Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard

This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators.

  • It is rarely appropriate for inexperienced users to open new threads here – for the "Incidents" noticeboard, click here.
  • Do not report breaches of privacy, inappropriate posting of personal information, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
  • Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over six days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archivessearch)

Open tasks[edit]

XFD backlog
V Nov Dec Jan Feb Total
CfD 0 1 2 0 3
TfD 0 0 3 0 3
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 1 0 1
RfD 0 0 37 0 37
AfD 0 0 2 0 2


Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]

Report
Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (20 out of 4165 total) (Purge)
Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
Allahabad 2023-02-05 08:26 2023-04-04 00:00 edit Contentious topic restriction: existing protection does not seem to be enough Daniel Case
Qamar Javed Bajwa 2023-02-05 08:11 2023-08-05 08:11 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: sockpuppetry, edit warring; many previous semi-protections have not stopped any of this Daniel Case
Ericteehee 2023-02-04 17:23 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated A7 article Kuru
Nathan Cody 2023-02-04 15:29 indefinite create Recently deleted BLP Salvio giuliano
Jenia Meng 2023-02-04 15:19 indefinite create Recently deleted BLP Salvio giuliano
Draft:Pison Peak 2023-02-04 12:16 indefinite edit,move Non AFC reviewers should not be moving declined afc submissions Deepfriedokra
Cobra Maltase 2023-02-04 06:37 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: Editor continually moving an unsourced BLP article into main space only for it to get pushed back to Draft space. Liz
User talk:SunilNevlaFan 2023-02-04 03:15 2023-02-18 03:15 edit Persistent vandalism from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP: Special:Permalink/1137341599#User talk:SunilNevlaFan GorillaWarfare
Armenian genocide 2023-02-03 19:49 indefinite edit Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP Daniel Case
Zangezur corridor 2023-02-03 15:46 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/AA: non-extended confirmed editors should use the talk page HJ Mitchell
Wikipedia:Mutahir Showkat (Indian Photographer) 2023-02-03 08:37 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Salvio giuliano
Draft:Mutahir Showkat (Indian Photographer) 2023-02-03 08:37 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Salvio giuliano
Mutahir Showkat (Indian Photographer) 2023-02-03 08:36 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Salvio giuliano
Mutahir Showkat ( Indian Photographer) 2023-02-03 08:36 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Salvio giuliano
Draft:Mutahir Showkat 2023-02-03 08:35 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Salvio giuliano
Tylerbrizyy (Singer) 2023-02-03 03:56 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz
Janany Kunaseelan 2023-02-03 00:08 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP MelanieN
Karl Lagasse 2023-02-02 18:50 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: Protection can be removed when there is an accepted draft that meets the concerns raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Lagasse Ponyo
Van Caleb 2023-02-02 00:55 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP BusterD
Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2023 2023-02-01 13:23 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab–Israeli conflict related page: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter

IP submission of my WP:AFC draft[edit]

At, Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 January 20#21:21:37, 20 January 2023 review of draft by TonyTheTiger, I noted that my WP:AFC draft article had been submitted by an uninvolved IP, while I still had a {{underconstruction}} on the article. No one responded before it was archived. I was requesting the submission be undone since it is highly unusual for an uninvolved IP to nominate an article underconstruction at AFC.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What sort of violation is alledged? Near as I can tell that's perfectly legitimate if unusual. WP:DRAFT states that Editors may also optionally submit drafts for review via the articles for creation process by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft page. An article created in draftspace does not belong to the editor who created it, and any other user may edit, publish, redirect, merge or seek deletion of any draft. WP:OWN applies to drafts just as much as they apply to articles. (loopback) ping/whereis 13:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I heartily disagree, especially as the rogue IP user had not contributed to the draft previously. It is a bit of a dick move to just randomly pop in and submit an in-progress draft with nothing but a flip "seems ready") edit summary. ValarianB (talk) 14:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree it's not a nice thing to do, but is there policy somewhere that doesn't allow it? Otherwise I'm not sure exactly what you're disagreeing with. If its the section highlighted in DRAFT that's a community consensus discussion and not just us saying we disagree. --(loopback) ping/whereis 14:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first sentence at WP:AFC says "The Articles for creation (AfC) process is designed to assist any editor in creating a new page as a draft article, which they can work on and submit for review and feedback when ready." It seems that it is a space where an editor can create a new page and get review and feedback when ready. It seems to be a substitute for a private sandbox. It does not seem to be a space intended for community editing. The first sentence seems to suggest that the creating editor is suppose to work on the draft and the creating editor is suppose to submit it. The they in that sentence grammatically seems to refer to the editor creating the page. That person is suppose to work on the page and that person is suppose to submit it for review. The 2nd paragraph also suggests that those not "required to use the AfC process" should not submit articles for review. The IP was not required to use the process and should not have submitted the article. Furthermore, the sentence at WP:DRAFT that says "any other user may edit, publish, redirect, merge or seek deletion" does not say any other editor may submit the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IP's are actually required to use AfC, because they typically can't create new pages. Footnoote 4 on WP:DRAFT states Wikipedia's editing policy applies to all pages, including drafts. The editing policy is, as the name suggests, policy. WP:AfC, and especially inferences made and not stated can't really override it. That said, why is the decline a big deal? You can keep working on it and resubmit. --(loopback) ping/whereis 14:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, in terms of those not "required to use the AfC process" as it applies here, an IP is not required to use draft space to edit my sister's new article, but I am. If it were in article space, they could drop in and edit without any policy implications. Since I created the page, whether an IP would need to use AfC to create the page is irrelevant. By policy, since an IP is not required to use AfC to edit my sister's article, they should not submit articles for review, per WP:AFC. WP:DRAFT which enumerates a variety of permissible actions (edit, publish, redirect, merge or seek) clearly omits permission for anyone to submit. So per both WP:AFC and WP:DRAFT the uninvolved IP should not submit. You ask why is the decline a big deal?. It sort of changes the burden of my editorial involvement.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure exactly what you're disagreeing with, I'm disagreeing with the entirety of your response. Whether there's a policy or not is not pertinent, in a collaborative editing environment it is just extremely disrespectful to muck about with a draft others are working on, when they contributed nothing beforehand. ValarianB (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We make decisions and evaluate editor behavior based on our policies and the community consensus behind those policies. Arguing that policy is not pertinent is rather nonsensical and it leaves us without a common touchstone to guide our decisions as editors. When I returned after 10 years away from the project I had to do an enormous amount of reading to try and comprehend what's changed policywise since I last was active. I'm a little bit aghast to think none of that mattered and I could have just started plunking away based on what feels right. --(loopback) ping/whereis 15:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't say I agree. If editors aren't interested in collobrating then Wikipedia is not the place for them. So yes, this means if they expect that draft space is somewhere they get to place content and then only they get to decide what happens to it, they're wrong and should learn so, quickly. Note in this particular case, I don't think the IP's actions were helpful. Even assuming they made a careful assessment of the article and were sufficiently experienced to make such an assessment, the rejection means they were wrong. But just as importantly, the article was edited recently, tagged as under construction and was not of a timely subject. However if we imagine a different case, where an editor comes across a draft which hasn't been edited in months, finds the editor disappeared too and based on their experience is certain it's ready and submits it, and it's accepted and we now have an article we didn't have before, well that's for the benefit of Wikipedia so is a good thing. Even if it annoys the editor who hasn't edited Wikipedia or the article in months, sorry not sorry. Some editors may feel it better to ask the editor who hasn't edited in months anyway, that's fine; but it's also fine if they don't do so. Again if the original editor wanted to developed stuff without collaboration, they needed to do so somewhere else e.g. on their on computer of the plenty of cloud services that would allow it. I mentioned timely earlier which highlights another important point. If it's something timely, even where it has not been months it's IMO still fine for another editor to submit it for review, especially when they have the competence to properly assess it and feel it's ready for main space themselves. I see no reason why the editor needs to do any work if it's already good enough for main space. If they come across an article which is sufficient and is the sort of thing they would have written if the article didn't already exist as a draft then most would agree it's actually harmful if they ignore the draft and completely independently write a similar article just because the draft writer may want to 'own it' and get to decide when to submit. Nor should they need to get the article into a better state then is needed or they feel is worth the effort just because someone else already made the effort to get it into a level they feel is needed. That said in a case like that where it hasn't been months, while I still don't think asking first is necessary albeit may be polite, I do think they definitely should inform the original editor of what they did and why. Nil Einne (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Nil Einne you have me pretty lost with your counterfactual if thens and such. Are you saying that I interpretted WP:AFC and WP:DRAFT wrong or are you saying you disagree with the current policies at WP:AFC and WP:DRAFT?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Point in fact neither WP:DRAFT nor WP:AFC is a policy one is an explanatory essay, the other a process description. Personally I don't consider that to be the be all end all, however it's probably best to avoid confusing the discussion (see both WP:PGE and WP:DCE). The more salient issue is that the consensus behind WP:DRAFT in particular is highly questionable review some of the recent noticeboard archives regarding WP:DRAFTOBJECT for just a snapshot, and so citing it is unlikely to add much weight to your arguments.
Now, and please don't take this personally because I'm confident your acting in good-faith and understandably frustrated with the situation, but even excepting that on the merits your interpretation would be flawed. We've never run on everything not expressly permitted is forbidden, rather the opposite actually, so trying to apply that framework to win an (and don't take this the wrong way) ultimately trivial dispute does not come across well. Further asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express is rarely going to persuade others. It's likely for that reason you've seen people discussing the principles underpinning draftspace.
Finally, it's unclear what sysop action you are requesting (if any). Why is this thread here and not at the village pump or other more appropriate venue? Removing (or adding) declines is not a sysop action and neither page protection nor a block would be appropriate at this time, what exactly is it you want a sysop to do?
So I'm happy to keep discussing this with you and trying to understand your perspective if that's what you want so long as I have your patience, but that should probably happen elsewhere, could even be on user talk if that's what you prefer, but I don't see any sysop action coming out of this. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I have stated a couple of times, that I don't think the uninvolved IP submission was a valid action and that I wanted it reversed. I.e., return the article to the status it was prior to the invalid submission.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not a sysop action.
Moreover it's not an action that makes sense for anyone to do at all. Contrary to your assumption that It sort of changes the burden of my editorial involvement, it in fact changes nothing. Every draft is evaluated on it's merits at the time of review and a previous decline is of no consequence following non-trivial improvement. Repeated resubmission without improvement is an issue, but presumably you don't plan to do that. Just continue working on the draft as though nothing had happened and try to calmly work through any issues that are noticed with your reviewers. If you want further input I suggest you inquire at WT:AFC, but I expect you'll receive the same answer.
Otherwise I'm a bit busy this week but if you drop a note on my talk I'll try to follow up in a few days or whenever I get chance. I know this was probably a frustrating experience for you so forgive me if I've been overly blunt. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As the IP has said, I don't know why you TTT keep saying it changes anything. It doesn't except your ability to submit it for review without making substantial changes. If you had intended to submit it without making any changes then I don't get why you care who submitted it. If you intended to make minor changes then submit it this might be an issue although frankly I'm doubtful you'd get in trouble for resubmitting it with minor changes in these circumstances although it is likely to be a foolish decision since I strongly suspect it will be decline as it would have if the IP had never gotten involved. I'd also go back to my earlier point. You keep saying the IP's submission was inappropriate because they were uninvolved but that's simply nonsense. If you want to keep it in draft space then you need to accept it belongs to the community including uninvolved editors. The primary reason the IP's actions might be considered inappropriate has nothing to do with them being uninvolved, it has to do with them very likely making a submission when they lacked the competence to actualy evaluate the article and probably didn't really do a significant review we should expect from someone who is making such submissions. (Since if the IP is going to do be doing something like this they need to be doing something sufficiently productive. Reviewing an article and submitting it based on your extensive experience is productive. Randomly submitting an article after a cursory glance, especially in circumstances like this, not so much.) Ultimately as I mentioned in my first reply if you don't accept that anything you write on Wikipedia belongs to the community then don't post it on draft space. Even user space isn't ideal although we generally accept despite all content even in user space also belonging to the community, other editors should only edit them in minimal ways. Also the suggestion is just plain flawed anyway. Let's say the IP had been right and it had been ready for main space. Would we be returning it to draft space because the original creator isn't happy about it being moved to main space? The answer is almost definitely no, since it belongs to the community. Again, if you don't accept this then all I can say is don't post stuff publicly on wiki. Nil Einne (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should clarify my user space comment. While we generally accept editors should not fool around with userspace drafts directly unless they have permission, remember that by posting it here you've already released it under the appropriate licences. An editor is free to recreate the draft somewhere else using your text with appropriate attribution. And if the editor talks to you first and you say it's not ready but the editor disagrees we don't have any clear policy or guideline nor do I think we should, that the editor is forbidden from simply creating a copy somewhere else either directly on main space or as a draft. (I'm fairly something related happened before and after a long discussion there was no consensus that this sort of thing should be automatically forbidden.) Again if you don't want this to happen your only choice is to work on something privately since once you've posted it here you've given up on the right to decide what happens with it. Nil Einne (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As it stands now the OP can just resubmit after they have completed work on the draft, it has been declined not rejected. So is there anything that actually needs to be done? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 15:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am here because by both WP:AFC and WP:DRAFT (as I stated above at 15:48, 28 January 2023 following my 14:47, 27 January 2023 post) an uninvolved IP should not submit AFC works. Having an article declined shifts the editorial burden. In terms of whether there is anything that actually needs to be done, all I ask is that you undo that which should not have been done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's more or less my view as well. Drafts are declined and subsequently accepted after being improved quite routinely. Submitting a draft you haven't made significant contributions is usually rude; however, I don't believe we would want to prohibit it absolutely since there are cases where it's appropriate. If I saw an eligible for G13 soon draft that looked mainspace worthy where the creator had apparently forgotten about it I would have no problems submitting it for them.
In point of fact, the premise behind draftspace is that, in contrast to userspace drafts, everyone is encouraged to edit there to promote collaboration the evidence suggest that premise is flawed but that's a discussion for another time so any restrictions on who can edit them are going to be suspect.
Bottom line, this is a rare phenomena so any additions to policy addressing it specifically are questionable WP:BLOAT. If someone, registered or unregistered, makes a single drive-by submission ignore it. The draft will be declined; it takes a bit of editor time, but far less then discussions like this one. If someone repeatedly makes drive-by submissions then revert their edits and p-block them from draftspace for disruption. Quite straightforward really. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow! we have an opinion from an IP.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's actually still quite a few of us that are active in projectspace Though my own activity level has long been too low for me to truly count. But it is to your credit that you avoid the noticeboards enough to find this surprising. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I missed the IP's comments earlier. The one nitpick I'd have with the IPs suggestion goes back to my other comments. I don't think we should or even would automatically p-block or topic ban an UP for making "drive-by submission"s. The proof is in the pudding as they say so we'd look at several things. Number one, does the editor involved discuss and explain their actions satisfactorily? This is a cornerstone of all editing here and while it can be difficult for IPs, ultimately if they're repeatedly doing something they need to find a way. And if they did discuss, this significantly lessens concerns. Two is and this is where the "proof" comes, what was the result of their actions? The important thing is whether the IP is doing anything productive. If the IP is going through draftspace, and with a high degree of competence picking out those which are ready for main space and submitting them then they're doing something productive. It doesn't matter that they're "uninvolved" or that these are "drive-by submissions". I think for good cause we'd tend to evaluate such actions harshly so maybe even demand a 80% success rate, perhaps even 85-90%. But I find it unlikely the community would support partial blocking or topic banning an editor who is clearly being useful e.g. with 95% success submitting articles for AFC no matter that it may annoy certain creators or whatever. I do think the success demands would probably go down the less their actions are "drive-by". Since such actions require some degree as review, probably not a full AFC review since it's fair for them to just stop once they see the article isn't ready, still it would generally be useful for them to explain somewhere why they feel the article isn't ready for main space rather than just submit articles which are ready and ignore those which aren't and discuss when queried. (Especially in cases where the article isn't so terrible that virtually in editor with experience will instantly dismiss it.) In such a case, I could imagine even 50% would be acceptable especially if the editor also engages a lot with creators where it's asked and generally avoids drafts with recent edits. (Although even there, I also feel the community will largely embrace the proof is in the pudding principle and if e.g. the IP has 95% success rates and this is based on the original article when they submitted not based on a later version the creator may have made which they rushed through because an IP submitted it before it was ready, the community is going to be reluctant to sanction them if as I said at the beginning they also discussed and explained their actions where needed.) Ideally the editor would just become a reviewer themselves but there are various reasons why an editor may not with to register an account or otherwise become a reviewer but may be interested in sorting through unsubmitted drafts. Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion and the actions which started it have convinced me to write all my drafts in my sandbox from now on. Last time I used draft space, some rando (non-IP) user came along and accused me of vandalising a draft article to which I was the sole contributor.  Tewdar  17:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I always advise people to use sandboxes and user subpages for their articles instead of drafts. There are all upsides and no downsides. Especially since user subpages aren't automatically subject to the 6 month no edits speedy deletion criteria. Best just to avoid that nonsense entirely. SilverserenC 18:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:DUD is also good-reading. Granted I've used draftspace to create articles before, even going back to when they were all in project talkspace, but there are a lot of downsides to familiarize yourself with before making the decision to use it. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's quite a good essay. Userspace drafts are my default when I'm working through something. Once it's ready for more eyes I can link the userspace draft on wikiproject talkpages asking for input and making it clear that others are welcome to edit it, and once I'm satisfied I can push it to mainspace. Thats beat for beat the exact workflow I used to write Del Riley (clerk). --(loopback) ping/whereis 07:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can also tag your userspace drafts with {{editable user page}} to further remove ambiguity so other people are more comfortable editing them. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oddly, it seems that instead of reverting the inappropriate uninvolved IP submission, I am being offered a course of moving the page to a userspace sandbox draft. It seems to me that this is a subversive action. I am asking you as administrators to endorse the claim that the IP submission was inappropriate and to revert the article status to that prior to the submission. By moving the page to a userspace draft, it undermines the reasoned review which categorized the article with a declined status requiring certain procedural actions to pursue mainspace. The move never "undoes" the review by making it the result of an inappropriate procedure. It just circumvents it. Furthermore, as a WP:COI editor, I don't even understand what would follow moving to userspace sandbox draft. What is the procedure for a COI editor to move a page from userspace draft to article space?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • P.S. I do want to be clear that User:Scope creep, certainly gave a respectful and procedurally correct review. I do respect his opinion in that regard. I don't necessarily believe that 10 out of 10 AFC reviewers would decline my sister's bio in its current state, but his review is reasoned. I believe that in its current state my sister's article would have a better than 50% chance to survive at WP:AFD, and that WP:AFC may have a higher bar for source evaluation than AFD. I am here to assert that the review should never have happened because a submission by an uninvolved IP of a draft with a {{underconstruction}} tag should be regarded as inappropriate.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      If you truly believe there should be additional restrictions on who can submit drafts and when, and I can't see why we would want to add anything to the PAGs covering this kind of rare specific and trivial case (again WP:CREEP), or otherwise seek broader reforms of AFC due to perceived issues. Then the place to propose that or seek clarity on the community's current interpretation on existing PAGs would be at the village pump. Hopefully this succinctly clears things up.
      I'm not trying to be overly bureaucratic here, but AN in general is a poor forum for altering or reforming long-standing community processes. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I am not trying to propose the any reforms. I just think that based on the current set of PAGs, an uninvolved IP would be considered an ineligible/inappropriate AFC nominator.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I've heard a lot of people say that AFC is harsher than AFD and often rejects stuff which will easily pass AFD. I don't have enough experience to personally comment, but I suspect it's probably correct. I'd also note that I'm doubtful the community wants any AFC reviewer passing something that only has 50% of surviving AFD. But in addition to this, for good reason we tend to evaluate content written by editors with a COI even a disclosed COI more harshly even at AFD. Also, while this is more aspirational than something I can say plays out in practice, for good reason articles on living persons should really should be evaluated at both AFD and AFC much more harshly than articles on companies and the like. While we don't want spammy articles on companies, articles on living persons can easily go very very wrong when the person does or is otherwise involved in anything which receives any real degree of controversy. So such article are far more of a problem for Wikipedia and for the people involved. It's very common on BLPN to see such disasters, often by the history written by someone who almost definitely had an undisclosed COI probably a paid one, which I suspect the subject was happy with until something like that happened enough that I think most BLPN regulars are very happy with harsh notability standards for articles on living persons. Maybe most importantly though is any editor with a COI needs to recognise no matter how much experience they have and no matter how much they may try to avoid this, any assessment they make of a situation where they have a COI is highly suspect. They should welcome any feedback from editors without a COI and consider it very likely holds far more weight than their own attempt to evaluate. (Or in other words, if an editor with a COI makes an evalution X and an experience editor makes an evaluation and comes to conclusion Y, it's very likely Y is far close to how the community as a while will see situation and so the editor with the COI should say okay I'm very likely wrong it's actually Y.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I had the feeling it was women herself that submitted it for review,or more likely somebody from the company. Who ever did it, seemed to be overly optimistic in their assumption it would pass review, perhaps feeling it was finished when it clearly wasn't. It wasn't ready in any manner I think. But the Afc process has own state machine. It was submitted and I reviewed it. Not much else you can say about it. If it went to mainspace I would have to try and delete it. It has six month minus 2 weeks to be updated with some real secondary sourcing, to improve it. Plenty of time. I'm sure it will be in mainspace eventually. scope_creepTalk 21:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If you help updating it, or help finding relevant references, WP:WIR is a good place to request help. scope_creepTalk 21:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    User:scope_creep, I imagine that an IP confers some sort of geolocation information. I doubt my sister or her family did the nomination, but felt that the type of IP that would nominate such an article would be one of two types. I too assumed one of those types was an associate from her company. The other type of IP was someone associated with a reviewer with one of them having an axe to grind. However, the more I thought about the review and the role of AFC, I started to feel that AFC has a vastly different perspective than I am familiar with. Where as my content contributions have been through dozens if not a hundred plus AFDs, I have no familiarity with AFC. I feel AFD has a more binary RS evaluation, where as this experience with AFC makes me feel that AFC has a RS classification evaluation. AFC looks at RSes and says this is a high-class, medium-class or low-class RSes and without any really high-class RSes we can't support this. I feel that many of the things classified by AFC as WP:PRIMARY and/or WP:SPS are things that AFD would probably allow as RS. Of course, I have never had the type of WP:COI role that I have and it is impossible for me to assess how much my own vision is clouded. My belief is that AFD just looks at whether there are RS and then evaluates whether notability is permanent or temporary (1 event) and that many of these sources would be viewed as RS at AFD. That being said, I do hope to get this page to a point where it can enter mainspace and be considered for and by an AFD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am also now understanding that the talk by User:Tewdar, User:Silver seren, Special:Contributions/74.73.224.126, and Del Riley (clerk) about the alternative course of User sandbox space is no longer an option here. At first, I thought they were telling me to move the article to that space.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think you (or someone else) can just move the draft page to your userspace, no? If not, just make a new page in your userspace and copy n' paste your draft there. I'm sure it's very irritating having some rando submit your draft when it's not ready, even if it doesn't violate policy... yet another reason to avoid draft space.  Tewdar  08:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    User:Tewdar suppose I move this to a sandbox in my user space. How do I later approach moving it to Main/Article space as a COI editor?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not that I'm really the right person to be answering your questions, but I'd say, when you're done in user space, move it back to draft space then submit it immediately through AfC? I'd wait for someone who knows what they're talking about, though. 😁  Tewdar  20:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't know how Kosher that is.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Anyone who is following this discussion about my trials and tribulations about creating a page for my sister which has been reviewed at WP:AFC by User:scope_creep, may be interested seeing her launch Black History Month @Honest social medias such as Instagram, LinkedIn or Facebook today. I know none of this makes her any more notable, but you can get to know her this month on their socials starting about 2 hours ago.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Could you please unhidden the revisions for these files? I am going to transfer them to Commons after reviewing. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yann: You would be better off requesting individual files be restored at WP:RFU, such as how Mdaniels5757 has done. (See their edits there.) - UtherSRG (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your message. There are currently 314 files in this category. I won't make 314 requests, as it doesn't make sense, but I made one. Yann (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help needed at CopyPatrol[edit]

