impression? Goitseu (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Ow, and I suggested that he should start an RfC when he wants the edit notices removed. It is not so good that he is turning a content dispute into something personal, as Goitseu is doing now. The Banner talk 15:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Legal threat by 212.73.35.230

by 212.73.35.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made on talk:Kundalini yoga left here on article talk page This article is directly related to current investigations into allegations of violating US law. Adakiko (talk) 11:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but that doesn't read like a legal threat, rather a reason the article state is important to that editor. That said the edit appears rather non-sensical and also not really the 'pedias problem. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 11:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Also to note I have reverted to the version the IP dislikes. I'm not interested in any sort of battle but changes like 'Kundalini energy is technically explained as being sparked during yogic breathing' scream out WP:FRINGE and probably need a firm consensus to add, which is currently lacking. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 11:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I took that statement as a threat. 11:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The IP was blocked with a reason of disruptive editing so this is really academic at this point, but This article is directly related to current investigations into allegations of violating US law. Anything that is not presented neutrally and/or objectively here may encourage other people to make further claims that are not neutral and objective is not any sort of threat. Rather it reads (at least to me) that negative coverage is going to result in more legal headaches for the user/the org so they would much rather it be whitewashed. 'I will sue you' vs 'More people are going to sue me/go to the cops'. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 11:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for a week by Malcolmxl5 Adakiko (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, blocked for disruptive editing. Edit warring, possible block evasion (note the IP 31.4.229.184 on the Kundalini and Kundalini yoga pages yesterday) and the nonsense on the talk pages. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

And they're back. User:212.73.35.194 blocked one week for block evasion. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

And again. User:212.73.35.177 blocked and Kundalini and Kundalini yoga protected for one week. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

And again. User:212.73.35.178 on the talk pages. Blocked and added a partial rangeblock from these articles and talk pages for one month. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Vipz

User:Vipz and I have a disagreement on the pages Tito and Josip Broz Tito but actually his behaviour is very similar to a stalker versus me and my edits: he reverts all my edits at sight on various articles. Regarding article of Broz Tito, I started a section in related talk and I stop to edit in page "Tito" but in other articles he always reverts my edits. In particular he pretends to put the term "dictator" near Benito Mussolini but not near "Josip Broz Tito": they both were dictators and statesmen but Vipz is tendentious with his definitions when he edits in related articles. User Vipz on "edit summary" of article "Benito Mussolini" writed calling name what a hypocrite versus me. Stalking reverts are these:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forza bruta (talk • contribs) 13:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
• 7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forza bruta (talk • contribs) 13:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
• 8

Furthermore user Vipz removed two reliable sources in article Italia Brigade (Yugoslavia) without his intervention in related talk page: this is a form of disruption and sources affirm crimes made by dictator Broz Tito against Italian citizen in foibe massacres. Disruption is this: blatant disruption for his personal political POV. --Forza bruta (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

