Moved from WT:AN (permalink)

The speech is very simple. The medal count of the World Cup races (sum of the podiums of Downhill, Slalom, Super-G and so on) has always been reported in the skiers' infoboxes, although medals are not actually awarded in these competitions. After all, in the "medaltemplate" the possibility is given to specify what it is and "World Cup race podiums" is a perfect description. Marbe166 (talk · contribs), on the other hand, felt he had to remove this statistic from the infoboxes of only a few active athletes. And luckily it hasn't bothered to do it from the hundreds and hundreds of infoboxes of athletes in which this statistic has always been reported. Over time we tried to involve the various projects in a discussion, but with poor results. Very few have intervened, however it is believed that by asking for the simple confirmation of the status quo, if anything, it should be the other user who seeks a broad consensus and does not constantly revert. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forced to ANI after trying to discuss reverts with the user, the various projects (but with very little participation), the Teahouse, the "dispute resolution" and having opened the discussion in the talk of the skier Federica Brignone. --Kasper2006 (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kasper2006 only included his own POV from the Talk:Federica Brignone page, so I copy my response here:

Let's get one thing straight here. Those stats have never always been reported in all skiers' infoboxes. It has been added to SOME infoboxes of, mostly Italian skiers, and a few select others. It is using the medaltemplate, which, as is apparent by the name, is to be used for medals, and only medals, i.e. for World Championships, Junior World Championships and Olympics. Therefore, including WC podiums in the infoboxes is NOT status quo and is wrong. It clutters the infoboxes with too much information, the line must be drawn somewhere. However, it is interesting information, but it is better suited as a separate table in the body of the articles. I remove them when I see them, but I do have a life outside of Wikipedia, therefore I am not going through all the thousands of infoboxes of alpine skiers that there is. That would be an endless task. --Marbe166 (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, it is the inclusion in the infobox which is the anomaly. --Marbe166 (talk) 11:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that only you say this. We've been going on with this for months and reverts are never a good thing --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, you are the only one claiming your point. Marbe166 (talk) 09:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic!. So in this sixth attempt of mine to find out who between you and me is right someone will have to give us some answers. --Kasper2006 (talk) 11:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And now Kasper2006 has added the very content which is the subject of this dispute to the Mikaela Shiffrin page, diff. Excuse me, but how exactly is that respecting an ongoing ANI? --Marbe166 (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a lot of respect for the ANI in progress, but after 10 days of silence on the part of the administrators I thought it appropriate to give a shock by explaining in a Wikipedia article what was happening (I add contents and the user disrespectfully continues to delete them) --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2 days, you started the ANI 2 days ago. Marbe166 (talk) 06:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• An administrator is unlikely to intervene in a content dispute. Have you consider Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Malcolmxl5: Already done, but to no avail.--Kasper2006 (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mediated discussion here must be preceded by discussion on an article talk page. Perhaps discuss it on an article talk page, that's always the starting point. Or get a third opinion? Or start an request for comment? WP:Dispute resolution contains good advice. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've done all of this before. Here is the summary of the attempts made.

1. Attempted in user talk: no result;
2. Attempted in the infobox talk: no result;
3. Attempted in the talk of the two related projects: no results;
4. Attempted at the Teahouse: no result;
5. Attempted to dispute resolution: no result;
6. Attempted in the talk of the skier: no result;
7. Attempted ANI: no result

Kasper2006 (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me what should I do? Over the months I have:

1. Attempted in user talk: no result;
2. Attempted in the infobox talk: no result;
3. Attempted in the talk of the two related projects: no results;
4. Attempted at the Teahouse: no result;
5. Attempted to dispute resolution: no result;
6. Attempted in the talk of the skier: no result;
7. Attempted ANI: no result --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you try doing things in the correct order this time

1) Discuss on the articles talk pages

2) Open an RFC Post notices on relevant WP talk pages

3) Come to the DRN After those two have been done

4) If all of these still fail to work THEN come to the ANI. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is proven that the user Marbe166 is a cheat and in bad faith. He asserts (lying) that it wasn't true that the status quo had been the podium table in the infobox for years, but... I find it even crazier that he has quietly edited, for example in Lindsey Vonn, they leave the table for four years from 3 February 2018 to your cancellation on 30 January 2022. So the status quo for at least four years, in this as in all the other articles, was "world cup podiums in the infobox", before the user forcefully deleted him from dozens and dozens of articles --Kasper2006 (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's it. We have had a civilised discussion until now, but I will not tolerate being accused of lying. Marbe166 (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Marbe, no one is accusing you of being a liar in life, I'm just saying "you said something wrong" here on Wikipedia when you said that the status quo was "table no" and not "table yes", as I said. In fact, you knew that in the page of Lindsay Vonn, which you edited over four years: from 3 February 2018 to 30 January 2022, the status quo was "table yes" and it has been good for you for 4 very long years. --Kasper2006 (talk) 10:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, this seems to belong in WP:LAME more than anywhere else, it really isn't that important. Having said that: Marbe166, if you believe this info doesn't belong in the infobox, start an RFC on the infobox talk page, hope for enough input, and respect the result. Until then, leave the parameter alone. And Kasper2006, retract your personal attacks above, and don't call people "a cheat" and so on, or you will end up being blocked. Fram (talk) 10:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, Fram thank you for your intervention, finally a "historical" Wikipedia administrator has deigned us to his attention I have not attacked Marbe166, I have already apologized and clarified with him, I just wanted to say that he "he had said something incorrect" asserting that the status quo was not the table. If you go through the chronologies of many of the most important skiers (that is, those with many podiums and for which the statistic is increasingly relevant), you will see that he has removed the table after accepting it (easily editing in those articles, then "seeing" the table), after 4 years. So the status quo was "table yes", as I said and not "table no", as he said. That's all Kasper2006 (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure where this discussion is meant to go, but I think the WP:ARS needs to be dealt with as a constant source of WP:CANVAS at certain discussions. While the ARS purports to represent a WP:NPOV, the name itself of the project, and their representative participation in canvassing discussions such as Talk:Titus (dinosaur)#Merge proposal and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Titus_(dinosaur) show that the ARS is drawing people with no significant input to mass !vote on merge and deletion discussions without contributing beyond rallying over a single point of guidelines that is subjective and not a rule. This group of editors is disrupting discussions that have been kept open for over two weeks without contrary opinions present, in a situation where administrative oversight is explicitly not required and now have begun an edit war to restore the article to its original status instead of arguing for why it should be kept, contradicting the initially established consensus of the situation.

Thanks. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further note, my notification of WP:ARS of this ANI has also led further members to join the improperly re-opened merge discussion. See here, where a member followed the ANI notification on the talk page to find this discussion and from here went to the merge to cast their vote to keep. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been involved in the ARS for years. But keep on trying to claim everyone opposed to the merge and the deletion is a part of "insert group here". Silverseren^C 00:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly its not up to me to care or decide. Regardless, you stated that you were brought into the discussion via the notification of the ARS which you also state you are not involved with. Forgive me if this seems counterintuitive. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was brought into the discussion by you making this thread here. Not by any notification from the ARS. Silverseren^C 01:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, very nice. Apologies for the misunderstanding, I have struck through the above comment. I thought "notified" was corresponding to my use of it on the ARS talk page notice. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd propose maybe a topic ban for them in order to prevent them from participating in deletion discussions. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 00:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's... counterintuitive. Participation in deletion discussions is literally why ARS exists. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well then why was User:7&6=thirteen, a member of the ARS, topic banned from participating in deletion discussions? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 01:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's one person. Topic-banning the entire project is the equivalent of proposing that it be abolished. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, my bad then. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 01:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then why was this thread made in the first place? Is it because IJreid seeks to delete the entire group? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 13:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the stated goal was to "rescue" articles by improving them, not by voting at AfD, no? –dlthewave ☎ 01:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding this. The "rescuing" operations have only ended in the article's content being "uneditable", with an edit war nearly starting over whether to un-merge the article to its "stubbed" state just prior to the merge, or to the state at the end of the AFD before substantial improvements had been made. The ARS essentially made the article worse. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How does the ARS make it worse? As stated up above, the ARS's goal is to "rescue" articles by improving them, not ruining them. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 01:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that cannot effectively happen when said improvement process is conducted without the involvement and contrary to the opinions of editors from relevant WikiProjects. From what I have seen, I feel that participation at AfD (even if not the stated goal) has been the crux of the ARS improvement efforts that I have come across to date. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I keep seeing this WP:OWN position about dinosaurs, that only members of certain Projects know best and the rest of the community should stand aside. I've seen it expressed at least 4 times now in various ways by multiple people in these discussions. -- GreenC 01:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am suggesting that the opposite is likewise not desirable, yet I felt that this was the tendency at this AfD with respect to discussions regarding sourcing. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a semi-active member of WP:ARS so I may have bias. But I've noticed a pattern of members improving articles, including the one we are talking about. I would encourage you to test your assumptions and look at the article history and you may see that ARS members are enthusiastic to improve articles. CT55555 (talk) 02:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not dispute that improvement of articles occurs. I dispute that the current process is as effective or constructive as it could be. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is to my knowledge not officially the case. ARS is at least notionally supposed to exist solely to improve articles, not to participate in deletion discussions. Having a wikiproject for former is fine; the latter is absolutely unacceptable and would obviously be WP:CANVASSing. If they're doing that (ie. listing an article on AFD there regularly results in the same people from the project turning up to !vote) then the people who are doing the listing should be topic-banned from AFD for canvassing. User:7&6=thirteen was topic-banned for his own conduct, of course, but I think that every heavily-active ARS member should be reconsidering their own conduct to make sure that they're not doing similar things, especially since my recollection is that in previous discussions many ARS members specifically said that 7&6=thirteen's conduct was typical for ARS. And for people who are worried about ARS canvassing, rather than focusing on ARS as a whole, I would suggest similarly looking at people who regularly post AFDs to ARS and what the results are - if it seems like it's regularly resulting in functional canvassing then they should be asked to stop, and (if they continuously refuse and the problem persists) brought here so they can be individually topic-banned from deletion-discussions as well. That's probably going to be simpler than seeking broad solutions to ARS as a whole, since we have existing procedures and standards for that sort of thing. And the fact is that there is only a tiny handful of really active ARS members; obtaining topic bans against two or three people would functionally end it (which isn't necessarily to say that all of them necessarily warrent topic bans - I didn't look too closely beyond a cursory skim during the ArbCom case. But if you want to show that ARS is a problem, it amounts to examining the conduct of that handful of people either way.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "not sure where this discussion is meant to go"--you started this report, IJReid, so you should have some idea of where you want this discussion to go; the passive voice is not helpful here. And I am wondering what's wrong with the participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titus (dinosaur)--seemed like a pretty lively discussion where people made sentences and arguments. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, often the ARS "improvements" to articles at AfD constitute injecting unencyclopedic passing mentions, non-independent or primary material, and other UNDUE content to drive up byte size and referencing, which then forces other participants to rebut each addition so that !voters aren't misled by what superficially looks like a well-sourced article. Another issue is that members rarely have any background in the subject and so are not familiar with the type of media it generates; this means they don't recognize industry-specific "tells" of routine and promotional material that are rightfully disregarded by editors in the field. So I am not at all surprised the page got loaded up with like three refactored press releases and other exhibition hype once ARS got involved. JoelleJay (talk) 07:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators are discussing (I forget where) ways, on how to deal with AfDs & AfCs. But, I can't remember where. GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is going to be a discussion coming out of the recent ARBCOM deliberations but I do not believe that it has started yet. Gusfriend (talk) 07:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The plans for the discussion are actively underway at User talk:Valereee/draft. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm involved, and a semi-active member of ARS, but I'll try my best to provide what I hope is an impartial summary of events:

1. I was the first person to comment at the AfD and because the article was in such bad shape, I flagged it on the WP:ARS page as an article that could do with improvement. link As I hoped, that did motivate a bunch of people to improve the article. I improved it to and it was quickly B-class quality.
2. There was some concern that the article was PROMO in nature and after a healthy debate, the AfD closed no consensus. link on 14 July
3. On 17 August, despite the lack of consensus to merge at AfD, a conversation to merge was started. link
4. That felt like trying to re-do the AfD to me, I opposed. But I seemed to be in a minority of one. I considered making a fuss, but I have more important things to worry about, so I did not.
5. Within the past 24 hours, I got pinged as someone from the AfD noticed the merge was happening and the people who voted keep at AfD chimed in objecting to the merge.
6. In the meantime, there was an objection to a quote in the article. An IP address logged on and said they were the expert quoted in The Guardian and they did not make the quote. That was a sticky situation, as it seemed like a good faith objection, but unverifiable. WP:TRUTH is relevant, I think. Someone helpfully removed the quote and added another quote, I think a diplomatic solution.
7. Now it seems like there is a bit of an edit war happening with people reverting the redirect, people favouring different versions of article, and someone adding what seems to me like too many tags.

In my opinion questions to consider are: is there canvassing? Is it reasonable to propose banning an entire group based on individual members actions ? Is edit warring happening? Are people trying to re-do the AfD because they didn't like the result? I recommend we respect the AfD result of no consensus and people stop trying to merge this article, consensus wasn't reached at AfD to do so. CT55555 (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: #6, please note that there is relevant off-wiki evidence: [1] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I see that. It's not a verified Twitter account, but I assume good faith in the IP edit and I hope I conveyed clearly above that I saw it as a good faith objection. It seems very likely to be by the author, although the quote was cited in a reliable source, and therefore WP:TRUTH explains why the quote could have been kept; to me that would be a very unpalatable outcome, so I commend the editor who found a better quote and gave them wikipedia love (a goat I think) to thank then for the diplomatic solution. :-) CT55555 (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:MERGE, a merge discussion should notify interested parties, and there needs to be a merge template added to the top of the page. Neither One of these things were done [the tag]. As a result the initial discussion was 100% support with a few like-minded people. They attempted to quietly make this merge without notifying anyone who might oppose the merge, nor follow the merge procedures. After a proper notification is finally done, and the merge vote doesn't go his way, he blames ARS and seeks to delete the entire group. -- GreenC 01:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Those in the AFD for this were contacted, regardless of if they were in the ARS or not. This is what should've been done at the start. Those who failed to eliminate the article in AFD, are now the ones complaining that someone is keeping them from getting their way in the merge discussion. Dream Focus 02:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Contrary to your whining, there is no requirement that participants in an AfD be notified of a merge discussion. The discussion was appropriately brought up in the relevant WikiProjects, which is what policy calls for. It was left open for two weeks, consensus was achieved, and then someone threw a fit and got ARS to back them.