Hi everybody, particularly those with an interest in copyright cleanup. After seven years as the primary patroller assessing reports at CopyPatrol, I have reached the point where I am no longer able to work at the volume I have been doing all this time. For the last couple of weeks I have been suffering ill effects from too much computer time, and I have to protect my health. I would appreciate it if people could stop by at CopyPatrol daily and assess some reports. You don't have to be an admin to do this task; any experienced editor should be able to quickly figure it out. If you are just starting out, you might like to try assessing reports about biographies or schools – they are pretty easy as the issues are usually quite obvious. Please feel free to stop by my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ALL the gratitude, dear Diannaa; you are one of the most admirable and valuable people I’ve worked with on this project. Alphadeltafoxtrot, the Bravo-dog, and the Mike- and Sierra-cats join me in sending you our warmest thoughts. Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No damaging your health on behalf of Wikipedia, Diannaa. Rest! --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks everybody for your understanding, and for your kind words and thoughts! — Diannaa (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to mention that the backlog currently is 51 hours (it was 58 hours before I handled a couple of oldest cases), and I have never seen a backlog longer than 24h before. We do not need to do a lot like Diannaa did, but it is very important to do it on a regular basis. I am personally trying to do at least 4 cases per day.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Diannaa with respect to copy patrol (and everything else she does) was practically the number 1, and it's hard to see how the work can go on without her. Dianna, thanks for all you did with copy patrol, please forgive the endless pings, and take care of yourself!!
I don't feel able to help out at copy patrol, but am trying to work as many different angles of the huge copyright problem as I'm able (see two threads after this one).
Before the issue a few threads below this one sidetracked the rambling brainstorming at my talk page, and while I was working to set up WP:DCGAR, the discussion at my talk had begun to focus on some specific ideas for bringing to a broader discussion somewhere. Might it be time to do that? Village pump or the talk page of one of the copyright pages? Are any of the ideas generated so far viable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Doug Coldwell[edit]

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


Two socks continued in January 2023 the same editing pattern that led to Doug Coldwell's block last October. The new edits include poor use of archaic sources, too close paraphrasing, and copying public domain sources without attribution at Willis Fletcher Johnson and Charles Henry Ludington—after Coldwell's December request to be unblocked to work on "his" articles was declined. I bring this before the community for a community ban discussion, as well as some consensus on how to move forward on the cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History[edit]

Accounts

Blocks and ANI: ANI 1 (September 2022) · ANI 2 (October 2022) · ANI 3 (January 2023) · Talk page discussion of block · Older ANIs: 2007 and 2016

SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Doug Coldwell

Copyright Contributor Investigation (CCI): No 1 (533 pages) · No 2 (718 pages) · No 3 (78 pages)

GA and DYK Stats: 233 GAs (no record of which have been re-assessed, but there are seven GAR templates on his talk page) · 549 DYKs, and a number of awards for both speed and quantity

Added post-closing: the 233 GAs above was a typo; at that point, the correct number was 223. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Follow up discussions DYK talk; Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Doug Coldwell GAs (permalink)

Notifications: DYK [1] · GAN [2] · Doug Coldwell [3]

Summary and sample[edit]

So to recap, we now have a giant mess of copyright violations, improperly attributed sourcing, dodgy sources which don't properly verify claims, and outright tripe to clean up, and need to figure out how that will be done. That isn't exactly within the scope of ANI. So, the question now is, where does that discussion happen?
— Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1112#Where to now?
I feel I should add the following, for the record in case years later someone can't understand why all this happened. Bluntly, it's the only thing you need to know to understand why Doug Coldwell simply cannot be a productive editor here until he allows himself to be tutored in the proper use of sources. On May 31, 2016, he added the following to the article Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation [4]:
The largest plywood panels ever made were manufactured by the Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation

This is cited [5] to an article published in 1918 and written by a Haskelite employee [6]. What's going on here is wrong on so, so many levels:

  • Even if the claim was "As of 1918, the largest plywood panels ever made had been manufactured by the Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation", we wouldn't accept that with a source written by the manufacturer itself -- we'd need a reliable and independent source.
  • But the statement made in the article, in Wikipedia's voice, is that Haskelite made the largest plywood panels ever made, period. And it's cited to something more from more than 100 years ago. This is so monumentally stupid that even my very substantial powers of invective cannot do it justice.
  • And to add the cherry on top, the cited article isn't talking about the largest plywood panels ever made -- it's talking about the largest waterproof plywood panels ever made. That qualifier just got left out.
It's just hopeless, and it's not occasional -- it's typical of DC's work. I'm really beginning to think we need a special process to deal with the stupefying amounts of crap he's woven into the fabric of the English Wikipedia -- a sort of nuke-on-sight authorization for deleting his articles, or reducing them to harmless stubs, without the usual ponderous processes. We did something like this, IIRC, in the Neelix situation.
— EEng 15:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC), October 2022 ANI

Proposals[edit]

What looked initially to be ownership and lapses in DYK and GA reviews has now extended to outing, socking and a 3-page contributor copyright investigation. Other than CCI, there has been no formal attempt to coordinate clean up of the mess left behind. Three proposals below: the second and third are necessary for gauging community consensus because of the type of issues one encounters when attempting to address Coldwell content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Community ban of Doug Coldwell[edit]

Per WP:CBAN, "discussions may be organized via a template to distinguish comments by involved and uninvolved editors". Please declare prior involvement and post in the "Involved" section only if you were previously involved.

Support[edit]
  1. Support The scale of the problems with material not supported by sources is sufficient to justify a ban, and the sock puppetry indicates that this person is not interested in editing constructively at present. Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support. I was the reviewer for some of Doug's GAs, and participated in the September 2022 ANI thread, but I don't think that makes me involved. I had hoped at the time of the ANI that Doug could be persuaded to fix some of the problems in his articles, but the sock-puppets have convinced me that he should be banned. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support This is mostly symbolic due to the fact that he will hit 3X the next time he uses socks or meats, but the cban will send a clear message --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support I have reviewed some of Doug's GAs, but I have not participated in previous ANI discussions (though I did roughly follow the conversation at the time). The socking is not helping, and it seems like Doug is not able to self-reflect on how to improve his behaviour, so a CBAN should be in place until such time that Doug can demonstrate how to improve their editing, per an unblock request. Z1720 (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support While it may have been Doug's long tenure and prolific content creation that made him lapse in adequate sourcing, his attitude when asked to improve articles he worked on was uncooperative, and his insistence on continuing to make poor edits after cases were opened shows an unwillingness to work towards Wikipedia's goals, rather just to get "his" content onto Wikipedia. Kingsif (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Neutral[edit]
Involved[edit]
  1. Support ban. (AFAIK, I had never encountered Coldwell before these incidents, but can probably now be considered involved because of bringing forward the ANI that uncovered the socks.) I believe Coldwell was a good faith contributor whose competence to edit Wikipedia should have been questioned a decade ago. Along with the burnout factor of those who work in the area of copyright patrolling, we have a cleanup problem that is beyond Coldwell's capability to help with; he has demonstrated again this month that he is not able to contribute content written in his own words, using appropriate sources and reflecting them accurately. Whether the new editing represents socks or meatpuppets, it is concerning that others may be emulating Coldwell's poor editing habits. It is time to send a clear message to Coldwell and any Wiki-associates that their time might be better spent elsewhere, and meatpuppets will be reverted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support ban. Like SandyGeorgia, I don't believe I encountered Coldwell before September 2022. I tried direct engagement with him at Talk:New York Central and Hudson River Railroad No. 999 and came away unimpressed (in particular, he incorporated part of a source assessment I made on the talk page word-for-word into the article). My impression is that Coldwell doesn't have a good grasp of the spirit and intent of our policies. I think this is clearly illustrated at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1112#User Doug Coldwell at Haskelite Building and 801 N. Rowe Street--keep in mind that this incident occurred a month after a long ANI discussion in which he was banned from GA/DYK nominations, had autopatrolled removed, and came pretty close to an indefinite block. Since then the poor-quality editing has continued, and he's either socking or encouraging people he knows to edit (badly). He's well past the point where his editing is a net negative, and the CCIs will take years to resolve. Mackensen (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support ban. I was one of the first editors to investigate Coldwell for copyright violations after an editor reviewing one of his GAN submissions raised some concerns to me about copyvio, and I was the editor who filed the CCI case request that got us to this point. I'm not going to say that Doug Coldwell should have been caught and disciplined years ago. I'm not going to say that because our processes back then were weren't very good. But now he has been caught, and he's refused to change, and he's has made a big a mess for actually good editors as Billy Hathorn made. Coldwell and Hathorn are not learning types, so as punitive as I feel writing this, advocating for and obtaining a CBAN for Coldwell is not a punitive act. This is the driving into the turf of a fence post for razor wire that will keep future copyvios off English Wikipedia. I do not doubt that as a consequence of his CV and the cleanup required to remove it all, a lot of our coverage of American history is going to regress by years. If it even moved forward in the first place. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Comment: I would support a ban and I think that it is needed as can be seen from his block appeals however due to the fact that I have been started multiple GARs for his articles and in one of his block appeals he said that I do believe I know who is behind having me banned - User Gusfriend. His campaign is to have all my Good Articles delisted. I believe that I am too involved for a formal !vote on this section. Gusfriend (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support - my involvement is that I participated in the Sep 2022 ANI thread which led me to do a little editing of the 999 railroad article Mack linked above. I just read the 2007 ANI thread and it's stunning how similar that one is to the one I participated in. After fifteen years we just can't risk spreading more misinformation. Levivich (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support ban. My first encounter with Doug Coldwell took place in January 2022 with the GA3 review of Cone Mills Corporation. Cone Mills had failed GA1 on copyvio concerns, which I found to be remediated. The reviewer for GA2 never returned, but a comment was left casting doubt on the broadness of the page. I quickfailed Cone Mills on GA3 for failing to address in any substantive manner that comment. I then reviewed five more Coldwell pages, passing two (since delisted at GAR; I have participated in attempts to improve the pages) and failing three others. I participated in the September 2022 ANI but not the October or January ones. The issues have since been revealed to be far broader than poorly cooked GANs and indeed will require long-term, multidisciplinary collaboration to resolve. The mess he has left us, his continued socking activity, and his disregard for some of our most important policies and guidelines merit a ban. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 02:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support ban In my early days of editing in 2021, I reviewed one Doug Coldwell GAN. I am clearly involved, as the first ANI thread that kicked all this off was started by me. At the time, it was just Doug adding photos of himself into articles along with self-promotional text and then ignoring all attempts to communicate with him, forcing a block just to make him engage at ANI. And then he started posting his "I have over 300 confirmed kills 200 GAs and 500 DYKs" copypasta, and accusing me of being jealous of him (LOL) and otherwise acting poorly. At the time there was hope he would learn from the experience and so an indef block proposal didn't pass. And then the second thread happened and an admin rightly indeffed him. Cue repeated insane unblock requests, one over 50 kb long, and Doug having to get OS'd for OUTING another editor, and then the socking/meatpuppetry. There is no alternative but to impose an outright community ban so any further socking can be reverted on sight. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support Was not in any contact with Doug, that I am aware of, before the first ANI thread in September 2022. I believe I first saw it after a link was posted in the Wiki Discord, and watched the goings-on for some time, as I rarely get involved at ANIs unless I have to, and watched as the conversation evolved from mild ownership concerns to severe copyright concerns and failure to communicate, requiring a brief block to ensure actual communications. There I got involved, and there saw paranoia, refusal to learn, and petty insults. By near the end of the discussion, I expected Doug would run himself into an indef at the very least, even when he narrowly escaped it at the first ANI thread. Soon after, he did, only to come back with sockpuppets. The CBAN is an unfortunate necessity. Prolific editor, but unwilling to learn, refusal to communicate, and the whole trainwreck of the unblock request... Has to be done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Iazyges, you posted in the "Involved" section, without declaring an involvement. Did you mean to post in the "Support" section above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia: Amended to declare involvement; should have occurred to me that that should be included. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks; I was concerned the format was unclear, so added a line of instruction. I'm not sure if participating in an ANI makes you involved, but the closing admin will have to sort that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support - copyvio sockpuppeteers need to be dealt with in the harshest of manners because of the massive timesink they cause. No idea as to whether I am involved, so I am parking myself here. MER-C 10:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support per above. I think the fact that I failed the now-deleted Preparation (principle) article's GA review makes me involved in some form. XtraJovial (talkcontribs) 16:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support Back in 2020, I decided to try my hand at GA reviewing and help out with the backlog. I picked an article that looked not too long, and then I quick-failed it for copyvio and unclear writing. Coldwell then showed up at my Talk page to complain at me: I have created 500 Did You Knows and 50 Good Articles, so have an idea how this goes. [...] I'll ask someone else to do the Good Article review. I'll renominate it. Please don't interfere and just let another editor do it on their own with their own opinion. If I'd had more sense, I would have looked into those 50 GA's back then, and we might have known about the problem 3 years ago. I'll call myself "involved" on those grounds. XOR'easter (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support ban. I first ran into Doug at Talk:Star Watch Case Company/GA1. It was only my 2nd GA review at the time, but it was obvious that the (low) quality of the writing didn't jive with the number of GAs logged by the author. The perfunctory way they responded to my review also pegged my WTF-meter; it was obvious they weren't giving any real thought to my comments. It was so jarring, I made some off-wiki inquiries to find out what was going on. It wasn't until later when the extent of his GA and DYK gaming came out that I fully understood the situation. And of course the socking (which goes back 15 years) removed any doubt that we're better off without him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talkcontribs) 23:33, January 29, 2023 (UTC)

Delisting Coldwell GAs[edit]

Pending completion in early March of GA process mergers now underway, the proposal under discussion at GA is that Coldwell GAs will be delisted via a global process except for those articles where a reviewer has opened an individual GA reassessment and vouched for/verified content of all sources, including offline sources (that is, AGF on offline sources is suspended because of history). During the ItsLassieTime CCI, a handful of copyvio GAs were stubbed and delisted via individual GARs; there are over 200 GAs in this case. See implementation details at GA talk, and an encouragement to wait for the GA process merger to be completed.

Discussion of proposal to delist Coldwell GAs[edit]
  • Support. Implementation detail is being worked out at the GA talk page, and is similar to what is done at Featured article review. Opening 200+ GARs would be a burden, and a combined process will be more efficient. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support this is unfortunately necessary, the problem is widespread enough and reviewing these individually is unrealistic and unfair. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support GAR is overburden as it is --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Save a massive amount of time and effort by avoiding GARs. Basically every single one of his contributions is getting reviewed at CCI anyway. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, per my comments on the GA talk page. GAR cannot possibly scale to handle the volume, and a GAR without a user to work on the article is something of a dead letter anyway. Mackensen (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. This is going to be necessary given the experiences I had with the only two Coldwell GAs I passed of six nominees reviewed, Mail chute and Shelby Gem Factory. Not doing this would cripple GAR at a time when GAN itself is also sorely backlogged. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 22:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I'm not sure if there are any precedents for such a large scale GA delisting, but it is warranted in this case. I note SandyGeorgia's comment at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations that her spot checks have found significant problems that are time consuming to fix. Nick-D (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support as in my comments linked above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per the various comments above. There's no realistic alternative. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support There are too many articles that would need to go to GAR and it would not be sustainable to take them ther individually. Gusfriend (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - going through them one by one is too much of a burden to place on volunteers. Levivich (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support This must be done in order to preserve the GA rating having any meaning anymore. Doug Coldwell mass-produced these with little care for accuracy or avoiding copyvio; we should not spend the time to rigorously check each and every one when many if not most are chock-full of copyvio, failed verification, and factual errors. I've personally looked at several and they all had massive issues to the point they never should have been promoted to GA regardless. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I agree that sending all of Doug Coldwell's articles to GAR would be too much work for reviewers. Better to mass-delist and then renominate those that seem like they have some value (not that I think there are any.) NW1223<Howl at meMy hunts> 04:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, as unfortunately necessary. No prejudice against anyone who chooses to re-nominate one to GA, although anyone doing so should be warned to enact a full rewrite. ♠PMC(talk) 05:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, on the understanding that any article which is clean of copyvio gets relisted. Animal lover |666| 07:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Issues are beyond copyvio (misrepresentation of sources, for example), although nothing prevents anyone from re-nominating an article to WP:GAN after a WP:GAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, articles often fail broadness and copyvio criteria. GAR costs too much time. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per above. MER-C 10:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. XtraJovial (talkcontribs) 16:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support The very first one that I randomly plucked from the list, Typographer (typewriter), reads like it was written for a school assignment, and not for a very old student either. For example, He observed office workers overwhelmed with laborious tasks of handwriting lengthy official documents that took a long time. It would be surprising indeed if the laborious task of writing a lengthy document were completed in a short time! XOR'easter (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support as someone who quickfailed several Coldwell GA nominations only to see them quickly renominated. The GAR process is too cumbersome and there are too many articles for it to be possible to review them individually. And delisting does no real harm to the encyclopedia as the articles are all still there and can be renominated if someone wishes; it merely removes undue credit from Coldwell. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Too much community time will be taken up by reviewing all of this user's GAs to ensure that they comply with the criteria. I would rather that these are delisted, and interested editors can check the article (and maybe make improvements) before renominating them. Z1720 (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. I took a look at Star Watch Case Company, which I failed in GA1, but I see was eventually passed in GA3. The quality of the writing is still abysmal. It's fine as far as spelling and grammar goes, but it's stodgy, stilted, and just plain boring to read. I plugged most of the text into a "readability estimator" website which ran a bunch of scoring algorithms on it; the rankings ranged from 5th to 9th grade reading level. If I were reviewing it today, I'd fail it again. I assume this is typical of his other GAs. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Another Ludington company. I'm beginning to wonder how much POV there is throughout anything now on Wikipedia related to Coldwell's Ludington, Michigan due to COI, and why COI has never come up in these discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support As someone who has done hundreds of GAN reviews, I may be the most prolific reviewer to have never touched Doug's work (I'm pretty sure). There were two reasons for this: 1. he had hundreds of noms with zero reviews. 2. when one of his noms for one of the Hall family became the oldest unreviewed nom, I looked over the article and decided that I would not be able to pass it, but that I was not sure I could adequately explain why, at least not without an essay in the review. If we were to run reassessments on all of those articles, those same two issues would make life hard: there are hundreds. There are issues it will likely be hard to explain. But we know there are issues.
    And I honestly do not think delisting should be seen as some horror solution. A GA assessment should be viewed as an assessment, not a badge of honour (as much as we know we wear listed articles as such), and there will be plenty articles out there that could be GA listed or nommed that aren't (GA status is not all-encompassing); i.e. delisting Doug's articles means that they require assessment, is all. I think that's already been established. Kingsif (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removing unverified content cited to offline sources added by Coldwell[edit]

Application of WP:PDEL. Any content added by Doug Coldwell that is cited to an offline source may be removed by any editor from any mainspace article, except those that have passed a new Good article reassessment.
A similar past example for User:Oanabay04

An example of how content from Oanabay04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was handled:

Coldwell's articles are already at CCI so WP:PDEL applies, but community consensus to shoot offline sources on sight and stubbify articles might help advance the cleanup by at least removing instances of too-close paraphrasing that are extremely time consuming to chase down.

Discussion of removing content cited to offline sources[edit]
  • Support, but hold off on stubbing articles until the GAR processes complete the planned merge and it is determined what GAs other editors intend to rewrite. I was surprised to find the same issues recurring in 2019, and in the recent sock edits. Of particular concern is the difficulty in tracking down copyright issues in Coldwell's edits because of the extensive use of very old and offline sources; it takes hours to examine one article. The damage spread across content, has been seen already in a healthy sampling of articles. With misrepresentation of sources along with copyright issues, inaccuracies, and archaic sources, WP:AGF on offline sources in GAs is not useful. My own sampling reveals everything covered in the post above with EEng's sample, and the often-archaic sources along with misrepresentation of them combined with plagiarism or too-close-paraphrasing. Because he is often the only editor on obscure topics, it is fairly easy to see what can be deleted if it can't be verified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To confirm - if an article is not a GA, then it can be stubbed/deleted without waiting? MER-C 11:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Correct. I believe the GA folks are wanting to preserve some GAs if possible, but there are technical issues in how and when to make it happen, so we are asked to hold off until they finish the Proposal Drive and get everything in place. No reason not to deal with other (non-GA) content per usual. Of course, if the copyvio is egregious enough on any given article, I would think that CCI admin action would override GA preferences. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, and ask that copyright inquisitors not to be expected to restore the articles that CCI will necessarily, as a part of the process, eviscerate. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support This seems uncontroversial and there are a number of precedents for this where we have had to assume everything an editor has added is unreliable and/or a copyright violation. I've handled some instances of this over the years, though not on anything like this scale. Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support but, as Sandy notes, delay until implementation of some of the other points. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support but hold off per above. Levivich (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Anyone can do this anyway using existing policies but I have found that (1) a community ban and (2) explicit approval from the community for PDEL makes it much easier to deal with. MER-C 10:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Especially given the scale of the problem. Details as per SandyGeorgia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 20:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Sounds like the sensible course of action. XOR'easter (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Time is an important resource for Wikipedia editors. It takes too much time to track down and evaluate offline sources, so this solution is a better idea. I hope that editors who go through this process will keep the sources in a "Further reading" section so that future editors might be able to use these sources to improve the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Great idea ! You should bold that, Z1720. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General comments[edit]

Image copyright issues[edit]

I have yet to dig to find if this is a pattern, but File:1965 Time Capsule II interior.jpg is not in the provided source and is tagged at as FDL image for some reason. File:See-through of Cupaloy.jpg is also improperly tagged. File:Westinghouse 5000 year pin.jpg provides no source so I can not find if DC was the author of the image or not. Someone at commons is going to need to do a CCI as well. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I contribute File:1960s TV camera.jpg and the bizarre recreation that is File:Lionel Flash Lamp.jpg Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 22:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleting articles for copyright violations[edit]

When it is necessary to seek the deletion of an article on grounds of suspected copyright violations based on precedent by the user concerned, like for example with Billy Hathorn, copyright inquisitors do not use AfD; an AfD wastes time for CCI and AfD regulars (believe me, I know). Instead, copyright editors use Wikipedia:Copyright problems (CP), which gives a seven-day grace period to allow for rewrites before MER-C an admin deletes the article. The method used at CCI for determining what can/should be sent to CP to save volunteer time is demonstrating majority authorship of the article text by a proven copyright violator. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concurring. MER-C 10:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk page header[edit]

I would like it if a talk page header was created with a link to this discussion plus any other relevant information to be added to any article which was one of the GA articles including those that have already been delisted. This would give people context when they come to the talk page and wonder at the history of the page. Gusfriend (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe note it in the article milestone. Where we'd normally link a GAR, we could link to this thread, perhaps. Levivich (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There might need to be a project space page with an explainer. Something like Wikipedia:Doug Coldwell copyright violation removals or Wikipedia:Delisting of Good Articles by Doug Coldwell. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 02:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think something bespoke would work best here much like Sammi suggests -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. I've now spent more time looking at the script used to close GANs and GARs, and unlike when Gimmebot processed all content review processes into articlehistory, GA now uses a script which operates very differently from the original (gimme)bot or FACbot. (And doesn't give oldids on GARs or roll in DYKs, etc) I've some ideas of how to make the process work, but it will involve some combination of new coding or mass message sender or something. My idea to do it the way FAR does won't work. But better heads can convene elsewhere to figure out how to effect a delisting of a couple hundred GAs without having to initiate a couple hundred GARs. Whatever is written for transclusion to the GARs or talk pages would hopefully not name DC rather be written more generically. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If GAR uses a process similar to what FAR does, the end result would be a GAR listing in articlehistory that points back to this thread. Should they decide to go that way, I am familiar enough with {{Article history}} and the FAR process to help them set it up. However. Coldwell has many more DYKs than GAs, so that leaves a lot of articles uncovered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just had a look at User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/GANReviewTool, and it will be trickier than I thought. Some special script coding may be needed, but for 200 plus articles, probably worth the effort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SeeAlsoPolice[edit]

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


The user SeeAlsoPolice seems to be displaying a number of odd behavioral problems:

  1. they vandalized another user's Wikipedia page, see [7]. They have also refused to stop posting on his page, even edit warring about it: [8], [9], [10], [11]
  2. they seem to be using our Wiki to try to make sock edits on Dutch Wikipedia, where they are banned see [12]
  3. They are edit warring, see [13], [14], [15], [16]
  4. they are rude, see [17] nobody did them because someone falsely claimed I did not provide a X to Y statemen, [[18]] This page should not be speedily deleted because... the user's behaviour on Wikipedia is the digital equivalent to book burning.

--00:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC) Ermenrich (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Came across this at AIV, I indefinitely blocked them for disruptive editing, personal attacks, vandalizing another editor's user page, and edit warring. DanCherek (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:7&6=thirteen and Doug Coldwell content: Topic ban consideration[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is clear consensus for the following:

  1. 7&6=thirteen is topic-banned from "all issues relating to [Doug] Coldwell, broadly construed". There was not much discussion of what precisely that means. Based on this discussion and previous ones about Coldwell, I will interpret this as
    1. All content pages that Doug Coldwell has significantly contributed to, broadly construed, or discussions in other namespaces related to those pages, again broadly construed
    2. Ludington, Michigan, broadly construed (largely a subset of 1a)
  2. 7&6=thirteen is topic-banned from participation in WP:DYK, broadly construed. While there was little opposition to this proposal, it received less support than the other, and a fair amount of the support was qualified or hesitant; as such, I interpret the consensus relatively narrowly, applying only to participation in pages part of the DYK process and not, more broadly, to commenting about DYK in other venues (which is not to say the latter is a good idea).

The proposal for a community ban fails. However, 7&6 is advised that, while there was general opposition to a CBAN, that opposition was fairly shallow. Given the choice, in some future discussion, between applying a fourth TBAN or applying a CBAN, a CBAN seems much more likely. Likewise, given Wugapodes' note at the November 2021 discussion and TonyBallioni's action here, there is also the possibility that further disruption would be met with a regular indefinite block that would be an uphill battle to overturn. As Amakuru said below, you are at a fork in the road. Only you can decide where to go from here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


See User:Doug Coldwell Community Ban

User:7&6=thirteen was involved at many of Doug Coldwell’s GAs and DYKs, issued most of the barnstars awarded to Coldwell (scroll down), and initiated Coldwell's Editor of the Week award. He had the confidence to edit Coldwell’s user page, was the top editor at Coldwell’s talk page (after Coldwell), and that relationship went both ways: [19] [20]

The community has spoken unequivocally with respect to Doug Coldwell’s content. While being friends or Wiki-associates cannot and should not be held against anyone, being unable to see the level of issues with Coldwell’s content, or respect community consensus in the matter, is a problem, and one that should be nipped in the bud as the community moves forward with a CCI and GA reassessment.
Considering the amount of work ahead to clean up the messes left behind, please review the following to contemplate whether 7+6 should be topic banned from all issues relating to Coldwell, broadly construed:

For disclosure purposes, I am involved at Johnson as I removed the content originally. I could be considered involved at the library (?) as I flagged it as part of the CCI. Ludington Public Library still has sources that do not verify the content, and the majority of the sources are offline and not available at newspapers.com. Further, the lead gives UNDUE attention to one Ludington, who wasn't even instrumental in the library funding, as he withdrew his pledge (an example of POV seen in Coldwell’s articles). If the behaviors seen at the library article and the Fletcher article are what we can expect going forward with the CCI and GA reassessments, even more time by more editors is to be misspent, and I submit that 7+6 is not neutral, not collaborative, not working in the best interest of content, and should be removed from those conversations.

Separately. Whether 7+6 should continue to participate in DYK nominations might be contemplated.

Notification: [21] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guilt by association? Really? No cited grounds.
The article that she "flagged" has been improved. Article improvement is supposed to be a shared goal of all of us.
Shutting off any opposing vieiwpoint seems to be contrary to the basic underpinnings of Wikipedia. 7&6=thirteen () 16:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you're restoring Doug Coldwell's contributions then you're taking ownership of it. This doesn't seem like a great choice given the community consensus above about Doug's contributions. Is your "opposing viewpoint" that Doug's contributions are in fact good and should be retained? Please elaborate. Mackensen (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with Mackensen, there is a valid point being raised here and dismissing it as "Guilt by association" is just childish. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personalization seen at the library continues at Johnson. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was nothing wrong with the article to begin with. I am not talkng about all of his articles, only this one. Indeed, User:SandyGeorgia are again taking inconsistent and mutually exclusive positions. "cut and paste" copyright violations and WP:OR. You can't have it both ways. But these are mutually exclusive by definition. You need to spend some time on a logic course if that is your position. Res ipsa loquitor But it you are saying that Wikipedia is treating Doug Coldwell and all of his edits is nonexistent, and something along with his history, accomplishments, improved articles 500 DYKs and untold GAs are to be summarily expunged — I get that. But I think WP:Preserve and the established procedures for individual consideration are to the contrary. Remaking history is anathema to our values, and is something endemic elsewhere.
I personally edited the Ludington Public Library article 58 times, and made it substantially different than this. Nobody can improve or change the 'tainted articles'? Really?
If those are your rules, then torpedo them all, but put up a warning notice.
As a responsible editor with damn near 150k in edits, I expected better treatment.
Personalization continues here. 7&6=thirteen () 16:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not going to look into the context here but it should be obvious an editor can easily be guilty of both OR and copyright violations in the same article. Even in the same paragraph. Further OR is often used loosely to include taking material from primary sources or other unreliable sources, and especially taking material from primary sources and advancing a position not stated in the primary sources. It's clearly trivial to add material not stated in the source while also copying as I can do right here "As a responsible editor with damn near 150k in edits, I expected better treatment. Personalization continues here. I suggest a siteban for SandyGeorgia." The first two sentences I copied from you. The last one is just some shit I made up. Nil Einne (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support block for thirteen. The last time they were here was also in a matter regarding their lack of care regarding sourcing―which puts it generously, frankly, considering they were effectively being accused of falsifying a source―a lack of concern which the above complaint would seem to indicate hasn't been addressed by 13, but which has instead become a pattern, or habitual. Nor, would it seem that that they took the closer's final words into account: this discussion should serve as a sufficient, final warning. If problems continue, administrators responding to editor concerns should consider resolving the issue using existing tools. By now, they're approaching, if not actually, a net negative to the project. SN54129 17:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wow. Considering that the "made up sources" was a lie and was found to be wrong, and I was acquitted, User:Serial Number 54129 has jumped the shark. But double jeopardy, innocence and due process of law are seemingly alien concepts with no application here. 7&6=thirteen () 17:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A jump to a block is ridiculous, SN. A topic ban, as requested, yeah, I can see that being something to discuss. But to throw petrol on the fire with a leap to a block seems... excessive. — Trey Maturin 17:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not at all, merely following the recommendation of the last admin to warn 13 of his behavior. It would certainly not 'throw petrol on the fire' any more than the usual sprawling threads that seem the inevitable outcome of any discussion with them at the heart of it. It would also take into account the continuing WP:LISTEN issues they continue to demonstrate here: they literally argue that they were 'acquitted' last time, when in fact they received a final warning. And anything that enables an impression of being fireproof...however many edits... is unhelpful. SN54129 17:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A sprawling thread is now guaranteed by escalating this to a drama, SN, and the likely result will therefore be no action. I'd assume this is the opposite of what you were seeking, but so be it. — Trey Maturin 17:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The underlying charge of "making up references" was untrue and found to be a mere typographical error. Check the record before again repeating the lie. I am not niffnawing about the warning or the topic ban. I know that they exist, and I've acted accordingly — which I have scrupulously respected. But you folks will have to follow your own conscience.
FWIW, I thought the arbitrator's got it wrong. That is a closed issue, however. As arbitration has to be final and binding for the community to function; as the community ruled, I obeyed. See Socrates and Hemlock. 7&6=thirteen () 17:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am not niffnawing about the warning or the topic ban = "the next step is escalating blocks". Cool word, niffnawing though. SN54129 17:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Perhaps someone will separate the two (topic ban or block) via subheads? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Never mind: I just read Wugapodes closing statement at the previous topic ban discussion, and see that it is quite relevant to behavior that continues here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support t-ban - There was nothing wrong with the article to begin with. - and yet, unattributed public domain copying and source-text-integrity issues (AKA the "bless-your-heart" version of saying something is OR) noted on the talk page well before this. And yes, unattributed public domain copying is still problematic even though the source is PD, we need to be indicating where material came from. And bragging about edit count (150k edits ...) is not too far removed from what got Doug in trouble. Thirteen, I'm starting to wonder if you have trouble identifying sourcing issues with articles, given the past AN/I discussions. Hog Farm Talk 18:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are lots of sources. If it needed more quotation marks, that could be done. Indeed, that was one of my suggestions. Blowing up articles that are well sourced and attributed, like Ludington Public Library which is fully attributed, seems extreme to me and contrary to the best interest of the project. Improving and rewriting the article is permissible. 7&6=thirteen () 18:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're not grappling with the main issue, which is that given an article that was substantively edited by Doug Coldwell, many (most?) editors don't trust the attribution. You should read over #User:Doug Coldwell further up this page, if you haven't already, and consider what's been said and proven there. Looking briefly at Ludington Public Library, I see many offline sources that will be difficult to check, including a number well over a century old. Given Coldwell's record, I don't trust any of those to say what he claims they say without seeing them for myself. Mackensen (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Use of real library books used to be encouraged; and their use (instead of whatever you might find on line) does not make them unreferenced. I 7&6=thirteen () 18:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not all responsive to what I or others have written. Mackensen (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The question is though: have you read them, and can you vouch for the statements and accompanying sources? If so, can you share the sources for others to vouch for the content similarly? – robertsky (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AND can you confirm that they aren't copied or closely paraphrased. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not for us to question AN consensus. But.
How many of the offline sources at Ludington Public Library have you reviewed? Most of the article is cited to offline sources. It is difficult to consider that you have accessed the offline sources, because your rewrite still includes online sources that are inaccurately represented. I'm hoping you understand that the frequent misrepresentation of and misuse of sources, besides our inability to verify copyright issues in the offline sources, is why the AN found consensus to stubbify these articles (which WP:PDEL provides even without the AN consensus).
Separately, it's curious that you revisited talk to sign, but did not remove the personalization;[22] logic was a core course in my undergraduate major. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Unless 7&6=thirteen is personally taking responsibility for the sourcing of the content (as in they have checking and confirm the details) they are restoring they need to stop. There has already been discussions about the issues involved. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 20:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Maybe you need a refresher. I know User:Doug Coldwell from Wikipedia for over a decade. He is an honest contributor. I know that he regularly consulted with the library (including the Library of Congress. I know that he would send me copies of off line sources if a question arose. WP:AGF should cover those. I also know that his Wikipedia articles and research have actually become the basis of newly published scholarly books, and that he got letters and mention in the books attesting to his conribution. I also know that he was a pain in the ass, who bombarded me with missives telling me how to research and conntribute to Wikipedia; he is a true believe in article preparation (he had a second account for his drafts, but always posted them to the main space from his own account) and careful off line research. He had a standard method of operation, and would get the books, do the drafts, redo the drafts, and only belatedly post a full blown article. He had more patience and persistence than I in the whole good article quest. His work was repeatedly reviewed at DYK and GA. He had no incentive to lie about what he found. His format style was not always electronically informed, so that when we edited the same article we would work on that together.
    I did not keep track of off line reviews of materials. It was not part of my job description. With 150k (almost) edits, I have little recollection.
    As to your opining that the off line sources do not exist, that is contrary to what Wikipedia says about off line sources. As Jonathan Swift Charles Kingsley once wrote, "you cannot say that water babies do not exist, unless you have seen them not existing."
    You expect me to confess, recant and thrown Doug under the bus. As Galileo said as he left the Inquisition: "And yet it moves."
    That you folks think your evil thoughts of him is not my experience. Honi soit qui mal y pense 7&6=thirteen () 21:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I missed where someone said "the off line sources do not exist"; pls clarify.
    So, you have not answered the question, but it appears from what you have said that you have not read the offline sources for Ludington Public Library, nor have you yet corrected the content that misrepresents accessible sources. (You might recall that I found one of the books-- which was incorrectly cited-- at archive.org; as more and more of these archaic sources are being indexed at archive.org, the problems are becoming more and more evident.)
    So, when you revert content back in, how do you know you aren't reinserting copyvio? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    AGF is not a suicide pact. With respect to Doug's editing, there is currently a CCI case open against him, due to repeated findings of copyvios and close paraphrasings in the article text. Just a few days ago, because of the volume and nature of Doug's problematic contributions, it was decided to apply WP:PDEL to any content added by Doug which was cited to offline sources. We are very, very far past the point of AGF on this.
    7&6=thirteen, when you are restoring content written by Doug, that editors have removed on PDEL or any other copyvio or CLOP grounds, are you actually verifying that the sourcing is correct and supports the text in the article, and that the text in the article is neither a copyright violation or close paraphrase of the source material? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support topic ban (involved): 7+6 had a chance to answer the concerns, but instead keeps digging, doesn't answer direct questions, can't acknowledge the problems, and time is being misspent on an issue that has already taken more than its due. Wugapodes previous close of a similar tban discussion should also be considered in light of the personalization. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support ban from DYK as well; it is not hard to see how we got such a big Coldwell problem, and we need to remove reviewers from DYK who don't understand core policies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support topic ban. 7&6=thirteen's post above, in reply to ActivelyDisinterested, convinces me that he other does not understand, hasn't read, or doesn't care about the problems with Doug's editing. Hundreds of edit hours are being spent to clear up the copyright and paraphrasing problems Doug refused to acknowledge or help with. The community needs to be able to trust in the commitment of the editors working on trying to clean up the content Doug wrote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - we know that final warnings don't work because 13 has interpreted the last final warning as being "acquitted". In response to the "but did you check the sources?" query from multiple editors, 13 admits they did not, but thinks that because they have 150k edits, they deserve better treatment. In addition, 13 denies that Doug Coldwell's articles were problematic, ignoring community consensus to the contrary. 13 reminds me very much of Doug in this way: either unwilling or unable to comply with our sourcing policies (or even to recognize the difference between good sources and bad sources, or the importance of actually checking sources). I'm not sure what kind of sanction exactly (a block or a ban, and if so, how long/from what, etc.), but clearly talking to 13 isn't working, warnings aren't working, and nobody should have to deal with someone wholesale reinstating Doug Coldwell's content with offline sources without even checking those sources, that's disruptive and a timesink, and contradicting recent community consensus. The incivility (telling another editor take logic classes, "evil thoughts" above and the comparison to Galileo and the Inquisition, etc.) is an additional layer of disruption, but recklessly adding stuff to mainspace without sufficient care for accuracy and policy compliance is more important. Levivich (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support topic ban at minimum per Levivich. Given the disregard for a consensus regarding Coldwell arrived at after careful analysis from the community, 'reckless' seems a fair description here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, I found the book on line, and there was an extended discussion about whether the ISBNs were right.
I recognize your power. I respectfully submit that no violation has been proved, and telling everyone that articles are to be nuked (without considering other editor's input on them, for instance) is a bad idea. But I also understand that I am now to be collateral damage when all I did was improve articles. You are destroying the village to save it. 7&6=thirteen () 21:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You really aren't doing yourself any favours with such facile analogies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I recognize your power. I saw what you did there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Restoring content that is presumed to be a copyright violation, without actively checking if it is a copyright violation, is not improving the article. It is reckless, and as the header at WP:CV states, has legal considerations. If you cannot see the problem here with regards to the inclusion of text that is violating copyright, then do we need to open a CCI case into your contributions as well? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you "found the book on line", I wonder why I had to add it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support topic ban from all things Coldwell at a minimum. Levivich summarizes the problem well. Cullen328 (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You've already made up your minds. Now comes into play that they just want to delete Coldwell's articles and use the term "Nuke Coldwell's articles". Do they mean they want to delete articles he created = that means all the other editors that have expanded it since lose their work instantly. Take now for instance Columbus's letter on the first voyage that Coldwell created in 2008. However User:Walrasiad has been expanding for years and has 92% authorship. He will then instantly lose all his work = what will he say about that? It doesn't seem right that all these editors that have expanded an article Coldwell created will lose their work.
There are some articles that Coldwell didn't create but has the largest authorship into. An example would be Eber Brock Ward where Coldwell has 54% into it and 7&6=thirteen have 21% into it. The creator of the article is User:Krosewood\. Does that mean then that other innnocented editors lose their work instantly because Coldwell has the largest authorship into it and therefore must be nuked and deleted in 1 step. I guessing that "nuking" any article Coldwell has edited (989) might present a problem. Time will tell how this is going to play out. The complete Wikipedia project might have to be rewritten as to how it is to be done if you "nuke" any article Coldwell has edited. 7&6=thirteen () 22:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thirteen, I think you're misunderstanding the proposal. At least as I've understood it, content that's been checked/rewritten for copyright/verification issues (for instance, what I did with Appomattox Court House National Historical Park to keep it from being stubbed) isn't going to be removed, and content from other editors like Walrasiad isn't going to be removed either. Hog Farm Talk 22:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is one of the (many) problems with so many editors having no idea how much work a CCI is, or even what is involved. Coldwell's content actually has to be teased out from other content, so that extensively rewriting his GAs before his content is removed makes the work even harder. 7+6 is seriously misstating the "nuke the article" issue, as one actually has to go into painstaking, time-consuming detail to figure out what can be removed. I did it last night for the Library article, took me over half an hour, but I didn't save the edit because the AN consensus is to hold off for GAR reasons. This half hour is after I have already spent days on that one article, and located as many sources online as I could. I shouldn't have to do that for every one of thousands of edits that need to be checked at the CCI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was pinged here, haven't been following any of this discussion. The Columbus letter article took an enormous amount of work to write, so this is naturally frightening. I am not sure who DougColdwell is or what his crime was. But on behalf of other expanders like me, I would appreciate if editors would be careful with composition shares before nuking any article. Walrasiad (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Walrasiad: Doug Coldwell's 'crimes' are discussed just a bit further up this page, at § User:Doug Coldwell, but they include significant problems with copyright and apparently also misrepresentation of offline sources. There is, however, no "nuking" of articles beyond one or two users suggesting it as an option, and it's very unlikely to happen precisely because of concerns like yours over the contributions of uninvolved editors. The only content-removal remedy endorsed by the community that even approaches deletion is this one: [users] may remove any content Doug Coldwell added that is cited to an offline source. XAM2175 (T) 11:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Regrettably there doesn't appear to be another option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 22:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support TBAN and DYK ban 13 has been given ample opportunity to reflect on his actions with regards to this issue, and acknowledge the issues he has created when restoring content removed for copyvio reasons. For whatever reason he seems unable to understand, or unable to accept that Doug's contributions, particularly with regards to content supported by offline sources, were a problem. In order to prevent disruption of what will already be a long cleanup process, and in order to prevent future articles with copyvios from passing DYK, I have to support both bans. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This feels like a bit of a mob action. Now that doesn't mean the mob doesn't have a good point. But my sense is most of the folks commenting here are involved and have strong feelings about the user that predate the particular issue. That said, I think User:7&6=thirteen is doing a poor job of dealing with the issues and, at the least, is communicating poorly. I'd personally prefer someone open an ARBCOM case or, perhaps, find a set of uninvolved admins and get them to sort out the issues. I just don't think we have an unbiased jury. Which, I want to note, isn't the same as saying the defendant is innocent. Hobit (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You're not wrong--I'm one of the people who have complained at noticeboards for a long time about 13's editing. Why does that make me "biased" as opposed to "perceptive" ... or "correct"? :-) Serious question: I have a greater-than-average knowledge of 13's editing, as do some of the other folks here. Why should our opinions be valued less than people who have less knowledge/experience with this issue than we do?
    As to opening an arbcom case... we just had one last year about 13 and deletion discussions, and 13 was TBANed from deletion as a result. If we open another arbcom case, who is going to post the evidence? Why make editors do more work? If I'm the one who posts the diffs, should they be discounted because of my past involvement? Does that help the community resolve this?
    Hobit, I encourage you to !vote, no matter how you vote. I fundamentally agree that this discussion, like most discussions, could benefit from more voices, but I don't think that an experienced jury is a biased jury. Levivich (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am the only involved editor entering a declaration, and my involvement is declared. On what basis do you claim that "most folks commenting here are involved"? Arbcom doesn't take cases that the community can solve. And an uninvolved admin will sort this when they close the thread. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I saw some of the same names at the last 13 discussion. And at least two are, IMO, folks that sit in ideological opposition to 13 when it comes to inclusion/deletionism issues. And to answer the question about needing to post diffs: A) an involved person always posts diffs and makes a case at ARBCOM. The difference here is that you are making the case and serving on the jury by having a bold vote. And B) if you feel you'd need to do too much research and work to make a case ARBCOM would take, doesn't that say something about the case that's been made made here? A I don't have time right now to dig through all this and I probably won't until the weekend (I'm a single parent for a few more days). Hobit (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Edit conflicted with Levivich, who says they are also involved; that makes two. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Perhaps I missed it in the fast-moving thread, but I haven't seen anyone yet mention 7&6's reply to Sandy on their talkpage here, which strikes me as being at best astonishingly tone-deaf and in poor taste. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I chose to ignore it as just another side show. I was hoping to keep focus on a user who should not be reviewing content at all-- much less his friend's content-- in an environment where so many people are asking how we let Coldwell happen. Coldwell happened because of Quid Pro Quo reviewing at DYK, that feeds a need for bling, that can be furthered by friends reviewing friends' articles. And suddenly the problem is huge ... and as EEng said, woven throughout the fabric of Wikipedia. Hence, the DYK ban as well. It all started there, and we have the same thing happening there today: people passing articles to the main page that shouldn't even be on Wikipedia. We don't need editors reviewing DYKs who don't understand COPYVIO or too-close paraphrasing, or OR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    13 makes comments like that in every one of these discussions (something I know because of my prior involvement...). Civility and battleground behavior is the finding that arbcom made in the deletion case. We're seriously talking about 3 TBANs on an editor in one year, plus ongoing incivility? I'd support a siteban at this point. Levivich (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I did not know of this extensive history ... sometimes I amaze myself at what I stumble in to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Blocked for 72 hours found this after SandyGeorgia followed up with me about the original close on my talk page. Reviewing the edits to mainspace and here, they're editing against community consensus in the AN thread above and are displaying battleground behavior on general and in this thread. I've blocked for 72 hours to allow the community to decide if further action is needed without having to worry about continued disruption. If there's consensus here to undo my block at any point, I'm fine with it being lifted, but I thought it would be helpful in allowing the process to continue while limiting disruption. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Topic Ban 7&6=13 simply doesn't understand what the issue with his actions are with regard to Doug Coldwell articles, and unless he shows significant understanding, there is no choice but to topic ban him from the area given the massive amount of editor time already being spent dealing with Coldwell articles. Also, Comment since another user has already proposed a block, I am not yet weighing in, but 7&6=13's past of sanctions must be considered. In 2022 he was a party to an Arbcom case in which he was topic banned from deletion, and one arbitrator (Worm) supported a site ban even at that time. ( Two other arbitrators abstained.) Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support both topic bans— at a minimum. We need a cooling off period here so that editors can dig into the DC mess without unnecessary impediments in their way.
    Now, let me address 7&6 for a moment. He and I have worked together a little long ago, and I know him to be well meaning in the past. 7&6, I understand that you think that you're defending the honor of a friend. I know you want to preserve contributions to Wikipedia that you think are valuable. Loyalty like that is commendable. The trouble is that the object of your loyalty has been found to have breached core levels of trust with the community and opened that same community up to potential legal ramifications. Unfortunately, a lot of Doug Coldwell's contributions will have to be undone. They all need to be scrupulously checked against all of the original sources. We can't assume good faith anymore at this level. We have to verify everything he's done to get rid of these issues. You need to step aside and let people do that work. Doug has no more honor to defend.
    Now, 7&6, you have a temporary block to give some time for this discussion to proceed. This time should also allow you to reflect on the situation. If you come back guns blazing, obstructing the CCI work on DC's articles, if you fight the process to delist GAs that aren't adopted and rewritten, etc., then I will support a full site ban given the past history of warnings and the behavior here before your temporary block. Imzadi 1979  01:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support both topic bans. I've followed this since the Doug Coldwell problems came to light recently, and more than anything it just makes me very sad. But sometimes hard decisions need to be made, and the right one was made in his case (with a strong community consensus). Now, 7&6=thirteen has clearly been working too closely with Doug to have been the right person to do DYK or GA reviews, and is too emotionally involved to attempt to work on any cleanup. That alone would mean they should be excluded from the work. But the refusal to understand and accept the consensus decison, the deliberate attempts to obstruct the cleanup, the evasion, the obfuscation, the hyperbole, the battleground, the personal attacks, all make that exclusion more urgent. This is very disappointing behaviour from someone with such extensive experience here. I hope further sanctions aren't needed once the current short block expires. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    PS: I just want to add that, to the best of my recollection, I've had no past conflicts with either Doug Coldwell or 7&6=thirteen, I don't think I've overlapped in any subject areas with them, and I'm not aware of any ideological differences with either of them. I'm about as uninvolved as I can be, as far as I know. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support both topic bans, per Levivich (at 21:38, 30 Jan), and Boing! said Zebedee directly above. I also suspect, with comments like You've already made up your minds. Now comes into play that they just want to delete Coldwell's articles and use the term "Nuke Coldwell's articles", that Thirteen might be approaching this as a proxy battleground for deletion as a whole. XAM2175 (T) 11:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I am processing through a chart to sort article history and template errors for the talk page notices to be sent re User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox9 and implementation of the GAR process, I happened across an interesting example of 7+6 participation in a GAR: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/James L. Buie/1. Worth a read as relevant to this discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support topic bans at minimum Full disclosure: I have come into conflict with 13 before. Their conduct in this case falls below the standards expected of an experienced user, and I don't see any other viable alternative other than to topic ban them to avoid continuing disruption. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support topic ban at minimum: It is glaringly obvious to me that 7&6=thirteen is suffering the same hardness of hearing that Coldwell had, and his combative stance (to say nothing of linking common argumentative devices like "mutually exclusive", which I read as an insult to the target's intelligence)—evidenced quite clearly by the legal devices he is using as though this is an argument to be won rather than a discussion about problems (proven beyond doubt, I might add) to be resolved—do not inspire confidence that this will not eventually also escalate to a CBAN. The Coldwellian use of edit count as a barometer of competence and worthiness, as a shield against criticism, is particularly odious. Anyone reading this can think of plenty of editors who did likewise and found themselves hung with a rope whose length is equivalent in cubits to their edit count. More to the point, intrusions into CCI and obstruction of the removal of identified violations cannot be tolerated. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 10:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support topic ban What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If Doug Caldwell is banned for something, and 7&6 is picking up the mantle on the same kinds of behavior, I don't see why we shouldn't extend the ban to them as well. --Jayron32 15:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose all for now OK, I just looked over the links provided by @SandyGeorgia: at Willis Fletcher Johnson. I'm only seeing the vaguest of waive at issues with no specific details of any actual copyright violation. Can anyone, specially including the OP here (SG) provide exact and specific issues with the revert? And where those exact and specific issues were raised before being brought here? I'm seeing one quote of material that I think there is agreement is in the public domain (so while not what we should be doing it can't be a copyright problem) and vague mentions of "there are too many similarities and the possibility that offline sources are plagiarized or misrepresented exists". Which isn't the basis for doing anything frankly. At least not without consensus that there is an issue. Copyright violations should not be restored. Vague concerns about copyright violations are not copyright violations. Hobit (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, I will. But I spent days going back and forth trying to repair Fletcher, so the history is complicated (at one point, fearing I had reverted too much from the first sock (not knowing at the time it was a sock), I had begun to reinstate pieces although I didn't have the sources-- this was before we had AN consensus to WP:PDEL offline sources so I had to AGF). In the final revert where I gave up and removed the whole thing, I had also found one instance of cut and paste from The New York Times (that is documented on talk, see this section) after finding sources contradicting his academic background.
    Here is the version 7/6 re-instated after I had spent already several days cleaning out original research after the socks, and that contains the NYT cut-and-paste ("He later received the honorary degree ..."). Other too-closely-paraphrased text in the article at that point mimics the upper case used in the sources. Here's the version the second sock left with Gwillhickers appearing to help. (Aside: Gwillhickers also has hundreds of DYKs, and close paraphrasing difficulties, but they had edited the article in the past.) And here is the inglorious version after the first sock, replete with blatant original research and UNDUE content at Selected works (the man wrote real books, yet the entire Selected Works here in the new and improved bio was about a minor self-published family account not even mentioned in his bios). That section also contradicts itself, as even one of the cited sources, Dacquinto, states DeVinne is a printer, not a publisher. This is the kind of sloppy source-to-text integrity found throughout Coldwell's work. In this case, there is a significant reason behind that writing and sock and Wikiassociate defense of this particular article.
    At the time of my final revert, I had invested considerable time already into locating offline sources, and at the point I found the NYT cut-and-paste, there were still several sources I had not located and could not verify. A CCI was open, and PDEL applies. At that point, I had found one source that claimed he graduated from NYT and another that stated he did not, so that remained to be sorted. As an example of the kinds of issues frequently found in Coldwell's writing, I invite you to spend as much time as you want on the first paragraph at Biographer and book author to attempt to repair the integrity of that wording. I invite you to verify the first sentence of Personal life. There is more, but at this late stage I can't recall it all from memory, and am not going to spend more time on it, as the basis for that revert was PDEL and the amount of problems and original research I had already repaired when I also found cut-and-paste. 7/6's edit might have been understandable if he had continued the repair work I had started, and instead of wholesale reverting, restoring a repaired article. What he reverted to not only had the NYT cut-and-paste; it had other unverified and contradictory content.
    More significant in the overall content the socks built at that article than the copyright issues was the original research. Coldwell's entire premise in all of those edits was original research, where he looked at a page at the end of the book with a printing stamp to conclude that the printer was the same as a publisher (DeVinne is a printer), and blatantly constructed an entire argument to that effect, using OR to contradict a secondary scholarly source. The COI/POV aspect of this stood out to me. He was using OR as a basis for defending the content he has spread throughout the Ludington family articles that is based on a laudatory account that was self-published by Henry Ludington's grandchildren. It appears that he chose to sock at Johnson because that article is foundational to much of Coldwell's work throughout a series of Ludington-related articles, and it is not curious that reverting that content back in became important to 7/6.
    There are sources to write a real article about Johnson, the socks provided many that might be used, and Johnson is worthy of someone taking the time to do that. The sources produced by Coldwell and Co. can be used, but the article has to be built from the ground up, avoiding cut-and-paste, and double-checking discrepancies between sources, and avoiding POV and OR. This is why going forward with PDEL on Coldwell content, I urge that the source list be kept on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    PS, I have not investigated, but before assuming NYT from that date is public domain, I believe it has to be ascertained if they applied for copyright extension. This is all a separate matter from the original discussion, though, which is that 7/6 wholesale reverted against AN consensus without addressing issues or ascertaining that content hewed to offline sources, or for that matter, even discussing on talk (he went to talk after the revert, and didn't address the previous concerns raised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SandyGeorgia:, as I hope you know, and just for the record, I was not trying to "help" inasmuch as I was going against consensus. At one point  I added an image and did a minor rewording in the lede. A day or so later I made a couple more minor edits. As I explained to you on the talk page I was going to leave matters in your hands given all the controversy going on at ANI and elsewhere. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I understand and do not disagree; I commented because you had been there but proceeded to edit as if the article did not have huge problems, so we end up between your edits, my edits (before I understood we were dealing with socks), and two socks editing, with quite a convoluted edit history that is probably hard for others to follow. And Hobit asked for detail. By the time of my broad revert back to status quo, I had several days in at that article, and looking back (WP:PDEL), that was time misspent. I gave up trying to repair when I found the cut-and-paste on January 15. We found out on January 19 there was socking ([23]). On January 30, the AN closed with consensus. 7/6 went against consensus on 30 January, after the AN closed. So while you and I may have been editing earlier without having the full picture, that was not the case with 7/6. When I launched this thread, considering how brazen the revert was, I half expected 7/6 to simply say they were not aware of the AN, in which case everything might have been viewed differently. That didn't happen; instead, 7/6 has repeatedly dug in and refused to understand that issues with Coldwell's content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support TBAN in regards to Coldwell material. I neither support nor oppose a TBAN from DYK. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support both t-bans Discussion here alone makes it very clear they should have no involvement with copyright or DYK. Anyone who can even moderately assert that "WP:AGF should cover those." in terms of Coldwell runs head-first into WP:CIR; none of Coldwell's edits can be trusted, that much has been made very clear over the course of numerous discussions. Perhaps one might be willing to defend Coldwell the man or even Coldwell the editor, but anyone willing to defend Coldwell's work needs to be kept far away from copyright, and DYK removal seems useful given obvious lack of care taken. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 09:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support both TBANS Better with a 1 year autoexpire and appealable in 6 months. From process standpoint I have problems with this. It sounds more link a vague discussion from an angry mob. I don't even see specific allegations identified as such. But from the comments of many credible people here that there is damage to be undone and that 7&6 is an impediment to that. Also 7&6 doesn't seem to be taking any of this to heart or truly engaging on the specific problems. Their responses seem to be vague volleys. Despite flaws in the above process, I think that this moderate remedy is called for and needed.North8000 (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support the proposed topic ban. At first I was thinking of opposing as the dispute was primarily between SandyGeorgia and 7&6=thirteen, and the comments from other editors on the talk pages came later and looked like they could have resolved it, but from the discussion here it looks like that isn't going to work. I don't see enough evidence to support a ban from DYK - depends if it's part of a pattern or limited to Coldwell's contributions. Peter James (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal for CBAN[edit]

Comment: I have created this subsection and moved prior support for a CBAN here because it's a serious proposition that I at least think should be considered giving the seriousness of this thread's subject material. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 10:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support both topic bans and site ban. Competence and a willingness to cooperate are both necessary to collaborate here. 7&6 is lacking one or both, and in plenty of contexts apart from Doug Coldwell's contributions. Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, now that this is being seriously considered, I should elaborate my reasons for supporting a site ban. As other editors like Levivich and HJ Mitchell have noted, this is a recurring problem. It's not just Doug Coldwell. In fact, I would argue that his friendship with Doug Coldwell is, in some ways, happenstance; it is how he became aware of this situation, but not the sole and maybe not even the primary reason that he involved himself in it. After all, a vast amount of content is being deleted, and as we all know, 7&6 stridently opposes deleting content. Therefore, he has taken it upon himself to—in violation of his topic ban—obstruct the consensus to delete here, just like he obstructed deletions at AfD. I have no doubt that 7&6 means well and loves adding to this project. In fact, I fear he may love it a little too much: he does not seem able to understand why some content (e.g., copyvios, OR) is bad, or even to recognize that his understanding is lacking in this area, and when editors try to proceed without his agreement, it becomes a meritless purge, a show trial, to quote 7&6's remarks on how the community has handled Doug as well as himself. He has caused no end of disruption. He needs an indefinite ban, not a three-day slap on the wrist, both to end the disruption and to drive home the point that, yes, this is disruptive. 7&6 does great work, and I want him to contribute, but not like this. I pray that six months or a year and the process of writing an appeal will offer enough time and self-reflection for him to develop a healthier perspective. Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support topic and community bans Anyone who compares being discussed at a noticeboard with being dragged off by the Gestapo lacks the maturity to participate in a collaborative environment.72.213.11.193 (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support TBANs and CBANs. This is just one in a long, long series of AN/Is related to 13's behavior and it doesn't surprise me in the least that he's here again. The same attitude that was incompatible with deletion discussions is also incompatible with DYK/GAR, and the continuing civility issues just push this over the edge. JoelleJay (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I think my involvement too high to opine at this level. With the original (Doug Coldwell) CBAN, I had never interacted with him, and my observations were from afar. With 7&6, I have now had direct conflict, I was unaware of the history, and I don't have time to investigate it. I continue in support of two Tbans (all things Coldwell broadly construed, and DYK participation). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    7/6 (blocked) has responded on talk. I'm not thrilled that 7/6 says "you should be ashamed" because an IP lodged a query on my talk, and I told the IP I doubted it, but it's unclear if 7/6's "you" refers to one IP or to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - I'm not here to defend 13 but if the purpose of the sanctions are to stop disruption in the most effective way while doing the most minimal harm to the rest of the encyclopedia as possible then this makes no sense. If sanctions are meant to punish someone we disagree with or has made serious mistakes in the harshest way then this makes perfect sense. I'm not going to minimalize or trivialize 13's actions. I disagree with them wholeheartedly but I also believe that 13 can be a positive for the encyclopedia. I've worked with 13 in the past on very specific topics and they do great work when focused in the right direction. They have made a series of significant missteps and lost sight of the goal of this community and this encyclopedia but I don't believe they are a lost cause just yet. The immediate disruption has been stopped. If it continues after this latest block then I would agree that further action must take place. The proposals above of specific topic bans seems more reasonable to the potential of further disruption in the areas where 13 seems to have an issue at the moment. Hopefully 13 can refocus and get back to positive editing that is beneficial to the encyclopedia and that will be their choice. I think we should give them that opportunity. --ARoseWolf 13:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - CBANs should only be utilized during instances where the disruption is so pervasive and ongoing that blocks are not preventing them. The 72-hour block has not even expired yet; I would think that waiting would be prudent, with no prejudice against implementing any of the previously proposed topic bans. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Cban, support tbans. Changing my stance, apologies; after all, I supported SashiRolls return, so this seems like an inverse, but not ultimately particularly different, situation to that. No more rope. Thirteen's disruption has been both persistent and consistent over the last few years, as was recognized in their receiving a final warning last time. No more rope, unfortunately, is available. Nonsense. On reconsideration, there's almost always more rope, even for Haman. SN54129 13:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC) SN54129 18:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129: I admit I know nothing about the SashiRolls situation, but from your description, it sounds like they were appealing a ban. That leaves me confused, as these two scenarios presumably feature the basic difference that the SashiRolls admitted wrongdoing and apologized for it, whereas 7&6 has basically not. Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - (Non-administrator comment) In line with ARoseWolf and WaltClip's views on this. I'd be more likely to support more specific IBANs/measures that deal specifically with offline source verification, but the idea that 13's behaviour merits such a massive hammer seems extreme in my eyes. — Ixtal ( T / C ) Non nobis solum. 14:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support TBAN and CBAN. This is a case of 7&6 winnowing the field he actually does any good work to an impossibly narrow area where he is more damaging to the community than beneficial. Stymying a massive cleanup and casting aspersions at the people doing the thankless work is absolutely the final straw for me, when it's coupled with the fact that he is acting like core policies regarding verification, sourcing, and plagiarism are no big deal. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose CBAN A topic ban should be sufficient at this point. --Jayron32 15:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Let's stop, at this point, and let things settle. I have not been involved at all with any of these people to my memory, but it does not take much digging to realize how sad and emotional the Coldwell situation is and how much of it is the responsibility of the community over multiple years. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose for now (I'm not sure, but I think this is a separate thing from above, if not strike this !vote). I can't find an actual violation of, well, anything, in the OP's statement for at least the first article listed. So I'm having problems thinking anything needs to be done at this time. Willing to change if a clearer case exists. Hobit (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have encountered 7/6 at two Coldwell articles. In the section above (before this new proposal was created) I gave you examples for Willis Fletcher Johnson and why that particular article was significant. The other is Ludington Public Library, which 7/6 has vigorously defended and said there was "nothing wrong with". 7/6's style at that article has been (to use the term someone below used) Coldwellian.
    Here is an example of cut-and-paste from a source I had to dig up where 7/6 removed my inline without changing the cut-and-paste (and then stonewalled on talk when I was trying to determine if I had the right source, as the citation was incorrectly written and then 7/6 gave a non-working ISBN).
    Here is the simplest single example I can offer of characteristic Coldwell content, unchanged by 7/6:
    1. Source The Ludington Daily News
    2. Article content after 7/6 edits: "The Zonta Room, named for the local branch of Zonta International, includes extensive genealogical and historical research materials."
    3. Article content before 7/6 edits: "The Zonta Room, named for the local branch of Zonta International, includes extensive genealogical and historical research materials."
    After hours working to correct issues at that article, where I encountered stonewalling from 7/6 on talk, that is what 7/6 considers "nothing wrong with". Complete {{failed verification}}, content made up. The source is talking about, literally, a group of women hanging curtains and has no mention of "extensive genealogical and historical research materials" (OR yielding POV based on COI).
    Now, if that is good content from an accessible source we can all read, what are we to assume in content written by a now-banned CCI editor about the three-fourths of the article that is based on sources 7/6's acknowledges not having checked as to whether they contain copyvio ? 7/6 is defending the article as they copyedited and changed some wording. It's obvious they didn't check even the sources, like this one, that are easily accessible and only used on one sentence. WP:PDEL applies, and we should not have to swim against the stream with Coldwell's wikiassociates when attempting cleanup.
    I note the relevance of this particular article (as in the case of Willis Fletcher Johnson) in terms of why Coldwell's Wikiassociates and socks may have taken on those two articles: the library is where Coldwell worked closely with staff, which one of the blocked sock/meat puppets claimed to be. (COI in addition now to copyright issue and failed verification.) It's not surprising these two articles were defended.
    I'm not posting in this section to support a CBAN (a sub-section I did not create) rather to point out that you are missing the editing problems, which are laid out on article talk and linked in "the OP's statement" (I note you acknowledge not having gone past the first example, and maybe you should). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak oppose at the moment. My views on this hinge upon 7&6's behavior once the block expires. Continuing the same behavior as before would push me over the edge to supporting an outright CBAN. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't believe this is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 18:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - 3 TBANs in one year is silly, plus the ongoing incivility. It was final warning -> Arbcom TBAN -> more of the same in a different area... I'm not satisfied with adding more TBANs. Let him be blocked until he makes an unblock request that convinces the rest of us we don't need a block or TBANs to prevent problems. And I want to emphasize, it's not like 13's disruption is just annoying other editors or hurting people's feelings... he's recklessly adding misinformation to mainspace, without regard for core content policies like V, NPOV, not to mention copyright, and so on. The harm to the encyclopedia is real, it's been going on for a long time, and it's in multiple topic areas, and nothing has stopped it so far. Levivich (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support both. User has bee given enough chances, as noted by others. ValarianB (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Very weak oppose I agree with TAOT above, this all depends on how they behave after the block. If they return and stop all of this behavior, and find something else to do, then it's unnecessary. But they are on extremely thin ice, and if they continue with this battleground behavior then they clearly don't deserve to stay here. echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Look at 13's recent edits and see if they stopped all this behavior or are continuing with battleground behavior. Levivich (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Its seem excessive in this situation. Topic bans are just that. Simply no need to full ban. scope_creepTalk 09:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Neutral per TAOT; some of the Coldwellian behavior is concerning, but hopefully TBan and temporary block will help. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 09:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose permaban. 13's unflinching loyalty to their wiki friends is to be commended. And there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with a community consensus, even an unequivocal one. On the other hand, one should be restrained about such disagreement and after a couple of tp posts or edits, drop the matter if consensus remains against you. 13 does seem to have been in error here, but the topic ban should be sufficient to rectify this, and lets us retain a good editor who has done much to improve articles and defend other editors work. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak support for a ban at the present moment. User:7&6=thirteen - you are really at a fork in the road here. I've known you on and off down the years here at WP, and I think that while we sometimes disagreed on certain matters, you are broadly cognizant of how this place works. However, the evidence provided by Sandy above really does not paint you in a good light at present. Sorry to be harsh, but your discourse at Talk:Ludington Public Library#CCI review is really poor. Sandy was working on cleaning up that article, following the demonstrated problems introduced by Doug Coldwell, yet you several times dismissed her actions and stated that everything was fine despite clear evidence that it was not, and effectively impeded Sandy's work in tidying the article up. I would have expected, when this issue was raised here at WP:AN, that you would immediately do a mea culpa and pledge to work productively to either help clear up the Coldwell mess properly, or to at least not impinge on those such as Sandy who are working on that and acknowledge that your contribution had not been helpful hitherto. But instead, I see just in the last hour that you are describing this process as "silencing" you and that it is "punitive and hostile". That attitude, in the face of clear evidence as to what led to this discussion, is not compatible with working collegiately anywhere on Wikipedia I'm afraid - whether or not you're topic-banned from the areas mentioned above. But as I say, this is a fork in the road, and even now it doesn't have to be this way. You can have a genuine and introspective look at what happened, acknowledge your mistakes, and detail how things are going to be different going forward. If I see something along those lines, then I'd be happy to amend my !vote here and give you another chance. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reluctant support for siteban. Reluctant because I don't doubt that 13 has a heartfelt desire to add and preserve encyclopaedic. Support because he has shown, time and again, that he cannot accept policy and consensus that some content is is unsuitable for this encyclopaedia or has so many issues with policy and guideline compliance (in this case copyright and verifiability) that it needs to be removed or fundamentally re-written. This causes him to obstruct efforts to clean up or remove bad content and to see these efforts as part of a crusade against him. This manifests as a battleground mentality and personalisation of disputes. But Wikipedia works on consensus and policies are the rules we've all agreed to play by. If one person can't abide by consensus, or can't play by the rules we've all agreed to, it doesn't work. More topic bans won't change that. The only thing that will is for 13 to fundamentally rethink their approach to participation in this website. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose, but consider this to be a support if 13 continues the hilarious self-martyring monologues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is just hateful and unnecessary. He is leaving comments on his own user talk page. If you don't like it then don't go look at it. If he left it other places like here he'd already been blocked indefinitely for bludgeoning the discussion (justifiably) but we give wide latitude on user page's for all kinds of talk including running down Wikipedia itself. --ARoseWolf 14:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ARoseWolf: I wouldn't really see it as hateful per se. I wouldn't use the term "self-martyring monologues" myself, but the point is that 7&6 is exhibiting classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour through the comments he's making at his talk page. Both myself and I believe the commenter AirshipJungleman29 here are prepared to offer him an olive branch if he understands and acknowledges why the community is having this discussion now. And we will fully monitor what he says on his user-talk page to that end, since currently that's the only place where he's permitted to comment. If he says something positive in that direction, which he hasn't done so far, then I will change my !vote to give him a chance, but I can't do so at present. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Amakuru, forcing someone to bend to your will just because you don't like that they disagree with you or won't say exactly what you want them to say is not complicit with the purposes of this encyclopedia or a collaborative community any more than the disruption caused by 7&6 to begin with. The point of sanctions is to stop disruption. The tbans will do that just as the temporary block stopped the disruption to the copyvio investigations and cleanup. 7&6 is venting. They haven't attacked any editor specifically on their talk page. He has stated multiple times on his talk page that he will not impede the cleanup further and will accept any tbans. Placing any further requirements on him once he has agreed to stop the disruption goes beyond the purpose of the sanctions and into the realm of trying to force your will on another human being in order to continue doing their productive work here. It is wholly antithetical to the mission of the encyclopedia to try and break the will of an editor in such a manner. When there are other means to protect and preserve the hard work of those working and correcting the errors made by Doug being proposed above this discussion then that seems like the logical choice. This proposal is a step too far as is the repeated requests for 7&6 to state anything further concerning what they will or won't do. You've given your answer and they have already given theirs. What I have seen from the comments and offer isn't as much an olive branch as it is the attempt at forcing a dehumanizing capitulation. Vote to support or oppose and leave it at that. I've spent enough time on this already so I'll leave you with the option for the final words. --ARoseWolf 18:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We may well do, at admin discretion, allow a little venting from users in good standing―note the lack of synonymy of 'good standing' with 'experienced.' At the moment, they're showing an increasing lack of judgment. Also see WP:POLEMIC, which advises strongly against posting material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. SN54129 18:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I want to apologize to all for putting up the Tban proposal without being aware there was other background. Had I known, I might have structured the original post much more carefully, to (maybe?) avoid this (painful) sprawl. My only aim was to stop the interfence with WP:DCGAR. I agree that 7/6, while blocked, should be able to use their talk page as they wish. I remain decidedly neutral on the ARS and other issues, as I have neither the time nor desire to investigate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reluctant support, per this response to an attempt to get 7&6=thirteen to state they would abide by the policy re copyright. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose community ban for now, support whatever additional topic bans there is consensus for in this thread. I understand - and to a certain extent, agree - that after multiple ibans and tbans, it's easier on the community to replace them all with a cban. However, I know of at least three other editors with as many or more ibans and tbans than this, and I'm not willing to support community banning 7&6 - who is apparently productive and helpful when not involved in drama - quite yet. It appears from their talk page that they would accept any tban(s) handed out, even if they do not agree with it/them. That's all we can ask. I would hope/assume 7&6 will recognize this as a last chance; if they cause clear disruption in another area, any admin (me, if I'm around) can block them indefinitely without the need for another AN/ANI thread first, which might help minimize the concerns about continued community time-wasting. I'm probably seriously inconsistent on this, but in general I have a knee-jerk dislike of these "burn the witch" threads at AN/ANI, even if they might be justified. For the 10,000th time, I wish there was something better. For the 10,000th time, I can't think of anything practical. But it brings out the worst in some people. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose From process standpoint I have problems with this. Structurally there was anough specific stuff for a TBan even though it has a bit of a vague angry mob structure. Above I supported the Tbans but I so far see no suitable/due process to inflict such a severe remedy with resultant impacts on both the editor and Wikipedia. 7&6 I think you need to change some things. North8000 (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose community ban. TBAN understandable. 13 may be overly passionate at times but, overall, is good for the project. ResonantDistortion 22:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Peter James (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove me from AutoWikiBrowser checkpage[edit]

Please remove me from the AWB checkpage. I haven't actually used it at all, and don't have a real need for it either, so I think it's best for me to be removed from it. InvalidOStalk 19:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personal attacks?[edit]

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


In almost 20 years on Wikipedia I have never sought admin action over personal attacks. I usually just ignore them. However, there is a content dispute shaping up at Rocket Lab and I'm hoping to discuss the issue without things becoming personalized. In an attempt to keep it content focused I responded to an edit summary that I thought started down that path, requesting the editor avoid such things. I got even worse in return. I'm not necessarily advocating for a block, they're a good editor with valid concerns on the topic, but would like to note the exchange at User talk:NickCT in case it gets worse. Dispute resolution is for content and I don't really see it spelled out where the line for admin action is, so could use some direction there. Thanks. Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, GW. You're required to notify, I've done that for you. Valereee (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I find it a little ironic that in response to my accusation that this guy is trying to hound me, pester me, and have non-content related debates w/ me, he comes and posts here, which itself seems like another attempt to hound, pester, and have non-content related debates. I have had several exchanges with this editor, where I've pointed out some unhelpful behavior of his, only to find that he doubles-down on that exact behavior. I'm not sure if this is somekind of weird gamesmenship, spitefulness or what. I do know it's boring. At this point I'd propose a voluntary interaction ban and welcome an enforced one. NickCT (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not trying to hound you, I reached out to you with one comment on your talk page after a series of personal attack over several years at Talk:Rocket Lab. You've called me, a bigot, a stalker, boring, several times implied I'm dumb, among other things, and told me I wasn’t operating in good faith (I'm really trying). No other editor seems to share your view about me and I've tried responding politely. Behavior issues are best raised at personal talk pages and here, not on main space talk pages. Two interactions reaching out to you in more private space is hardly hounding imo. We've got differing opinions in a content debate, no need to stop assuming good faith. You still have mine. Grey Wanderer (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Grey Wanderer: you wrote on Nick's talk page, Personal attacks such as “Think you're being clever? I can guarantee your not” should be avoided.... Where does that quote, "Think you're being clever? I can guarantee your not", come from? Levivich (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is from Talk:Rocket Lab, in the closed 2019 RfC about company nationality, the exact same content dispute brewing now. There are two relevant threads. A long one entitled "Company Nationality" from 2016-the present, and the related 2019 RfC. Some of it became quite personal over the last three (four?) years. Grey Wanderer (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Grey Wanderer: If you're looking for action from admins here, you'll need to provide some diffs. I did a quick check of the situation and it looks like a content dispute. There are some admittedly prickly comments by NickCT, but a cursory look doesn't show anything rising to the level of WP:NPA. I also see that he did ask you to refrain from further posting on his talkpage, and that should be respected in a situation like this. Barring any further evidence, I don't believe disciplinary action is needed at this time but I would suggest both of you make an effort to keep the discussion on the content and not each other. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with with/to all of that, and I'm not sure if admin action is necessary. I came here because they seem uncomfortable with a discussion our interactions at their talk page. If you've read Nick's talk page and Talk:Rocket Lab, you've seen it all already. I wasn’t sure, to be honest, if things did rise to the level of personal attacks, but being called many different names made me consider it. I made one comment to Nick hoping to prevent behavioral conversations in the mainspace and was called a stalker. I think I've done a pretty good job of avoiding behavior discussions and focused on content at Talk:Rocket Lab, I'm not sure the same can be said of NickCT. Hopefully this servers as a warning shot to us both to focus on content. Grey Wanderer (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm happy if administrators don't see a need to act and wish to close this thread. @NickCT: As I've said at Talk:Rocket Lab, I have no more to say there unless you propose new wording and seek a new consensus, ideally through RfC. I'm happy with the old phrasing, but see your point about awkward wording. I urge you to discuss content only and to try to see my point of view at Talk:Rocket Lab. For the future, I do wish to point out that a brief (and civil) discussion at your talk page would have prevented the need to open this discussion here. I would rather not waste admin time. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Unban request for Raymondskie99[edit]

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


Raymondskie99 is currently banned by community consensus (WP:3X, I believe) as well as being locked across all Wikimedia projects. They have a long history of evasion documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Raymondskie99/Archive. They have made the following request via UTRS appeal #68877 to have their ban lifted and so I will reenable their talk page access. I present the request without taking a position on whether it should be granted. Note that there's been technical block evasion here, but I believe WP:AGF would apply to that. Checkuser data shows no recent block evasion (keeping that single edit out of consideration). --Yamla (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I created my first account with Raymondskie99 back in 2017 and was blocked several months later by User:Bbb23 when that time he still has checkuser rights. I was unaware of policies like sock puppetry and etc. I just keep reverting the majority of critically endangered species to extinct, eventually leading to my account being blocked as disruptive editing. I was still immature way back then, and my English is awful. After being blocked for months, I decided to evade by creating new accounts, which User:Loopy30 noticed and reported to the sockpuppet investigation. Then, when I saw this, I regretfully personally attacked him homophobically once as User:Yamla said, and also disruptively edited German Wikipedia, which eventually my account was later globally locked. Some of my accounts overlap with other sockmasters at video games articles like TotalTruthTeller24, PlayerSasha, Cassandra, possibly impersonating MRY (since he attacked my SPI and talk page after allegedly stalked the protecting admin, Ferret, after the vandalism spree from Fire Emblem characters) and etc. After plenty of socks had been blocked, I decided to evade further and created User:GeeJay24. After being caught, I decided to vandalize some of the articles at the end since requesting a self-block has failed, so my account wouldn't be checkuser blocked and my edits wouldn't be reverted per deny policy. I went on discord to send dm on ferret and User:Sergecross73 and promised to fulfill the Standard offer, but I doubted that I would be unblocked at that time, so I decided to evade once more and lied. After my most recent account was blocked, I decided to use a variety of IP addresses and proxies to edit other articles and then finished improving 10 species of nuthatch articles, including White-throated treerunner into GA using my dynamic IP addresses. Those articles were mostly GA reviewed by User:AryKun, User:Jens Lallensack and User:An anonymous username, not my real name. After editing with multiple ips, I decided to create another account for the last time, BloatedBun, so I could edit on semi-protected pages. 5 months later, ferret caught me again, and with no choice but to follow the rules and fulfill the Standard offer now. After it was blocked, I used my IP for the last time to expand a little bit more and fix every flaws I saw at the articles before eventually stopping editing. I am aware that I have been blocked several times due to sockpuppetry. I am remorseful for everything I did. I am currently a grown-up person with a job, unlike before when I was just a kid who had nothing to do with my life. I spend my 6 months elsewhere doing things like focusing on the job, Twitter, YouTube and playing video games often, but I admit that I still broke the rules on discord by joining my other account to the Wikipedia server despite my original account was already removed so that I can maybe avoid editing while waiting for SO. I fully understand why my prior conduct has been unacceptable, I have learned from my past mistakes and will not repeat them, as my only goal is to improve the encyclopedia further. Thank you, Wikipedia community! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondskie99 (talkcontribs)

Presented without taking a position. Yamla (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It doesn't matter if you re-enable talk page access. A globally locked editor can't log in to their account. If you want this account to respond to you on-wiki, you would have to ask a steward for a global unlock. You can do that at m:SRG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will do, thanks NJP. --Yamla (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Procedural/policy question: does a global lock preclude us from lifting a local ban? Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Compassionate727 - I think that has been answered above, which is that they have to ask to have the global lock lifted first. In other words, they can be almost invisible here because they are Someone else's problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unban or modify a CIDR range ban[edit]

A friend informed me that you have banned the entire IP range of 109.178.128.0/17. That's 32,768 IP addresses from the most popular ISP of Greece (Cosmote). As a result, new users from Cosmote's network cannot register an account or edit articles. I believe that this is too severe a measure as it pretty much hinders an extremely large portion of Greek users from contributing to Wikipedia. TritonXVIII (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that the block is anon-only. Anyone with an account can contribute without problems, anyone without can get an account via WP:ACC. The blocking admin in this case is Widr. TritonXVIII, you are required to notify them. --Yamla (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Without actually looking at the edits from this range, I can say that the real question is the damage caused by anonymous users on this range vs. the damage from innocent anonymous users not being able to edit. A few considerations here:
  1. This is not the first block. This is the fourth. Any innocent users would have had some time between blocks to create an account. And the block expiry is public information.
  2. Each block was done by judgement on the edits since the previous. Each block was done because the disruption started up again after the previous block expired. Note also that while the first two were done by the same administrator, the last two were done by 2 different administrators - that's 3 seperate administrators who each decided that a block was necessary, based on a seperate set of edits.
  3. Any user who has access to a different ISP - even if it's for a limited amount of time - can create an account there and use this account on the blocked range. Anyone who doesn't even have that option can request an account, as stated above. Asking a friend to create an account is also an option (did you create one for this friend?).
Animal lover |666| 13:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TritonXVIII: I have two comments to make about this.
  1. The vandalism was so extensive that there was no reasonable option other than blocking the IP range. The only alternative would have been to allow massive amounts of vandalism to continue indefinitely. Several times shorter blocks had been tried, and each time the problem returned when the block expired. Under the circumstances blocking for a year was minimal.
  2. Obviously IP blocks which may affect innocent users are highly undesirable, and I don’t suppose any administrator does so happily. I am well aware of how it feels to find one can't edit because of a block made necessary by vandalism from other people, because many years ago it happened to me. It was annoying, to put it mildly, but I accepted that it was, unfortunately, necessary, and got myself an account. That meant that there was a delay, until I got an account, but a delay of a few days was fairly short in proportion to the 16 years since then when having an account has meant that I have always been able to edit, never again being affected by IP blocks. JBW (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User 193.207.202.54[edit]

Vandalism on Amanda Lear, Amanda Lear discography (another IP) on Amanda Lear filmography. Thanks. Eliedion (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

193.207.128.0/17 page blocked from Amanda Lear and Amanda Lear filmography x 1 month for disruptive editing. 5.252.84.91 page blocked x 1 month from the discography page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blatant vandalism like this should be reported on WP:AIV, not here. Partofthemachine (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NorthJerseyCoastLine.svg[edit]

Can an admin please restore this file? It was deleted as an orphaned non-free file after being removed from its corresponding article in this edit without any explanation given for this removal. This deletion has resulted in the NJCL article being the only NJT article that lacks its official logo in the infobox. I have restored the article to the version before the unexplained removal of the logo, so the non-free media will have have a use, and would like the image restored to match all the other like articles. Thanks. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK recruiting call[edit]

WP:DYK requires admins for the last couple of steps in the process, due to the main page being admin-only. At the moment, BorgQueen is doing most of the work, with me filling in most of what's left. We had a larger admin crew until recently, but other commitments (school, etc) have reduced our ranks. So, we need a few more admins to help out moving prep sets to the main page queues.

It's a job that currently needs to be done once per day. Most of the work is reviewing the hooks for DYK rule compliance. I can do it in about 20 minutes if there's no issues that need to get fixed. It'll probably take a new person more like an hour until they get the hang of it. If we got a couple new admins who could each handle 1 or 2 sets per week, that would go a long way towards reducing our bus number. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In an off-wiki conversation, an admin that you probably all know told me, "you would have to pay me to do frontpage admin work". Well, I'm happy to report that the WP:Ad-Hoc Committee to Recruit More DYK Admins has authorized me to offer a 20% increase over your current salary (conditions apply, enquire in confidence for details) to any admin who joins the team this quarter. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My Ad-Hoc Committee will up your offer by 50% for those who go work at CCI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
500 quatloos on the newcomers! -- RoySmith (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
  • Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitrator access to mailing lists and permissions motion passed[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has passed the following amendment to its procedures:

Arbitrators-elect must sign the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information and any other non-disclosure agreements required for access to privileged communications before assuming office. All arbitrators are:

At the end of their term, outgoing arbitrators will:

  • be removed from all Committee-managed email lists with the following exceptions:
    • access to the clerks-l mailing list will be removed absent a request to remain, and
    • access to the functionaries-en mailing list will remain absent a request to be removed; and
  • have their CheckUser and Oversight permissions removed unless the outgoing arbitrator requests to retain one or both of them.