If this is a dispute about Tito, why are you editing articles on Mussolini? Why aren't you doing what was suggested at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, and discussing the issue on the talk page - or failing that, using dispute resolution? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Behavior of user Vipz is different point: I don't make stalking versus nobody and user Vipz seems to find arguments calling name versus me. I never did personal attack in edit summary or in talk page.--Forza bruta (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Please answer the question I asked. Why, if this is a dispute about Tito, are you going around editing articles on Mussolini, changing the word 'dictator' to 'authoritarian leader', or 'duce'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I am here not for a dispute of article's content but for provoking actions of user Vipz versus me and my contibutions on this project: he calling bad name versus me in edit summary of article "Benito Mussolini". I did change regarding Mussolini writing motivation in edit summary: the definition "dictator" is not officially name of a stateman and, in particular case of Mussolini, his officially name was "duce" and you can see article Duce with image of Mussolini. In the same manner stateman Francisco Franco was named Generalissimo and he was "de facto" a dictator, but you never can read definition "dictator" in articles introductions of Encyclopædia Britannica because definition "dictator" is used by historians in their books. In fact I always report sources by books with definition "dictator" but in sections of related article about historical figure.--Forza bruta (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The Encyclopædia Britannica describes Mussolini as "the first of 20th-century Europe’s fascist dictators" in their introduction. So do many, many other sources. Misplaced Pages goes by what sources say , not by vacuous arguments about 'official names'. And frankly, looking at the sequence of events here, where you seem to be retaliating to not getting your way in the Tito article (having entirely failed to do as you were told and discuss the issue) by editing content on Mussolini. Under which circumstances, I'd have to suggest that Vipz's comment about you might well be seen as justified. If you aren't prepared to actually engage in discussions over disputed content, but instead resort to disruptive edits of unrelated articles, and to repeated personal attacks on contributors (not just here with "blatant disruption for his personal political POV" which is clearly nonsense, but in the NPOV noticeboard thread, where you accused another contributor of the same thing - again while failing to provide any sort of evidence that you had even attempted to discuss the content dispute) it isn't surprising that people react that way. Carry on like this, and I'd be very surprised if you don't end up getting blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 18:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I discussed and actually discuss in related talk page of article "Josip Broz Tito": you can read my first message of several messages to user Peacemaker during 2017 and I send various email to him but result was only few changes of introduction in focussed article. In my personal talk page, you can read a message of Peacemaker during 2020 and I don't make here all links of my interventions in talk page of focussed article because I have little time. Regarding "Encyclopædia Britannica", I have an edition of this encyclopædia where article of Benito Mussolini has no citation of definition "dictator" in article's introduction: attention only in lead or introduction but in article's sections, definition "dictator" is present too and same situation is valid for dictator Broz Tito too. I just find reliable sources on various books and report these sources in this project under wikipedia's rules but other users are in permanent violation of wikipedia's rules. Good bless you.--Forza bruta (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

You have provided precisely zero evidence of any rules being violated. The 2017 post you made on Peacemaker67's talk page contains nothing of substance that couldn't have been posted on the article talk page, and nobody is ever obliged to engage in email discussions regarding article content (Or anything else, for that matter). They don't belong there. Such discussions should be carried out on the relevant talk page, where others can see them, and participate. If such discussions cannot be satisfactorily resolved, we have multiple options for dispute resolution - as you have already been told. Use them. This is a content dispute, and you aren't going to win it by making repeated unsubstantiated claims of violations of policy. Carry on like that, and you may well find yourself blocked... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Brainyshark03 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Disruptive editing; reverting to previous logos; uploading duplicate logos Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

What has this editor done wrong that can't be resolved by a bit of help on the user talk page? There may be something, but it's certainly not shown by those diffs. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism and hoaxing

• Sythans27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't have time to chase this down right now but it looks like Sythans27, a pageant SPA, has just relocated an event from one country to another as a hoax. They are a mobile editor so I haven't bothered trying to contact them about it. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The editor has not responded to an inquiry on their userpage and is making more disruptive edits like . ☆ Bri (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Warned user. Let's see if the correct their course. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing harassment from User:HandThatFeeds

Last week, I started a discussion on Misplaced Pages talk:No Nazis, arguing that it was a poorly-written essay that, if taken literally, would mean that people with any other fringe belief, most obviously Communists, should be banned as well. Any discussion related to Nazis is of course bound to stir up a lot of emotions, and my comments generated a fair amount of response, which I welcomed (and still welcome). However, User:HandThatFeeds took the opportunity not to respond to my arguments but to repeatedly insult me, including accusing me of (I think) secretly being a Nazi. Examples: , , , (here, they said I was advocating the "race and intelligence" argument, which as I noted in my response is false), , , . (That last statement is probably the worst of them: Then I look forward to your eventual block when you let the mask fully slip. In other words, I'm a bigot and a liar.)

HandThatFeeds then responded in basically the same way to an unrelated statement I made on this very page: .