  Is my assessment harsh? Yes, but the vote-stacking and empty arguments from people with no real intention of improving the article in question has more than gotten on my nerves. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  During the AFD a lot of work was done on the article by members of the Article Rescue Squadron. [2] So yes, we do like to improve articles, not just eliminate most of their content and keep a small amount of information in another article. Dream Focus 02:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Your "improved" version of the article is written like a promotional puff piece, not an encyclopedia article. SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the extent of my own participation in the merge discussion is limited to my votes and comments. I do not have an agenda to exclude keep voters. I did not check whether relevant parties were notified, but I think the onus of doing so is on the initiator of the merge discussion and not the participants. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:MERGE, all requirements for the discussion were met. The article was tagged, the project pages were tagged, and the people who were involved with discussing the article's status within the context of merging were also present. Many AFD votes were cast as simply !keep, without discussing or considering the party voting to !merge. An admin is not required or meant to close merge discussions. It was open for two weeks, after which there was a very clear consensus to redirect, which was done by a party who was allowed to per WP:MERGE. And those who were watchlisting the article would have been well aware of the substantial changes I made to it to demonstrate during the course of the merge discussion how the only argument presented to keep was frivolous. Whether the article was merged after the point of my edits or not was not my concern, but those who voted to !keep have *also* started edit wars contrary to the due process of overturning a merge discussion consensus. Instead of re-opening the discussion while the current revisions were allowed to stand, the discussion was re-opened by mass reversions back to the point several weeks prior to the discussion closing, undoing all edits that had been done since the AFD to improve the article from a piece of promotional fluff.

The article was created by a one-goal editor with no other edits to coincide with the promotional press tour of a new exhibit. It does not deserve to have been created, should not be maintained in its current outdated form, and requires the attention of editors who will do more than simple !vote. Only five editors improved the article during the course of the AFD, three of which voted to !delete. The ARS, beyond the efforts of CT, did not "rescue" the article. They only cast votes that match with their groups title to "rescue", while drawing the efforts and attention of those editors who are spending time to improve contents of the topic at hand off of improving the wiki and into these backend discussions that cannot be closed for months per site guidelines.

This ANI was created by me to source external input on what site policies say should be done. I am indeed blaming the ARS for bogging down the otherwise smooth continuation of progress improving the overall topics at hand, by arguing over bytes on a website. The pages edit history shows how its content was being continually reduced to remove WP:ADVERT details, all of which was undone by the improper and mis-motivated re-opening of a closed discussion. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also wish to emphasise how the closing of the AfD *very clearly states* "any follow-up discussion should be a merger proposal on the article talk page". This was exactly what was followed. The AfD was not attempted to be "undone", it was followed up with in exactly what the closing admin suggested, to preserve article and edit history while allowing editors of the subject to evaluate if the content was deserving of its own article. Claims that the AfD result should have stood for time immemorial are argumentative and false. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD ended on 14 July 2022. It seems like the merge discussion was delayed until far less people would notice who might disagree with you, then a notice played on a Wikiproject those who supported this in the AFD would see it but no one else. Just feels like someone is gaming the system here, trying to get only those who agree with them to notice what was going on, and upset when those they don't agree with find out and show up anyway. Dream Focus 03:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming a merge discussion was delayed is definitely not assuming WP:GOOD FAITH. I did not even start the merge discussion. And talking about how notifying the only wikiproject the article is under is insufficient is not supported by any guidelines or policies. WP:ARS does not care about the quality of Dinosaur articles, nor should they. The quality of Dinosaur articles is under the content of WP:DINOS, which means they are the only group that needs to be notified about the articles under their umbrella. Notifying the other participants of the AfD would have been a nice courtesy, but see how very clearly this example shows that too many cooks are spoiling the broth. The article is in limbo, unable to be changed much by anyone without others reverting it in opposition. Administrators are not *meant* to be required in every discussion, but WP:ARS is forcing them to be.

And to be clear, I do not care what happens to WP:ARS, beyond how it is clear from editing histories and involvements in the discussions here, that a larger project presenting their !votes without any other considerations resulted in the group of a smaller project of active editors being overwhelmed and outnumbered, exactly what WP:CANVAS is supposed to help prevent. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Titus does have several other WikiProjects tagged (Museums, Montana, Nottinghamshire) which do not appear to have been notified, although this is moot since WP:MERGEPROP suggests that WP notifications are optional. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators are not *meant* to be required in every discussion, but WP:ARS is forcing them. Your the one who started this ANI, trying to drag admins into a mess you and a few others created by not properly notifying everyone from the start. Your rationale that only WP:DINO should be notified is another example of WP:OWN and is the heart of the problem. You still don't recognize anyone but the DINO group as valid ("ARS does not care about the quality of Dinosaur articles", "DINOS.. are the only group that needs to be notified", "too many cooks are spoiling the broth"). You and some others have a OWN problem, it's why proper notification was not done, why you have such bad faith toward anyone that disagrees with you. -- GreenC 07:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Without administrative involvement, every subsequent discussion on the article will devolve into a !vote, where the editors of the project are simply outnumbered even if all of us wanted to !merge. And note, not all of us have cast votes. Not all of us have cast the same vote. Because we, unlike the Article Rescue Squadron, are not expected to want to !keep by definition of our project title. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 13:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Looking at the talk page, there was a prior discussion involving 7&6 thirteen. It settled out fine there was no gang up. The problem I think is your trying to make drastic changes like deleting or merging the entire article. Why have you not tried to resolve the oldest exhibit question with a talk page discussion, or am I missing it? If you have quality evidence that directly contradicts the source, then you should have no problem resolving it, in some way. People are not unreasonable. But when you attack, blame, edit war, try to ban, claim expert exceptionalism, etc.. I don't know man, this is a life lesson. -- GreenC 17:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note the comment we should usually attempt to discreetly make merge notices on the article talkpage first, rather than take them to AfD, which usually attracts unwanted outside attention by Hemiauchenia at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs. CT55555 diff (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst it is acceptable to say that an article requires the attention of editors who will do more than simple !vote, I am not sure that saying Unless you are going to contribute to making the supposedly deserved article a nice article, please don't vote spam. I do not want to spent 10 hours of my day working to make a nice article for content that you think deserved a nice article. This will be my only announcement (emphasis in original at [3]) raises the level of discourse. Wikipedia is about consensus and whilst having people improve the article is preferred, there is still value in getting views from those who do not. Gusfriend (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* I've been on record for years now as not in any way, shape or form being a fan of ARS; I've long since believed that they were far readier to Thwart! Deletionists! by any means to hand than to do the work to rescue articles. More than one member (no one's forgetting AD, right?) has been tbanned over the more egregious of their antics.

But. It has been a universal practice for many years to notify people interested in deletion discussions. The Twinkle XfD templates even have an option to notify particular Wikiprojects of a filing. If you have evidence of edit warring or tendentious editing against individual members, report it on that basis. But little as I care for the attitudes and antics of a number of its members, ARS has as much right to be notified about a deletion discussion as any other Wikiproject. A "cure" for this complaint would be far worse than the disease. Ravenswing 10:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ravenswing, is a merge proposal considered a "deletion discussion" (I genuinely don't know, I don't participate in that area)? Is it standard to notify each participant in every prior AfD whenever there are major developments to the page? JoelleJay (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've been compelled to take contested merges to AfD to confirm (or not) the merge, and in such cases, they follow all the standards of AfD. Beyond that, while I'm not the frequent AfD flyer I was ten years back, it was sometimes the case that someone filing a 2nd (3rd, 4th) nomination would ping the people involved in prior nominations, but it was never then a requirement. Ravenswing 00:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant is it expected that merge discussions ping all participants at prior AfDs on the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Whilst I've long been a critic of the ARS and their persistently irritating ITSNOTABLE and IFOUNDITONGOOGLE antics - some of which are apparent on the AfD - I do have to say that the sources, including a couple of heavyweight UK papers (and there are others) do IMO push this over the GNG line. One thing I would say, though - anyone reading this article would probably conclude that this is a complete T-Rex skeleton ("Titus is reportedly the first genuine Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton exhibited in England in over a century"), when only 20% of the actual bones are real ones. Somewhat misleading, that. Black Kite (talk) 10:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would second this, I read the article last night when this ANI popped up, I thought it was a good article and moved on. Going back now, it isn't explained anywhere that it isn't a "full" skele, it certainly does seem like it's a full skele (up until I read your comment, I thought it was), and the Guardian clearly says The fossil was around 20% complete once fully conserved, so although it is a ‘real’ skeleton, many of the bones are reconstructions made of black obsidian. FrederalBacon (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That is where probably my biggest gripe comes from. The article devolved into multiple edit wars over whether or not the content as is stands (which is from several weeks prior and before substantial revisions) is promotional and reads like an advertisement. Details such as not specifying most of the "mount" is just Stan (dinosaur), describing the display as the first in "over a century" (when there is an NHMUK specimen that has been on display since 1915), and weirdly describing the conservation and photogrammetry of the bones by saying how "Steven Dyer of ThinkSee3D" did it, all read like promotional details.