For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitrator access to mailing lists and permissions motion passed

Unblock request for CU[edit]

Hi colleagues--perhaps one of you will have a look at User talk:MaxBertín, and the associated User talk:BrookTheHumming. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wouldn't that require a CheckUser review? What could I do there that wouldn't get me hung, drawn, and quartered? Floquenbeam (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given the section title, I think he was specifically requesting that a CU respond. Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, that's a smarter interpretation. I'll help a little: Checkuser needed. I *think* that puts this page into a helpful category, but I can't check in preview mode. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll take a look. Girth Summit (blether) 20:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Drmies - I'm dubious. If they're two separate people, then they aren't just sharing a Wifi network - they're standing next to each other in front of the screen, passing the keyboard back and forth. One logs out, the next logs in within a minute, makes a few edits, then gives it back to the first one. While editing the same articles. I don't know why they're doing it, but I don't buy that this is a simple case of two roommates sharing an IP. Girth Summit (blether) 20:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding that I've declined the unblock on MaxBertín's talk, and to be honest I'd be inclined to block BrookTheHumming as well, but I'll leave that to your discretion since you're in conversation with them. Girth Summit (blether) 21:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Favonian, that was the idea, yes. I can't do all the fancy things you can. ;) Girth Summit, I called in the cavalry because on the one hand I drew the same technical conclusion that you did, but on the other they (singular they AND both of them) weren't being assholes about it... I think you understand why I'm being pulled both ways. Thanks for looking into it! Drmies (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Favonian? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the only reason to block is the use of multiple accounts, they could be advised to share an account and indicate attribution in the edit summaries. Peter James (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:Username policy prohibits shared accounts. Donald Albury 03:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Drmies and Girth Summit:If you want to cut this person/these people more slack, you could unblock both, with the provision that they can't edit the same pages as each other. Haven't we done that with other similar cases where we aren't 100% sure either way? Floquenbeam (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Floquenbeam, I don't mind that at all, considering their latest communications--even if technically a block for both could be justified. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can never be 100% sure about anything, but I'm as sure as it's possible to be that this is one person. What I said above is literally true - they are using a single device, logging out of one account and directly into the other, then switching back. Every single edit that the MaxBertín account has ever made was either immediately (within one or two minutes) preceded by BrookTheHumming logging out, or followed by BrookTheHumming logging in. Every single one. The only way this can be two different people is if BrookTheHumming occasionally shouts over to his roommate and says 'Hey - wanna add something to this article?', or 'Hey, this guy is busting my balls on a talk page, wanna chime in?', and then passes over the keyboard for five minutes while his roommate logs in and edits. Why are they doing it? This looks like an attempt to improperly influence a talkpage discussion; I don't know if any of the other editing where they overlap is dodgy. Girth Summit (blether) 18:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User adding themselves to lists of notable people, removing notability tag from own articles[edit]

I just came across this and don't have the wherewithal to figure out all the proper procedures and how to link the changes at the moment. It appears user:Amira Abdelrasoul has been adding themselves to various lists of notable people, editing their own article, and removing notability tags from it (with somewhat misleading edit summaries). Didn't know what the actual policy was in that case. Thought someone would like to look into it. I'll attempt to notify that user on their user page as the noticeboard suggests. Sorry for not linking diffs (there aren't a whole lot in the user's contributions, in any case; it looks pretty sole purpose). Peace and Passion   ("I'm listening....") 23:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peace and Passion this sounds like you might want to raise this at WP:COIN. It doesn't necessarily require admin intervention (although it could escalate to that). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chipmunkdavis[edit]

Above mentioned user keeps pushing disruptive and biased edits. See diff1, diff2 and diff3. As you can see in the RM discussion here Talk:Russian-occupied_territories_in_Georgia#Requested_move_23_January_2023 article about russian-occupied territories in Georgia previously had misleading name, so 100% of participating users agreed to rename it. After that change it was necessary to fix the naming in other articles as well, that is what I did diff1 and diff2, and this change is per Wiki Rule as well because it's better when link and article title coincide. Please help to settle this issue, I am not willing to start "word-wars" with the user, considering that similar attempts in the past had close to zero effect. Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ 08:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not 100%. I opposed, and I am disappointed that the closer completely ignored my argument, though it was policy based, and the supporters did not base their arguments on policy. Ymblanter (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was counting support and oppose tags. There was 4 'agrees' and 0 'disagrees', anyway it isn't main point here. Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ 11:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to make it even clear how nonsense user's argument was: the user said "[your edit] implies other territories are occupied", but at the moment the user keeps article link linked to the redirect title with the link name impling other territories are occupied:

• This is what the user pushes ► [[occupied territories of Georgia|occupied territories]] 
• This is what I edited ► [[Russian-occupied territories in Georgia]]

Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ 09:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a reason why the infobox has to include the longer phrase? The piped link seems like a good way tighten up the language. We don't need the "...in Georgia" part of that sentence, it's just extra verbiage. Chipmunkdavis seems to be doing nothing more than removing that excess verbiage. Why is that disruptive or against consensus? --Jayron32 15:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jayron32 it's not about "longer phrase" vs "shorter phrase", user's argument was "[your edit] implies other territories are occupied" which is false claim. My change made a direct link to the article's title to make it obvious that when we talk about "occupied territories," we're talking about the territories of Georgia, which are actually occupied by Russia and not by Somalia, Kiribati or any other state. Pushing previous edit vs my change is disruptive because it keeps misleading wording. Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ 22:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And according to what you said, if We don't need the "...in Georgia" part of that sentence, then the sentence must look like "Including/Not including Russian-occupied territories" not just "occupied territories" somewhere over the rainbow. Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ 22:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not a false claim. It's reasonable to oppose saying "Not including Russian-occupied territories" on the basis that it can make it seem like the data does include territories occupied by someone other than Russia. It's reasonable to think that opposition is wrong. It's not a good idea to bring that content dispute here. The worst part of CMD's edit is insisting that the part of the link before the pipe should stay the redirect, but it's something that barely matters at all. While we're here, the worst part of your edits, Giorgi Balakhadze, is reverting without explanation. Please use edit summaries, especially when reverting good-faith edits. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Firefangledfeathers ok, so the term "occupied territories" makes it super clear? "occupied territories" of whom?, "occupied territories" where? "occupied territories" by who? Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ 09:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All four of those excellent questions would fit in great at Talk:Georgia (country). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Procedurally, I wouldn't consider a RM with 4 total !votes 'counted' by the closer as establishing a clear precedent for what to do in other articles, especially when the other article are not simply linking to the other article title and the RM was not advertised in these other articles it's claimed to affect. In other words, if you tried to make a change based on the RM in other articles and have resistance, then you need to discuss the proposed changes and rather than just claiming there's already clear consensus. And if you aren't willing to discuss because of "zero effect" than you'll just have to accept your argument has failed to achieve consensus and move on. Nil Einne (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nil Einne there are linkage wiki rules MOS:LINKCLARITY MOS:EASTEREGG and it not just my "tried to make a change based on the RM". And "hav[ing] resistance" from Chipmunkdavis regarding anything about Georgia is a tradition, feel free to check user's reverts in the article of Georgia.Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ 09:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All of which is irrelevant unless you can provide sufficient evidence for a topic ban of Chipmunkdavis which you clearly haven't done yet. Again, unless you're willing to discuss and establish consensus for your interpretation of policy, then you will have to stop editing the article. Discussion and collaboration are not optional on Wikipedia Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:20 upper[edit]

I am posting this here, rather than ANI, because the editor has stopped editing main space, so the matter is not urgent, but this editor really needs a mentor. Or something. I have lost patience and effectiveness, and at this point, I am probably only irritating 20 upper, and am disengaging. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification: [24] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20 upper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) came to my attention with:

Talk page before removing various recent threads

History

  1. 18 November: Account created
  2. 20 December: Makes over 250 edits to user page to gain user rights ("I'm trying to reach 500 edits so I can edit this protected page").
  3. 22 December to 6 January: Writes Megaherbivore and Lion attacks (Lion attacks has numerous issues including OR and copyright outlined on talk; I haven't checked megaherbivore).
  4. 8 January: Adds uncited text to feminism (8 January NPOV warning; 23 January Contentious topics first alert)
  5. 22 January: WikiCup issue described above.
  6. 23 January: A 31-hour block, after WP:IDHT
  7. 24 January: I explained WP:OR, but identical repeated at Lion attacks a few days later ("15 lion attacks", original research, uncited)
  8. 25 January: Does not seem to slow down and read (malformed request for unblocking)
  9. 26 January: I notify of copyright and other issues at Lion attacks
  10. 27 January: Reminded to provide page numbers for book and other lengthy sources
  11. 27 January: Does not follow instructions given at Talk:Lion attacks, and informed by an IP that rewrite was in main space
    Insults the IP: [26] [27] but agrees to be more careful
  12. 29 January: Rewrite still contains copyvio and all of the other issues outlined on talk, as if nothing written was taken on board. And still no page numbers for WP:V and checking for further copyright problems.
    Appears to take text from one source (with close paraphrasing), but then later swap in another source
    When asked to stop, slow down read, say they "need the opinion of the whole community"
  13. 31 January Blanks text from a talk page and labels it "disruptive editing"
  14. 3 February Still removing talk page comments

So here we are. 20 upper has been focused throughout all of this on edit count: [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] while seemingly unable to grasp important policies like WP:OR, WP:V and WP:COPYVIO. At times they appear to read and attempt to communicate, and at other times, appear not to have digested or taken seriously anything written, and won't acknowledge or answer queries.

I'm disengaging, but we have multiple ongoing policy issues from an editor who was editing too fast and racking up a lot of edits across many articles (including FAs), demonstrating both difficulty understanding policy and aborbing feedback, and someone else needs to engage before the cleanup needs (including paraphrasing, OR, dated sources and incomplete citations) become larger. I started with the patience to mentor, but that has been exhausted.

I guess I should get a cot (sigh). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS, I asked for help long ago, but I seem to be alone in this while I've been, ummmmm ... kinda busy elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still going; maybe it is an ANI after all. Unwatched. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I just declined a whole bunch of CSD#G7 requests from him. I mean, I don't care if the pages he wrote are deleted or not, but they don't qualify for G7. Katietalk 16:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yeah the nomination to speedy delete bc "main author something something doesn't want it anymore" is both an interesting attempt to game SOP and also borderline unhinged "I'm taking my toys and going home!" behavior that does not inspire confidence. jengod (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, in the editor's defense, they are probably sick of hearing from me only, and might think I'm a random quack on the internet. I needed help here earlier on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I too attempted early on to assist and guide 20 upper but their pace is something I was unable to keep up with. I'm the blocking admin of the 31 hour block mentioned above. I do not know what to do with this user. I do not think they will change their ways. We could implement iteratively restrictive blocks, but I don't see that accomplishing anything more than increasing everyone's frustration level, leading eventually to a permanent ban. As for the articles they've created, The G7's have all been denied. They prod'd one other article (lion attacks), which I've endorsed for deletion. I don't see any need to keep any of the articles they created, though I'm unsure what policy would let us delete them. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hunting success, the only article of theirs I was aware of before this, is actually not half bad (if in parts sailing a little close to the wind paraphrasing-wise), and I don't see a cause for summary deletion with that one. Not sure why they went and tried to first dismember, then G7 it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because probably tired of hearing from me. My concern about Hunting success is that, having seen other work (eg Lion attacks) where they put in text taken from one source, and then later alter the wording a bit and put the source on it that the orginal source cites (breaching WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT yet they never answered my queries as to whether they really read all those new sources that fast), and all of this combined could indicate content copied from a book and then filling in the sources the book used after the fact. The other problem is that the sources are often so old, and source-to-text integrity fails, that I wonder how useful or accurate any of the content is. It's hard to reconcile the level of some of the writing with the level of difficulties editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That all said, I agree this can be elevated to WP:AN/I. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I could summarize my overacrching concern here but won't per WP:BEANS. I'll just say it may be worth trying to turn them around now so we don't have to deal with more of same later. I cannot ever recall having encountered such a persistent editor, making so many mistakes of every kind in such rapid fire succession. Probably admins here have, as my life in FA-world is perhaps too sheltered. I'm at a loss for what's next. In my younger days, I enjoyed mentoring editors like this, and turned around more than one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Perhaps someone other than me can go to their talk page and explain why they are expected to respond here on this thread ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would do so, however given their behavior I would much rather not waste my time with someone who most likely won't listen. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It seems like two experienced editors have made all reasonable attempts to give this user sound advice. He appears to be unwilling or unable to listen, and is not following the instructions given. He doesn't seem interested in learning either, given the edit summaries on his talk page. As much as I don't like it, this seems like a WP:CIR issue. The best option is probably to just issue a block rather than continuing to exhaust other editors with trying to get through to him. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've blocked them for a year. Lion attacks has been deleted. The other articles can either be cleaned up or sent to draft space. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks all ... I hope animal editors will keep their eye on this ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Makes unconstructive edits and vandalises here: here here. Note that there's a pattern in his edits, he removes Ingush from the articles and the cited sources.

Таллархо looks like he has grievances and hate against Ingush people because how can this be explained?: here here here

It also looks like he's using different accounts (Sockpuppetry) to vandalise Battle of the Valerik River: here.

I hope that the admins will resolve this situation. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • I am patrolling the Wikipedia section in Russian 1, who is well aware of the history of wars in the Caucasus. My opponent is from the small republic of Ingushetia, whose inhabitants never fought against Russia, but voluntarily joined Russia and helped Russia occupy the Caucasus. However, in our time, false writers from this republic, referring to unauthoritative sources, write that they fought the most and took part in all the battles. In the Russian Wikipedia, their false data is immediately deleted by the administrators, so they switched to the English-language Wikipedia and vandalize articles about the wars in the Caucasus. For this reason, I removed the false information he added. Таллархо (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Please block WikiEditor1234567123 for adding false data about the battles of Chechens in Chechnya against Russians and Cossacks. Таллархо (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(non-admin) Something seemed strange about this, so I looked into it. It seems that there are some WP:SPAs engaging in WP:NATIONALIST editing related to Chechnya and related ethnic groups at Talk:Nazran conflict and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazran conflict (2nd nomination), among other places. It looks like there might be a spillover from a dispute on Wikipedias of other languages, and I suspect that this situation is only going to spread to other articles unless some form of intervention takes place. Personally, I would say that this comment about an ethnic group as pointed out above warrants an indef. In the meantime, I've alerted participating users with a contentious topics alert where applicable (Callanecc seems to have notified most of them last month). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am requesting an early snow close of this deletion discussion because it will almost certainly end in a "keep" result and it is very irritating to see the message "see TFD" on approximately 90k pages. Partofthemachine (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The notice can be amended. There's no reason to remove the discussion so early. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 21:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There absolutely is a reason to close the discussion early if the outcome is almost certain (see Wikipedia:Snowball clause). Partofthemachine (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Closed by Hog Farm here at 21:16 UTC. — Trey Maturin 21:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AIV backlog[edit]

8 user reports and 1 bot report as of writing. Need some eyes over there. Thanks. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:Simon Ekpa[edit]

Could someone take a look at Talk:Simon Ekpa? I've protected the article to prevent disruption, but now the talk page is getting bombarded with comments every few hours. I considered protecting that page too, but this could just be a massive sockfarm/canvassing exercise (blocked one account already). Perhaps someone here is more familiar with the topic? Anarchyte (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm mentioning this user here having observed a curious pattern to their editing. This newly-registered editor made a large number of edits in the space of 2 1/2 hours last night. Some were constructive small edits such as converting multiple spaces to a single space, many were harmless such as adding an "Oxford comma", some were changing the case of words in section headings to go against WP:MOS, some were adding punctuation after list items, many, perhaps the majority, were adding a space before the first reference in an article. Not all the references, just the one.

It seems a pattern of editing which might be used by someone wanting to clock up a high edit count for some reason, without doing anything very controversial. Most of the edits might not be noticed, and editors with the articles on their watchlists might not bother to revert, or to follow them up. The first I noticed was this because I created the Wieler surname page so it is on my watchlist.

I bring this here in case any admins recognise this pattern of editing and want to take it further. I put a couple of notes on their talk page, but the addition of spaces before refs continued thereafter, suggesting that they weren't reading their talk page, and stretching my AGF. I've gone through and undone all the positively-wrong edits I could spot on a quick scan of their contributions list. PamD 10:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]