I went to this user's talk page, to ask them to stop harassing me. They responded with this: You are clearly here to argue on the side of far-right conspiracy theories and anti-LGBT groups/individuals. AGF is not a suicide pact, and I cannot ignore your behavior. Do not post on my talk page again. A personal attack, coupled with a clear indication that the harassment will not stop, capped off with something that sounds like a threat. It was at that point that I decided to bring the issue here. If HandThatFeeds thinks I have secret nefarious beliefs and should be banned for them, there are channels for requesting that, most obviously this page; but simply responding continuously to my comments with these accusations is, at the very least, totally unhelpful; at worst, direct personal attacks and harassment. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect Korny O'Near, this appears to me to be pretty weak tea. I came here fully prepared to say HandThatFeeds should turn down the temperature, and I would agree that the "let the mask slip" comment is over the line. The rest strike me as within the normal sharp-elbowed debate and editing that occurs on Misplaced Pages. Moreover, I think there is something of a clean hands issue here, as you took to an essay's talk page in a deliberately WP:POINT-y manner. Now, I don't believe there should be any sanction for that, but it shouldn't be all that shocking when one does something deliberately provocative and someone is provoked. As I like to say, reasonable minds can differ, and sometimes even tolerate each other's existence. Cheers to all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Harassment? Are you sure? Have they ever engaged in classic components of harassment like unwanted talk page messages and opening spurious ANI cases or is it just whats in the diffs? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

You went in there sparing for a fight, and that was what you got. You have no grounds for complaint here whatsoever. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that WP:POINT applies to talk pages, but leaving that aside: is it your view that, once someone posts something provocative on some talk page, they're fair game for personal attacks from that point on, indefinitely? Korny O'Near (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

One thing provocative? No, not necessarily. But continuing to argue and belabor your point resorting to whataboutism and moving the goalposts, borderlining on sealioning, yes, you expose yourself to the consequences of such behavior. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Nothing actionable here — I do however fully expect to see this editor back at ANI in due course. Perhaps leave each other alone until then? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I think bigots are (and should be) allowed here, so... yes. I haven't just implied that, I've said it directly. - I think that speaks for itself and completely shatters any pretense you have. Stop the WP:POINTy comments. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 18:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to make a point. Bigots are indeed allowed on Misplaced Pages (there's no policy in place against them, as far as I know), and it's my belief that this policy, or lack of policy, should remain. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Whatever your intent, the fact that WP:POINT is repeatedly raised should give you pause. Might I respectfully suggest drafting your own essay might be a more worthwhile use of time than being confrontational on the talk page of one you don't like? Dumuzid (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I wanted to write on the WP:NONAZIS talk page because I think it's extremely misleading, whether on purpose or not. But maybe I should have avoided a "devil's advocate" sort of approach in my initial post (which I think is what people are getting at when they refer to WP:POINT, though that's not quite the same). I still don't think it's grounds for harassment - especially not implied future harassment - but we can all do better. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there are silent bigots on here, yes, but people have gotten banned for being racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. in the past. Your sidestepping of your problematic comments is unbecoming. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 19:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Both sides in this issue said things that were provoking and escalating. I think the best advice, which both @TNT and @HandThatFeeds suggested is to disengage and walk away. Coming here only serves to further escalate the situation. Civility is more than just words but also actions. Searching for and finding a controversial essay isn't hard but then to go and express your displeasure on it's talk page only serves one purpose whether that's the intention or not. Best case now is to let it go. --ARoseWolf 19:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
• Nothing actionable, and recommend closing this discussion. Korny, you and I have had some discussion in the past, and more recently, on your talk page. I really appreciate you giving me the space and time to try and flesh out some ideas, but our interaction was less than fruitful. You may have noticed that HandThatFeeds is coming away from these discussions with you in much the same way as many others. I myself was left having very similar feelings as HandThatFeeds, even though you were civil and polite in our interaction. I strongly disagree there is a both sides problem here. Viriditas (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you expected to happen when you acted, supposedly, as the devil's advocate for bigots. Isabelle 19:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I was acting as the devil's advocate for victims of Communism, I suppose. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