  But those details are unable to be removed because whenever the article is "reduced to a stub" it is reverted. Despite an informational stub being much better than an article that is half advertisement. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 13:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you're making the mistake of thinking that the ARS participants actually know anything about the subject of the article they're "saving". That has never been the case. Black Kite (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The talk page discussions on these issues are missing. Did they get archived somewhere? I'd like review what has been discussed. -- GreenC 17:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are there if you look hard enough. [4] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a list of complaints in a thread inside a merge discussion - what is anyone supposed to do with that? There has been no serious attempt to follow the content dispute resolution processes. A sincere attempt would look like a separate talk page discussion, for each issue, a paragraph neutrally explaining the problem, why your editing a certain way, then make the edit, wait for a BRD cycle if any, and discuss. None of that has happened. Except one time with 7&6 thirteen and it was easily and civilly resolved with no gang up.-- GreenC 17:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's because there was no content dispute until the merge discussion was reopened. The changes are a straightforward extension of the source reliability issues discussed with 7&6. None of this was an issue until editors decided that they wanted to vote on the version of the article immediately following AfD. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1104706924/1104805537. This would best be resolved on the article talk page, one issue at a time, as you did with 7&6 thirteen. People can be reasonable, but that sneaky-looking merge really caused a trust problem and we see the result. The best way is show good faith working with people, not patronizing with WP:OWN comments DINO-knows-best and trying to force change with ANI attacks on ARS. -- GreenC 19:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you realize that editors can be individualistic actors. I participated in the merge discussion as a matter of procedure, restating my opinions from the AfD, and I don't care and I shouldn't have to care about whatever the opener or closer of the merge did. I don't care for this ANI thread either, because I did not initiate it, I am not trying to shut down the ARS, and I am only here to provide statements of pertinent fact. I also didn't perform the edits in that diff, and it is not my responsibility to defend them. I am seeing a broad pattern of conflating the actions of different editors here and in the merge discussion, and I do not think that is constructive. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been going on for years, for example: 1. ARS-tagged AFD, DRV, merge proposal; 2. ARS-tagged AFD, merge proposal; 3. ARS-tagged AFD, split proposal (hey that's different!); 4. ARS-tagged AFD in which the closer says "merging the content to another article is a viable alternative...But this should be discussed separately", me pleading with the closer "...I don't think I can propose a merge on the talk page following a "keep" AFD result. When I've done this before, a number of editors said it was improperly re-litigating the AFD (many of the same editors who participated in this AFD).", merge discussion. This is a tried-and-true ARS tactic: block-vote the AFD, then block-vote the merge discussion while simultaneously accusing editors of trying to use the merge discussion to perform an end run around the AFD. An old story. Levivich 16:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  People who were against merging(deleting 90%) of the article in the AFD, are also the same ones against doing it in a merge discussion later on. Knowing people would be against it, so waiting until they felt no one would notice, then doing it, then complaining when those who participated in the discussion before found out and were still against it, is just ridiculous. Dream Focus 16:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Merging is not deleting 90% of an article. Levivich 16:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Eliminating most of the article from public view, by replacing it with a redirect and a small amount of its original content found on another page. Of course you can claim hey, they can look at the history of the article and read the rest of the information there if they want, but whatever. Dream Focus 17:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What you're describing is not what merging is. Merging is placing the content where it best serves the reader. Levivich 17:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you not look at any of the places you linked to? A long article replaced with a redirect to a small amount of information already on the list page linked to. Dream Focus 17:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What you're describing did not actually happen. None of those merges actually happened because they were all opposed by ARS. A merge proposal is not a proposal to delete 90% of the article. It has nothing to do with the length of the content. And even if it did, it's not like it matter how long an article is: quality, not quantity. And hell, one of them was a split not even a merge: that would have led to multiple, longer articles: ARS still opposed. And of course I looked them, I even participated in those discussions, that's why I remember them. You guys don't care about content, you only care about winning arguments, it doesn't even matter what the argument is. You want to flatter yourselves as heroes, "defenders of the Wiki," which is why you swoop in, block vote, spam articles, then give each other barnstars. Levivich 17:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Tantive IV has far more information than would be merged to List_of_Star_Wars_spacecraft#Tantive_IV_(Rebel_Blockade_Runner). The current article in question Titus (dinosaur) would lose most of its content if replaced with a redirect to Specimens_of_Tyrannosaurus#"Titus", no additional information "merged" over when they claimed it was merged, it just replaced with a redirect to there. Dream Focus 17:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  When did anyone claim anything was merged? The way a merge proposal works is that you propose first, then merge. And, again, it's not about quantity of information, it's about quality. WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:DUE, etc. Levivich 17:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUE is indeed exactly the issue here. ARS editors have added content to this article without consideration of due weight and neutrality befitting of the subject matter, because they are not subject area editors (as pointed out elsewhere in the discussion above). Multiple attempts to point out issues with neutrality by subject area editors have repeatedly been dismissed and not engaged with both at the AfD and at the current merge discussion. Only when one has spent time editing articles in a particular subject area and trying to gather appropriate sources to do so can one understand what sources are appropriate and what sources are not. This is not elitist, this is fact. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The current issue! [5] Someone posted (Merge complete), but only made minor changes to the other article [6], most of the valid content thus lost. Dream Focus 17:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not one of the links I posted, now is it? Did you not look at any of the places you linked to? is what I was responding to. Levivich 17:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  God I so regret not spending the 2 hours digging & writing up the evidence on DreamFocus for ArbCom :(. JBL (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would say that the previous case does not preclude another case in the same sphere, especially when the discussion was more-or-less narrowly scoped to the editing in that area by those editors who were ultimately named parties. Izno (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Izno: Fair point. --JBL (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If enough editors have a problem with the existence of ARS? Then open an RFC (or whatever is required) at the appropriate place (likely a Village Pump), on seeking whether or not the WikiProject should be 'retired'. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Already been done multiple times already. Only people complaining are those that are upset a small number of people showed up somewhere and dared to disagree with them on something. Dream Focus 16:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a long-time critic of ARS – not the concept of salvaging articles that simply need to be improved, but as a place where there could potentially be canvassing concerns. However, the complaint here is a waste of time and should be closed. Partly as a result of some topic bans and partly as a result of genuine cooperation, there really is very little in the way of misleading other participants in AfD discussions. The key thing is that any deletion discussion that has been listed at ARS should be marked as such with Template:Rescue list. That way, it is transparent to everyone at the discussion that ARS has been notified, and experienced AfD closers understand how to take this into account. Occasionally, someone forgets to add the template, but in that case you can simply add it yourself (as I do from time to time), without any need for making a drama out of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmmmm. I came to the discussion because I had participated in the AfD and was kindly pinged by someone. Luckily I came across ARS, a fine group of valuable editors, not too long ago, and since have witnessed many of its members topic banned. I take it there have been past attempts to close ARS, which I have no way to understand as that just seems so counter-Wikipedia improvement that the concept itself should be Wikibanned. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - FWIW, Titus isn't the only individual dinosaur, with its own page. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Most don't though. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I like how so many here have to set up their comments and show their bonafides with statements like: I've been on record for years now as not in any way, shape or form being a fan of ARS. Regarding the article; over templating for what seems like revenge reasons and WP:OWN behavior are both not collegial but the dino people have been doing that to the article - and they have circled the wagons which is ironically what they accuse the ARS of doing. One only has to read the comment by the editor who started the merge and then closed the merge and then redirected the article to see it was sneaky shady behavior. CT55555 pointed to it above: we should usually attempt to discreetly make merge notices on the article talkpage first, rather than take them to AfD, which usually attracts unwanted outside attention. I remember that same editor being tendentious in another AfD about another Dino. And last night Hemiauchenia posted on several noticeboards lamenting the revert of the redirect and asking for help A user has decided that the Titus (dinosaur) discussion was improperly closed, and has now pinged all AfD participants. Feel free to vote if interested. It would be nice we could work together. We could also remind the dino group that they do not own the subject. And remind them that RS does not have to come from a professor to be RS. Hey, dinosaurs are supposed to be fun! Lightburst (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This you? JBL (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Whilst I've long been a critic of the ARS and their persistently irritating ITSNOTABLE and IFOUNDITONGOOGLE antics - some of which are apparent on the AfD - I do have to say that the sources, including a couple of heavyweight UK papers (and there are others) do IMO push this over the GNG line. One thing I would say, though - anyone reading this article would probably conclude that this is a complete T-Rex skeleton ("Titus is reportedly the first genuine Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton exhibited in England in over a century"), when only 20% of the actual bones are real ones. Somewhat misleading, that. Black Kite (talk) 10:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would second this, I read the article last night when this ANI popped up, I thought it was a good article and moved on. Going back now, it isn't explained anywhere that it isn't a "full" skele, it certainly does seem like it's a full skele (up until I read your comment, I thought it was), and the Guardian clearly says The fossil was around 20% complete once fully conserved, so although it is a ‘real’ skeleton, many of the bones are reconstructions made of black obsidian. FrederalBacon (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I like how so many here have to set up their comments and show their bonafides with statements like: I've been on record for years now as not in any way, shape or form being a fan of ARS. Regarding the article; over templating for what seems like revenge reasons and WP:OWN behavior are both not collegial but the dino people have been doing that to the article - and they have circled the wagons which is ironically what they accuse the ARS of doing. One only has to read the comment by the editor who started the merge and then closed the merge and then redirected the article to see it was sneaky shady behavior. CT55555 pointed to it above: we should usually attempt to discreetly make merge notices on the article talkpage first, rather than take them to AfD, which usually attracts unwanted outside attention. I remember that same editor being tendentious in another AfD about another Dino. And last night Hemiauchenia posted on several noticeboards lamenting the revert of the redirect and asking for help A user has decided that the Titus (dinosaur) discussion was improperly closed, and has now pinged all AfD participants. Feel free to vote if interested. It would be nice we could work together. We could also remind the dino group that they do not own the subject. And remind them that RS does not have to come from a professor to be RS. Hey, dinosaurs are supposed to be fun! Lightburst (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This you? JBL (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes JBL there is quite a tendency to overreact in one direction - for instance I once said someone was grinding an axe and an admin demanded a retraction as PA. People have said worse in my direction and it is fodder. Just in this discussion we can see the admin Black Kite bringing up their open bias. I am just here to edit and improve the project. I hope to read some of you four articles when I have time. It is helpful for us all to remember that we are building an encyclopedia - and we cannot do that with less editors participating. Lightburst (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I would not have such a bias if I still didn't see certain members of the ARS treating deletion discussions as battlegrounds and spending far more time commenting on AfDs than actually improving articles (this does not apply to all ARS participants, as I have said many times before). Black Kite (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point of my comment above, another case of conflating separate editors involved in the process. It's very easy to see that User:YorkshireExpat was the one who closed the merge discussion. And claiming that the report is being rejected as RS on the basis of not "coming from a professor" is incredibly reductionist when there are clear neutrality issues. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if you'd rather I withdrew my support in this matter, I believe I can bring myself to do so. Ravenswing 00:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No conflation. Hemiauchenia directed and steered and lobbied and merged and redirected. Lightburst (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the opener of the original AfD, I object to the suggestion I was directed or steered. I was not lobbied to be part of the merge discussion. @Hemiauchenia may have redirected, but I did the actual merge work and I preferred to have my work reviewed by others so requested this on the merge discussion. YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Named T-rex skeletons probably do merit separate articles folks, even when incomplete (as basically all of them are, although I think we have about 90% of Sue). T-rex is one of the few dinos for which we have a near- complete half-skeleton, so we can reconstruct the missing bits from the other side. But whole dino skeletons are rarer than hens teeth.—S Marshall T/C 23:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you need to look at the reasons for naming. Sue is a very complete specimen. Trix is notable for her age. Stan has an exceptionally preserved skull. All three are fairly complete. Titus, on the other hand, is 20% complete, and does not appear to have any other notable features. Also, the fact that it was found by a commercial paleontologist, suggests that the name may have been applied to increase market value. YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think your comments get to the heart of the tension here. I think some members of WP:DINO project don't want this article up, because they see that the skeleton's owners have some sort of profit/commercial motivation. I understand that sentiment. But wikipedia has lots of articles about commercial endeavours, it's not a database of social good or only academic and charitable things. I think some DINO project members want there to be a minimum criteria for articles that is something different from WP:GNG. But we create articles based on notability, not the completeness of skeletons or motivations of owners. With the BBC, The Guardian and the National Geographic writing about this, it's clearly notable. And the WP:GNG is what guides us, not any stricter criteria that the DINO project would like. CT55555 (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does it pass GNG? Maybe, sure, I can accept that. But passing GNG does not mean that the subject warrants a standalone article (per the text of GNG), which is a far more nuanced consideration that is the subject of the current merge discussion. And this is where considerations of WP:DUE, WP:PROMO, etc. become relevant. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• What a waste of time. This thread and the inclusionists vs. deletionists "debates" are a timesink. Imagine how better the encyclopedia will be if people just shut up and improve articles. We probably would have a lot more good and featured articles as a result. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I propose to archive this thread immediately. This thread hosts no productive conversation on improving the situation or Wikipedia as a whole. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is exactly my problem with ARS: the entire group exists as a holdover from the "inclusionist vs. deletionist" days. They're an anachronism and clinging to this outmoded philosophy is detrimental to the encyclopedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Those that want these labels to presist are not here to build an encyclopedia, they are here for the drama. I would suggest them to go to Wikipediocracy if that's what they want. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on how many times the ARS has showed up at ANI recently, the ARS is becoming the new Esperanza. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 15:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In terms of "doing what Esperanza was supposed to do" I'd say you're looking for the WP:Teahouse. But in terms of disruption, yes. casualdejekyll 16:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really count myself as either a deletionist or an inclusionist (improving a nominated article to the point where it becomes kept makes me happier than deleting it, but I think I !vote delete more often than keep, because most deletion nominations are made in good faith for subjects that legitimately look like deletion candidates). That statement of neutrality out of the way, I am tired of seeing the continual wars here between some deletionists and some inclusionists who have such bad-faith assumptions about the people on the other side of the dispute that they would prefer to see them shut out of the process rather than having the open and honest discussions that we need. Both the people finding and nominating non-notable articles, and the people finding and improving articles on notable topics that are so badly-written as to appear non-notable, are performing constructive activities. We need both things to happen. The improvement to the encyclopedia made in both of these ways is more important than getting your way by shutting out all opposing opinions. Neither the existence of bad deletion nominations nor the existence of badly-done cleanup attempts (the recycled press release sources cited above) are evidence of wrongdoing, just of the human imperfection that we all suffer from. I am tempted to propose a WP:BOOMERANG block on IJReid for inflaming the struggle rather than trying to come to peace with the fact that not everyone is going to agree with them on every decision, but I suppose that won't help either. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• What year is is?! I remember when this was a big problem ca 2008/9 and we didn't take action then against the project as a whole. The issues were the same, a project nominally devoted to 'rescuing' articles had a much more productive time disrupting deletion discussions (since that is vastly easier than rescuing articles). I don't think any actions we are likely to take will have much of an impact, but we should keep an eye out for LGRdC... Protonk (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an addendum, the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the idea of having a point of view on deletion is silly and tiresome. None of us possess the view from nowhere and it is actually much easier to pronounce ourselves neutral and perform disgust at those who have the temerity to have an opinion than it is to accept that we might have a perspective worth operating from. Protonk (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: ARS project members prevented from directly voting on articles listed on the rescue list, but are allowed to edit the articles.

• Tumen-il (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Uyghurs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Yugur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user has been, since the beginning, changing every link related to Uyghurs -> Yugurs. Claiming Uyghurs are not descendants of the Uyghur Khaganate. While they're not fully, here [7] below it explains how Old Uyghurs are one of the people forming their ethnogenesis. It's not also true that Yugurs are "actual" descendants", since they're mixed with Mongolian ethnic groups.

Mongol invasion of Central Asia: [8]

Genghis Khan: [9], [10] (even another user opened a topic on this and he didn't reply [11])

History of the Khitans: [12]

Balhae: [13]

History of the eastern steppe: [14]

Siberia: [15]

Qocho: [16], [17], [18], [19]

Mongol Empire: [20], [21]

So this user has been POV pushing since a while. Also has various edits against Turkish language as well. Removing relevant cognates in various topics. Haven't seem him putting once a sourced content, plus removing various stuff calling "fake information", etc.

This user is definitely WP:NOTHERE. Beshogur (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 13:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added pagelinks and userlinks to the head of this report. There has also been some discussion with the editor at User talk:Tumen-il#ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out that WP:GS/UYGHUR exists. Would it make sense to expand the scope of this GS to include the history of the Uyghur ethnicity, broadly construed? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk: I'm not sure, but he has generally disruptive behaviour. I don't see him anywhere (sometimes he does copy paste from another article) putting a sourced content. Always removing and edit warring. Beshogur (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue this might already be covered. Historical revisionism regarding a race subject to genocide is typically a key part of that genocide itself, it seems to me that editing to delegitimize the Uyghurs' ethic history would fall under that. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, historical revisionism relating to the genetic history of the Uyghurs could be linked to this, but I've generally not seen this sort of specific rhetoric in the context of Uyghur genocide (though there is some rhetoric about mixed bloodlines adopted by the Chinese state). That the modern Uyghurs are not the direct descendants of the ancient Uyghurs (i.e. there was mixture of ethnic groups in the area) is a position that major historians of Xinjiang such as James Millward (see this for more citations) have taken. And Millward is not actually someone who denies any of the abuses in the region (it's quite the opposite, actually). That being said, nobody reputable (as far as I know) claims that modern Uyghurs are not descended at least in part from the Old Uyghur people who lived in the Uyghur Khaganate.

That being said, the specific claim that the Yugurs are the direct descendants of the Old Uyghurs is not something I have ever seen advocated for by anybody serious. To be frank, I have no clue if this is something common among Yugur nationalists, but I don't think it's something that's related to Uyghur genocide, broadly construed. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose WP:TOPICBAN User:Tumen-il from "Uyghurs "

• To be broadly construed and appealable in six months. Endorse as proposer.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems reasonable --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems reasonable to me as well, though I'd weakly prefer a two-month topic ban. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to Expand GS/uyghur to include the Uyghurs more broadly

Currently, there is a general sanctions regime that places Uyghur genocide and articles related to it, broadly construed under general sanctions. In light of this issue, it appears that the disruption pertaining to Uyghur ethnic issues is not limited to modern times. As such, I propose that WP:GS/UYGHUR be modified to place edits related to Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, and topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide, all broadly construed under general sanctions. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: Proposal to Expand GS/uyghur to include the Uyghurs more broadly

• Support as proposer. I believe that this expansion would allow for administrators to better handle disruption relating to the topic of Uyghurs more broadly. I believe that the expansion of this regime will save our community time and will prove for a more coherent way to protect Wikipedia from future disruption in this area. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It is only natural to expect that those causing disruption around this issue would not limit their revisionism to current-day affairs. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Seems a reasonable and measured approach. Gusfriend (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Makes a lot of sense to do so.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• support clearly needed.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A common sense solution that will better protect a fraught area of editing. Curbon7 (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is anyone able to provide diffs to show this is a widespread problem bigger than this one editor? It's not clear to me that the diffs above (POV pushing as they may be) are related to the Uyghur genocide without some serious leaps and dot joining. Do edits changing pre-14th century Uyghurs to Yugurs relate to the CCP line described in the RFA article? Happy to have this explained to me if I've misunderstood. I also don't think its good that a decision to expand these sanctions is buried in this AN/I filing. Can these discussion be moved to somewhere with more visibility? Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To answer the part of your question around this being at ANI, a link to this discussion was posted to AN on September 4. I have no objection to CENT-listing this if you'd like, but I think that the notification at AN is more than sufficient for this sort of thing. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Now we just need admins other than myself (and Girth) to actually make use of this sanctions regime. BTW, this is one of three sanctions regimes which I, personally, treat with utmost severity (the other two are WP:GENSEX and WP:CASTE). Ask me xwhy. El_C 16:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support firefly ( t · c ) 19:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think disruption surrounding a race subject to genocide should be expected beyond the articles directly related to the genocide. Giving the admins the tools to deal with that makes sense to me. Frederal Say Hi 19:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Regarding the probable sockpuppetry, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kapgan Kağan.

I'll make it short and blunt, Yenieian seems to be on a Turkish pov pushing mission. Pretty bold claims I know, let me show you some proof;

Obsessed with changing the result to 'Ottoman victory' in a GA(!) article Siege of Güns, completely disregarding its status and well sourced content. Initially, he outrighted altered (sourced) info and slammed his own personal commentary instead 27 June 2022, came back a month later and tried the same 15 July 2022 15 July 2022. Now another month has passed, what does he do? Removes/alters sourced info once again with no edit summary whatsoever regarding it, whilst slamming multiple random, cherrypicked and badly cited sources [22] [23] [24].

Night Attack at Târgoviște: Revision history, do I even need to say something here? 9 reverts since 29 July, changing 'Wallachian victory' to 'Ottoman victory'.

Battle of Rovine, tried to lessen the Ottoman twice, one month apart between these two (disruptive) edits [25] [26].

I could go on. For more proof, just Ctrl + F 'Reverted' [27], a good chunk of his few edits have been reverted.

WP:NOTHERE, and probably a sock per the SPI.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This versus this is pretty damning as even the empty spaces match. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't even notice that bit. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It could be related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Ash-Shihr. Another editor has mentioned the reported user there.[28] Plus see EIA results. Coincidence or WP:MEATPUPPET? Performing a checkuser on both accounts would be very helpful. --Mann Mann (talk) 04:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I was actually suspecting the same thing. Moreover, Yeniseian has now suddenly stopped editing in the midst of all this (he might start it again now that I've said that it though). He is probably chilling in another sock account. Moreover, this EIA result of Kapgan Kağan/Yeniseian and Gokturklerrr is even more interesting [29]. The two have shown to be randomly hostile towards me as well [30] [31], coincidence? As for the EIA between Gokturklerrr and Kabz15 [32]. Obviously these EIA results might not have been suspicious if they all weren't brand new users, but they are. --HistoryofIran (talk) 06:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are admins thoughts? --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request action and closure

Can we please get a closure on this? They are literally still continuing their edit war as well [33]. Imho, with the evidence posted here, this is a quick and easy matter. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, looking at the SPI, Yeniseian just got blocked thanks to EdJohnston (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kapgan Kağan). With the link between those two accounts established, I can start filling another SPI soon considering the suspicious EIA results up above. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To admins and @HistoryofIran: I forgot to write this. This case also reminds me of similar behavior and edits by Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/KızılBörü1071 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smokva26 (edit warring, changing the results, and pov-pushing on articles about wars involving the Ottoman Empire). --Mann Mann (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I completely forgot about those two users. Thanks Mann Mann! --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Created another SPI if anyone is interested [34]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaand I get another typical random attack by yet another of my fans, coincidence? [35] --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doug Coldwell

Doug Coldwell has repeatedly engaged in promotional editing, seeking to promote himself in articles. He first did this at Preparation (principle), initially in 2020, before being reverted by another editor [36]. Last month, he added it again, and I removed it [37]. Three days later, he added the same promotional material about himself again [38], before promptly being reverted by User:Praxidicae. I gave him a formal warning on his talk page that these promotional edits were unacceptable on August 20th [39]. I had hoped Doug had learned his lesson and would stop doing this. Alas, on September 1st he did it AGAIN, this time on Michigan eLibrary [40]. Clearly, nothing any regular editor says to Doug will convince him to stop using mainspace to promote himself, so I am seeking sanctions against him, or even just a warning from an administrator to stop his self-promotional edits. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• This seems like a rather flagrant violation of MOS:SELFREF and WP:TONE, but those aren't conduct issues, and I'm not sure I buy this as PROMO. What's he promoting? His existence as a Wikipedia editor? If there's anything for AN/I to address here, it's a failure to communicate / subtle edit-warring. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, there's certainly him ignoring all attempts at communication, for starters, ignoring consensus that such edits are wholly inappropriate (as discussed at Talk:Preparation (principle)), and yes, editing promotionally about himself. I feel like it's pretty self-explanatory that adding photos and prose about yourself is not appropriate. Consider the following, which Doug added to Preparation (principle): A Wikipedian from the state of Michigan does this by visiting his local town library for reference books and searching through Google. He uses the interlibrary loan system to borrow books not at his local library. He says that with access to thousands of extra books this way it is like having the Library of Congress at his fingertips from where to borrow books. What is this cited to? Why, none other than an article in a local news organization about himself. And also adding the following photo and caption, which I am copying here verbatim.

  

  The real reason we're at ANI, though, is that he has deliberately ignored any and all attempts at communication. Multiple editors including myself have communicated to him this behavior is unacceptable, and we're greeted with complete silence from Doug, while he continues editing elsewhere. This cannot continue. Communicating with other editors is not optional. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There's the prose, and there's the picture. For both, there's obviously a WP:COI. That isn't disqualifying, but certainly means that Doug should be extremely careful and not do things like, you know, repeatedly reinstate something when others challenge it before finding consensus for it. That's good practice regardless, but when you have a COI not doing so is a recipe for disaster. Doug's been around a while and is clearly "here", so I don't really have a problem with him adding this stuff [one time]. The prose is IMO a bit much indeed, but it and [more so] the photo have a bit of early/mid-00s DIY Wikipedia feel to them. It's not bonkers to add a photo of someone doing research at a library to an article about that library, for example, and a line about researching for Wikipedia may have a place somewhere. The main thing is, again, he just shouldn't have reinstated any of the edits (and should've been using the talk page more). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  I am in agreement. Doug should be indefinitely blocked, to force him to communicate. He's actively editing as we speak while continuing to ignore all attempts at communication. He's either unable or unwilling to engage with other editors; either way, communication is not optional and at the point I believe a block is the only thing that he will respond to. If he then engages with the community and addresses the concerns here, the block can be lifted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Going to make a comment here about something related. Doug has repeatedly sent up GAs that are just not up to standard. While I've been able to salvage two, they required me rewriting a lot of prose, such as Talk:Mail chute/GA1. At Cone Mills (the article that has had four GA nominations), he failed to address prior concerns about missing content. Talk:Joshua Lionel Cowen/GA1 was sent to GAN with significant typos (including one of the last name of the subject), images of strange provenance, and other issues. I made these comments, which feel representative:

  With all due respect, I feel like I'm a judge on a cooking competition—and, more often than usual, your offerings are undercooked in ways that are peculiar to you.

  Unfortunately, he has not substantively engaged the quality issue, either here at ANI or at other user talk pages, nor has he engaged the self-promotion issue. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• It doesn't appear anything has changed since 2007. Another user summed it up nicely then too: This is the second article I have seen by Doug Coldwell in two days. They are both empty pieces of nonsense, formed about a small fact, and bolstered by irrelevant references. This editor is seriously disruptive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson. I think we can all agree that Doug is probably writing in good faith but we require more competence than he's been able to demonstrate...PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The most immediate problem here is the failure to engage with other editors in a meaningful way, which makes it impossible to solve the other issues. I am inclined to try with a shot across the bow, to see if we can get him to actually talk to others. As such, I am about to block him for three days. Salvio 21:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's worth noting that while it was 15 years ago, the ANI thread I referenced is still relevant, as are the ones in years after that, discussing this exact same behavior, failure to engage, failure to accept any criticism and demonstrating ownership, which isn't brought up directly here but should be as it's a large part of the problem and has resulted in massive amounts of nonsensical WP:OR to the tune of several hundred thousand bytes of text. PICKLEDICAE🥒 21:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I wholeheartedly agree that Doug's editing is problematic in more ways than one and I'm not trying to pre-empt any further action the community or another administrator may wish to take. I am merely hoping that we can get him to talk to us, to see if we can solve the problem without an indef block... Salvio 21:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant to reply to myself anyway, I didn't think your block was pre-empting anything. Though, I will say Doug's response to said block is...pretty bad. Sorry for any confusion. PICKLEDICAE🥒 21:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• • I'm not sure what the issue is??? I can demonstrate I have made 234 Good Articles. Of those in 2020 I made 60 Good Articles in a 60 day period of time, averaging 1 Good Article per day. I have created 500 Did You Know articles. Here is a list of my multiple article Did You Knows. Here is a list of my Did You Knows that have been placed in DYK Hall of Fame. This article was put on the main page as an official Did You Know 36 hours from when I created it. Do you need more?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Pasting your response to every single person that brought this up on your talk page isn't doing you any favors, Doug. Are you going to address the actual issues or not?

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

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

• I'll be glad to discuss the problem What is the actual issue? I have to go to bed now, but if you will give me the issue I will reply tomorrow morning.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll be glad to discuss the problem What is the actual issue? Have you considered reading the beginning of this thread...or your talk page? Or the many article talk pages where these problems have been neatly outlined for you? PICKLEDICAE🥒 22:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So you didn't see the multiple times your edits were reverted with detailed edit summaries, or the talk page discussion at Talk:Preparation (principle), or the warning I posted on your talk page before you left me with no choice but to take this to ANI? That suggests a level of incompetence which would merit a WP:CIR block. Surely you can come up with a better excuse than that? How about, "I thought that the rules didn't apply to me because I have lots of GAs and DYKs" which appears to be the real reason? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm confused - so exactly why am I being pinged to this discussion? Trying to read through this extensive thread and its subthread this morning, still haven't caught up... Shearonink (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you got pinged, Doug is mass pinging editors familiar with his work to try and defend himself here. The gist of it is Doug did some self-promotional edits, ignored all attempts by editors to tell him not to do so, and didn't even engage here until he was blocked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Coldwell, the fact that you claim to not understand what the issue is, after it being explained to you over and over again is really quite concerning. Your fellow editors do not want you promoting yourself on Wikipedia with either text or images. Period. Your failure to acknowledge and respond to that basic criticism is powerful evidence that you are not a responsive, collaborative editor. Nobody cares about your FAs or GAs when you fail to respond to legitimate concerns about your self-promotional edits. Cullen328 (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its casual sentiments like "Nobody cares about your FAs or GAs" which make this page an awful place. It may come as a surprise to some in this thread that many users prefer to create article content and not seek out user interaction, a sentiment that many who frequent this page could benefit from. I hope Doug acknowledges and obliges the self-promotion issues, but I also hope that other editors in this thread reconsider their attitudes, which have resulted in repeated and unproductive sarcasm, insult and an exceptional lack of AGF. Aza24 (talk) 05:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, Cullen's kinda right. You can have a lot of FAs or GAs, but if you continually promote yourself (and as Praxidicae has said, this goes back to at least 2007), your credibility gets weaker and weaker. Plus, WP:COMMUNICATE. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 05:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're ignoring the context here, Aza24. 'Nobody cares about your GAs' seems like fair comment when someone's copy-pasted response at multiple venues to concerns about edit-warring and COI editing is 'look at all my GAs'. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly ignoring context, but on purpose. I don't see why it's okay for any editor to disparage someone's genuine contributions to the encyclopedia, and the fact that it was done so casually (and subsequently approved by other editors) is all the more frustrating. This is already becoming a tangent from the topic at hand, though, so I will not press further. Aza24 (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24, I should have phrased myself more precisely at the expense of brevity, and should have said, "nobody cares about your GAs or your FAs when discussing your self-promotional behavioral issues outside the GA/FA review process". The editor's recent comments are evidence that they do not understand, accept or take on board the criticism that has been offered. The editor could have put this issue to bed instantly by saying, "Yes, I recognize that some of my edits might be considered self promotional, and I promise to never do so again" But they have not done so. That is troubling. Cullen328 (talk) 06:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the "I've had many thousands of edits/I've had FA-GA-DYK nominations, and that immunizes me against having to follow behavioral policies or guidelines" is a long discredited concept. Just ask the likes of MickMacNee or Lugnuts. Ravenswing 06:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The picture shown above was put in Preparation article and Michigan eLibrary (MeL) in Good Faith, because they demonstrated just that. It was for illustration purposes for the article. It was not an intentional self-promotion. As you can see in the hundreds of articles I have created I never do any kind of self-promotion. There has never been any complaints that I have done self-promotion. I would have thought with the 500 Did You Know articles there would have been some complaint. That also applies with the 234 Good Articles I have done. None of the GA reviewers have brought that up as an issue. It has only been an issue starting with the Preparation and MeL articles. If I had been doing self-promotion it would have showed up way before now.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 06:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have already told us exactly how many GAs you've had your hand in on. You have also already told us exactly how many DYKs you claim to have. Do you think that repeatedly trumpeting these accomplishments is the best way to convince us that you're not self-promoting? Ravenswing 06:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Coldwell, the discussion has moved well beyond any COI issue to the question of whether your judgment is such that the community can trust you to edit at all. Can you not see that this version [41] of your now-notorious Preparation (principle) article is absolutely inappropriate from top to bottom? -- that literally every sentence in it borders on the bizarre?

In the medical field, preparation is to decide what branch to pursue (i.e. aid, technician, nurse, doctor, specialist, scientist, dentist, veterinarian). One of the first steps might be to get some medical experience by being an assistant at a local hospital or volunteer medical technician. Another step could be to do research projects for doctors. Another step is to study on your own and do practice Medical College admission tests. Another step would be to apply as a student at a selection of several colleges and universities that would give the medical profession you are interested in. Another step could be to learn another language, like Spanish. Another step is to learn about financial aid options for financing medical school.

The reader is also told that

In vocational school, preparation is to get a skill for a career to be able to produce a lifetime income. Some of the courses involved to achieve this are in mechanics, woodwork, metal work, electricity, construction, photography, chemistry, and physics.

That weirdly narrow career advice is cited to an article called "True Tales of Peril and Heroism" published in 1913. Let me repeat that: 1913. EEng 08:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My 500 Did You Know articles have been viewed by at least 2000 editors each. That means that over a million editors have seen these articles and none have put in a complaint that I was self-promoting in any of them.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This shockingly bad non-encyclopedic prose brought to light by EEng is just more evidence that we have a serious problem here. Perhaps we have a problem with the GA review process as well. Why would any editor experienced with GA and FA write so poorly? I have avoided that whole sideshow in recent years as a waste of time. Is there a more serious problem there? Doug Coldwell, please stop patting yourself on the back for your articles and page views. It is unseemly in this discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's just scratching the surface of how bad the Preparation (principle) page was. Looking at the AfD, EEng brought up other examples of frankly baffling writing. I really hope that EEng's suggestion that every one of Doug's article creations needs to be scrutinized doesn't need to come to fruition, but with how bad this page got, I really don't know. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 08:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dough Coldwell, I just said that possible self-promotion is no longer the issue. You really appear to be incapable of comprehending anything anyone else says. I'll ask it again: can you really, at this late date, not see how bizarre your "preparation" article is (particularly the version I linked above)? EEng 08:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng I'm wondering if we should propose a ban from Doug talking about how many GAs/FAs/DYKs he has so it would require him to focus on the substance of the complaints... PICKLEDICAE🥒 12:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Coldwell: You maths is faulty. There is no reason to think all editors are unique. Also do not confuse readers with editors. Most readers even if they notice problems do not comment or do anything. As a BLPN regular, I can say there are articles with significant BLP problems with higher view counts where no one has ever complained. When you are talking about multiple articles it gets more complicated, still I won't discuss this further since it's beside the point anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Coldwell: a hint, if people are concerned about self promotion, you bringing up how many GAs etc you have in nearly every response is actively harming your situation not helping it. It strongly suggest that you apparently do not understand what self promotion is and why it's harmful. While self promotion in talk page comments isn't such a big deal, since concerns have been raised over your self promotion in article space, the fact that your responses are so poor makes us think there is no hope for reform and so the only option may be some sort of sanction. Nil Einne (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that an Administrator should use this app https://sdzerobot.toolforge.org/gans to see how many Good Articles a particular editor has done before making any decisions on any proposals. Of course those that have made few or no Good Articles want to stop those that have made over 200 Good Articles. It looks like a case of jealousy, as those that have made few or no Good Articles wish they could do that but are not able to.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have some GAs myself, but unlike you I don't go around bragging about it in every comment I make, or acting like my GAs make me above the rules. I also don't commit copyright violations in my GAs or have them get deleted, unlike you. Quite frankly, I'm astounded you haven't been blocked again yet. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just quote you in bold here, for all to see:

It looks like a case of jealousy, as those that have made few or no Good Articles wish they could do that but are not able to.

We are well in truly in crazytown now. For the third time: do you, or do you not, see what's wrong with this [42] bizarre shitpile you nominated for GA? EEng 15:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to want to block an editor who has many positive contributions to the project. It becomes a bit easier when they're using their contributions as a cudgel to silence those who have concerns about their conduct. Hi, I'm Frederal Say Hi 16:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, your 200+ GAs and 500+ DYKs will not save you. And for the most part, they're not the area of concern here, either. Legitimate concerns have been raised with regards to your editing habits, and to downplay them as a case of jealousy is completely uncalled for. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 15:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, please stop. Are you familiar with the Streisand effect? People are now combing through your GAs and finding fault in them, even proposing limitations on you nominating. Please just address the argument. Etriusus (Talk) 15:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Coldwell "Of course those that have made few or no Good Articles want to stop those that have made over 200 Good Articles." That is an unfounded and bizarre assertion/accusation. It shows a battlefield mindset. I have created zero Good Articles, and I don't want to stop anyone from creating more -- if the articles are truly good. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that "self-promotional editing" is a very strange title (with very nasty implications) in light of the actual issue at hand here, which is that a guy who's written many hundreds of articles put a photo of himself in one of them. Granted, the way he did it was pretty silly, and my opinion is that he should leave it out (and probably shouldn't have put it in in the first place). And the edit-warring is clearly an issue, but framing this in the same way as some random UPE spam account seems confusing and counterproductive. jp×g 12:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, jp×g, the title is appropriate in that he keeps trying to insert those photos in articles even after being told he shouldn't: this ANI was filed after his multiple attempts to add himself to Preparation (principle) were reverted with explanations of why they were inappropriate, most recently on August 17 and 21, and he added a nearly identical section to what he'd inserted in Preparation, complete with the picture above, to his expansion of Michigan eLibrary on September 1. It's the sheer persistence that's troubling here, along with the failure to engage editors who point out issues with anything but his GA and DYK stats. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at their most-recent article creation, Arthur P. Yates was a pioneer and leader in railroad photography and He made an excellent reputation for himself as a railroad photographer and was considered the finest in the field in the world in the nineteenth century and early twentieth century. seems to be sourced to a self-published book from 1908, and an 1896 book published by the YMCA where the content consists entirely of quotations from an interview with Yates. I don't think that's properly sourced.

  Looking at their most-edited articles led me to William Austin Burt and equatorial sextant, where Burt made the first equatorial sextant is tagged as dubious, and a 2020 message at Talk:Equatorial sextant/GA1 points out that there were equatorial sextants invented long before Burt, such as Flamsteed's 17th-century equatorial sextant. Burt had a patent for an equatorial sextant, you might call it "Burt's equatorial sextant", but not the first. The claim is sourced to some pretty dubious sourcing, including a biography of Burt written by one of his descendants. A similar issue occurred with Talk:Burt's solar compass/GA1. I question the notability of these articles.

  William Austin Burt also makes the claim that his typographer (typewriter) was the first writing machine in America. This dubious claim is dubiously sourced to very old sources... "The replica has been since 1922 in the Smithsonian Institution" is sourced to a 1922 source, for example. Our article Typewriter#History give a different view.

  Making a lot of articles is great, but they have to be accurate, and they have to be properly sourced. This strikes me as moving too fast and loose. In particular source selection seems lacking. I don't think Rhodo's proposal below really gets at the heart of the issues, and Doug's one-sentence reply -- in light of what else he's written here -- doesn't reassure me. Levivich 23:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As someone who has been editing here less than 1 year I hold Good Articles in a particularly (and possibly over the top) high esteem so I am very concerned seeing someone adding the statement This library is the world's largest evaluated and organized Web based electronic library of online resources. with reference {{sfn|Davidsen|1997|pages=101-106}} at Michigan eLibrary (diff [43]) before nominating it for GA. It would be easy for someone to miss the fact that the information is from 25 years ago and think that it is currently true.Gusfriend (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, I fear this is the problem with much of Doug Coldwell's editing: he indiscriminately pastes into articles any random junk that falls in his lap. Often the result is a rambling article with odd details -- superficially making sense, perhaps, but on closer examination full of inappropriate and outdated stuff. But once in a while the stars align and you get that "Preparation" monstrosity. EEng 07:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doug's responses here are eerily reminiscent of Mathsci's bizarre self-aggrandizing non-sequiturs in the discussion that got him indeffed this past June. That is not a good trajectory to follow and if Doug doesn't get with the program now I can't see this ending up in anything besides a site-block eventually. JoelleJay (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Though I recall that Mathsci was banned mainly for harassing other editors, which Doug has not yet done. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal (Doug Coldwell)

This is a painful discussion to read

What do we do with a long-time, productive, good-faith contributor who writes lots of articles but is not as skilled at on-wiki communications as others? That's the underlying question. We certainly have no trouble accepting the opposite skillset: those who don't really write anything but are very good at understanding and enforcing rules. We need both, folks. This is a community and an encyclopedia, after all. This is and should be a diverse place, which is, yeah, frustrating as hell sometimes.

I mean, I get it, this is difficult all around: it's frustrating to try to communicate with someone on a collaborative project just to have those communications repeatedly ignored, missed, or misunderstood; and it's frustrating to write articles collaboratively but more or less on your own most of the time, then be confronted with social norms you don't understand and get dragged to a place like this where people bring up a whole range of gripes about you (and even explicitly tell you they don't care about your content work because your on-wiki communication skills aren't up to snuff -- ouch). It's painful for everyone, and with the proposal above the discussion is sprawling and increasingly chaotic such that at this point I couldn't blame Doug, who may find the social aspect of Wikipedia less fun than the encyclopedic aspect, for being overwhelmed and scattered.

We seem to be on a trajectory towards some sort of long-term block/sanction, and considering what led to this IMO we shouldn't be. So maybe rather than additional proposals for sanctions, we can try to provide Doug with a way out -- one that's as simple as possible. For example, perhaps Doug can simply say "I agree" to these simple terms:

1. Do not add material about yourself to a Wikipedia article directly. If you want, you may propose it be added on the talk page, but do not add it yourself.
2. Really really try to pay close attention to talk pages (especially your user talk page), and try to make time to respond even if you're not sure you need to. People appreciate knowing their concerns have been heard.
3. If you're having trouble understanding a problem someone has raised, and they are not explaining it effectively, reach out to an editor you trust for help. Do you know any of the other Michigan Wikipedians in real life? Sometimes it can help to actually meet up with a group rather than try to figure things out on-wiki.

I hope this helps rather than hurts. Other things came up, but this seems like a reasonable starting point. Let's try to move this towards resolution? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the filer, I actually would prefer for Doug not to be blocked. That's not my desired end goal here. His responses here have unfortunately made that more likely, but I think Doug is capable of editing here constructively, and I would like to see him continue to improve articles. But to do that, he needs to take other editors' concerns and criticisms seriously. I don't have anything personal against Doug - while I think his recent conduct has been wholly unacceptable and unbecoming of an editor of his tenure, I've seen he is capable of good work when he puts his mind to it.

With all of that said, I think this is too light. It took a block just to get him to even respond to criticism - what's stopping him from repeating that behavior in the future? If Doug pledges to change his behavior regarding communicating with other editors going forward, rather than simply saying "I have 500 DYKs and 234 GAs, therefore the rules don't apply to me", at least for me I'd be willing to meet him there and have this end without anyone being blocked. But Doug has to agree to meet us in the middle, instead of continuing to act like his conduct is perfect and editors are only criticizing him because we're "jealous". There's actually not much overlap between him and I in terms of what we write GAs about - I write about railroad companies and rail yards, and I don't believe Doug has done any articles on those two subjects, maybe one or two of the former a long time ago? Regardless, his accusation that I filed this thread because I'm "jealous" of him is absurd and I'd really like to see him withdraw that accusation.

In summary, we need a real commitment that Doug is going to change his behavior going forward. Given his responses here, I doubt he will agree to do so, but I'm going to hold out hope just the same. Other editors have raised concerns about other aspects of his editing as well, such as copyright and the creation of the ridiculous Preparation (principle) article, which we will also need to see him acknowledge. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Thanks. I'd like to propose this discussion be closed, with a reminder to Doug that we may wind up back here if not cautious about this stuff. I know some other things have come up in this thread, but since they all seem to be rooted in communication, perhaps we can take them as they arise, where they arise, rather than trying to address several things at once here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Being able to explain in detail implies a particular understanding of the nuances of Wikipedia social norms than I think we will see, and is that really a deal-breaker? Being able to "explain in detail what the issues were and how to avoid them" is a different requirement from not engaging in those issues further, after all. Since the underlying issues have to do with communication and (originally) self-promotion, isn't it worth waiting and seeing if Doug takes on board the things he has just agreed to? YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given Doug's repeated statements that he doesn't understand the issue, a summary of the issue by Doug would be very helpful to demonstrate that he now does understand and isn't just guessing at what people might want to hear. MrOllie (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Good proposal, thanks Rhododendrites. There seems to be a lot of spite at play here, directed at Doug. I'm sure if those engaging in this behaviour were in the same room as Doug, they'd behave very differently. I've worked with Doug on dozens of articles and all I've experienced is a diligent and good-faith editor. Perhaps this wall of text translates as "shouldn't edit war", in which case we're really done. Perhaps it translates as "don't self-promote" with which I agree, but it's done. The message has been received, and those distributing vitriol can now move on to their next victim. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You'll notice I and a number of other editors have not disputed that Doug is a good faith editor. However, his conduct the past few days has been objectively poor. It shouldn't take a block to get someone to respond to the community. I would be ok with this being closed, but only if Doug receives a formal warning about not avoiding communication when other editors have concerns regarding his edits. Otherwise, I oppose this being closed. Doug has made a brief statement saying he agrees not to repeat the problematic edits, which I am happy to see, but I am still waiting to see that he has a clear understanding of what the issues are, and how he will avoid repeating them. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To me, this is just plain and simple bullying and belittling a good faith editor. Of course, that's just my opinion and I'm not casting aspersions or making any personal attacks, rather I'm just suggesting that the continued berating of a good faith editor to somehow unlock a code by saying exactly what certain people want him to say is somewhat disgusting and disappointing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Given Doug's agreement to go with these conditions, I support accepting that and closing this now. Going forward, any possible future problems can be taken one at a time rather than confronting Doug with a lot of things at once in a potentially overwhelming manner (as, for example, can happen at ANI when people often identify all sorts of different things at once and make blanket demands on an editor). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I think there is a real benefit to the community easing up here but I object that the issue is he is "less skilled" at on wiki communication than others. The issue was he didn't! He refused to! And when it became an actual problem he needed to be blocked to actually engage here. We aren't saying that he needs to spend all his time on the boards--we are saying that refusal to communicate about problems PLUS the continued generation of problems results in a serious issue that needs some actual resolution. The response can't always be "well, go tell him he is messing up" because as noted above, he has just ignored previous responses. If Doug doesn't want to be confronted with problems all at once he can respond to things one at a time, otherwise refusing to bring them up all at once is tantamount to letting them continue. Protonk (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Doug Coldwell warned

Proposal: Close this

Proposal: Remove autopatrol user right

Checking some recent articles of Doug's

As I have recently promoted some of Doug's GAs, and had not spotchecked them as I did so (my mea culpa is above), I thought I should take responsibility for rechecking them. I asked Doug to go through them first to make sure they were clean; my thinking was that if he could show he knew what the problems were and was willing to fix them, it would be helpful. I'm sad to say that the first check, on Charles Grafton Page, is not going well. My talk page comments are here. I was unable to access a couple of source but found problems in about half the text I was able to check. For a contributor to leave in this many problems in so little text while the subject of a CCI and the subject of an ANI thread that covers this problem is astonishing.

I believe Doug is acting entirely in good faith, so the only explanations I can come up with are that either he doesn't understand the problem, or he doesn't understand what it means to do a recheck. I don't know what to do about this, because there's no question that we'll lose a dedicated contributor if we drive Doug away, but I don't think things can continue as they are. Iazyges says above: "CCI does not have the power to require an editor to clean up their own work, that would require a per-user community consensus, which we might pursue here. I've never seen an editor make a concerted effort of their own volition, as I recall. We also take a stance against having the CCI "follow them around" under the (incredibly optimistic) assumption that they will "go and sin no more" after it has been opened. Perhaps this is not always the case, but it has worked in past, especially with older edits from more established users. Something further is likely required here". I think the evidence so far is that we can't assume Doug will "go and sin no more".

I'll keep going through the Charles Grafton Page article, but I'm going to delay reviewing the others till the close of this thread, in case something drastic ends up happening such as the stubification of some or all of Doug's work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

So, just for the sake of clarification: this is a check made after he was made aware of the issues, as well as aware of a recheck, and specifically said this article was good to go for recheck? FrederalBacon (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Actually Doug made no edits to it at all when I asked him to recheck. I said "I am going to spotcheck the GAs of yours I've recently promoted"; this one was promoted on 19 August. I didn't check to see that he'd edited it before started to rereview it. I suppose he simply forgot it was one that needed to be checked, or assumed I wouldn't go back that far (only three weeks). Either of those is still not a good sign. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you see as a way forward from here in terms of improving the editor's behavior and encouraging them to do better with avoiding the copyright issues? FrederalBacon (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unable to think of a solution that is both likely to work and not the nuclear option. I think the comments made elsewhere about Doug's motivation being in conflict with the goals of the encyclopedia are at least partly right, and it's very difficult for someone to change their behaviour if their motivation is unchanged. I can't tell if he understands our copyright rules well enough to follow them. My usual instinct is that people are what they do, not what they say, and he edits like someone who doesn't understand the rules. Elsewhere in this thread someone makes the point that editors can't be assumed to sign up to fix other people's problems; I don't mind redoing the GA reviews I did and delisting those GAs, and ripping out the copyvios I can find, but what about the sources I don't have access to? I gather that CCI's approach is to create a giant worklist for other editors while allowing the problematic editor to continue without helping. I can see the reasoning, but the result here is not good. It would be less work for the community to delete articles, or revert to before significant contributions, where there's a pattern like this. It's painful to say this, because in some ways I admire Doug's work -- as I've said elsewhere, he could be a very valuable contributor. But sadly he isn't, and the evidence so far is that he either can't or won't change. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CCI can and regularly does apply WP:PDEL. In an ideal world, CCIs would be on newer users who are blocked for copyvio and then unblocked because they understand copyvio, but it's not that in many cases. Basically, 12-13 years ago the community wrung its hands over the collateral damage of PDEL, as a very high profile case happened with bot blanking and presumptive deletions, and we have the incredibly and overly optimistic take that we have now. We can't force editors to help; it usually doesn't work and I can think of 2 cases out of the at least 250 I've heard of or worked on where the person in question helped. In an ideal world, we wouldn't have situations where blocking for copyvio this late into someone's editing career, but here we are, and unless DC can give absolute assurance to us that he understands the copyright policy, and how to not closely paraphrase, and that there is a legitimate improvement in his work, I think there needs to be a block from at the very least, mainspace. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue the time to acknowledge he understood copyright policy was when the CCI was opened last year. And, you know, at pretty much any point in this ANI that has now been going for 4 days, and the editor himself hasn't engaged with since day 2. This is a discussion, at this point, that looks as if it might determine his ability to continue with this project, and there hasn't been a response to a single issue here since he agreed to Rhododendrites' well intentioned, but now eclipsed by larger issues, suggestion of a resolution above. So, is he seeing this discussion getting increasingly negative due to the copyright issues, and not replying, or is he not reading it at all? Neither option is particularly thrilling. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I hadn't thought of a mainspace block. It would be slightly less of a nuclear option, though I doubt Doug would edit much, if at all, outside mainspace, so it would probably have the same effect. Not being familiar with CCI discussions I don't want to pontificate but I would have thought PDEL should be the default. If breaking copyright rules doesn't get you a scarlet letter, doesn't require you to fix your own messes, doesn't stop you from editing, and leaves your bad edits in place (since we don't have the manpower to clean most of it up), what is the incentive not to break those rules? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! On top of all that, CCI regulars are lambasted and attacked every single time we try to bring copyright violation issues from established editors to the community's attention. At the fairly recent Martinevans CV discussion, we were treated by many people as though we were personally assaulting Martin, as if WP:5P3 - not violating copyright - is an impossible standard we can't expect people to uphold. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I think some of the time, it was the way the copyvio problems were reported, rather than the problems themselves. Certainly, I took a neutral stance with Martinevans123, and decided the best thing to do would be to help tackle the CCI, which has unfortunately stalled. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have found issues with sourcing before (here), and while I was not that pleased to see no re-checking was done before the next nomination, I do not believe the problems were close to meriting "something drastic" like general stubbification. I do not think the general issue of GAN reviewing inconsistency can be addressed here either. CMD (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The stubification would not be an answer to sourcing problems, but to th apparently still rampant copyvio problems despite being already the subject of a CCI investigation (a combination which does deserve both an indef and stubbing or draftifying all their articles, or reversion where they didn't create but significantly added to articles). If we had some indication that they understood the seriousness of the issues and some evidence that they truly worked on the problem, instead of doing some perfunctory edits, things might be different: but it seems as if they have little or no intention to abide by such basic rules and see themselves as above them. Fram (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright problem is severe enough as it is. WP:CCI is expected to manually review every single substantial (over 150 bytes, adds content besides refs) edit made by Doug Coldwell up to now, since the level of copyvio that David Eppstein, Fram, Mike Christie, myself, and others is well into the territory of expanding the current CCI. This is absolutely unfair and unacceptable, especially if DC doesn't understand copyright policy. It's unfair on the GA reviewers, it's unfair on copyright editors, and it's unfair to the community in general. There are not enough editors who care to do a proper review and have time or enough energy, to rewrite entire articles to a GA standard for someone else. Sennecaster (Chat) 13:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, then, that this whole situation leaves the community with little choice of what action needs to be taken here. Doug's actions have caused an increased burden on the community significantly, and given the fact that this has been addressed with them before and they are still committing blatant copyright violations, we can not trust the behavior to change. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And just when we were finally getting a handle on the GA nom backlog. I'm sure there is plenty worth saving, but it'll be painful, especially tracking down the sources in print. I hate the idea of stubifying 200+ GAs, but it's gonna take some serious manpower to clean up this mess. GA reassessment frankly can't handle that load. Etriusus (Talk) 13:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following this discussion from afar, as my off-Wiki life has been taking precedence. From my bystander observation, many of the disparate issues brought up here are centered around a focus on the value of "shiny things" – in this case, good articles and DYKs. Concerns are brushed aside because those that have made few or no Good Articles wish they could do that but are not able to. Articles are nominated, removed for nomination on the basis of serious issues, and are renominated hours later with no or minimal improvement. Cone Mills Corporation has failed four times because no improvements have been made between those nominations. That seems absurd. Then there's whatever is happening here. I think even a temporary TBAN as it relates to GAN might have to be in order to stop some of the bleeding until concerns around copyright and lack of communication are remedied. — GhostRiver 14:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really not a fan of that Then YOU will earn a GA green icon for being the nominator and I will earn a GA green icon for being the creator of the article. bit in link provided; quid pro quo is certainly an acceptable thing in terms of "oh you review one of my FAC/GANs and I review one of yours, but make no promise of outcome" but it basically seems like he's trying to pass off fixing the issues, or else just try to ram it through by having someone else nom it and stand by it. Not good. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my various colored nuvola icons. I was worried when making my comment that I focused too much on Doug's love of GA icons, because I thought it was just my bias against self-promotion at work. But that thread is just full of even more of what we've seen him say here, as well as some new brags we haven't. I've been biting my tongue because I don't take it lightly but I have to say it now. I'm having concerns that while Doug Coldwell is acting in good faith he might be bordering on technically NOTHERE. I want to stress that he is acting in good faith (as far as my understanding of good faith goes) but this talk of I happen to be in the top 5% (#18 of 360) of [...], seemingly never bringing up GAs or DYKs without bringing up his or someone else's statistics on it, and generally paddling circles around his accomplishments instead of discussing literally anything else, just can't be ignored. If this comes off as too harsh or aspersions please tell me but I felt this needed saying. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a very strange situation, I definitely agree. No one can doubt that he's acting in good faith I would say, but his strange refusal to take ownership of his mistakes pushes him into NOTHERE, on top of collective behavior. I'll be the first to admit I went about hat/icon collecting when I was a young (age and experience-wise) editor, but this is a man of much life experience and a fourteen-year tenure. It's unbelievable that he is unaware of the copyright policies, not only has he had a very long tenure, but he has actually guided others in understanding copyright policy; it is becoming increasingly obvious that he simply doesn't care. A CCI investigation has been set up under the understanding he would "sin no more". He went forth and sinned, creating yet more work for the CCI team. Now, in the middle of an increasingly adverse discussion that he had to be blocked to convince him to take part in, he has promised that he has reviewed some of his more recent works. Either he missed a few as above (concerning given the small pool of them), has no idea how to review his own works (concerning, as he should have access to all of the sources for a recent work), or he simply doesn't care. It seems increasingly that, although a good faith editor, his driving motivation is to get those awards, and he is unwilling to compromise or heed others warnings on the matter. TL;DR: He's a dedicated and good faith editor, but his general mindset that his achievements make him immune from criticism or policy is very concerning. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From looking through the thread, this seems to be exactly what's going on. In pursuit of more green buttons, quantity has taken precedence over quality, which has led to issues discussed here. It's clear that Doug has contributed a lot to Wikipedia, but you can't hide from valid criticism behind GA's. I've never created a GA on my own, and I'm sure it's a nice little dopamine kick, but it's a problem when it becomes the most important thing, more important apparently than even the quality of the articles themselves. Perhaps limiting Doug's partaking in the GA process at least temporarily would be healthy for both him and the site. TylerBurden (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Whenever I review a GA nomination, I individually check each statement, and get access to every source in the article (with the sole exception of print sources that I can't find digitized versions of). I expect that the same is done during reviews of my own nominations; indeed, I have always been very glad to see somebody point out when I have made a typo, and quoted an incorrect figure, or some similar mistake. There's even a GA criterion of not having copyvios. Everybody is already supposed to be checking this stuff! If reviewers are not doing this, it seems like a rather dire problem with the GA process itself. It's a little troubling, to say the least, if we are taking "assume good faith" to the level of claiming to perform a peer review process and not actually doing it because we assume that people would only submit good stuff to said process. jp×g 01:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal : Indef block

Above, Fram has suggested an indef block for Doug, given persistent and uncorrected issues with copyvios. Others have suggested a block, but only from mainspace. As well as the ongoing CCI, I notice that Conrad Hubert has just been quickfailed at GA because of plagiarism issues. I know we don't like indeffing longstanding contributors, but doing it for extensive copyvios has longstanding precedent. Your thoughts please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indef I don't like that it has reached this point and was about to propose the following (that I have included in case it helps people figure out a solution) but I think that an indef is required:

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

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

• Support with regret. We have significant copyright problems here, including an open CCI for historic issues and ongoing issues to this day. Cleaning up copyright issues requires an immense investment of volunteer time, orders of magnitude greater than inserting the violations in the first place, and therefore we must be willing to take action to "stem the flow" in cases where editors seem to be unable to comply with our policies on the matter. This is particularly critical in the case of prolific contributors where violations seem to be common, as the scale of the problem will naturally be larger. firefly ( t · c ) 09:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: It is painful to need to indef ostensibly highly productive editors. We've had to do it a bit too often this year. And a large part of the problem is the mania for Chasing Shiny Things: to get on the Top 100 edits list, to rack up FA/GA/DYKs, to rake in the barnstars. The further problem is that this mess highlights the painful truth that the GA process is seriously broken. There is no frigging way that so many substandard articles should have been promoted, no frigging way that so many copyvios and plagiarisms fell through the cracks, and if there are just too few eyeballs going over GA nominations, or if they're too quick to promote and careless about thorough vetting, the GA process needs to be suspended until these issues are resolved. (And if the result is that Wikipedia has fewer GAs, then tough shit. A lot of us are down on Doug for his relentless self-promotion. Self-promotion doesn't become prettier when it's Wikipedia itself touting all those shiny GAs.) This isn't a matter to resolve at ANI, of course. But as long as Doug is pulling a Lugnuts, and his answer to all these issues and exhortations to clean up his own mess is "But I Have So Many GAs/DYKs!" on endless loop, we do have the power to address that, and we must. Ravenswing 10:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

@Ravenswing: I think a large part of the issue with Doug's articles specifically is that he uses eclectic and old sources; a lot of them don't exist in any digital form, and therefore won't show up in Earwig's Copyvio Detector. Indeed, a lot of his articles that had blatant copyvio came back as 0%-2%. I would consider it a revelation that reliance on such tools may be too high, in conjunction with the previously discussed cultural issues that the regulars rarely get spotchecked. I won't say GA is perfect, but I don't think the entire process need be shut down at this point. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

So there's no set standard/rule on spotchecking. It's agreed upon that some spotchecking must occur, since everyone is going to make some minor edits went synthesizing sources. GA reviewers almost never spot check printed sources since it would require tracking down the original text, i.e. going to a library. Additionally, if we spot checked everything, we would just become a de facto FA review. GA just means 'decently written' and similarly has different standards than FAs, sources that fly at GA reviews (namely blogs written by experts in the field of study) would never get by at FA reviews. Copy-vios are not tolerated at any stage of an article's life (I 100% agree with lCOm, we do rely too heavily on earwig). It wouldn't be worth shutting down the process, frankly we just need more reviewers to lighten the load of the ~50-100 regulars who do conduct these reviews. Etriusus (Talk) 13:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Etriusus: Well, even at FAC it's pretty much baked in that editors without any FAs should be spot-checked (the essay itself says that Coords will usually (code for always, but good cover for when they forget, you know how shifty and untrustworthy that lot is), whereas those with even one usually aren't. As Mike Christie and I discussed above, it's a cultural issue that I think will likely have to be individually tackled. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

we just need more reviewers or fewer/better submissions. Overwhelming the queue is why "60 GAs in 60 days" was a bad idea. And DYK suffers from this problem 100x worse. The fundamental problem of all WP:HIGHSCORE editing is that it floods and overwhelms our review processes. Which basically means editors who have lots of time to do lots of GA/DYK/whatever are monopolizing the time of other editors, and the result is sort of disenfranchising editors who have less free time. The editor who has time for 1 GA has to wait because there's someone else who nom'd 100 GANs, etc. We need across-the-board rate throttling to protect against this. Levivich^😃 13:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: A not-insignificant part of that is areas of reviewer "expertise". I like to review stuff I'm familiar with because it gives me a good handle on what might be missing. Most of Wikipedia is white men, so some topics get premium spots in the amount of expertise; i.e. war and history GANs usually get picked up faster, all else equal. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More GANs should probably be quickfailed then they are. Unfortunately, in my experience, quickfailing a GAN subjects you to personal attacks from the person who believes that you are unfairly targeting them and not giving them a fair shake. So when reviewers see something that should be failed out of the gate due to poor sourcing, copyright, or poor prose, they are less likely to take it and QF it, thus reducing the queue, and more likely to leave it so that the fail becomes somebody else's problem. I don't know the solution to this problem, but one is sorely needed. — GhostRiver 14:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and I think we're all prone to it. There's many a time where I've Seen Something -- a new page submission, an AfD, an ANI filing -- where a casual glance tells me that I'd have to spend at least a half hour researching it to be able to make a meaningful, thoughtful response ... and my wife'll be home from work in fifteen minutes, and I need to get dinner started, and I shrug and say screw it. Ravenswing 15:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In a perfect world, we would have the manpower to deal with any and all articles that make their way through GA review. Unfortunatly, that is not the case. WP:GA has already ruled out QPQ due to the can of worms that opens. Limiting how many noms one can submit (e.g. 2 per month) could, in theory help, but then we're throttling entire wikiprojects and would likely end up with too many reviewers. I can agree that 60 GAs in 60 days is peak Wikipedia:Editcountitis and we should have mechanisms to prevent such egregious examples. I think that GA and FA reviews need to be more strict about spotchecking/not assuming experienced editors are always going to get it right. Etriusus (Talk) 14:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: He's been warned, so why not give him a chance to change? Sanctions aren't meant to be punitive, right? He's clearly a good-faith editor. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, in the section Checking some recent articles of Doug's above, Doug was given a chance to fix some of the issues before a recheck and there were still major issues afterwards. Additionally there has been a CCI investigation open since last year but the copyright and close paraphrasing issues have continued since then. Gusfriend (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And beyond that, take a look at his responses above. He just keeps on repeating "But I have so many GAs! I have so many DYKs!" This is not the reaction of someone who recognizes that he screwed up and resolves to do better. Ravenswing 15:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, Doug has been given a chance (and as far as I'm concerned, multiple at that) to improve his behavior and fix article-related issues. Copyright and self-promotion issues aren't outweighed by simply being a good-faith editor. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 23:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As others say, a very painful situation to block a productive editor, but it seems that the chase-shiny mindset will not allow him to contribute in the form that he needs to. I completely reject the notion that a warning here would suffice, was that not exactly what the CCI case being opened against him was? An open CCI investigation was not enough, he continued to make more work, especially by having the copyvio-infested articles be GAs, and therefore inherently harder to work with. As firefly says, we must stem the flow of the copyvio. I would love to see Doug come back at some point, and become a productive editor once more, but only after clearly demonstrating he understands what he did wrong and the issues with his mindset. At this juncture, I think an indefinite block is necessary. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The editor's quite productive, doesn't seem to be running into civility issues, and is quite competent. The issue with copyrights seems to be the hangup (for good reason), but the more narrowly tailored action of removing his autopatrolled right would surely enable us to provide accountability for any future issues with copyright; this is something that New Page Patrollers do check for. The point of blocking someone is to prevent future disruption, and I don't see a CBAN that would be enforced as an indef block as being anywhere close to a narrowly tailored way to prevent future disruption and not to punish users for past actions. I do think Doug is here to build an encyclopedia and that a block at this point is not justified. The expectation should be painfully clear that any copyvio will not be tolerated going forward and may result in escalating blocks, but an indef for a long-term good-faith user who had a clean block log at the time this thread started is plainly excessive. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comrade, I invite you to read the first two days' worth of this thread. You will see firstly that Doug pole vaults right over CIVIL by casting aspersions, accusing editors bringing up issues with his conduct of being jealous of him, and opening this thread to bring him down. You will also see that Doug is not entirely competent, as demonstrated by the copyright violations even as he apparently understands image copyright, and poor quality submissions to GAN. All of this can and has been worked through before, but I am sad to say that those cases are the minority with Coldwell's submissions. Please, read this thread and review your opinions. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 15:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Vami IV: I read the first two day's worth of this thread before I made my comment. The only place that Doug seems to have had civility issues (as far as anyone has brought up and as far as I can tell) is this thread, where he's frankly acting defensively and is reflexively pointing to the boatload of quality content he has written. The comment about jealousy was bizarre and is not acceptable, but I do not believe that this reflects a long-run civility issue inasmuch as it reflects being flabbergasted at being taken to ANI.

  The other thing that you bring up is sending bad submissions to GAN; a solution to this is to have reviewers simply decline their submissions if they fail the criteria. If this is so overwhelming that it causes problems at GAN, then the proposal by Etriusus in the section below should suffice. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Support. The evidence above convinces me that Doug either can't or won't abide by our copyright rules, and either way that's unacceptable. It's a painful situation but I don't think anything short of this will be effective. To Red-tailed hawk's comment just above: he has an open CCI, and after this thread started, when asked to clean up some articles before I checked them again, he left in multiple problems. That's not the behaviour of someone who is willing and able to comply with our copyright policies, which means anything short of a block won't be effective at preventing future disruption. As for being here to build an encyclopedia, I agree he's not deliberately breaking the rules because he feels like it, but per other comments above it seems his motivation is collecting GA icons much more than building an encyclopedia. I don't know if WP:NOTHERE is quite fair; it's not that he's here to damage the encyclopedia. But he's not editing in a way that improves it and there's no evidence he will, or even can, in the future. And finally, to your point that he's productive; yes, he's produced a lot of article text, and no doubt there's a lot of copyvio-free text in his work. But the work required at CCI, which may well be extended to many hundreds more of his articles, far exceeds the work he's put in. The net effect of his work to date is negative as a result. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand that CCI is incredibly time-intensive, but looking at the CCI itself, there have been 50 articles checked so far. Out of those 50, 49 have been marked as not containing copyright violations. In other words, 98% of the articles that have been checked in that CCI's contribution survey were found to not contain copyright violations. In light of this, no doubt there's a lot of copyvio-free text in his work seems like quite the understatement. I just can't get behind indeffing an editor who commits violations of copyright/close paraphrasing in such a small proportion of the articles they write, especially when they have a clean block log—a warning with escalating blocks for future copyvio seems much more narrowly tailored to prevent future disruption.

  The only thing that's separating Coldwell from other editors who have similarly low rates of inserting copyright violations into their work is that Coldwell is a prolific content creator, so any CCI is going to take a LONG time. But frankly that doesn't seem like a terribly good reason to indef him to prevent future disruption; having NPPers review his new creations going forward seems like a much more appropriate step that addresses the issue of infrequent copyright issues. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Red-tailed hawk see User talk:Doug Coldwell#Spotchecking your recent GAs (and subsequently this attempt at editing down) and Talk:Conrad Hubert/GA1 for extremely recent examples. Just found another one actually, and I only looked at the first 2 sources. This isn't blatant as others, but it still does not give me confidence. I don't think this is infrequent. The CCI also only goes to 2010, as that is what the previous range was identified as; either DC recently started closely paraphrasing/adding text, or this has flew under our radar entirely, even when investigating the case as normal. Once I get the time, I'm going to properly go through DC's GAs and see if this is recent only or not. As for the 50 articles checked; CCI usually does not check longer articles until near the end of the CCI, especially when we are faced with diffwalls and/or 10k+byte additions, and that is where most of the problems lie. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Red-tailed hawk (edit conflict) Not commenting on the rest of your argument or this whole discussion - I haven't read it all yet - but, "Out of those 50, 49 have been marked as not containing copyright violations. In other words, 98% of the articles that have been checked in that CCI's contribution survey were found to not contain copyright violations" is a misconception of how CCI works, could you please strike it? You'll note that the majority of the reviewed edits are at the bottom of the page, which is where the smaller edits go when a CCI is filled out. Smaller edits tend to introduce smaller sentences and non-copyrightable material, so it's practice to remove them first. You'll note the larger edits, at the top of the CCI, have mostly remained untouched; as with the majority of CCIs, that is where the majority of violations will be. Looking at a few of those quickly, this edit has several sections copied from here, and Kitch-iti-kipi is still close to this source. I see close phrasing on Antimonial cup, Daniel Van Meter, and a few other ones. I'm sure I'd find more if I was able to have a more in depth search. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I will go through a variety of the articles listed on that CCI today. If the proportion of copyvios in those works is significantly higher than what it appears to be based off my math above, I'll strike my comment. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Considering that the first two articles on that CCI that I could obtain all the sources for turned out to have copyright vio/close paraphrasing issues, I've struck my comments above in line with Moneytrees's comment. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I'm not usually one to get involved at ANI but I came across this discussion today by chance and having skimmed it so far it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Clearly Doug is one of Wikipedia's most prolific and productive content creators, including in a number of highly niche/historical areas, and an indef block should be only the very last resort after other methods have been tried and failed. It seems to me the issue stems from the GA/DYK WP:Hat collecting (which then leads to substandard articles being rammed through GA and quality control issues) so a prohibition from nominating articles for GA/DYK for 1 year seems like the logical first step. Maybe a block of 1 month (noting that before this Doug has had a clean block log for however many years) would send a message that something needs to change especially on the IDHT/copyvio issues but an indef block at this time is excessively heavy handed and inappropriate. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 15:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose indef - I've seen nothing from Doug that I would ever consider bad faith. I'm taking the copyright stuff quite seriously, but I'd like to see other things tried before going straight to indef. Doug Coldwell, I'd be willing to look over a couple articles a month before they're taken to GA, on the condition that they aren't nominated until it can be established that they're reasonably close (no copyvios, appropriate image use, general GA basics). Doug, is that something you'd find acceptable? Hog Farm _Talk 15:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Support @Doug Coldwell: I read your post and was gobsmacked--not in a good way. You played it badly in making your sarcastic comment which demonstrated your hubris--not a good trait considering the situation you are finding yourself in. You are demonstrating disdain for this process.

• Your haughty comment convinced me that this situation which you have created must end and so I vote "support" of the indef. And carefully note that you did not receive an "offer". You receive some minor (and a bit misguided) support. Don't count your desired "oppose indefs" until the "supports" are all counted. Osomite 🐻 (hablemos) 00:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, to prevent further introductions of copyright violations, with the understanding that an indef does not necessarily mean infinite. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 15:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with the understanding that indef doesn't necessarily mean indef. The time for change to copyrighted content was when the CCI was opened last year. There are blatant copyvios as recently as last month. There were specific attempts to get the editor to improve the copyright violations in recent GAs, with no effect. I understand the desire to not indef a prolific editor, but when the width and depth of their contributions are suddenly thrust onto the community to fix due to continued non-compliance with copyright policy, how prolific a contributor is becomes a detriment, not an asset. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  People are wanting to block Doug because of clear copyright violations, without any acknowledgement from Doug that he understands the issues and will fix them. I'd argue, if Doug were to spend the time reviewing and understanding the copyright policy, and were able to appeal his ban to the community with the explanation that he knows what he is doing isn't compliant with policy, then indef doesn't mean indef. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  When an editor is indeffed for copyvio, if they legitimately appeal, they are asked to explain copyright policy in their own words. Usually they're unblocked after that unless other outstanding concerns exist. Temp blocks haven't worked historically in general for this issue. Sennecaster (Chat) 16:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I know Doug's been given a chance to recheck some of his articles and has not done it adequately. But that's under the stress of the moment, which is far from ideal. I say give him a bit of breathing space, with no more new articles or GAs etc for now, and let him try to address the problems under kinder conditions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  Well, not doing anything *is* not fixing it adequately! And yes, I know what happened - but it doesn't change the fact that it's all in a very stressful environment, which is not a good way to judge how he might respond in better circumstances. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well I guess that's where we differ. You give him the benefit of the doubt to improve because of his contributions. I don't, because someone with over 70,000 edits shouldn't need handholding to know they can't CTRL+C and CTRL+V material into an article. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You really don't need to lecture me on the obvious, you know. I can see we differ - I could tell that from the word "support" in what you wrote above. Anyway, I respect your opinion and I'm not trying to pick holes in it - so please return the favour and go badger someone else now, eh? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  Don't worry, it wasn't unkind: Words on the screen don't always reflect the meaning behind them, I don't blame anyone for a misinterpretation, and I wouldn't blame you for getting pissed if that had been my intent. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Weak oppose in favor of an indefinite but appealable GA/DYK as I outline in my !vote in the next section. I'd like us to try something else before going to indef. Yes, Doug had serious communication issues, which required a block (good block btw). My experience with him in the last couple days leads me to believe the block worked, as I have not really had any communications issues with him while working through content issues. For example, see Talk:New York Central and Hudson River Railroad No. 999#Bunker as well as Doug's recent edits to that article. Yes, he mentions the GA thing, but only once, and despite that, he engaged promptly and civilly, and made edits to the article that addressed the issues raised. It was a totally normal interaction from my point of view, and that gives me hope that these problems are fixable (see also the "Speed test" section of the same talk page, and Talk:Charles Grafton Page#Source checking and Doug's recent edits to that article). Now, even if the communication has improved, there are still other issues outstanding: source selection and copyvio/plagiarism/too-close paraphrasing. That's why I support a more limited ban in the next section. I think we should give Doug a chance to fix it all. Now, if he ignores everything, and just goes on editing as before -- if there are any new copyvio issues, for example -- then I would support an indef block. I feel like right now we should be at the step right before indef, but not quite at indef yet. Levivich^😃 16:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as long as other options are on the table. To be clear, though, the subsection I started above no longer seems to apply. This thread is still painful to read, but for somewhat different reasons at this point. We're no longer primarily considering how to handle a productive contributor who has a rather checkered history of on-wiki communication and made some mistakes regarding information about himself, but rather an apparently widespread problem with the content. I'm nearly always going to support trying something else first, before jumping to an indef/cban, however. There are some other possibilities being floated which seem like they may be worth trying. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The only appropriate sanction for repeated copyright violations is an indefinite block - because the priority is to stop the copyvios. This is recommended by policy: Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Addressing contributors. Good faith or bad faith is not relevant. MER-C 19:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I really didn't want to fall under the support column here, but I just don't see a viable alternative. Indefinite is not infinite, and appeal after a few months should be left open to Doug should this proposal pass. If Doug had fully engaged and taken this seriously from the start, I'd be opposing this. The copyright issues also really push this over the edge for me. Until Doug can demonstrate he understands copyright, I'm afraid allowing him to edit here is a clear negative. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I think an examination of the totality of the situation -- bad writing, bad communication, bad editorial choices, trinket collection, etc. etc. -- means that however good his faith may be, DC is really not a net positive for the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Their suggestion today that they were about to nominate another article for GA makes clear to me they absolutely do not understand or take seriously the issues raised here. Indefinite isn't infinite, but they need a complete 180° on communication and their approach to editing before they are a net positive to the project. Long term, I'm thinking some sort of restriction on the rate of GA submissions and a (30 day?) cooling off period of no submissions each time one is declined might help, but they still need to learn to communicate. It will take a long term to rebuild trust after the copyvios. VQuakr (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh my god, DC is thumbing his nose at this "situation". The article he wants to nominate for GA is Flexible barge. It is currently Class C. DC made two edits on September 8, 2022, that didn't do much if any to improve the article. The last time he edited on that article was on May 18, 2014, over 8 years ago.‎ Now, apparently as part of his standard operating procedure, he thinks it's time for him to collect another coveted GA for his user page just to show everyone how wrong they are because it is so "productive". While everyone is posting here about an indef, DC is ignoring you and continues to carry on as usual. Isn't it time to decide to stop this nonsense and indef block DC? Get it over with before DC thumbs his nose at everyone again. Osomite 🐻 (hablemos) 01:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hog Farm had offered to pre-screen his GA nominations for him, further up in this section, and Doug agreed, so I don't think this as bad as it looks -- he's abiding by what he's agreed to so far. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  I don't think it's a positive thing that his only response to this whole thing is to find one person who is willing to look through his GAs, and then stating his intent to submit another GAN, 4 hours after a discussion was started to topic ban him from submitting GAs. It seems that their entire focus while this discussion is going on (that at this point is going to determine their very ability to contribute to this project) is on submitting even more GAs. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  I'm just shocked that he was intending to submit an article with a dozen or so dead reference links (to a website called waterbag.com as well, sounds reliable). Expand: It is worth pointing out that Chrome just flagged that website as a phishing website for me, so maybe don't go there. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW, while I haven't clicked on the waterbag source, it appears based on context to possibly be the (defunct?) product website of one of the examples of flexible barge that the article overemphasizes. So it's not totally out of left field, although still not great. Hog Farm _Talk 00:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  When I looked at the article I thought to myself that if it was at AfC then I would at least comment that I had concerns about it not being written in a neutral point of view and not giving a balanced view of the subject as it almost ignores the first product. Gusfriend (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Seriously @Hog Farm:? "Not totally out of left field"? I guess you actually meant, "Did not totally come out of left field"--that is the exact metaphor you imply. Well, it did come out of left field. DC is doing his typical usual and strange behavior. He just continues on, doing as he pleases, as if he is not under the threat of an indefinite block.

  Hog Farm, if you would take a clear-eyed unbiased look at the article Flexible barge, you would see that @Doug Coldwell: is being disingenuous about the quality of the article--it is currently Class C. It should stay Class C and perhaps be deleted. DC made two edits that didn't amount to anything and then showing his self-assured hubris and desire for his own gratification, he wants to nominate a definitely sub-par article for GA. Please review the facts, think about it, and determine if your support is justified. Osomite 🐻 (hablemos) 01:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Osomite: - For one, based on your tone in this second paragraph, I don't think you actually read what I told Doug on my talk page - that this isn't ready and that he shouldn't nominate it without substantive work. As to the waterbag source, that's what I'm referring to on my talk page by and parts of the article rely too heavily on Spragg's promotional material for his invention. It's a promo source for Spragg's product, and I would not have told Doug that the article was clear to go unless that source was gone (and I would have also required that Doug restructure the article to be actually about the history of flexible barges, not coatracking about a couple commercial products). I have no idea what you're referring to by "your support is justified", because at no point have a recommended that Doug nominate that article in that state for GA. Hog Farm _Talk 02:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: "Based on my tone"? By "tone" you think you know what I read and what I have not read? How curious? I am being critical about a word you picked, but from the context of your post, it seems that I offended you.

Your post at 00:35, 9 September 2022, appeared to support DC. After all, above on this page at 15:47, 8 September 2022, you opposed the Indef which was "support" to DC and your "not out of left field" was also "support" to DC. Don't take my words out of context, claiming "I have no idea what you're referring to". I clearly said that you have to "DETERMINE if your support (to DC) is justified". I read what you wrote and I made my reply to what you wrote. Read what I write and reply to what I actually wrote.

Let's look at the facts. While writing my comment to your post at 00:35, 9 September 2022 above, I did see your comments to DC telling him to hold off on the FUBAR Flexible barge article GA Nomination. Your comment to DC on your talk page was at 20:00, 8 September 2022. And then you commented on this page at 00:35, 9 September 2022 (about four and one-half hours later). I read in the most recent post that you were saying the current situation with DC was all good. Is it? You said, "not out of left field" which I interpreted as "being all good"; there was nothing to worry about with DC. Using that metaphor you created ambiguity. You need to pick your metaphors more carefully.

I addressed my concern about the last thing you posted. If you had mentioned the posts back and forth between you and DC, the actual situation would have been clearer and perhaps I would not have commented. But it wasn't, so I pointed out that your position on the Indef should be reconsidered. If you take a position, clearly explain your position.

Considering the circumstance, perhaps you are too close to the situation and need to step back to gain perspective. To solve the situation with DC it is going to take more than telling him to slow down on the GA nominations. Osomite 🐻 (hablemos) 04:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It's also used as a reference for the book "Water, War, and Peace" at the end of the second paragraph under History. Wikiblame doesn't seem to assign that prose or reference to Doug though. Which, to me, actually is more concerning: He improved some parts of the article, didn't look at the rest of the sources (otherwise the dead links should have been addressed), and was going to submit it for GA review anyway. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Support per WP:CVREPEAT and WP:CIR. I don't like supporting this either. However, at the moment their priorities seem to be mixed up. They need to be here giving assurances and, at the same time, show they understand the problems discussed here. Instead, they are focused on nominating another article for GA (as pointed out above). Hence, they are virtually ignoring this discussion. And they continued with copy vios and a lack of PD attributions after a CCI investigation was opened in 2021. Warnings don't seem to work as shown by talk page entreaties from long time contributors [44], [45] and this long ANI thread. Neither did a short term block [46], [47]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a last resort (are we there yet?). As much as I'd like to give him a chance to ameliorate his behavior and address his issues, and as much as I recognize that he's acting in good faith, Doug has expressed minimal willingness to improve his behavior as far as I'm aware; on the contrary, much of what I've seen him say regarding this discussion is about the fact that there are 200+ GAs and 500+ DYKs to his name. That's great, but what does that mean when they're all riddled with copyright violations, plagiarism, or are otherwise poor quality? Combing through his 200+ GAs for copyvios is going to be a daunting task, and it'll only grow more so if Doug isn't willing to address that this is an issue. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 23:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per my comments above. If the problem is that he writes too many bad articles, then an immediate solution would be to remove autopatrol, and a more severe solution would be to require him to go through AfC. If the problem is that he writes too many bad articles that are sliding through review processes (GA/DYK) unnoticed, then the problem is obviously with the review processes. If we are half-assing them on such an industrial scale that "just nominate a bunch of shitty articles" is a viable way to game the system and have them all approved, it means we are not actually reviewing them. Our project is screwed if we are just rubber-stamping the review processes for the sake of backlog. There are already GA criteria that nominations are to be checked for accuracy. There are already GA criteria that nominations are to be checked for copyright violations. If the nominations are garbage, we should be failing them. If people are malding at reviewers about their GA nominations being quickfailed, we should be enforcing civility guidelines. Our project is screwed if we are simply allowing reviewers to be buffaloed into accepting garbage. If the GA process is unable to handle people submitting bad articles to it, then our project is screwed, and our review processes are useless; indeed worse than useless, because falsely claiming something to have been verified prevents it from being checked and disproven later on. The solution for our project being screwed and our review processes being worse than useless is not to indef one single guy who happens to be submitting bad articles -- it's to unscrew the project and have actual review processes. jp×g 01:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft Oppose, per below, I believe Doug's behavior can still be corrected. We'll need to keep a short WP:ROPE for a bit but I think Doug is capable of making constructive contributions. Etrius ( Us) 03:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft oppose per JPxG. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:CVREPEAT, with the understanding that indefinite does not mean infinite. This is a preventative measure, to prevent more copyright violations (latest we've discovered is 10 August right now, but could be even later). We are expanding the CCI with at least every single edit from this year alone, if not further back pending more extensive manual review on the part of at most 5 editors. Every single time we say "last chance" it never actually is enforced, and people just commit copyvio as we lacksidasically clean it up and say that it's okay as is. I don't know how motivated Doug is by chasing GA/DYKs, or if the tban will act as a sban in that regard, but I'd rather not take the chances of more copyvio being added. If an indef does not gain consensus, I don't want to hear complaining and opposes to a block if he commits copyvio after this thread, because that is where we are right now. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose with an emphasis that this is Doug's last chance. Despite his faults, this user is very productive, and it would be a net negative at the moment to see him blocked. Restrictions like the GA TBAN and others of that type are far more digestible at the moment. However, I would like to re-emphasis, this discussion makes it clear that the community is very fed up with Doug, and this is likely his last chance. Curbon7 (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – WP:CVREPEAT, WP:CIR. Has he said anything, at ANI or elsewhere, about the recently found copyright violations? Even if he doesn't nominate more articles, all of his large contributions to mainspace will need to be continuously scrutinized. And I do think it's more a problem with a specific editor than an actual systemic problem at GAN. Reviewers simply cannot scrupulously check every offline source, so we assume good faith – and that works >95% of the time. I more carefully spot check GANs by newer editors, but we expect experienced editors—here is someone boasting their 200+ GAs!—to not introduce copyright violations in their work. Ovinus (talk) 06:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per JPxG, Levivich and Rhododendrites - they covered it all. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal : Ban from GAs/DYK nominations indef

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