That is really a dead-end argument. These groups are not at all the same, as was explained many times before. Honestly I had attempted to suggest that you write your own essay, but really my goal was that you would start to write an essay... only to come to the realization that there was no case to be made. --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Korny, I mean this in good faith, but you are doing yourself no favors. Dumuzid (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Let it go, Korny. The victims of communism can look after themselves. It is not your job or Misplaced Pages's to seek redress. John (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I already said what I had to say on the topic, a week ago. I came here to try to get an editor to leave me alone, not to discuss the relative merits of different ideologies. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Just ignore such responses. A roar has no effect, if one chooses to ignore the roaring. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

You went to antagonize someone with a post that you knew wouldn't be well-received, and got some blowback in return. Consider this a life lesson and don't poke a bear in the future. ValarianB (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I actually didn't know that my original talk page post would not be well received. And I never committed any of the "poking" examples mentioned in that essay, though ironically HandThatFeeds did. But it's good advice regardless. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, lesson learned. Whataboutism is frowned upon when discussing Nazis. ~Swarm~ 21:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Apparently. :) I don't think I did that, but it seems that anything that appears to come even remotely close to minimizing Nazism (again, not that I did that) rattles some people. Lesson learned indeed. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I really don't have anything to add here, as most of what I was going to say is already covered by others. Korny has been deliberately provocative, and I gave back some heat. I'd already disengaged from the page for a short wikibreak, and only caught the notice about this ANI because I stopped by Misplaced Pages to look up a reference. Korny has been tip-toeing some rather uncomfortable lines, and I'm glad others recognize that. For the time being, I'm just going to take the rest of the week off Misplaced Pages and leave it be. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Legal Threat

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

Special:Diff/1111760825. Venkat TL (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked Dharmayud001 (talk · contribs) indefinitely for that. DanCherek (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@DanCherek thank you. Can you please also revert his comment? Venkat TL (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. DanCherek (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. This thread can be closed. Venkat TL (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@DanCherek he now continues threats on this user talk. Venkat TL (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

TPA revoked. ~Swarm~ 20:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Local hero

In 2022 North Macedonia protests I made some edits that add "North Macedonian" in front of "Prime Minister" and "Foreign Minister" including additional amendments. Local hero reverted only those edits that add North Macedonian although the reason for my edits Bulgarian and Albanian prime ministers are reported explicitly, the North Macedonian is not, causing confusion to the reader, I improve the text per MOSMAC: "in line with the reliable sources, adjectives may still be used when referring to such institutions in generic terms (e.g. the Greek and North Macedonian prime ministers), especially where the possessive form would be grammatically cumbersome or unnatural.", North Macedonian as natural and not cumbersome as Albanian and Bulgarian.

This change improved ambiguity as explained in the comment, it is according to WP:MOSMAC that suggests "North Macedonian" by giving "North Macedonian Prime Minister" as a concrete example. MOSMAC states: However, in line with the reliable sources, adjectives may still be used when referring to such institutions in generic terms (e.g. the Greek and North Macedonian prime ministers), especially where the possessive form would be grammatically cumbersome or unnatural..

The reason I used the adjective "North Macedonian" instead of "of North Macedonia" is because the same was used for the Albanian and Bulgarian Prime and Foreign Ministers. No reason to handle North Macedonian differently.

I left a message on Local hero's page and he reverted my edits again. I am really disappointed from the tolerance shown to Local hero and other users who violate MOSMAC every day. A few days ago, we had the same problem in Gun law in North Macedonia where Local hero and Kluche coordinate edits and form consensus, like they did in North Macedonian denar too.

Can someone help me in how to report Local hero and Kluche for sockpuppetry? Nikokiris (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

If you have a suspicion of socking (a legitimate one) take it to WP:SPI, but be warned, opening an SPI on someone who opened an SPI on you (something you admitted to, by the way) without any evidence is likely going to be seen as retaliatory. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

All the evidence is provided in the sockpuppet investigation you cited. I am very disappointed with the behaviour of Local hero and his friends and the tolerance shown to them. Thanks for the suggestion, I don't want anybody to see it as retaliatory. If some experienced editor wants to use the evidence, feel free to do the report for me. This is my last message on wikipedia. Thanks so much for you help (you and everyone who helped to avoid the disruptive edits of Local hero and Kluche). I cannot spend more energy in this place. Nikokiris (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

User with good intentions not listening to other editors (User:184.177.118.115)

184.177.118.115 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has good intentions of editing, but numerous editors have alerted them on their talk page about various edits (See User talk:184.177.118.115#September 2022). One of the talk page alerts was about using an edit summary, which this user has never done. A lot of their edits have either been reverted or still remain, however, almost all of them are unsourced additions. Recently, the edited, 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado, changing the wind speeds to 323 mph, instead of the range (301 +/- 22 mph). Those edits were reverted by myself, but that showed me they are not here to vandalize/harm Misplaced Pages. However, after so many edits without sources, and what seems to be a lack of response to editor alerts on their talk page and a lack of knowledge about edit summaries (mentioned on their talk page), an admin needs to step in. A ban is certainly not needed, but maybe some alert about citing information if changing numbers (Example: ), using the edit summary, and communicating with other editors. The main issue (from the numerous talk page alerts/warnings) is not citing information, which is why an admin is needed and why I am starting this AN/I. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Soapboxing on own talk page after block

2A02:C7E:3422:4200:D5D5:9C60:CB38:FE02 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) likely needs their talk page access revoked. See, for example, Special:Diff/1111791324 and Special:Diff/1111793301. Kleinpecan (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Kleinpecan, a little bit of user talk page venting is common after a block. I do not think that it yet rises to the level where revoking talk page access is needed, but other administrators may have a different view. Cullen328 (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

"Atul Kumar" disruption

• 206.84.235.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP has been repeatedly disrupting random, and similarly titled, articles with content for what appears to be a non-notable subject. This is on top of multiple attempts to overwrite the Atul Kumar (actor) redirect with similar content. Templated warnings do not appear to go through to the anonymous user, and I don't think a genuine written warning will get them to stop either, as they also appear to never use a Talk page. This is beyond final warning at this point. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Multiple IPs have been doing this for a while, on (as Jalen Folf notes) a bunch of pages with similar names. I don't think it's random though: they're generally over-writing existing articles whose names match their bio subject. DMacks (talk) 04:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

IP blocked a week. I expect another will be along though. DMacks (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Parga

I will appreciate your insight here on the article Parga. Despite expressing my opposition to the use of extremist source, Xhufi, an extremist far-right Albanian politician known for his extreme bias against foreign countries and nations and for his nationalist propaganda, editors keep edit warring to have that scholar used regardless of whether other editors have expressed their legitimate concerns about that particular source. Furthermore, they haven't waited for consensus on the talk page, and are quick into reinstating the disputed source to the article even though they were supposed to discuss, not brute-force their new source to the article. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ 23:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

SilentResident. This is obviously a content dispute that is currently being discussed on the article talk page, as you know. ANI does not adjudicate content disputes. If edit warring is going on, file a report at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. If you believe that a work by Pëllumb Xhufi is not a reliable source, make your case at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. You also have various forms of WP:DR:Dispute resolution available to you. Cullen328 (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

racist abuse by 2A00:23EE:1100:4B18:8035:8C89:232:8A8A (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This anon user needs blocking ASAP and their one edit removed completely. 00:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Another administrator has reverted the racist vandalism, and I have blocked the IP. Cullen328 (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards