Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 5:
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize =800K
|counter = 11521153
|algo = old(60h)
|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
Line 891:
:::That would be a stronger statement if the linked argument wasn't a strongman. The one who came and deflected was from a healthy discussion was you when you entered *this* discussion wildly throwing allegations at people other than the editor under consideration. What you are doing right now is deflecting and making ad-hominem attacks. You need to drop the stick before you get hit with a boomerang. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 15:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' topic ban, would also support a broader ban from aristocratic government overall. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 17:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 
== TonyTheTiger is gaming the WikiCup through GAN spam ==
{{archive top|result=There is almost unanimous support for an '''indefinite ban on participation in the WikiCup'''. Additionally, there is wide support for a ban or restriction on good article nominations. I find that there is consensus for an '''indefinite one-GAN limit'''. A full ban from all content review-related processes was discussed, but I do not see consensus for its implementation. These restrictions may be appealed at [[WP:AN]] after one year. — [[User:Ingenuity|Ingenuity]] ([[User talk:Ingenuity#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contribs/Ingenuity|contribs]]) 13:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)}}
Over the course of a few days, {{user1|TonyTheTiger}} has increased the number of articles he had pending at GAN from a handful to [[Special:Diff/1214753203|nearly 70]]. When [[User talk:TonyTheTiger#GA nominations|asked about it]] by {{u|Ganesha811}}, TonyTheTiger basically admitted to [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] to score [[Wikipedia:WikiCup|WikiCup]] points, saying that he'd only be willing to withdraw if another backlog drive was guaranteed to him later in the year (at which point he hoped to have date priority on nominations). Such a huge strain on the process might be understandable if his submissions were all carefully scrutinized, but the only charitable explanation is that they clearly were not. 25 of his submissions have been quickfailed by 13 separate reviewers (myself included) on several grounds, including poor sourcing, unsourced sections, poor prose, unhandled maintenance tags, lack of substantive contribution, and lack of breadth. On multiple occasions, after an article was failed, he lashed out at the reviewer before renominating the article with little substantive change. {{u|Premeditated Chaos}} rightly pointed out that this was a pretty clear abuse of the GAN process, {{u|Epicgenius}} (who is a WikiCup judge this year) warned him that his conduct could be seen as gaming, and {{u|AirshipJungleman29}} noted that he was TBANed from [[Wikipedia:Featured sounds|Featured sounds]] back in 2011 for this exact pattern of conduct.
 
His behavior pretty much only gets worse from there. If you look at [[Talk:Michael Schofield (American football)|one of his renomination attempts]], you'll see that TonyTheTiger, who has been editing since 2006 – rather than choosing to respond to any of the admins, backlog drive coordinators, or other senior editors who had raised concerns about his conduct on his talk page in the past day – chose to go after {{u|Generalissima}}, a relatively new editor on the scene, telling her, "{{tq|You are bending over backwards to fail this article... Maybe stay in your lane in a field you know.}}" He then told everyone else to {{tq|Calm down and stop quickfailing stuff for no reason... If you fail a 20-25% {{sic}} of my articles that does not make me a problem editor.}} He told another quickfailing reviewer, {{u|Teratix}}, {{tq|I assume you are lieing {{sic}} to pick a fight.}} He has now claimed in multiple places that a vague group of "vindictive" editors [[Wikipedia talk:WikiCup#Open season on qfing me|are conspiring to fail his articles for WikiCup points]], claiming that articles like his get through GAN in good shape all the time. If he's right, I worry. In the meantime, multiple editors have asked him to find and withdraw his poorer-quality nominations, and he has refused, while continuing to making spurious renominations. This is clearly disruptive behavior that needs to be addressed. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 22:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 
=== Proposed sanctions ===
:This is really disappointing, because many of his past FAs and GAs ''are'' high quality. His [[Wikipedia:Featured topics/Four Freedoms|FT on the Four Freedoms by Rockwell]] is great work! Why he has decided to take such a big step down with his quality control in favor of mass-nomination of Start/C-class articles is beyond me; the only way many of these articles would get through GAN is if either a newbie reviewer picks them up without fully understanding the GA criteria, or if a reviewer painstakingly holds his hand the entire way from start class up to meeting the criteria.
:I feel a fair response to this would involve suspension from this year's Wikicup for openly trying to game the system, alongside a tight restriction to how many GANs he can have at once, to prevent this sort of waste of reviewers' time in the future. Maybe just one GAN at a time to start out with? <small> [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) </small> 22:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
::given his past pattern of similar behavior, including disruption at FAC & DYK, i worry that this kind of thing will just continue in another area of the project. <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#618A3D">[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">sawyer</span>]] * <small>he/they</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">talk</span>]]</span> 22:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
:::That is fair enough. I would absolutely support a '''topic ban from Wikicup''', as I feel this is the primary cause for his behavior. However, a '''topic ban from GAN''' should be instituted if this sort of abuse continues outside of the cup. <small> [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) </small> 02:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
::::Upon all the new evidence being brought forward of his consistent behavior in this respect, mark me down as in favor of a '''TB from GAN/DYK''' too. <small> [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) </small> 22:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*A look back to [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive706#Featured Sounds Process|this very noticeboard in 2011]]: Tony is topic banned from a) participating in the Featured Sounds process and from b) uploading pictures relating to himself (this is as absurd as it sounds, so let's ignore it). Why was he TBANned from FS? Well:
**{{green|TonyTheTiger nominates anything that he thinks will have a remote change of passing, ignoring negative responses, fighting back his nominations are closed as unsuccessful, and generally clogging FS with items that don't deserve to be featured...He wants to add stars to his trophy wall, and he wants to feed his ego...TTT has a strong case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and is pursuing his own self-aggrandizing agenda at the cost of significant community patience, and in this case, the quality of Featured Sounds}}
**{{green|Tony previously caused similar issues at FPC, nominating pic after pic after pic relating to Chicago...He has also caused problems with mass nominations at DYK (which reflected very poorly on the WikiCup, in which he was participating)}}
**{{green|TonyTheTiger seems unable to understand the ways in which he disrupts and abuses of featured content processes and other editors' time in his goal of promoting himself...he disrupted DYK in his attempt to win WikiCup, there was an issue at TFA/R, and FAC instituted a special rule to limit repeat noms because of his repeatedly using FAC as Peer review for ill-prepared articles, and bringing back ill-prepared noms the minute the previous one was archived...I don't know if topic bans are a solution, because he just moves on and does the same thing in another area}}
**{{green|I am also very unimpressed with the shouting and calling of specific others "liars", and would note the lack of support for his position by any other party on this page.}}
*Move on 13 years, and Tony is again nominating anything that he thinks will have a remote chance of passing, ignoring negative responses, fighting back and immediately renominating unsuccessful nominations, clogging GAN with items that don't deserve to be GAs, disrespecting every other editor involved in the Cup and GAN, and calling other editors "liars" while facing unanimous disagreement, all to feed his ego. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 22:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
**For the record, I support a '''TBAN from the Cup and nomination restrictions at GAN'''; hopefully that ends the disruption. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 11:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
:{{A note}} Tony *has* withdrawn a few of his nominations since the debacle started ([[Special:Diff/1215223230|Benji (2012 film)]], [[Special:Diff/1215224630|Essex on the Park]], [[Special:Diff/1215224964|NEMA (Chicago)]] and [[Special:Diff/1215225403|The Flick]]). Everything else in your comment is spot on. – <code style="background:#333;border:1px solid #999">[[User:Hilst|<span style="color:#fff;text-shadow:0 0 5px #fff">Hilst</span>]] [[User talk:Hilst|<span style="color:#090">&lbrack;talk&rbrack;</span>]]</code> 22:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
*Within my areas of expertise I am still a bit unsure as to why articles are being failed. I think offensive linemen [[Michael Schofield (American football)]] and [[Heath Irwin]] compare well with my current GA for [[Patrick Omameh]]. At [[Talk:1000M/GA1]], I responded completely to the review before renominating. It was not until after a second fail when reviewers explained what the issues were. Had I understood these were the issues, I would have addressed them. Everyone thinks I understand why the articles are deficient in advance of the reviews. I edit on a wide range of topics, many outside of my expertise and need reviews to understand the problems. To people who review in any of certain fields the flaws may seem obtuse, but I did not look at the articles and realise the flaws and then nominate them. The reviews are informative to me. I don't understand why "[[Humble and Kind]]" is not regarded as in the general quality range of my 2022 GA "[[Sheesh!]]" except for a tag. I am finding the reviewer responses confusing. I have started removing some of my nominations that I are further afield from my expertises.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 22:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
*:Tony, if you are so flabbergasted by the reviews you're getting, then that is more indicative of you ''not reading them'' than it is an indictment of over a dozen other editors' feedback. Anyways, this is not a place to air your grievances about the quality of the reviews you're receiving, this is a discussion about your ''behavior''. <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#618A3D">[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">sawyer</span>]] * <small>he/they</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">talk</span>]]</span> 23:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
*:Noting I have nominated Omameh for GA reassessment, as it clearly does not meet the GAC in its current state. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 02:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*I think it is clear that the WikiCup is not good for TonyTheTiger (it is supposed to be a fun competition, but he seems to think it is something he needs to win) and TonyTheTiger is not good for the WikiCup (as a fun game, it really should not take such a heavy toll on the GAN backlog; abusing the general community like this endangers the Cup). A '''topic ban from the WikiCup''' is the minimum that should happen (full disclosure: this would slightly benefit me, as I am also a competitor in the Cup). However, there are wider [[WP:IDHT]] and almost [[WP:CIR]] issues related to [[WP:GAN]]: TTT has nominated (and sometimes renominated directly after a quickfail) several articles that he last edited years ago, and some of them are significantly out of date, have maintenance tags or other obvious issues (I re-quickfailed one of them, [[1000M]]). So a '''topic ban from GAN''' should be at least considered. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 23:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
*Mark me down in favor of a '''topic ban from GAN''' entirely, given the continued IDHT and inability to take any accountability for his actions, and repeated poor attitude towards other editors. It's clear Tony will not stop this behavior unless he is forced to. The past behavioral issues put me more firmly in support of a restriction. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 23:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
*for the record, i also '''support a topic ban from both GAN and the WikiCup'''. the above-mentioned behavior is entirely disruptive, rude, and a waste of our time. the GAN process and the WikiCup do not exist to serve TTT's ego. i concur with Kusma about the IDHT & potential-CIR issues; how ''anyone'' could read [[Humble and Kind]] (for example) and think it's even slightly close to GA quality is beyond me. patience has run dry. <br>'''edit:''' as other people have also mentioned they're competing in the Cup, i'll disclose that i am as well. <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#618A3D">[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">sawyer</span>]] * <small>he/they</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">talk</span>]]</span> 23:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
**For the record, without an explanation, I don't understand why (other than one tag) "[[Humble and Kind]]" is worse than "[[Sheesh!]]". I believe the majority of my recent nominations were in the range of proximity to [[WP:WIAGA]] to be reasonable nominations. After hundreds of GA reviews, you should know that I am not a problem at GA in general. I feel that the intersection of the GA and the CUP is the issue. I do feel I could work productively at GA without the competitive element of the CUP.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 23:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
**:{{tq|After hundreds of GA reviews, you should know that I am not a problem at GA in general.}} Doug Coldwell also used his number of GAs to justify his poor behavior and shoddy work... and look where that got him. <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#618A3D">[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">sawyer</span>]] * <small>he/they</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">talk</span>]]</span> 23:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
**:It didn't take long to find a [https://www.billboard.com/music/country/interview-tim-mcgraw-new-album-dueting-daughter-6753874/ half-dozen] [https://www.billboard.com/music/country/lori-mckenna-album-1988-interview-1235375769/ reliable] [https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/humble-and-kind-how-lori-mckenna-wrote-tim-mcgraws-hit-single/ sources] [https://www.tennessean.com/story/entertainment/music/story-behind-the-song/2021/01/25/story-behind-song-tim-mcgraws-humble-and-kind/4228236001/ covering] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/12/22/why-humble-and-kind-was-the-hit-song-we-really-needed-this-year/ the song's] [https://www.billboard.com/music/country/tim-mcgraw-humble-and-kind-video-oprah-6851683/ production], some in great detail, that just aren't being used. Even [https://cmt.com/news/dqi1jz/humble-and-kind-meant-spaghetti-day-for-lori-mckenna the CMT piece] has a lot of untapped material. The fact that I can find this many sources for one section of the article reflects poorly on the rest. To put it bluntly, "[[Sheesh!]]" covers all the major aspects of its topic, "[[Humble and Kind]]" does not. An editor as experienced as you should realize this. [[User:Averageuntitleduser|Averageuntitleduser]] ([[User talk:Averageuntitleduser|talk]]) 00:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
**addendum, after reading others' comments: i don't think a time-based restriction will work. his history of disruption goes all the way back to 2011. while i support a full TBAN from GAN (and certainly from the Cup), i would also be supportive of a strict limit on how many GANs he can make at a time, should a full TBAN not gain consensus here. i think his entitled attitude is the single biggest problem here, as PMC pointed out below. i don't see why we have to give him so much more leeway than he has given his fellow editors. <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#618A3D">... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">sawyer</span>]] * <small>he/they</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">talk</span>]]</span> 13:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
* [[User:TonyTheTiger|Tony]], would you be willing to go through all your pending GA noms and withdraw all except those of ''exceptional'' quality (or just all). Its looking like you could be heading for a GA topic ban, something I'd think would be a shame since you seem to have a great record of producing good content. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 23:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Topic ban from GAN and the WikiCup''', with regret. TonyTheTiger has [[Special:Diff/1215170109|continued (re)nominating]] articles with issues today, well after many editors have expressed both general and specific feedback about the inappropriateness of his mass nominations. His reaction to this feedback has been to deny or underplay issues and shows a lack of regard for other editors' time and the research required for ensuring his nominations are [[WP:GA?|broad in their coverage (#3)]]. Overall, his recent activity has been detrimental to the processes and to the task of building a high-quality encyclopedia. — [[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]] ('''[[User talk:Bilorv|<span style="color:purple">talk</span>]]''') 23:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''No ban on anything''', Wikipedia eating its own? Assume good faith is a thing. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 01:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*:with all due respect, did you read the thread? every avenue has been tried before ANI - [[User talk:TonyTheTiger#GA nominations|his talk page]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiCup#Open season on qfing me|the WikiCup talk page]], [[User talk:Teratix#Heath Irwin review|Teratix' talk page]], the [[Wikipedia talk:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/March 2024#Reason for "backward" progress|GAN drive talk page]], and numerous individual reviews. he has been uncivil, [[WP:IDHT|refused to listen]], and continued to engage in the same disruptive behavior after over a dozen editors, including multiple admins, have asked him to stop. <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#618A3D">[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">sawyer</span>]] * <small>he/they</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">talk</span>]]</span> 01:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*::Yes, I read the thread before responding. Have now read Tony's talk page, and there seems a mix of failed and under review Good articles. He now is pulling some back, as mentioned above. My comment was only about jumping from concerns to banning TtT from GAN, where he has excelled for years. Wikipedia eating its own is a thing, as seen many times on this page when that kind of jump is made from discussion to "Get 'em!". But good faith is one of the best things, so let's use that one instead. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 01:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::Tony has not assumed good faith of those who have reviewed his articles. he said to Generalissima "{{tq|You are bending over backwards to fail this article... Maybe stay in your lane in a field you know.}}" he claimed "{{tq|There is an overzealous posse of editors quickfailing my articles.}}" at the Cup talk page. he accused Teratix of "{{tq|lieing to pick a fight.}}" i could go on; what else is there to do at this point? <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#618A3D">[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">sawyer</span>]] * <small>he/they</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">talk</span>]]</span> 01:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support topic bans from GAN and the WikiCup''' (disclosure: I'm technically still a contestant in the Cup but I have no hope of progressing to the next round). There are seven distinct grounds:
#Mass-nominating GANs to an extent that would be absurd and disrespectful of volunteers' time ''even if'' all nominations were impeccable.
#Mass-nominating GANs with especially obvious, gaping flaws, indicating Tony either does not read the articles he is nominating or fails to understand the GAC. [[Talk:1000M/GA1]] is a representative example (where Tony either didn't notice or didn't care about an entirely promotional and unsourced section) but I recommend reading his other quickfailed articles for the full perspective.
#Renominating GANs after quickfails without fixing the article's problems. See [[Talk:1000M/GA2]], [[Talk:Kenny Demens/GA2]], etc.
#Openly admitting this behaviour is motivated by tactical concerns related to his WikiCup performance. See [[User talk:TonyTheTiger#GA nominations]]
#Displaying an appalling attitude towards how the GAN process runs, believing the project should bend over backwards to schedule backlog drives and grant special exemptions from date priority for his benefit. Read his replies to Ganesha811 on [[User talk:TonyTheTiger#GA nominations]]. I have never seen more entitled behaviour.
#Behaving uncivilly towards reviewers and critics. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATonyTheTiger&diff=1215214325&oldid=1215211986 Thebiguglyalien's summary], I'm by no means sure this is comprehensive.
#Not recognising and in many cases doubling down on this bad behaviour.
*<li style="list-style:none;">To be clear, I see the GAN and WikiCup bans as inseparable – neither sanction on its own would adequately address these problems. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 02:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)</li>
*:Tony's behaviour has been appalling enough already but I want to add an eighth ground – openly admitting [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=1215238004&oldid=1215237796 "I edit on a wide range of topics, many outside of my expertise and need reviews to understand the problems"]. Or, in other words, '''"I nominate articles in areas where I know I cannot competently assess whether they have issues and rely on volunteer reviewers to inform me of obvious inadequacies"'''. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 02:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support GAN nomination ban, temporary or indef''' (edit: or a wider ban that includes GAN) GAN reviewers' time is precious. Wasting it is disruptive. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] &#183; [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 02:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support TBAN from GAN and WikiCup'''. Buidhe and Teratix have both put it very well. Frankly at this point I'm inclined to support a block. This is not the first time Tony has gamed Wikipedia processes for his own arbitrary personal goals, but it is the first time he's been quite so nakedly honest about what he's doing. No one who would make a statement like {{tq|I am willing to stop nominating new articles until April 1 if you can promise that there will be another backlog drive in October}} is operating in good faith. That's right everyone, if we can '''promise''' Tony that we'll organize an entire backlog drive on '''his''' schedule, he'll stop mass-nominating garbage. '''For now'''. Oh, how kind of him! The level of entitlement he feels to other peoples' effort so that he can have points for a '''game''' fucking boils my blood. &spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 02:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*:For the record, I'm fine with a limited TBAN from GAN (ie X number of noms at once, or for X number of months, or whatever). &spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 03:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
*There's rightly been a lot of outrage about Tony's abuse of process, both here and elsewhere. Surely a GAN/WC ban is an inadequate response to a very serious conduct issue? Tony's behaviour is a very clear case of [[WP:NOTHERE]] and [[WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT]]. His abuse of process is borderline vandalistic and certainly disruptive edit-warring. His personal attacks on other editors have been unwarranted and severe. He seems to have no intention of changing his behaviour and continues to persevere with a perverse victim mentality. Other editors have been blocked for less. I don't understand why editors in this discussion are not considering a harsher response. '''[[User:–C|5225<sub>C</sub>]]'''&nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 02:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
**'''Project block''', minimum one month, preferably indefinite. Per my comment above. Editors in this discussion are ''far'' to eager to excuse serious, sustained, and deliberate misconduct from an editor with an obvious NOTHERE attitude who really ought to know better. If unblocked, permanent ban from WC, GAN, FAC, and DYK. All the red flags have been there for years now. '''[[User:5225C|5225<sub>C</sub>]]'''&nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 02:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
***Tony hasn't got the message – he's written a reply apologising for his abuse of process, but not for his abuse of other editors. I do not believe that his misconduct towards other volunteer members of the project have been properly addressed, either by other editors here or by Tony himself. As such I continue to support a minimum one month block from the enwiki project, just to make sure the message finally gets through that this behaviour will not be tolerated, even from people who have produced good content in the past. '''[[User:5225C|5225<sub>C</sub>]]'''&nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 13:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
* Can anyone show that Tony is like this when ''not'' participating in the WikiCup? I don't understand how {{u|AirshipJungleman29}} has turned up quotes from 13 years ago that basically could have been written yesterday. Has everything been fine in the intervening 13 years? Is this a case of someone losing their senses specifically because of the WikiCup competition and otherwise being mostly normal? What is even going on here? -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 02:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*:{{tq|Has everything been fine in the intervening 13 years?}} No, there was also a debacle last August when he tried to make a special date request for his sister's article (that he wrote) to appear on DYK on her birthday. Discussion is here: [[Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 195#COI issue at Carla Vernón]]. &spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 02:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*::That is just bizarre. He did not see to understand why we don't do any of that, including pictures of himself. [[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] ([[User talk:Secretlondon|talk]]) 12:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Asilvering|Asilvering]]: I can say that I think Tony [[WP:BLUDGEONING|bludgeoning the process]] isn't limited to the Cup or GAN. My first interactions with him were on the [[Wikipedia:Vital articles|vital articles]] project, where my impression of him quickly became that he would relentlessly [[WP:BADGER|badger]] anybody (and sometimes everybody) that disagreed with one of his proposals. I don't have the energy to revisit all of it, as this was a big reason why I left the VA project, but I recall [[Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/People/Archive_2#Add_Anna_Kournikova|one particularly bad thread]] in which he (in the words of [[User:The Blue Rider|The Blue Rider]]) {{tq|"[came] after everyone who hasn't supported his proposals enough times"}}. In this same thread, I also expressed discomfort over what I felt were some ''very'' inappropriate remarks about a woman athlete, which he doubled down on. In [[Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/People/Archive_4#Add_Ed_Asner/Remove_Leslie_Nielsen|an earlier thread]], only a few days before this, Tony opened a comment saying {{tq|"Forgive me if it seems I am badgering the voters, which does not seem to be something that we do here"}} before going on to badger the two users that opposed his proposal.
*:I'm not going to comment one what I believe should be done, as I'm not an admin so I don't think this is my place, I'm just recounting some of my past experiences with him. -- [[User:Grnrchst|Grnrchst]] ([[User talk:Grnrchst|talk]]) 14:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Grnrchst|Grnrchst]] it now looks like it isn't limited to bludgeoning, either. The bottom of this thread is in conspiracy theory territory. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 00:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support TBAN from both GAN and WikiCup''' – Before continuing, I will disclose that I am also a contestant of the WikiCup like others have listed above, so therefore something like this would effect me. At first glance, I didn't think these mass nominations were ''that'' bad, many editors keep a backlog on a backburner. I didn't think it was much of an issue until realizing the quality of them and noticing TTT's behavior beyond this. I view the comments he made towards Generalissima and other editors, as well as the ones he has used to defend himself or make demands (ex. demanding a backlog drive) as unacceptable. I simply can not understand how any editor with good intentions can blatantly attack other users over a game. Hell, knowing his previous topic bans for similar reasons, this is something where the punishment could go beyond a topic ban, and if this discussion escalated to that I'd support that such action be taken. Absolutely egregious. <span style="border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px">'''λ''' [[User:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#264e85">'''Negative'''</span>]][[User talk:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#7d43b5">'''MP1'''</span>]]</span> 03:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support TBAN from GAN and Wikicup, at the very least''': I was there for the featured sound debacle and well remember it. This is just history repeating again. I'd also support anything from a ban from all article nomination processes up to a block of any length, including indefinite. Enough is enough. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 03:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Weak oppose an outright GAN TBAN'''. While The Tiger's recent acting is...erm...concerning, to say the least, we should not ignore his previous great work, including a bazillion actually good GAs, and an outright TBAN is too much over a single incident with an otherwise constructive editor. I don't have the energy to workshop it, but I would support a proposal that limits how many GANs he can submit per day/week/month and/or a limit on how fast he can renominate GANs. No opinion on a WC TBAN; for disclosure's sake, I participated in round 1 of the cup, but was eliminated. {{not watching}} [[User:Queen of Hearts|queen of 🖤]] (they/them; [[User talk:Queen of Hearts|chat]]) 04:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*:I would be willing to drop down to just a tban from the cup if Tony would actually take responsibility and agree to only nominate a few articles at a time, articles which he has actually put serious work into (and I think we all know he is perfectly capable of writing quite good articles when he puts his mind to it). But I have not seen that just far, only demands for us to bend our backs for him because he feels entitled to spam half-baked nominations for the sake of a contest where the prize for winning is nothing more than bragging rights. He has yet to even show he understands ''why'' his nominations are being failed despite the reviewers offering clear reasons and actionable feedback. Bottom line, Tony did this to himself despite being given multiple opportunities to self-correct and avoid any sanctions. I don't take any pleasure in supporting a TBAN from creating quality content, but this has gone well past the line of acceptable behavior. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 15:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose TBAN from GAN''', but like queen of 🖤, I would also support an alternate proposal for some limitations on how many he can submit in a given time frame. This thread has only been open for a few hours, and going from zero to sixty seems kind of extreme in my view. No opinion on WikiCup.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:black">''(talk)''</b>]] 05:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
* ''' support CUP tban '''. If [[User:TonyTheTiger]] apologises for lashing out at reviewers, I think a cap of 1 open nomination at GAN may work. TTT has engaged well with the process in the past, and if seems the intersection between the competition and the uneven GAN process is driving his behaviour. Without recognition that his behaviour towards reviewers was unacceptable, I do not have trust in TTT engaging with the process. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 07:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*:I'm also happy to support Schrocats suggestion below, except for the fact that I would like to put the max 5 nominations as part of the restriction to give clarity to TTT. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 09:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*::Five nominations sounds too many. I think stick to your suggestion of 1. This isn't just about flooding GAN, it's the personal attacks that have come with it. Editors have a right not to face that kind of chilling behaviour. Tony will be lucky to escape a GAN outright ban here so allowing one at a time seems reasonable to me. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 10:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::You're right, I was too hasty: any rope here should be accompanied by TTT showing they understand why their behaviour was unacceptable. A cap of up to 3 would still seem reasonable to me after a 3-month ban, 5 indeed stretches it. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 10:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*::::What about a limit of 1 to start with, and if those have a decent 75% rate of passing after [some unit of time] it could maybe creep up to 3. That’s just my idea reading this, let me know if this makes no sense. [[User:Geardona|Geardona]] ([[User talk:Geardona|talk to me?]]) 10:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::::75% is quite a low pass rate. I expect a near 100% pass rate for experienced nominators. Otherwise, this makes sense. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 11:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*::::::It's one thing to have a pass rate of less than 100% (though I'd be embarrassed if my pass rate dropped below near 100%, personally). It is another ''entirely'' to have nominations so poor they are being routinely quickfailed. We are dealing with the latter here. I would support Femke's proposal if Tony would take feedback seriously, but thus far he has refused to do so, leaving us with only sanctions as an option to change his behavior. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 15:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support TBAN from the cup; three month ban from GAN'''. The cup seems to be the driver for the disruption, so ban from that. GAN is where the disruption is taking place, so a more limited ban from that (on condition that all nominations are withdrawn). There’s no point in pushing a harder ban that’s harms the encyclopaedia and punishes TTT after the cause of the disruption has been sorted. He has three months to be able to work on whatever he wants, but a similar mass nomination at GAN (more than five articles in the process at any one time), should be a trigger for further time out off the process. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 08:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support TBAN from the cup; three month ban from GAN''' per SchroCat. Let's keep remedies simple. I want to address the question of good faith. It's an inevitable feature of the discussions around erring senior editors that we must assume the good faith of an editor who has declined to do the same in return. Good faith really has nothing to do with it. Tony's behavior is disruptive regardless of his intentions. The question is whether Tony is prepared to acknowledge that other editors have a problem with his conduct and change his behavior. That's your standard feedback cycle. Editors get shown the door when they can't or won't change. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 10:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support TBAN from the cup and remove all his current nominations'''. Tony knows perfectly well how to nominate good quality articles at GAN; if he continues to nominate clearly unready articles that's a problem we can address then, perhaps with a short GAN ban, but I see no reason why he would without the cup as motivation. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 11:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*There is a narrative emerging among a couple of editors' comments here along the lines of "Tony is basically competent to submit GANs but in this case he went too far because he was competing in the WikiCup". I want to push back on that a little and draw these editors' attention specifically to Tony's comment earlier in this thread, where he says {{tq|Within my areas of expertise I am still a bit unsure as to why articles are being failed.}} That is, he looks at a review like [[Talk:Heath Irwin/GA1]], and actually can't understand what the problem with the article is. And that's in an area he claims to be comfortable editing in. {{pb
}}When it comes to areas he describes as outside his expertise, it gets worse: {{tq|Everyone thinks I understand why the articles are deficient in advance of the reviews. I edit on a wide range of topics, many outside of my expertise and need reviews to understand the problems.}} That is, he nominates articles to GAN, outside his experience, knowing he lacks the ability to tell whether the articles contain basic deficiencies or not, and uses volunteer reviewers as a crutch to paper over the gaps.{{pb
}}I understand these sort of discussions balloon very rapidly, and there are a lot of comments to read through. But if your position is "support an indefinite Cup ban but more hesitant on an indefinite GAN ban", Tony's comment here should be ringing alarm bells. It speaks not just to a specific incompetence to edit under competitive pressure, but a more fundamental lack of understanding about GAN. It has definitely pushed me to favour an indefinite ban from GAN over a time-limited ban or restrictions on the number of simultaneous nominations. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 11:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*:<s>i'm inclined to agree with this, unfortunate as it is. an indefinite ban is not necessarily permanent, and if Tony can demonstrate that he can once again produce quality work, i see no reason why he couldn't be unbanned. i do think that the Cup is the inciting factor here, but Teratix is right that he seems to not understand GAN itself, which is very strange.</s> yeah upon further thought now that i'm more awake, one really can't have gotten multiple FAs and not understand GAN <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#618A3D">... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">sawyer</span>]] * <small>he/they</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">talk</span>]]</span> 13:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*::I think I disagree here. If somebody has multiple FAs, they know full well what to do for a GA, but choose not to, and perhaps overplay ignorance as an excuse not to prepare their nominations sufficiently, or an unwillingness to take the time to take in reviewers comments. I think the issue is primarily behavioural, rather than competence. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 16:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::Agree that seeing this as a competence issue makes no sense, and it's strange that Tony appears to be trying to spin it as one. Someone who keeps a writing habit doesn't just spontaneously forget how to write, barring literal brain damage. Something else is obviously going on. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 16:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*::::good point. <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#618A3D">... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">sawyer</span>]] * <small>he/they</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">talk</span>]]</span> 20:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::Femke, you may be interested in reading Gog the Mild's comments on his behaviour at FAC – he hasn't had an article promoted in ten years and his last ten nominations have been archived without success. I'm speculating here, but it could be a case of the project's standard for quality content advancing over time while Tony's writing standard remains the same, resulting in a misperception of what's required. It is difficult for me to explain Tony's comments here as merely the product of Cup pressure. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 01:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
*:{{u|Teratix}}, you're right that Tony has engaged in problematic behaviour at GAN, but I think it's clear that the current issue is related to the WikiCup, and since there is ample evidence that he does know how to write good articles, I think we ought to limit the response here. This thread is already giving him ample warning about future GA nominations. I don't think more is needed. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 14:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
*::Tony's longer statements have slightly changed my view. My speculation on a mismatch between Tony's and GAN's writing standards was wrong, he is still capable of submitting GANs of acceptable quality in some cases. However, he still doesn't seem to understand that excessive mass nominations can be problematic independent of article quality. To me it seems a one-GAN limit could be a good solution, allowing Tony to continue submitting his absolute best content but also protecting GAN reviewers' time and energy. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 06:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''TBAN from the cup and GAN''' GAN reviewing can be hard enough even when the article is relatively high-quality; you're reading through an entire bibliography and acting as a copyeditor for a basically thankless job. It is not reasonable to expect GAN reviewers to hand-hold somebody who's been around here for so long through writing a GA-quality article; if you don't understand what makes a GA in a certain topic, ''don't nominate 70 of them to figure it out''. [[User:AryKun|AryKun]] ([[User talk:AryKun|talk]]) 12:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*:In case it matters: I'm participating in the WikiCup and will probably qualify for the next round. [[User:AryKun|AryKun]] ([[User talk:AryKun|talk]]) 12:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*I'd support a Wikicup ban without question at this point, as it seems like per the above any reward-based area seems to bring out the worst in him. I'm not opposed to an outright GAN ban, but I'd perhaps prefer an indefinite strict nomination limit, no more than 3 so that the articles can actually be properly written. A three month ban stated above isn't going to work since the mass-nomming of articles that don't meet GA standards will just continue. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 13:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*:Changing my stance to Support Cup/GAN/DYK ban per the added evidence, it's clear that he's not getting it, and seems to think this is a game that he has to win at all costs rather than just writing article to write them. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 18:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*::Changing my stance further to '''Support ban from all content review processes''' per Tony's comments below, which show a blatant refusal to acknowledge that a problem even exists with his conduct, let alone a desire to fix it. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 15:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I'll note we've seen similar behavior at DYK, including [[Special:Diff/1194391967|arguing about his apparent interest in gaming of DYK rules]] by saying, {{xt|All rules are made to be broken and gamed.}} {{pb
}}Example of how he intends to game [[Special:Diff/1198340366|here]]: {{xt|As I think of my next potential DYK candidate, Joanne McCarthy (basketball) that I have 5xed over the weekend, the new set of rules allows two alternatives. 1. I could DYK now and GA-DYK in 5 years with minimal change 2. I could GA now and DYK within 7 days after it gets approved with a 2nd DYK only possible with another 5x in 5 years.}} This was in a discussion of whether DYK should allow repeat appearances. Tony literally is planning 5 years out so he can get repeat DYK credits. {{pb
}}I'm actually a little concerned that a tban from GAN/WikiCup might just transfer the issue to DYK full time. Tony seems to be extremely interested in scorekeeping. Which of course can be a motivator for some people, and he's certainly created or improved a lot of articles. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 13:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*:"All rules are made to be broken and gamed" that is absolutely ridiculous, and i think you're right that this disruption will just move over to DYK. his idea of "GA-DYKing in 5 years with minimal change" says to me that he either doesn't understand or doesn't care about how GAN works. probably both. <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#618A3D">... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">sawyer</span>]] * <small>he/they</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">talk</span>]]</span> 13:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*::He didn't do that, though: [[Talk:Joanne McCarthy (basketball)/GA1]]. Also, in the [[Joanne McCarthy (basketball)]] review, the CUP points gaming again comes up as an issue in a couple of ways. He requests the reviewer promote in a specified time frame ({{tq|Also, be advised that I am competing in the [[WP:CUP]]. Do not promote on Feb 28 or 29.}}) and in response to a sourcing concern about the subject's Polish heritage, a source is quickly added to the article that likely does not meet [[WP:BLP]]. The McCarthy article is not a problematic page (loads of pages have small sections or a few missing sources), but Tony is clearly capable of better writing ([[Juwan Howard]]) outside of this CUP context. [[User:Rjjiii|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Rjj<sup>iii</sup></span>]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii#top|talk]]) 15:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::i'm not entirely sure if you're disagreeing with me (or if you were intending to respond directly to Valereee's comment?) but i agree with the substance of what you're saying <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#618A3D">... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">sawyer</span>]] * <small>he/they</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">talk</span>]]</span> 19:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*::::Not so much disagreeing with either of you, but pointing out the nuance that even though his talk page comment was regarding DYK, the actual disruptive edits (overloading GA and placing a bizarre citation into a BLP) were again done in the context of the CUP. To be clear: I would '''support a WikiCup TBAN''', but I'm not speculating on how he'll react. I empathize with the frustration from editors in this discussion about the need for this discussion to get this far, but don't see the need to impose the various restrictions mentioned in this thread all at once. Apologies if I was opaque before, [[User:Rjjiii|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Rjj<sup>iii</sup></span>]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii#top|talk]]) 02:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::::no worries! i just wasn't entirely clear on your position. <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#618A3D">... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">sawyer</span>]] * <small>he/they</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">talk</span>]]</span> 02:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
*I am not familiar enough with the WikiCup situation to have any firm opinion on it, but '''when it comes to GAN I support, at minimum, the removal of all outstanding nominations'''. I noticed the nomination of [[Malcolm (Macbeth)]], which is very obviously very far from GA standards even at a quick glance. An editor with both hundreds of successful GA nominations of their own and hundreds of reviews of other people's nominations surely knows better; on the off chance that they genuinely do not, I think it's reasonable to conclude that they likely never will. Nominating articles that are not ready would appear to be a pattern; looking at the user's talk page, I saw that during the course of a 24-hour time period (20:25 UTC on 22 March to 20:25 UTC on 23 March), no fewer than 25 "Failed GA" messages were left by ({{u|ChristieBot}} on behalf of) ten different reviewers. This indicates to me that leaving the remainder of the (rather large number of) nominations up would not be a good use of the community's time. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 14:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*I think part of the problem is with the editor but part of it is with the WikiCup... Its not set up for an honest editor to win, its set up for the winner to be the person who games the system the hardest without betting disqualified. The WikiCup clearly encourages gaming the system because a significant number of the recent winners won that way. The difference is that most of those editors were more subtle about it than this one. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*:This is a valid criticism, and indeed is why I declined to participate in the cup this year. My suggestions to balance scoring to stop this have yet to be adopted. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 16:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*::For the curious, can you link to those suggestions? -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 16:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::The suggestions are at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2023/1#Points for next year]]. For what it's worth, any Wikipedia contest such as the Cup will by its very nature be competitive and could be considered by some as gaming; however, the vast majority of editors don't also violate Wikipedia guidelines or policies while participating. &ndash; [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 18:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*:I agree that the WikiCup encourages users to time their nominations for maximum score (instead of nominating when the article is ready). I'm not sure that this is a huge problem; different people have won the Cup using different strategies over the last years, and some of them increased my respect for the winners, others did not. The issue here is that TTT did not just try to score WikiCup points with little effort, but disrupted other processes while doing so. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 16:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*::I agree its not generally a problem, its kind of a poster child for something that is objectively a net positive... But that doesn't mean it doesn't have downsides. But on the other hand these are issues the community should never be having to deal with, the whole point of the game having referees/managers is to prevent this sort of community disruption and time wasting from happening. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*:I checked the past four WikiCups and you can't say any of the winners were gaming; they all did a fair number of FACs and otherwise earned their points in a lot of ways, from doing lots of GANRs to making large GTs to ITN. Only one winner mainly relied on points from GAs, and nominating 60 articles you've worked on over the course of the year over two months is hardly gaming. This is poor decision-making on TTT's part and not something that's a trend with the cup. [[User:AryKun|AryKun]] ([[User talk:AryKun|talk]]) 17:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*::More than one way to game the system. Agree to disagree on whether this is a trend, but note that it would be remarkable if a competition like the wikicup didn't come with the negatives normally associated with open entry organized competitions. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*For the sake of completion I note that TTT's last ten nominations at FAC have all been archived. Nine are from 2014–2016 and one from 2023. This included five nominations of [[Emily Ratajkowski]]; in the last of these TTT received a coordinator warning "Tony, I'm not prepared to allow accusations of bad faith leveled at reviewers without substantive evidence. Please strike these immediately and keep your comments focused on the content, not the editor. This isn't the venue. Additionally, there are many occasions when nominators and reviewers come to an impasse about content. I'd prefer you let [the FAC coordinators] weigh the matter rather than posting repeated pings and harangues when the reviewer has disengaged." TTT [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_candidates%2FEmily_Ratajkowski%2Farchive5&diff=727511236&oldid=727508803 kicked back]. (Disclosure: I have been a FAC coordinator since 2020 and closed TTT's 2023 FAC nomination.) [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 17:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*Based on the assembled examples of tendentious behavior in relation not only to GAN/WikiCup, but also DYK, FAC, and COI editing, I think that a GAN/WikiCup ban is the bare minimum sanction, and that a broad WP-space ban may in fact be more appropriate (although this is somewhat complicated by the fact that these various processes exist across multiple Wikipedia namespaces). What I see here is a pattern of behavior for over a decade of consistently engaging with quality-control/content-promotion processes in an entirely self-serving fashion, conveniently ignoring guidelines when it suits them, and accusations of bad faith against editors who don't provide review results to their liking. There's little reason to believe that this behavior will change other than by barring them from engaging with such processes. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 17:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support TBAN from WikiCup and GAN'''. TTT has an ''extensive'' history of NOTHERE gaming the system for Wikipedia points and self-promotion. I would support further bans as well. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 18:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support WikiCup TBAN''' I don't like commenting at ANI, but this seems like a good time to step in as someone who has experience with Tony from the Vital Articles project. Sadly, it would appear that a TBAN from the WikiCup is needed to deal with disruption, but I believe that he can be productive. I also '''weakly support a restriction on open GANs''' as a fair step to prevent disruption without barring him from making good content entirely. I '''oppose an indefinite ban''' because he has shown himself to be a quality contributor who can contribute productively when not doing stuff like this. I believe a WikiCup TBAN and a restriction on GANs will solve the problem while allowing him to continue to contribute productively. [[User:QuicoleJR|QuicoleJR]] ([[User talk:QuicoleJR|talk]]) 18:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support WikiCup TBAN''' with the suggestion of leaving our snarky remarks at the door in the future. [[User:Panini!|<span style="color:#F40">Panini!</span>]] <span style="color:#F40">•</span> [[User talk:Panini!|🥪]] 20:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support permanent WikiCup TBAN and temporary GA and DYK TBAN''', as a minimum. I was prepared to limit my support only to a TBAN from WikiCup, as the current locus of disruption, until I saw Valeree's comment quoting TTT as very recently saying "All rules are made to be broken and gamed". No. That is not the sort of collegiality and cooperation that we should be bringing to Wikipedia editing. Some rules are obstructions but almost all were created as a response to a specific problem, and TTT's behavior is a problem that is currently producing a push for more obstructive rules at [[WT:GAN]] that could slow down the whole GA system for everyone. If we take away WikiCup, it seems likely that GA badge counts will become the next personal contest to game. The GA process needs time away from TTT's disruption, for one thing to evaluate what is to be done to distinguish TTT's many valid Good Articles from those that may need reconsideration (with at least two currently under formal reassessment). Valeree's comment raises DYK as another very likely locus of disruption and a temporary TBAN could well head that off. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 21:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
* I'm going to stay neutral on the GAN and CUP topic ban proposals, since I don't think I have anything more to add to those discussions, but I '''oppose a topic ban from DYK''' in any form, at least for now. TonyTheTiger's conduct at DYK has only peripherally been discussed in this thread, and while there would be some more to unpack if it were focused on, I'm unconvinced that the DYK-specific evidence could necessitate action at this time. TBANs are preventative, but they're <em>never</em> preemptive. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 22:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*:I agree with tlc. I wasn't intending to suggest a ban from DYK just because if banned from GA/cup, that's the only place left to keep score. It might even be good to allow that one last place for TTT to show us they can learn from this. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 12:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support permanent WikiCup TBan'''. TonyTheTiger's participation in the WikiCup has caused problems since at least 2010 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=386613217 "Michigan basketball overload", 2 sections at [[WT:DYK]]). I also '''propose topic ban on solo nominations in any article recognition venue''': FA, GA, FP, FL, DYK&nbsp;... anything. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=1194391967 "All rules are made to be broken and gamed"] on January 8, 2024 (after repeated discussion of his gaming and overwhelming at review venues, including sanctions applying to specific venues); the attempts to bargain by making new demands on backlog drive dates, also recent; and the admissions of insufficient knowledge about topics on which he is submitting articles for GA consideration. The COI promotional submission at DYK is the cherry on top. He's too focused on collecting accolades and evidently will continue clogging any recognition process in which he participates. If he wants to create and improve articles for the benefit of the encyclopedia, let him collaborate with other editors on nominations. Otherwise, do without the potential recognition. (And yes, I recommend a procedural quickfail of all his current GA nominations. Someone else can further improve an article they believe has GA potential and renominate it; at GA level there's always room for further improvement, and the list can be a useful source of improvement candidates.) (I have not participated in the WikiCup for many years, or in DYK for a similar number of years, except for a couple of nominations of articles I'd worked on by someone else.) [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 23:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support TBAN from GAN and DYK, also remove all his current GANs'''. This diff in particular is just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=1194391967 shameless], also given past incidents of gaming the system.--[[User:Catlemur|Catlemur]] ([[User talk:Catlemur|talk]]) 01:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Block''' from any "awards" whether GAN, WikiCup, DYK or what have you. Should have been when he tried to get his sister onto the fromt page with blatant disregard for COI. [[Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_195#COI_issue_at_Carla_Vernón]] but escaped it then. Clear history of acting in his own interest and not that of the project. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 01:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
*:He tried to get his SISTER on the front page? Jesus Christ. I've collaborated with him on some FAs, but no one with the interests of the encyclopedia in mind would dare to pull that. Chalk me up as well as advocating a '''Block from all "awards"''' as per Star Mississippi. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 06:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
*::and this wasn't even, "I know this is not the right course, but here's my case for why she deserves it" but rather "I don't see what your issue is." That was the most problematic especially from someone of his tenure. Besides the WT:DYK, the discussion is also on the article talk. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 13:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::Quite. If he was lying about that, that's a [[WP:BADFAITH|massive downcheck]]. If he ''wasn't'', that's a massive [[WP:CIR|competency issue]]. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 00:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
*(Disclaimer: I first heard about the situation involving Tony on Discord a few days ago, when it came up in a discussion among GAN reviewers, but I wasn't canvassed or asked to participate in any discussion, and my views here are purely my own.) Having reviewed the different discussions that have taken place at Tony's talk page and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiCup]], I think a '''permanent topic ban for TonyTheTiger from the [[WP:CUP|WikiCup]] is warranted'''. Tony has repeatedly [[WP:IDHT|refused to get the point]] that their conduct has been disruptive and a drain on other editors who are trying to participate in the WikiCup in good faith. Some of Tony's remarks that were directed towards other editors, especially Generalissima, are also pretty subpar and fall below the expectations I would have of somebody who has been editing Wikipedia for nearly 18 years. As for a topic ban from GAN or other featured content processes, I am more neutral; I think Tony could contribute to these areas constructively provided that he no longer participates in the WikiCup, but I understand why others feel that a broader topic ban or restriction might be necessary to address Tony's conduct. [[User:MaterialsPsych|MaterialsPsych]] ([[User talk:MaterialsPsych|talk]]) 02:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
*:Having read Tony's statement below, my opinion hasn't changed too much. I think an indefinite topic ban from the WikiCup is the bare minimum required to prevent further disruption. I am still not really in favor of an indefinite topic ban from featured content creation processes (e.g., GAN, DYK) ''at this time'', but I think the removal of any of Tony's recent GANs which have not yet been reviewed or are not currently being reviewed is acceptable. However, it is evident that there have been issues in the past with Tony and featured content processes (i.e., the issues with Featured Sounds and the DYK conflict of interest incident that have been mentioned by others). If anything comes up again in the future with Tony's conduct in featured content processes on this noticeboard, I will be far less likely to give Tony the benefit of the doubt if a topic ban or more severe sanctions are on the table. [[User:MaterialsPsych|MaterialsPsych]] ([[User talk:MaterialsPsych|talk]]) 11:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support TBAN from GAN''' and removal of current GANs. His current behavior is disruptive to the GA process, as many have stated above; a TBAN from GAN is sufficient to prevent that disruption. I very much doubt the disruption will stop until TTT recognizes why his behavior is disruptive and commits to changing it (I have seen evidence of neither). An indefinite TBAN until he's prepared to make such a commitment seems appropriate. [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 02:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
*:Given TTT's apology below, a GAN limit of 1 nomination at a time is also fine with me. If he shows he can handle that, I'm sure folks would be willing to increase that nomination limit before too long. Also just a note that I think we should clear his current unreviewed nominations -- which basically everyone seems to agree are problematic -- from the GAN queue. [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 12:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''No bans''' {{ec}}I am not sure why every solution to problems must include onerous sanctions. As {{u|Starship.paint}} has said below, we are in the middle of things... and IMO there is not an immediate need to stop a disruption. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 02:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
*:So, just to be clear, you don't feel there's any problem with Tony's behavior here at all? &spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 05:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support limitation on active GA noms, no bans''' - Limiting the amount of active GA noms Tony is allowed to have seems to take care of the immediate problem at hand. Not sure why we are ready to throw prolific content creators off a cliff when they are just going through a bad phase. He does good work overall, and long-term bans here are detrimental to our readers. To be clear, he has acted questionably in some of the diffs mentioned here, but not quite enough to be permanently put away.--''[[User:MaranoFan|<b style="color:purple">N</b>]][[User talk:MaranoFan|<b style="color:teal">Ø</b>]]'' 08:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
*:What makes you think this is just a "bad phase"? TTT has been engaging in this behavior since at least 2010. And by "this behavior" I mean relentlessly pursuing "awards" collection and self-promotion to the detriment of the encyclopedia. He was banned from Featured Sounds for the same reasons outlined in this RfC. Last year he tried to get an article he wrote on his sister onto the front page on her birthday, accompanied by a picture with him in it (despite a previous ban on uploading pictures of himself!). He has been [[User talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive 86#Blocked|blocked]] [[User talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive 71#Blocked 48h|multiple]] times for baselessly accusing editors who didn't support his TFA/FS requests of racism. At what point does this become a pattern? [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 18:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
*:Remember kids, you can get away with anything so long as you're a "prolific content creator". They live by an entirely different set of standards. We are approaching Coldwellian levels of misconduct (and apologism for said misconduct), along with total refusal to accept any responsibility for one's actions here, and that is ''not'' something I say lightly, given my prominent involvement in that saga. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 20:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support TBAN from Cup, limitation on active GA noms''' preferably to one active nomination at a time. If the disruptive behavior relocates itself to DYK, we can deal with it there, but I feel a sanction for that would be premature at this stage. [[User:Lepricavark|L<small>EPRICAVARK</small>]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|<small>talk</small>]]) 15:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support TBAN from WikiCup''', support '''limitation on active GA noms''' (I'd prefer something between three and five), '''oppose DYK ban'''. '''Oppose ''indefinite'' GA TBAN''', but not opposed to a three-month GA ban (with the carveout that he can continue any GA work that is currently being reviewed or that he is reviewing). The WikiCup seems to be the main driver of the disruption – if the disruption continues outside the Cup then we could revisit. Also not seeing enough for a DYK ban. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 16:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Tony has been removed from the cup by the judges.
*'''Support indefinite TBAN from WikiCup, support limitation on active GA noms (I'd prefer one), support DYK ban.''' <b>[[User talk:OlifanofmrTennant|Questions?]] [[Fourth Doctor|four]] [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)]]</b> 18:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support indefinite ban from Cup, limitation on GA noms''' The gaming has been quite breathtaking, and TTT seems unrepentant. I would suggest no more than 1 GA nom at a time. -- [[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 19:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support indefinate TBAN from WikiCup, low limitation on GA noms''' (three seems reasonable), '''removal of all current GANs where a review is not yet posted, and a minimum three-month gap between a failed GA review and renominating the article''': TTT has been renominating quickfails after edits that only address a small portion of the issues raised, which is one reason why I think he needs limits on his participation at GAN. If the community insists on a TBAN there, I won't oppose that, though it's a second choice. If he persists in nominating articles that don't meet the GA criteria per the GAN instructions, then a TBAN there seems inevitable (and may be so already). [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 21:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support indefinite TBAN from Cup and GAN limits''' Most of the problems seem to stem out of WikiCup gaming, but I think TTT could still be a useful contributor at GA. (I wouldn't mind a 3 month GA TBAN though, but I have no strong thoughts one way or the other.) If abuse continues, I would be open to a harder GAN limit or Star Mississippi's proposal. [[user:HistoryTheorist|<span style="font-family:Courier;color:#2F7E98">❤History</span>]][[User talk:HistoryTheorist|<span style="font-family:Courier;color:lightpurple">Theorist❤</span>]] 00:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''<s>Support indefinite ban from GAN</s>''' (EDIT: See below), second choice a nomination limit of ''one'' (but would honestly be healthier just to leave it at zero IMO). Did not want to pile on until Tony made a statement, but... that was the wrong statement. Notably there doesn't appear to be an "In deference to GA norms, I'll withdraw some/most of my nominations on my own" in it, and I still see the spam sitting in WP:GAN. That is table stakes in any statement given that he's been told to do this, repeatedly, bluntly, and now en masse at ANI, and the fact that he hasn't done it himself speaks poorly of him getting the point. If Tony didn't "consider [it] would be a problem" at first, how come he didn't trust his fellow editors when they told him that yes, it was a problem? To state what's been said many times before... GAN is not some sort of content assessment service to drop off articles you've worked on. It's more like trading peer reviews, and it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what GA nomination & reviewing is to spam it so blatantly just to "use the further polish of GAN attention". And ''everyone'' has waited a long time for GA reviews before, it's not unique to Tony, and shouldn't it be obvious that this kind of spam makes that problem ''worse''? Tony can be a great content creator; it's time to rekindle the love of doing it just to do it, no stars and no icons attached. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 07:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
** As a side note: "I think many of my nominations might have been more kindly reviewed under a favorable light" is wishful thinking. Many of the cited GA quickfails should not have passed GA even with 2010 standards. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 07:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
**:I'm not sure it ''is'' wishful thinking, but unlike Tony I think that's a problem. I think if he hadn't drawn the attention of several experienced reviewers by submitting such a high volume at once, many of the articles that were QF'd would have instead been reviewed by reviewers more prone to looking at the list of GA icons he has on his user page and deciding that ''they'' (ie, the reviewers) were in the wrong, not him. "He must know what he's doing... I guess I don't really understand the standards," etc. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 14:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
** '''Upgrade to full ban from all content review processes''' with narrow exception of GANs currently under review and GAR / FAR of TTT's content. I was unimpressed with Tony's original reply and not withdrawing his noms (I'm not demanding mind control, it'd have been fine to say "I strenuously disagree but if the community considers such mass nominations a problem, fine, I won't do that"), and his later comments appear to be from a different planet, seemingly still defending miles-off nominations like Heath Irwin and viewing himself as the victim, rather than the aggressor. GAN is to take a mostly-there article and make it better. Maybe there's some other process for articles wildly far off from GA status, like a Tony-specific "this month's article to help me improve", but it ain't GAN, and this isn't hard to understand. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 20:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose sanction''' The entire point of the WikiCup is to encourage editors to do more in order to score points as a form of [[gamification]]. The participants will, of course, game this and competitive pressure will then generate this sort of excess. If this seems problematic then the rules of the competition should be adjusted. For example, if a GAN is quickfailed, the nominator might lose points as a penalty. So, fix the game, don't punish the players. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 08:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
** "Gamification made me do it" is not an excuse, and the WikiCup rules are already very blunt that editors who worsen Wikipedia in an attempt to win will be kicked out. As indeed happened in this case. There's no need to create [[Wikipedia:Asshole John rule]]s which will be a feel-bad for good faith editors who get a nom'd quickfailed for standard and legitimate reasons. I would suggest striking your rather bold claim that Wikicup "participants" in general behave this badly, which is obviously false - nobody else in the WikiCup harassed valid reviewers like TTT did. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 13:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
**:See similar comments above such as "''The WikiCup clearly encourages gaming the system because a significant number of the recent winners won that way. ... This is a valid criticism, and indeed is why I declined to participate in the cup this year. ... any Wikipedia contest such as the Cup will by its very nature be competitive and could be considered by some as gaming.''"
**:As TTT has been disqualified now by a WikiCup judge, that seems adequate to correct the immediate issue. My point is that the contest's checks and balances should be left to work themselves out without ANI piling in too.
**:[[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 08:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''SUPPORT BAN from all content review processes''': (saw this while I was here for another thread above). TTT's abuse of content review processes for personal reward-seeking reasons is a problem more than a decade old, where the FAC page and FA process was seriously misused, mostly fed by TTT's desire to win WikiCup, with most of TTT's articles having be extensively re-worked by other editors. TTT has continuously and constantly abused content review processes (FAC, GAN) to gain rewards at WikiCup and DYk, while content produced has been initially marginal and sapped reviewer time to bring pages to standard, and Wikipedia will not lose if this problem can be removed from the pages it is draining. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 05:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support ban from all content review processes''': I've experienced Tony's combative behaviors around not-ready content at FAC, and it's clear that it's an issue at DYK and GAN too. With such an egregious track record going back years across all areas, this seems to be the minimum to save everyone else time and frustration. "The Wikicup made me do it" is not a valid reason to defend this. [[User:David Fuchs|<span style="color: #ad3e00;">Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs</span>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:David Fuchs|<span style="color: #ad3e00;">talk</span>]]</small></sup> 18:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support ban from all content-related Wikipedia contests''', but not from GAN. Tony does good work, they just need to focus on improving Wikipedia instead of getting high scores. I had to go looking a long way back to find the dispute that caused me to remember TonyTheTiger's name. Way back in 2014, TTT created a content fork on the high school career of a professional basketball player, and it was deleted at AFD. Tony challenged at DRV where it was endorsed, and then it was [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabari Parker's high school career (2nd nomination)|nominated for deletion a second time]] after Tony recreated it anyway. Tony's bludgeoning and assumptions of bad faith in that discussion included a bizarre conspiracy of Canadian editors being secret members of [[WP:HOCKEY|WikiProject Hockey]] working against coverage of basketball topics, and spawned an [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#User:TonyTheTiger gaming AfD, bludgeoning and personal attacks against multiple editors|ANI thread]] in which Tony was warned to back off. The article was then salted, which led Tony to start [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive262|''another'' AN thread]] requesting its restoration, which was a rather transparent attempt to set up for recreating the deleted article a third time. The player's high school career was later expanded in the main article, which is what should have happened in the first place without all the drama, but Tony was after points for the WikiCup or the [[WP:FOUR|Four award]] or some other contest so we got to play this game for a few months instead. What's happening with GAN spamming isn't the same issue but it's the same root cause, and it's disappointing that the same problem persists a decade after our spat: Tony is editing to score points, and improving content only because it scores points. [[WP:CIR|As the essay says]], "a mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess that needs to be cleaned up." Tony is a prolific and valuable editor who just needs to refocus on content and stop making messes, and a ban from participating in these contests and awards will help. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 20:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
*:{{u|Ivanvector}}, just to clarify, are you also wanting Tony to be banned from claiming [[WP:Four Awards]]? &spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 21:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
*::Would you say that's not covered by "all content-related Wikipedia contests"? [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 21:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::Yes, that's why I wanted to clarify. I don't view 4A as a contest, as you're not competing against other people for a prize in a limited timeframe. (I know there have historically been issues with Tony and 4A, and I'm not trying to say he ''shouldn't'' necessarily be banned from 4A, just clarifying your stance). &spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 21:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
*::::Fair question, then. Yes, I think he should be banned from seeking those awards, but that does raise an issue of enforcement since we can't stop other editors handing them out. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 21:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support TBAN from both GAN and WikiCup''' per Ivanvecor, PMC and Buidhe. Bling is one thing, but active disruption (and the complete wasting of people's time that has with it!) brings behavior into the community's purview. <small>...and PMC, particularly, oozes a degree of sarcasm that I can only dream of.</small> [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:black">——Serial Number 54129</span>]] 13:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support TBAN from WikiCup and content review processes''' per PMC, Sandy, DWF, my previous comments on the WikiCup talk page, and Tony's recent comments below (starting with {{tq|In the back of my mind...}}) which amount to a conspiracy theory about other editors. (Disclosure: I am currently competing in the WikiCup.) [[User:Dylan620|<span style="color:blue">Dylan</span><span style="color:purple">620</span>]] (he/him • [[User talk:Dylan620|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|edits]]) 23:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
*Keeping this pile on open is, well, piling on. Tony has already withdrawn from the contest and promised to be careful with his submissions. Maybe someone can '''Close this donnybrook with accepting those facts and moving on with no additional punishments (except for a [[Hair shirt]], to be worn at the Wikiconferences)'''. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 15:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
** One, Tony did not withdraw. Tony ''was withdrawn'' by the WikiCup judges. He gets zero credit for this. (Same with the withdrawn GANs - he mostly did not do it, someone else did the vast majority of the withdraws, he's made clear below he still doesn't think he should have to or there was a problem here.)
** Two, you're reading Tony's comments below substantially different than everyone else. We could have moved on ages ago with a slap on the wrist if Tony had replied differently. Tony only has Tony to blame for the pile on continuing, by giving hostile responses to genuine concerns. You complained above about "Wikipedia eating its own"; why does that not apply to the good-faith reviewers whom Tony accused of bad faith and wild conspiracies in the linked diffs? Why did it take going to ANI at all, where Tony was resilient at admitting any fault when repeatedly told his conduct was poor? Civility and AGF is a two-way street. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 21:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
***No, civility and AGF are not a two-way street. Everyone has a choice to follow them, although I can't claim I always have, but I do assume that Tony has gotten the message even though he may disagree with parts of it. I read Tony's explanation as a very good study in human nature, quite self-perceptive. And the difference you mention? Tony is not trying to get someone banned from a part of Wikipedia that he has shown expertise in, but just stating his point of view, and receiving question after question about it. As for eating our own, happens way too often here (but that's just my opinion, and I don't even read every section on the drama board, pretty selective in fact). Thanks. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 23:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
**'''Support''' TBAN from WikiCup ''and'' content review processes per too many editors to mention. Having waded through decades of egregious, I didn't hear that, and combative comments, not least in this discussion, it seems clear that if Tony has heard of the [[first law of holes]] they don't believe [[WP:HOLES]] applies to them, or still haven't grasped the extent of their errors. I think, regretfully, that the community needs to - finally - impose the self control which Tony lacks. [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 12:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
*I think there's enough participation at this point that someone uninvolved can review and make a decision on this. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 22:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 
===Appeal for GAN TBAN exception for already actively reviewed GANs===
 
I see that there are GANs already actively being reviewed '''before''' the start of this ANI. One is <s>[[Talk:3:16 game/GA1]]</s> (closed now) where Tony is the reviewer. Another is <s>[[Talk:In a World.../GA1]]</s> (closed now) where Tony's article is being reviewed. Others include [[Talk:2018–19 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season/GA1]], [[Talk:Wait a Minute (The Pussycat Dolls song)/GA3]] and [[Talk:Joanne McCarthy (basketball)/GA1]]. Perhaps there are more such GANs that I missed. In the interests of being reasonable, having courtesy and respect for Tony and the other reviewer/reviewed editors of these GANs, I suggest a carve-out to allow Tony to participate in these if he receives a GAN TBAN. This does '''not''' apply to GANs Tony nominated but no one has reviewed yet. This would also not apply to any GAN review Tony started after the ANI began. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 23:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 
:In the case of GANs where Tony is the reviewer, that seems fair enough. In the case of GANs where Tony is the nominator, the reviewer should be made aware of the situation here (if they aren't already) and given the option to discontinue the review. But if they're happy to continue, giving Tony a carve-out seems fair enough. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 06:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, if the other reviewers wish to stop for any reason, then that is the end for that nomination. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 09:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
::I missed <S>[[Talk:Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention/GA1]]</S> (closed now), <s>[[Talk:A Christmas Story: The Musical/GA1]]</s> (closed now), [[Talk:Chris Hill (basketball)/GA1]]. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 12:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 
===Junk the Wikicup===
{{hat|1=Proposal SNOW closed and wrong venue. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])'''}}
{{atop|Closing this per [[WP:SNOW]] and (more importantly) the wrong venue to request a project be closed. {{nac}} — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 21:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)}}
...because it regularly leads to this kind of trouble. It's long outlived its usefulness. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 16:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
:Really? When was the last time? [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' due to being obviously incorrect. The purpose/"usefulness" of the cup is to encourage users to improve content, which it does. One person possibly trying to game the system isn't a valid rationale to junk the entire competition. It's silly to suggest we do so just because of one person. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 17:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. Clearly not the correct outcome. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 17:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
* I really don't think this is the right conclusion to draw from the discussions above. The vast majority of WikiCup participants don't violate any Wikipedia guidelines or policies, and when they do, they get disqualified from the competition (as Tony was just recently). As for {{tq|It's long outlived its usefulness}}, it's inspired people to expand or create hundreds of articles over the years, the vast majority of which, again, have no issues. I'm going to say that ''any'' type of competition is liable to have issues like this come up; it's just a matter of how well the problem is handled by the judges of such contests. [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 17:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
* Junk and never replace... Or junk until we can come up with something better? Not super open to the first but could see the second being valuable. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I feel the fact that the community is so eager to sanction someone gaming the cup in this way is a good sign that Wikicup participants not want this sort of incident to occur again. <small> [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) </small> 17:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
::People want to sanction them for gaming wikipedia, not for gaming the cup... As far as I know that would be up to the Cup's organizers and I don't think they've chosen to take any action here. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Tony's already been kicked out of the cup. <small> [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) </small> 17:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ec}} {{tq|I don't think they've chosen to take any action here.}} - I disqualified him from the cup earlier today, once I got to my computer. I had limited internet access over the weekend, so I couldn't do it earlier. [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 17:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
::::Thank you, I didn't know that you were the only organizer who could do that. Is there a reason they're recorded as withdrawn rather than eliminated on the project page? [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Horse Eye's Back}}, if this is an underhanded comment directed at {{u|Cwmhiraeth}} and {{u|Frostly}}, you're still required to notify them as you're now discussing their conduct at ANI. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#324717">The</span><span style="color:#45631f">big</span><span style="color:#547826">ugly</span><span style="color:#68942f">alien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:sienna">talk</span>]]) 17:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::It isn't, I wasn't aware who the organizers were or how many there were when I made the original comment. If that is not the case I apologize, but then I don't really understand why Epicgenius having limited internet access is relevant. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::While Cwmhiraeth and Frostly are also judges, I'm currently acting as the ''de facto'' main organizer of this competition. Hence, I made the decision to withdraw them as soon as I was able. [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 17:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Noting here that I support the decision to withdraw.<span id="Frostly:1711397869258:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;[[User:Frostly|Frostly]] ([[User talk:Frostly|talk]]) 20:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)</span>
:::::::{{ec}}Cwmhiraeth is now largely retired from WP, and is there to help Epicgenius and Frostly, who are both new to the role. So far (in the 30% of a cup we've had), Epicgenius has done the work of setting up/eliminating contestants. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::It's largely a technical distinction. Contestants are marked in red if, at the end of the round, they don't have enough points to qualify for the next round. Contestants are marked in purple if they are removed or if they withdraw from the competition in the middle of the round. [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 17:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' because despite the extra drama it really is needed to help reduce backlogs (at GA, for instance) and would have done so this time if not for TTT's gaming. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 17:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
::It still does, even with TTT considered. [https://wikicup.toolforge.org/index.php?year=2024 So far this year], Cup competitors have contributed 316 GA reviews and 108 featured article/list reviews, against 141 GAs and 26 FAs/FLs promoted. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
:::I stand corrected, thanks. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 18:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', unsourced claim. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#324717">The</span><span style="color:#45631f">big</span><span style="color:#547826">ugly</span><span style="color:#68942f">alien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:sienna">talk</span>]]) 17:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' – I'm really really mad I got knocked out in the first round. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 17:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
:{{smiley}} [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 18:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' drastic proposal without even an attempt to provide evidence. [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 18:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''oppose''' per Epicgenius & Gog <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#618A3D">... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">sawyer</span>]] * <small>he/they</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">talk</span>]]</span> 20:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' - It’s been a long time since I had available time to participate in the WikiCup, but the year that I did, it encouraged me to keep putting in effort and working on the encyclopedia. I kind of like that. It’s a shame some people have to game, like robbing the bank in Monopoly, but proper enforcement by the coordinators and responding to gaming complaints seems like a small price to pay for a positive force for editing. I may want to see some reforms personally that continue to encourage contributions from those eliminated early on, but nothing wrong with the concept as a whole. [[User:Red Phoenix|<span style="color:#FF0000">Red Phoenix</span>]] [[User talk:Red Phoenix|<sup style="color: #FFA500">talk</sup>]] 20:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. It's not really my cup of tea but it prompts people to improve the encyclopaedia and they have fun while doing it so it's harmless at worst. It has been known to cause some problems with backlogs at review processes but I believe steps have been taken in recent years to mitigate that. It's unfortunate that one editor took things too far and didn't participate on the principle that it was fun, but I see no reason to think that's typical of editors participating in the cup. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ&nbsp;Mitchell</b>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?</span>]] 20:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
*This is daft, even by your standards, EEng. '''Oppose''', obviously. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 20:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - no real evidence has been provided that the WikiCup {{tq|regularly leads to this kind of trouble}} or has {{tq|long outlived its usefulness}}. I don't think we need to get rid of something that most people seem to be able to constructively participate in just because a few don't. [[User:MaterialsPsych|MaterialsPsych]] ([[User talk:MaterialsPsych|talk]]) 21:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{hab}}
 
===TonyTheTiger's statement===
Today, I stumbled upon a User talk page of a user who had been blocked, with instructions on how to appeal a block [[User_talk:Ptb1997#September_2023]]. It gives the directive that
 
To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
 
*the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
*the block is no longer necessary because you
*#understand what you have been blocked for,
*#will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
*#will make useful contributions instead.
 
I know bans are different than blocks, but the spirit of the directive is relevant here. I have tried to not say anything that I would regret for the last few days. I will be making a statement in the next 6 hours.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 00:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 
I joined the [[WP:CUP]] this year. I remember finishing 2nd in the 2010 CUP and had honestly forgotten about [[WP:FS]] topic ban surrounding the 2011 CUP. Knowing myself, I probably figured out a strategy that if allowed to run its course would have given me a good chance to finish at least 2nd again without recognition of the broader implications of the strategy to WP in general and to the CUP. I apologize for whatever happened then (again, if I have already done so &mdash; finally, if I have not).
 
This year, I entered the CUP on a whim. As it progressed, I regained some editorial vigor that I had had before and during the 2010 CUP. I started feeling competitive. First, I started thinking about making the finals again and before you know it I was trying to strategize a podium finish. In the CUP great [[WP:FA|Featured Articles]] producers have an advantage. I am not such an editor. I have a pretty low success rate at [[WP:FAC]] for the number of FAs that I have. I large percentage of my FAs are the results of co-nominators or co-editors who are far better copyeditors than I. However, I have a long history of success at GA and DYK. So I decided to focus my efforts on those two methods of scoring CUP points.
 
There were two main impediments to my prospects for success in the 2024 CUP. First, the way I have been keeping the bills paid is highly seasonal. Last year, I earned over 82% of my income between May and October. The busy season is usually May through September and it can roll into October depending on certain factors. I needed a strategy that would enable me to compete even when I get busy with work. Second, I don’t tend to get reviewed very quickly on GA. Recent history will show you that I don’t get the fastest GA reviews (probably because I don’t do a lot of reviews anymore). See the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations&oldid=1168120698 GAN queue before last year’s August backlog drive]. I took a look at the rules and figured a way that I could have a good chance at continuing to score a lot of GA points while I am very busy and while my review lag tends to be high. I figured, that if I could put a lot of articles in the queue in a way that they would have date priority at GAN I would be able to score enough cup points in rounds 3 and 4 to have a good chance to make the finals. Since I have had hundreds of DYK promotions since my last run at the CUP, I felt that many of them were a good way up the hill toward GA. Cramming them into GAN all at once without significant recent editorial activity was not something I considered would be a problem.
 
GA evaluation is a very subjective process. Artilcles that might meet with good favor under the right sunlight may suffer a bad fate under a cloud of darkness. Although I think many of my nominations might have been more kindly reviewed under a favorable light, they were reviewed at a time when I had upset a lot of active GA reviewers with my GA strategy. Ex post, it looks like I submit a lot of crappy articles to GAN. My long history at GAN probably says otherwise. However, I am not here to debate the quality of recently reviewed articles.
 
I do understand that a common theme among the reviews for the old DYK nominations at GAN is that they have not aged well. Some have become out of date. Others have evolved into states where maintenance tags should have been or were added to the articles. I think in the neighborhood of 2 dozen (if not more) of my GAN articles have been quickfailed at in recent days. All but one of these have been DYKs from past years. There has been little issue with my recent editorial activity. I’ll try to give you a list here for comparison with those that have been rejected. You will probably agree that my most recent work upholds the standards of GA that all interested parties are concerned about. The following are current nominations (all sports articles except for one and mostly basketball) from recent work: [[Gary Bossert]], [[Andrew Dakich]], [[Jennifer Martz]], [[Sean Jackson (basketball)]], [[Dave Jamerson]], [[Billy Garrett Jr.]]<sup><small>The most recent lead hook at [[WP:DYK]]</small></sup>, [[Todd Leslie]], [[Peter Patton (basketball)]] and [[Eustace Tilley]]. Additionally, the following recent works were going to be heading into the GAN queue soon: [[Kobe Bufkin]], [[Will Tschetter]], [[Drew Golz]], [[Draft:Kasey Morlock]], and [[Draft:Alia Fischer]].
 
I realize that it would be easier on reviewers and better for the GAN system if I refrained from nominating stale, atrophied and otherwise less exemplary articles. However, I do believe that things that I have recently researched continue to be of benefit to the WP readership and could use the further polish of GAN attention. Although I continue to have faults as an editor in need of correction, none of my recent works (mostly created from scratch) should have much in common with the recent batch of quickfails.
 
I probably should not be involved in the CUP since I have twice gotten too competitive in ways that are adverse to the general mission of WP. I don’t really think the GA ban is entirely necessary. My current work at GAN is probably not as problematic as the topics that have been distant from my attention for years. The real problems that I am having with GAN are not so much as my general lack of understanding of what is deserving of review attention, but my competitive CUP juices compelling me to nominate articles with very slight consideration and minimal recent editorial involvement.
 
I consider it highly unlikely that you will ever see a slew of articles with prominent blemishes if my GAN privileges were allowed to continue in general. It would be fair to all to remove all nominations stemming from my historical DYK activity, but nominations related to recent editorial efforts would probably benefit WP without burdening the GAN reviewers any more than normal.
 
My apologies to all of the hardworking GA reviewers and all participants that keep the GAN system going. I apologize to all CUP contestants and judges. In addition, I apologize for all the time that I took away from other activities by necessitating discussant activity here and elsewhere on WP. Furthermore, my competitive juices also warrant an apology to several DYK parties as well for actions not at issue here, but not so remote from them either. However, I don’t really think that a person who gets too competitive with the CUP needs much more than to be removed from the CUP to continue to be an asset to WP.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 05:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 
:Thank you Tony. I have a few follow-up questions.
:#{{tq|Since I have had hundreds of DYK promotions since my last run at the CUP, I felt that many of them were a good way up the hill toward GA}} What inspired this feeling? Did you read back over the DYK promotions and feel each one was worth a shot at GAN? Or was it a more general feeling that if you'd managed to get an article through DYK, it was probably worth giving it a shot at GAN?
:#:Read back over would definitely be a wrong description. Basically, I took a quick glance at every [[User:TonyTheTiger/DYK|DYK I have had since mid 2010]] and some related articles. E.g. Some Big Ten or Ivy League seasons as well as Michigan and Princeton seasons may have been before that cutoff, but I looked at all of those similar article types with a quick glance. I eliminated all short DYKs. I think anything that was not at least 2800-3000 characters was cut. I glanced for citation needed templates, but surely missed some. If it had a top maintenance tag, it probably got cut. No real scientific process. I probably cut a list of 550 down to about 100. Then I looked at the ones I had to work on before nominating and the ones that I thought were close enough to be shaped up. I think I looked to see if I was the top 3 or 4 editors on each page as well, but confess I did not pay much attention to my percentage contribution. --[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 05:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
:#{{tq|Cramming them into GAN all at once without significant recent editorial activity was not something I considered would be a problem.}} That's a comment on your past mental state. Do you, as of now, consider the number of GANs you submitted at once to have been a problem?
:#:The GAN process is set up to have hundreds of simultaneous nominations at once. I would not be surprised if the GAN could present 1000 at once. I have in the past had upwards of 30 simultaneous nominations at once I believe. GAN is an agnostic process that does not regard how many are nominated or reviewed by any one editor. The 70ish number is not a problem on its face. The problem is that I have never dug up articles from the past and nominated them. I have always nominated articles that I have recently honed and crafted. As I mentioned above, I stand behind all of the DYK creations from the past few months as viable GAN candidates. I should have given more serious consideration to which types of topics tend to atrophy over time. Many of the subjects that I submitted were BLPS of subjects I last paid close attention to on the order of a decade ago. They either had or should have had significant changes that I was not involved in editorially. I think I placed too much faith in added contributions with [[WP:IC]]s. I think I sort of felt if all the added stuff had ICs, it was an article that was probably up to snuff, which is not really a valid check. My process was flawed and that was a sort of a problem.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 05:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
:#{{tq|Although I think many of my nominations might have been more kindly reviewed under a favorable light, they were reviewed at a time when I had upset a lot of active GA reviewers}} To be more specific, do you believe e.g. [[Talk:Heath Irwin/GA1]] would have passed or had a significantly improved chance of passing had you not "upset a lot of active GA reviewers" at the time? Are there specific failed GANs you believe would not have been failed had you not "upset a lot of active GA reviewers"?
:#:There was definitely a time when the current version of [[Heath Irwin]] would have passed as is. For an offensive lineman who has not met with [[Pro Bowl]]-level or [[Super Bowl]]-level success, his article has some heft. I have had hundreds of successful GAs and don't remember a quickfail. I may have had some though, but I doubt I have had even 1 per 100 nominations if I have had any. A huge percentage of my GAs are American football and basketball related. So, I feel that I do have an understanding of what is a GA-caliber article for these sports. If there is a new 2024 standard for GA articles, I am not familiar with it. To my recollection, [[WP:WIAGA]] seems relatively unchanged. I use to be a lot more active with football nominations. 10 or 15 years ago when I was more active with football nominations, my rep might have kept me from having a nom quickfailed in the past and helped with some promotions. I concede that the percentage of football reviewers who even know me from Adam nowadays is much smaller. Nonetheless, I can see the patience that I have had as a reviewer at [[Talk:3:16 game/GA1]] for an article that was not well formed and immediately nomed at [[WP:AFD]] when I began my review. I am also aware of the skill and patience of many reviewers. I believe that there are many reviewers who would have had the patience and skill to coax me into recrafting [[Heath Irwin]] as a GA.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
:#:Skill in this sense is meant to be a combination of wikipedia institutional expertise and subject matter expertise.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 12:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
:#:I mentioned above that only one of my recent DYK creations met with the quickfail hatchet. In the past, I have presented several precollegiate athletes for GAN. I believe myself to have been one of, if not, the groundbreaker on producing pre-collegiate basketball GAs. When I started producing a lot of pre-collegiate basketball (and football) GAs over a decade ago many of them may have been a bit longer than [[Olivia Olson (basketball)]]. In some regards, I still was quite surprised that Olson was quickfailed. I find it hard to believe that you could expect so much more than was presented for this subject that what was presented was so remote from that expectation that it deserved a quickfail.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 06:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
:#::You've been informed many times that high school athletes have to meet much higher standards for notability, otherwise we would have articles on literally every DI and DII football recruit. We sometimes don't even consider NFL draftees notable despite their garnering national coverage. This article is sourced almost exclusively to local and non-independent or primary media hype, which per NSPORT do not contribute to notability at least partly because they inherently fail to demonstrate breadth and depth of coverage and are routine for the topic. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 08:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
:#:::[[User:JoelleJay]], to be more specific to this article. [[WP:LOCAL]]'s nutshell summary states: "This page in a nutshell: An article about a local place or person may be created if there is enough referenced information to make it encyclopedic." Furthermore, although like all pre-collegiate athletes Olson does not meet [[WP:NHOOPS]], further up that page [[WP:SPORTBASIC]] says "A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Furthermore, in regard to the numerous discussions regarding pre-collegiate athletes and this issue of local vs. national coverage, the general agreement was that only a very few and possibly a singular national level source would suffice to meet this standard. In this case we have [chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://playeroftheyear.gatorade.com/poy/assets/writable/84707/2024_GK_OOlson.pdf Gatorade.com], [https://michigan.rivals.com/news/five-star-point-guard-olivia-olson-commits-to-michigan Rivals.com], [https://www.aol.com/news/state-top-senior-girls-basketball-145400425.html AOL.com] and [https://www.si.com/fannation/bringmethesports/mn-high-school-sports/2-minnesota-girls-basketball-stars-named-mcdonalds-all-americans Sports Illustrated albeit a locally targeted offshoot]. With that support a QF was quite surprising. I don't think I have had a pre-collegiate athlete nomination with two or more national articles fail (let alone quickfail) in the past. It would not have been unreasonable for a patient reviewer to ask me if I could beef up the international section and personal life.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 12:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
:#::::I and others have pointed you to [[Wikipedia:YOUNGATH]] several times. <br>Gatorade is obviously not an independent source, the AOL piece is from the Star Tribune, the Rivals source is the offshoot specific to Michigan sports, and the SI piece is as you say a local offshoot. None of these are sufficient. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 16:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
:#::::: <small>FWIW, not all local sources should be discounted, especially major papers like the ''Star Tribune''. The only requirement is that it needs to be "[[WP:YOUNGATH|clearly beyond routine coverage]]" – though I admit I haven't analyzed the sources. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 16:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)</small>
:#::::::Just dropping into this subthread to add that GA reviews don't take a position on notability. If there isn't sigcov in reliable sources it may be quite hard to write a GA-review-passing article, but at no point is the reviewer asked to make a notability call. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 18:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
:#:::::::What? The [[WP:GAN/I#R1|instructions]] for reviewers: {{tq|Ensure all articles meet [[Wikipedia:PG|Wikipedia policies and guidelines]] as expected of any article, including [[Wikipedia:NPOV|neutral point of view]], [[Wikipedia:V|verifiability]], [[Wikipedia:NOR|no original research]], and [[Wikipedia:N|notability]].}} [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 21:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
:#::::::::It isn't one of the criteria, and you'll find it explicitly listed at [[WP:GACN#Beyond the scope]]. AfD, not GAN, is the place to decide notability. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 22:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
:#:::::::::It's not one of the criteria, but it is explicitly in the instructions for GAN reviewers so there should be an expectation of notability. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 22:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
:#::::::::::{{reply to|JoelleJay}} It was added without consensus when the same wording was added the nomination instructions. Discussions on the GA talk page have generally held that notability is not part of a GA review and should be handled at [[WP:AFD]]. [[User:Rjjiii|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Rjj<sup>iii</sup></span>]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii#top|talk]]) 05:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
:#:::::::Indeed. On occasion FACs are queried re notability. In principle, there is no reason why an FA couldn't be AfDed. I don't know if this has ever happened. [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 19:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
:#::::::::It has! I recall at least one. A baseball player, I think? Nominated by its main author, actually. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 20:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
:#:::::::::{{ping|Gog the Mild|Asilvering}} I believe you are thinking of [[Lewis (baseball)]] ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis (baseball) (2nd nomination)|AfD]], [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lewis (baseball)/archive1|FAR]]). [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 20:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
:#::::::::::Yes, that's it for sure. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 20:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
:#::::::::[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (2nd nomination)]]. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 01:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
:#{{tq|It would be fair to all to remove all nominations stemming from my historical DYK activity, but nominations related to recent editorial efforts would probably benefit WP}} Which specific GANs do you stand by? Which specific GANs should be withdrawn?
:– [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 14:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
::Just a quick comment based on Teratix's #4, I've removed that set of nominations from the GAN queue (i.e. nominations that you haven't edited substantively in over a year, and that hadn't been reviewed yet). If you, or anyone else, thinks I hit a false positive, you are of course welcome to revert. [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 18:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Aside from those articles that I have created or 5xed in the last 6 months or so, there are not too many that I can really stand solidly behind with confidence. Given the time between my past DYKs and now, I have to develop an understanding of how GAN evaluates formerly prominent athletes who have been less interesting for quite some time. Basically, anything that I have not worked on in the last 6 months is a candidate for removal.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 06:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
:If I may add one question. You seem to apologize for nominating a large slate of underprepared GA noms. Can you also talk to your behaviour towards editors, where you failed to assume good faith, and what you would do differently in the future? [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 18:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
::WP is a community of people with different backgrounds, interests, expertises, skills, and roles. We are all here to help present knowledge to the world. It certainly works best if we always assume good faith. As I have stated above, I get a bit competitive about the cup. If I could turn back the clock (now that I am reassessing my overlycompetitive nature), I would have taken the CUP less seriously, which in turn would have caused me to be less in your face. I think I am having something akin to a WP midlife crisis in which my worth as a WPian is tied up in making the finals of the CUP. I am no longer one of the great editors and need to stop competing with ghosts of my past. Trying to figure out how to play the game to make the finals the way that I did was not fair to other editors who were working hard to reduce the GAN backlog, to achieve their own success in the CUP, to maintain the integrity of GA, and to keep things going. What I should have done is just participated in the CUP with things I had worked on recently. In the future, all of my GANs will have at least a recent flourish of activity or a solid reaffirmation based on close inspection.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
::These aren't recent, but it may be relevant that Tony has had issues at ANI about bad faith accusations [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive811#Continued policy violations from User:TonyTheTiger at WT:FOUR (close requested)|in 2013 where he was indeffed]] and [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#User:TonyTheTiger gaming AfD, bludgeoning and personal attacks against multiple editors|in 2014 where he was warned]]. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#324717">The</span><span style="color:#45631f">big</span><span style="color:#547826">ugly</span><span style="color:#68942f">alien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:sienna">talk</span>]]) 19:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
:::{{re|TonyTheTiger}} Do you have any intention of apologising directly to the editors who you cast aspersions on? Further, if a new editor behaved as you did, do you believe they would have been offered the leniency this discussion has afforded you? '''[[User:5225C|5225<sub>C</sub>]]'''&nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 12:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
::::Above when I stated "My apologies to all of the hardworking GA reviewers and all participants that keep the GAN system going. I apologize to all CUP contestants and judges. In addition, I apologize for all the time that I took away from other activities by necessitating discussant activity here and elsewhere on WP. Furthermore, my competitive juices also warrant an apology to several DYK parties as well for actions not at issue here, but not so remote from them either." it was certainly intended to include them. If any of them do not feel covered by that statement, I do apologize for casting aspersions on anyone who felt thusly treated and anyone in any way offended by my CUP related behavior. In regards to leniency, I believe anyone brought up at [[WP:ANI]] is allowed to make a statement. I did not mean to abuse the system or seek special treatement by making mine, if that is the perception. I believe a new editor would be allowed to make any statement that they want.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 12:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::That's a blanket apology Tony, not a direct apology which is what is owed to Generalissima, Teratix, the editors at WT:CUP and on your talk page, and probably elsewhere. This is not a matter of them "feeling thusly treated", it's a matter of you having made direct and explicit allegations of bad faith on their part. Perhaps you can present your mass nomination as a misjudgement or misunderstanding, but the statements you made towards other editors cannot be so excused. Regarding my second question, let me rephrase it: had you been a new editor who flooded GAN with obviously un-passably bad articles and then proceeded to make numerous allegations of bad faith against other editors, do you believe you would have been afforded the opportunity to continue editing with an ANI discussion being the most serious consequence for your actions? '''[[User:5225C|5225<sub>C</sub>]]'''&nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 13:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::I took a long time to make an extensive statement because I am trying to remain level headed. I meant to make an apology that was sincere to all individuals whom I behaved inappropriately with. I feel the heat getting turned up a bit here and I am not trying to do [[Twelve-step_program#Twelve_Steps|steps 8 and 9 of the 12 steps]]. This is especially so as I see the line forming below for #MeToo apologies. In my time on WP, I have offended many (surely dozens). In the past week, I have offended several. Wrongly, I took offense to extremely negative reviews. I do not have any right to positive reviews regardless of my process, role, contribution, or performance. All reviewers have a right to give any review that they feel they can justify. All reviews are largely subjective, and I can not disprove any review. So, I must accept all reviews assuming good faith by their reviewers. Thus, all derisive responses to individual reviewers and even secondary discussants beg for apologies. Derisive and possibly hurtful statements to Teratix are at the top of my list of things I mean to apologize for and I do so here directly. Generalissima is likely the leading scorer in CUP points for quickfailing my reviews, but only one of these was particularly contentious to me. I actually think many of these points were well-deserved. Regardless of my contentions (is that a word) regarding any single review, I need to remain professional. I went beyond any acceptable manner of decorum with Generalissima. In fact, my interactions with Generalissima are correctly a huge part of an intervention like this. I apologize for the lack of respect conveyed in my interactions with Generalissima.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 04:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::I too had hoped for a direct apology. Tony, you may want to read the lead of [[non-apology apology]] and the section {{section link|non-apology apology#Ifpology}}. The way you apologized is quite common, but not that convincing. I'm still hoping we can end this discussion with you continuing to contribute to GAN, but me at least need to be convinced you are willing to mend trust. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 18:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::I don't recall interacting with you at any other page in relation to this $#!T storm. I went back about 10 days in your contributions to double check. By my investigation our first interactaion in what is at issue was 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC). So are you asking for a direct apology to you? Or are you seconding 5225C above? -[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 04:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::: I was seconding 5225C above. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 07:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
* Since following the thread is already a tad confusing, moving this below, but re Tony's in-line replies to the list above:
*: {{green|GAN is an agnostic process that does not regard how many are nominated or reviewed by any one editor. The 70ish number is not a problem on its face.}}
* You've been told this repeatedly already, but just to say so again: Yes, it is a problem, on its face. Past a certain point, it's not on everyone else to explain why it's a problem to your personal satisfaction, you just need to accept that it is. It would have been a problem even if all your mass noms were perfect, no notes, ship it productions. It is a far worse problem when - as you yourself admitted you knew - you were seeking some "polish" from nomination review. Just as AFD isn't a way to demand other editors do cleanup, GAN isn't a way to demand other editors fix up an article for you. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 14:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
**[[User:SnowFire]], my point was that I felt it was the quality of the submissions more than the quantity. That was of course only my opinion. It may be that the quantity was more of a problem than the quality and I was wrong. It is likely that each individual here assigns a different weight to how much of this issue is related to quantity and how much is related to quality. As I have stated, in the past I have had dozens of simultaneous nominations without issue. But as we are here there is some element of the problem related to quantity and some related to quality. Clearly you assign a higher proportion of the problem to quantity.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 04:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
*** ''Both'' quantity ''and'' quality were problematic. It's just that you seem to grudgingly accept that the quality was an issue, but still don't seem to get that the quantity was an issue, too. And frankly I'm skeptical that your previous activities were truly "without issue" given that you've proven not particularly perceptive to the time of other editors.
*** Hypothetical situation: an eccentric millionaire reveals that he's paid a team of independent researchers to create 1,000 new articles on notable topics, that are mostly about GA quality or close. This person is ''awesome''. They deserve a barnstar, a Signpost article, a shout-out, whatever. However, the contracts are up so the researchers can't really do any good peer reviews themselves. Should our millionaire - who has done a fantastic service to Wikipedia (just as you have) - submit all 1,000 of these articles to GAN, because it's "an agnostic process that does not regard how many are nominated or reviewed by any one editor"? The answer is ''emphatically not''. The awesome part was the GA-level articles themselves, not the green icon which readers neither recognize nor care about. GAN is useful as a mechanism of trading around peer reviews and second opinions, not about classifying the very best articles, and our millionaire can't possibly do their side of the equation for 1,000 articles. Which is fine. It just means that GA status is not in the cards. Basically, even in the scenario where the articles you nominated were in significantly better shape, this sort of mass nom is not a thing. The "reward" of your work is the articles having better content. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 05:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
***:Personally as both a GA contributor and a millionaire, I consider your hypothetical to be ridiculous.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 11:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
***::I'm just taking what you wrote seriously and where that would go in an extreme situation. You've completely dodged responding to the merits of the question - you ''still'' think that nominating 70 or 1,000 or whatever articles at once is no problem? I guess I should have listened to my own advice and not bothered to attempt to even convince you. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 14:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
***::You dig yourself a deeper hole with every reply here, Tony. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 22:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
***:There's an [[Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Proposals_to_address_the_backlog|ongoing discussion about ways of improving the GA process]] to better cope with the growing backlog of reviews. One idea is to formalise a limit of 20 nominations per person and it's surprising that this hasn't been done before. A QPQ system is obviously needed too. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 09:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
***::I already linked Asshole John rule above to you. If someone is abusing the process, just ban them from the process, which you opposed above. Don't create bespoke, hacky rules just for them that also impact others. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 14:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
***:::These are not bespoke, hacky rules; they seem quite natural and sensible. And they are used successfully elsewhere. The FA process limits nominators to one at a time. And DYK has a QPQ process which seems quite productive. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 17:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
***::::DYK has a QPQ system that requires them to argue over like a fourth of hooks 3 hours before they go on the main page because everyone pumps out QPQs to get it over with. It'd be even worse at GAN, where there's a significant time investment for a good review. Every person who doesn't actually want to do a review will just tick their way through a template and the end result will be even more strain on reviewers because now they have to check every else's work too. [[User:AryKun|AryKun]] ([[User talk:AryKun|talk]]) 20:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
***:::::DYK has a system of triple-checking so naturally there's a further round of issues when set-builders and promoters make their additional checks. The GA process doesn't make such double-checks immediately because there's no big impact immediately. But there's a [[WP:GAR|reassessment]] process which currently has a queue of articles awaiting further review. All such processes are naturally imperfect per the [[Wikipedia:General disclaimer|disclaimers]]. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 10:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
***::::::Reassessment of poor reviews is not the solution. After a poor review, an opportunity has been wasted. The GA process is good when an article gets an in-depth review that makes it even better. Encouraging checkbox QPQs takes away the best thing about the process. Getting a shiny green badge is and should be secondary to the improvement to the encyclopedia that results. More shiny green badges is not itself an improvement to the encyclopedia. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 19:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
*In the back of my mind, I am wondering if this all has anything to do with my decision to do a GAN review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3:16_game&oldid=1214023874 this malformed article with no infobox and a prominent maintenance tag] to turn it into a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3:16_game&oldid=1216053622 Good article]. Were the subsequent quickfails of my works and the nomination of the article at [[WP:AFD]] a vocalization of disapproval of my decision to commit to doing such a review. I.e., is there an effort to make it known that we don't want people to commit to that type of improvement.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 17:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
*:You know Tony, I really thought with your statements above that you might kind of be getting it, but this accusation of a bad faith conspiracy shows you obviously aren't. &spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 18:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
*:??????????????????? – <code style="background:#333;border:1px solid #999">[[User:Hilst|<span style="color:#fff;text-shadow:0 0 5px #fff">Hilst</span>]] [[User talk:Hilst|<span style="color:#090">&lbrack;talk&rbrack;</span>]]</code> 20:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
*::took the words right out of my mouth. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 22:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
*::ditto <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#618A3D">... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">sawyer</span>]] * <small>he/they</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">talk</span>]]</span> 01:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
*:I don't even understand what the purpose of the conspiracy would be here... to discourage high-quality GA reviewing? Why would anyone want to do that? My motivation in raising an issue with your nominations, for the record, was solely to keep morale high at the March GAN backlog drive, per my role as coordinator. —[[User:Ganesha811|Ganesha811]] ([[User talk:Ganesha811|talk]]) 01:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
*::I appreciated Tony's guidance and patience on the 3:16 article. Someone sent the article to AfD during the GA review and he even waited for it to conclude without a QF. I do not write many sports articles so TTT's knowledge was needed to get the article in shape. I hope you all stop parsing his words and stop looking for him to lay prostrate before this assembly. TTT is a good editor who tried to win a contest; at his core, from what I see, he improves the project and encourages others. Thanks for your help TTT! I hope to work with you again. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 01:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
*Should I assume that this discussion means that we expect people to quickfail such articles regardless of whether they have the skill and patience to guide the article toward GA?-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 18:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
*:We ''should'' presume that they are different skillsets, and that it is entirely possible to gauge whether or not an article is fit for GA status without necessarily being inclined to take an article to GA status. You've been around far too long to fall into the delusion that only some Consecrated Elite has what it takes to make such determinations. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 22:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
*:{{u|TonyTheTiger}} - by my reading of the situation, the sanctions have nothing to do with 3:16 game. It’s really other parts of your behaviour you have to improve. It’s not about other editors. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 01:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
*:Frankly, I would be ''more'' likely to quickfail an article from an experienced nominator who possesses "skill and patience". For a newbie, I'm usually happy to give them some latitude, work closely with them to improve the article, and help them go through the process to understand the GA criteria. But once someone has 100+ GAs under their belt, I expect that they will have the criteria down pat and ensure that the article basically meets them ''before'' they nominate it for GA. That applies doubly when the experienced nominator is mass-nominating old articles without re-checking them in order to score points in a competition. —[[User:Ganesha811|Ganesha811]] ([[User talk:Ganesha811|talk]]) 01:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
*::My ears are open. So even though I might take on pitiful GAN presentations, it does not make it OK for me to present clearly flawed nominations and you expect more from me in my own nominations and expect careful consideration before such nominations.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 17:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::Yes. Particularly when you make 60 nominations at once! I expect any experienced nominator to make sure their articles meet the GA criteria *before* nominating them. The reviewer then checks the article against the criteria with their own judgment, and suggests tweaks and improvements. This is not my opinion alone; this is our policy as stated at [[WP:GAN/I#N1]]. If you or I, as experienced reviewers, choose to give newbies a little leeway to learn the process, that doesn't mean we get to ignore the rules for our own nominations. —[[User:Ganesha811|Ganesha811]] ([[User talk:Ganesha811|talk]]) 18:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
===Someone please review this thread===
This thread has been open for 11 days now, with 72 people participating. TonyTheTiger hasn't edited this thread since 30 March 2024 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1216385334]). I have been checking in on this thread periodically (but haven't actually participated in it), have noticed the activity here winding down, and seriously doubt that much of importance will change soon. I'd like to echo {{ping|Wizardman|p=}}'s [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1217111136 suggestion] to have someone uninvolved review this, make any appropriate actions, and close this thread. [[User talk:Relativity|<b style="border-radius:3em;padding:6px;background:#e82c52;color:white;">‍ Relativity </b>]]<span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left"></span> 00:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
 
== Thomas B forum-shopping, circumventing page ban, refusing to drop the stick ==
Line 1,333 ⟶ 1,030:
:Note that I am not involved in the Tim Hunt article, BLPN discussion, or this issue anywhere that I can tell. I don't think it's productive at this time to cast this as an "us vs them" situation. Rather, this should be looked at on its own merits. To me, the question is: Does Thomas B's conduct help or hurt the encyclopedia? In my mind, it hurts it by draining the other editors' time and energy over an issue that seems to have already reached a consensus. I believe he's acting in good faith (honestly trying so solve what he views as a BLP issue), but we all need to accept that consensus is sometimes against us and move on. You may disagree that the harm outweighs the good, and that's also completely valid; answering that question is a judgement call, not a matter of fact.
:I'd also posit that those editors not engaging on BLPN does not remove the problem; if nobody dissents to Thomas B there, it seems to me that a new consensus could be formed there which is not truly representative of the community's opinions. Maybe it wouldn't happen, but the fear of having to go back and sort out the two opposing consenses makes doing nothing less palatable. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 23:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 
== [[User:Barr Theo]] and bot-like mass creation of articles ==
 
[[User:Barr Theo]]'s only contributions have been to create many new articles in batches, often several in less than one minute, and always at timestamps ending in :59 or :00. This pattern of mass-creation, as well as the total unresponsiveness on their talk page regarding their behavior, makes me believe they might be running an unauthorized bot creating these articles for them. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotıċ <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:30deg;color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 01:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 
:*'''Blocked''' until he explains this bot-like activity. [[Manuel María Smith]], [[Manuel Rodríguez Arzuaga]], [[Manuel de la Sota]], [[Manuel del Castillo]] and [[Manuel Gallego]] were all created within the exact same minute. There's no way those were done manually (or is it [[WP:ASSPERSIANS|Manuelly]]?) <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 02:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
:*:{{tq|(or is it [[WP:ASSPERSIANS|Manuelly]]?)}} Boooooo. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 04:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
:*::Bot-like? Or butt-like? [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 06:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
:*:Hi, I am [[User:Barr Theo|Barr Theo]]. I am currently unlogged because I do not want to break my "insane streak of creations for March", which is also the reason why I did not answer [[User:Chaotic Enby|Chaotic Enby]]. (The last time I used an IP address was in 2022 by the way, and this occasion is an exception that I do not want to repeat).
:*:Regarding these wild accusations of bot usage, I must say that I am very disappointed with your conclusions... No, I do not use "unauthorized bots", I simply create the articles that I have scheduled for the day and then wait for :59 to click on publish, usually at 23:59. Why do I do it? Because I am obsessed with details (grouping individuals by name, such as Luises and Manuels) and with symmetry (I always edit in pairs, and very often two or four pages per day), and also because I am a perhaps slightly stupid and crazy. But one thing that I am not is a criminal and I have never used "unauthorized bots"; in fact, I do not even know how to do that and I am not even sure if there is any kind of bot that can do what I have been doing.
:*:Perhaps my insane levels of consistency and tiredness lead some of you to believe that I am being aided by machines, or that I am machine myself, but I ain't. I am just a human being, a very relentless and determined one. Sorry, Chaotic Enby, but there are no shortcuts for greatness.
:*:Now that this miserdustanding has been clarified and now that I have explained by "bot-like activity", I need to be unblocked as soon as possible because my schedule tells me that I have SIX new pages to create today (two of which are already done since 21 March, but that I will only publish at :59 of today).
:*:Kind regards (waiting for 14:59 to upload this). [[Special:Contributions/2001:8A0:7E53:DF00:454:DF3B:EAA5:BA5D|2001:8A0:7E53:DF00:454:DF3B:EAA5:BA5D]] ([[User talk:2001:8A0:7E53:DF00:454:DF3B:EAA5:BA5D|talk]]) 14:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
::::Block evasion, isn't going to help, in fact that makes the situation worse. {{tq|my schedule tells me that I have SIX new pages to create today}} what schedule? [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 15:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ping|The Wordsmith}}, self admitted block evasion above. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 15:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
::::I see it, thanks. I've responded at [[User talk:Barr Theo]] and blocked the /64. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 15:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barr_Theo&diff=prev&oldid=1216190435 {{tq|I really didn't wanna break my streak nor use IP addresses due to my previous problems with multi-accounts}}] doesn't fill me with enthusiasm. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 17:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::I'd guess they are referring to their previous unblock conditions: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABarr_Theo&diff=1160765567&oldid=1160703744]. &ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:8093:5F01:91C5:7125:1875:DAC1|2804:F1...75:DAC1]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:8093:5F01:91C5:7125:1875:DAC1|talk]]) 22:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
*As much as {{u|Barr Theo}}'s explanation here and on their talk might be unusual, I don't see reason not to believe it. Unless there are any substantive issues with the pages that would warrant administrative intervention (and nobody has raised any), I don't think we should be keeping them blocked, and I don't think we should be weighing their evasion against them, since all they've been doing is appealing, albeit in the wrong place. {{u|The Wordsmith}}, are you okay with an unblock? --[[User:Blablubbs|Blablubbs]] ([[User talk:Blablubbs|talk]]) 17:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
*:I mean, they admit they're just creating/posting these articles rapid fire to meet some sort of self-imposed schedule. And then failing to respond to inquiries on their Talk page when people asked what they were doing. If nothing else, they need to acknowledge that this is a collaborative editing environment and just ignoring concerns is a bad idea.
*:More concerning, this isn't the first time they've resorted to sockpuppetry. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 17:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
*::{{tq|I mean, they admit they're just creating/posting these articles rapid fire to meet some sort of self-imposed schedule.}}
*::I don't think people's "internal schedules" are something we should be concerned with (or concerned by), provided that their scheduling doesn't lead to problematic ''behaviour''. The problematic behaviour raised here so far is them not responding to [[User talk:Barr Theo#Mass creation of articles|a single query]]. I agree that's something they need to change in the future, but it's not a what I'd consider a major offence, and neither is their logging out to respond here. If they had done (or were to do) anything other than trying to engage with community concerns while logged out, it'd be a very different story, but they haven't. This is what I'd essentially consider a "good faith" SOCK violation, as opposed to "proper" socking.
*::All that said, I'm a bit concerned by the "line-pulling" referred to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barr_Theo&diff=prev&oldid=1216209252 in response to The Wordsmith's query], and concur that this should probably be cleared up before proceeding. --[[User:Blablubbs|Blablubbs]] ([[User talk:Blablubbs|talk]]) 23:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
*:I don't really care about the block evasion, since it clearly wasn't intended to actually be ''evasive''. I see we've had an explanation about what this project is for, and I find it unusual but plausible. I'm satisfied that there's no unauthorized botting happening. I've asked one more question, about whether the text for these articles is original or translated/copied from somewhere (which might require attribution or checking for copyvio). If that's answered, and {{u|Barr Theo}} agrees to be reasonably responsive to the questions/concerns of other editors in the future, I'm fine with any admin unblocking if I don't get to it first. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 18:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
*::The block evasion was, however, against an explicit condition in the June unblock by {{U|Seraphimblade}}, noted by the other IP above: {{tq|I'm unblocking your account subject to a one-account restriction. Specifically, you may not operate any account except for this one, and may not intentionally edit while logged out. If you accidentally edit while you are logged out, you may correct that by immediately claiming credit for the edit using this account.}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABarr_Theo&diff=1160765567&oldid=1160703744 diff]). First they requested unblock while logged out, then they requested unblock on your, The Wordsmith's, talk page while logged out, then they posted here while logged out. I am also considerably less than impressed by their putting an "insane streak" above even responding to a query (and by the hyperbole about "criminality" when they are blocked for their apparent disregard of site rules). [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 23:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::Good lord people, this “socking” served the purpose of answering the question asked of him, in the venue in which it was raised, with full clarity about who it was and why. Would it have been bureaucratically nicer if he had posted exactly the same question on his talk-page and then asked someone to copy it here? Yes, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy! [[Special:Contributions/100.36.106.199|100.36.106.199]] ([[User talk:100.36.106.199|talk]]) 11:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
*If we're going to believe this whole thing about posting at XX:59, I'd like to hear a believable reason for where it came from. They've been here about years and have over 2000 edits. Yet the swathe of XX:59 postings only really begins in March this year, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1212759075&oldid=1212660619&title=Iberia_Football_Club# here]. There are a few earlier waves of edits in March and October 2023, but basically, no pattern is apparent between [[Special:diff/1092298342|June 2023]] edit and [[Special:diff/1160947083|June 2023]], almost year later. I think a pretty convincing explanation is due. My edit summary reads {{tq|bizarre verging on the trolling}}; we should be mindful of blocking the latter while accepting the former. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:black">——Serial Number 54129</span>]] 13:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
*:The "swathe of XX:59 postings" did not began in March this year. The first time I did it was in October 2022 in [[User:Clenixon|my old account]]. Furthermore, I only really do the XX:59 stuff during "insane streaks of creations", just like in October 2022 or in March 2024. I hope this was a convincing explanation. [[User:Barr Theo|Barr Theo]] ([[User talk:Barr Theo|talk]]) 20:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
*Now that I'm back from my [[Easter|holiday]], I see the user is still blocked and there are lingering questions over the block evasion as well as copyright/attribution. However, my original block was just a temporary indef when it looked like there was an unauthorized bot creating articles of unknown origin. It is clear that is not the case, so unless there are objections I intend to unblock today. I'll say that an unblock would be solely for the botting and without prejudice, so any other block evasion or copyright/attribution issues can be handled normally without it being considered [[WP:WHEEL|wheel warring]]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 17:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
* I have reviewed this user's articles a number of times as a member of NPP. They always have appeared excellent and of subjects we need. Are we seriously blocking them for producing high-quality content too quickly? That's plainly ridiculous. Unless I'm missing something, Barr Theo should be unblocked. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 16:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
** This seems to be because he posted articles at the same time each day due to a schedule? My response: so what? I did something similar last month, creating one article every day. If anything, I think a barnstar is warranted, not an indefinite block! [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 16:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
**:In this case, it was creating multiple articles (many being BLPs), in alphabetical order, in the same minute. Creating one article per day is prolific but normal, creating four articles in a minute looks indistinguishable from a bot. If it was a bot, that creates issues of where the content was coming from, since bots don't write original articles that aren't AI garbage. Now that he's explained, I'm satisfied there is no botting going on so I've '''unblocked''' the editor. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 17:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
**::"Many being [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|BLPs]]??" I created 74 pages in March and not a SINGLE one was a BLP. Not one! In fact, as I already told you, my project is about the [[Football in Spain|Spanish football]] at the turn of the century (1890–1930), so naturally, everyone who is in its 20s around 1890–1930 is obviously already dead. The last time I created a BLP was [[Óscar Ramón]] on 9 February. Another proof that this was all just a giant misunderstanding.
**::But anyways, thank you once again for your collaboration and communication. I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors.
**::Kind regards. [[User:Barr Theo|Barr Theo]] ([[User talk:Barr Theo|talk]]) 20:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
**:::Apologies, I was mistaken on them being BLPs. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 20:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 
== [[User:Graywalls]] reported by [[User:72.83.72.31]]==
Line 1,706 ⟶ 1,366:
:Thanks for your message but where was the consensus that it was not notable? I have not seen any discussion about it in the talk page. I do not understand this assumption of yours since beginning. It is your belief that somebody agreed with you that the article is not notable. Apart from you and me no body spent this much time in this article. You have complicated it by repeated speedy deletions or draft moves. In addition to this why is conduct and collaborative editing coming into picture here. At one point in time you created confusion by maintaining two drafts ("one clearly being ready for Main (but with the wrong title (without The), and the subject clearly notable, and one redirect") of same article with only your messages, all over, I have not seen any other editor agreeing with you on any specific point about non-notability. It was all your monopoly throughout, and until the film got released you kept on redirecting and drafting. These 5 days is a waste of time and energy of all editors involved. Complicating simple issues is not expected from a top experienced editor like you. so I would request your kind and respected self never address a similar issue in future. Thank you so much for being my guru.[[User:Zolgensma|Zolgensma]] ([[User talk:Zolgensma|talk]]) 06:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
* {{User:Mushy Yank/TOInotula}} To consider it "unreliable" in the present case is therefore not what the current consensus has established, and especially to state that {{tq|[[WP:TOI]] is considered generally reliable to unreliable throughout Wikipedia, but when it comes to film related articles, we take it as unreliable (per [[WP:ICTFSOURCES]])}} is thus particularly incorrect.-[[User talk:Mushy Yank|<span style="font-family:American Typewriter;color:#00123F">My, oh my! </span>]][[User:Mushy Yank|<span style="color:#F0CCAA;font-family:American Typewriter;font-size:13px;">(Mushy Yank)</span>]] 15:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 
== Inappropriate removal of NPOV tag by JayBeeEll ==
 
:<small>I have restored this from the archive: there is a concrete proposal on the table on which many people have !voted; it requires administrative attention. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 20:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)</small>
 
{{ping|S Marshall}} closed a controversial RFC today at [[Talk:Tim Hunt]], see [[Talk:Tim Hunt#RfC: 2015 remarks]]. Whilst acknowledging there appeared to be a consensus, he reminded editors that consensus can't over-rule [[:meta:Founding principles|founding principles]], the [[WP:5P2|second pillar]], and [[WP:NPOV|core content policy]] and quoting the amplification on his talk page these ''cannot be overruled by any talk page consensus however strong''. He later emphasised this on his own talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AS_Marshall&diff=1213538308&oldid=1213534477] in response to a query [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AS_Marshall&diff=1213522530&oldid=1213355874].
 
Judging by that query, it appears that the key point in the closure was being ignored; namely [[WP:PROPORTION]]. Shortly thereafter, and before any reply, an edit was made to [[Tim Hunt]] which appeared to ignore the closure[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&diff=1213521275&oldid=1208829572]. Noting the history of edit warring at the article, I chose to add a <nowiki>{{npov}}</nowiki> tag and start a talk page discussion. I felt that any revert of a bold edit would result in an edit war and had no intention to revert war.
 
My tag was removed by JayBeeEll [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&diff=1213538744&oldid=1213533989] with the edit summary "Don't be silly", I restored the tag and it was once again removed by JayBeeEll [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&diff=next&oldid=1213539288] with the edit summary "Yes sure let's see how this turns out", which appears to be an intention to revert war. The comment in the talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATim_Hunt&diff=1213539531&oldid=1213535026] in response to my concerns and the unnecessary 3RR warning on my talk page appears to confirm [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWee_Curry_Monster&diff=1213539690&oldid=1212590941] that.
 
On the face of it, it appears that the closure is being ignored to impose a local consensus that conflicts with core policies. As such I would suggest that the tag should remain until the closure is fully addressed. On a side note, I remain concerned about the toxic nature of any discussion in that talk page presently. Reluctantly bringing it here for further review. Please note I will not be available for a couple of days due to personal commitments. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]</span><sub>[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]</sub> 17:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 
:The behavior displayed by WCM is very similar to the behavior that led to [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1149#Tendentious_editing_by_Thomas_Basboll|this]] only one month ago; it is disappointing that he has not been able to accommodate himself to the fact that his view is a minority, both relative to WP editors and to the views represented in reliable sources. At least he stopped after a single round of edit-warring about the ridiculous tagging. As with Thomas B, my hope is that this can be settled by a change of behavior, without the need for any sanctions. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 18:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 
::I've no wish to comment on this ridiculous tag edit war, and I'd prefer to limit my involvement with the page to closing that one RfC, but I do want to say tempers are extremely frayed in this topic area and there's definitely scope for an uninvolved sysop to step in and restore order. Please.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 18:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
:::It would be a ridiculous edit war, were it not for the fact I refused to edit war over this. The fact remains that removing the tags in the way JayBeeEll did is counter to accepted policy. I would acknowledge {{ping|S Marshall}}'s comment that this situation desperately needs input from an uninvolved Sysop to restore order. I have been asking for that for weeks, the reference to the removal of Thomas Basboll, is exactly the point I wish to make. If editors are convinced they're right and there are enough of them make a fuss, they can remove what they see as an obstruction by lobbying loudly here. The edit war that editor attempted to start, and its clear that was his intention, was a repeat of the same tactics used previously. I have made no attempt to filibuster I simply tried to bring external opinion but that's pretty unlikely given the toxic nature of editing at present. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]</span><sub>[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]</sub> 18:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
::::The editing situation got much less toxic when you stopped participating for a few days; maybe you should try that again? Certainly it would be good for an uninvolved admin to tell you the same thing everyone else on this thread has said. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 19:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::Point to anything I've said that contributes to a toxic atmosphere. As for comments contributing to a toxic atmosphere[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&diff=1213538744&oldid=1213533989] {{tq|"Don't be silly}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&diff=next&oldid=1213539288] {{tq|"Yes sure let's see how this turns out"}} whilst edit warring to remove tags that encourage outside input. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]</span><sub>[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]</sub> 08:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
:{{tq|On the face of it, it appears that the closure is being ignored to impose a local consensus that conflicts with core policies.}}
:That's an extremely uncharitable reading of the closure, apparently because you just don't like the results. The close was finding that the RfC consensus narrowly found for inclusion, with a warning to follow guiding principles of the Wiki while doing so. ''That's it''. The rest of it is you projecting onto the closure and making vague, hand-wavy assertions that the close is against policy.
:Since you won't be available for a couple days anyway, I suggest you wait and see what proposed edits come from the RfC before making any further comments. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 22:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
::I at no point said the close was against policy, I actually think given the toxic atmosphere he was entering {{ping|S Marshall}} made a very good closure of that malformed RFC. The reminder that local consensus can't trump core policy seems to have fallen on deaf ears it seems. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]</span><sub>[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]</sub> 08:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
:::[[WP:CON]] has by definition got to be aligned with the [[WP:PAG]]s since it embodies "a process of compromise <u>while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines</u>". So if @[[User:S Marshall|S Marshall]]'s close is "very good", it follows it must have correctly divined consensus, which you now need to accept. If however, you think the close has arrived at a problematic [[WP:LOCALCON]] you need to initiate a close review. Shit or get off the pot. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 11:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
::::Precisely this. WCM, you can't have it both ways: you can't claim the close "trumps core policy", while acknowledging it was a good close. The close in fact emphasizes that any proposed changes have to adhere to core policy. It seems you're claiming that the finding of inclusion ''inherently'' violates policy, so which is it? — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 16:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::At no point did I say the close trumps policy, that's your strawman. The closer clearly refers to core policies and makes it plain that they can't be overridden by a local consensus. He also singled out that I and others couldn't be ignored because we were making {{tq|well-reasoned objections to this outcome, and I have to have regard to their objections because they're based in policy}} further adding {{tq|While editors are implementing option 1 and option 2A, they should have regard to core content policy, and specifically [[WP:PROPORTION]]}}. It's clear from this comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AS_Marshall&diff=1213522530&oldid=1213355874] there is no intention to implement the full intention of the close {{tq|The view of myself, and I assume a lot of participants, is that [[WP:PROPORTION]] isn't terribly relevant}}. There is [[WP:TAG]] team of editors are acting in concert and per {{ping|S Marshall}}'s comment this situation desperately needs input from an uninvolved Sysop to restore order. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]</span><sub>[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]</sub> 17:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::''sigh'' I tried, but if you're intent on digging a [[First law of holes|hole]], I can't stop you. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 19:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
:If you aren't available for the next couple of days, why the hell are you opening an ANI thread? "Reluctantly bringing it here" yeah right. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 16:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
* WCM's editing regarding the Tim Hunt article has been as tendentious as Basboll's in staunchly refusing to [[Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_"get_the_point"|get the point]] regarding the fact that their viewpoint is a minority and continuing to [[WP:DEADHORSE|beat a dead horse]] and engage in [[WP:WIKILAWYERING]] in an attempt to fillibuster discussions regarding the issue, rather than just moving on. I would '''support a topic or page ban''' from Tim Hunt if WCM does not desist with his aggressive rejection of the talkpage consensus. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 20:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
*:Given that WCM has continued his disruption regarding the article, I firmly support a topic ban now. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 09:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
:::I haven't done any editing that would remotely be described as disruptive. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&diff=1215468029&oldid=1215465703] Any editing I do is immediately reverted, this was clearly constructive. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]</span><sub>[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]</sub> 12:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
::::Absolutely astonishing. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 17:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''support topic ban''' due the editor's apparent unwillingness to drop the stick and refusal to get the point of the RfC. I commented at the ANI thread where Thomas B was topic banned. Given the RfC I moved on and have not touched the article or the RfC. The level of name-calling on display at that article over an ancient ten-day kerfuffle in the bro-sphere easily matched the most acrimonious mutual accusations of genocide I have witnessed on Wikipedia. EE squared. I had never heard of Tim Hunt. He seems nice? But if the episode in question is included in the article -- and there seems no question that RS has covered it in immense detail - then the article should dispassionately state that Tim Hunt said what he said. This editor's contention that it should not (because the poor man nearly committed suicide over this) utterly lacks a grounding in policy, and no evidence was ever presented of this assertion either. It betrays an emotional investment in this incident that baffles me, frankly. I would hesitate to participate on the talk page due to this editor's past level of vitriol, and the time sink it again likely would become. I am not following this thread. If anyone has questions about what I just said, please ping me. [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 12:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
*:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tim_Hunt&diff=prev&oldid=1204016425] {{tq|I haven't gone down a rabbit hole over this because to me, he's just another misogynist who claims to be misunderstood. Most do.}} in your on words your motives are to expose another misogynist. I am quite astounded that you'd openly mock someone driven near to suicide. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]</span><sub>[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]</sub> 18:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
* I check back at this article after taking a break from it and find the RfC has been closed, consensus established and the article fixed accordingly. Great: the journey is over, the plane has landed, and the engines are turned off .... But oddly the whining sound continues as there's one editor who [[WP:IDHT|seemingly can't move on]]. If this continues sanctions may be appropriate. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 08:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
* Note that the other problem editor in this mix, who was page banned from [[Tim Hunt]], has now started beating the dead horse at BLPN.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1214799114] [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 07:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
*:I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish&diff=prev&oldid=1215140427 reported] this straight to the ban-implementing administrator this time, as this is an obvious attempt at [[WP:GAMING]], [[WP:STICK]], [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]]. I will remember to prefer broader topic bans next time. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 10:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
*::Given lack of response I guess this was the wrong venue. I won't be trying to get Thomas B sanctioned for this in particular any further, but should we post some sort of final warning to [[User talk:Thomas B]]? [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 10:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
*:... and today [[User:Thomas B]] still continues to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1215520494 post] about Tim Hunt on BLPN. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thomas_B&diff=prev&oldid=1214802498 This] earlier comment "{{tq|I won't be participating '''too actively'''}}" (bolding mine) indicates that the user is going to continue to disrupt. So we have to upgrade Thomas B's page ban to a topic ban ''at a minimum''. But given this user's stubborn, prolonged refusal to cease disruption, an additional block from the whole Wikipedia for a few months is needed as a deterrent, in my view. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 18:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
*::And now the BLPN discussion forum-shopped by Thomas B resulted in yet another editor getting [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#NewImpartial - BLP discussion touching GENSEX|dragged to ANI]]. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 13:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
*:I've started a new ANI thread to expand Thomas B's sanctions [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Thomas_B_forum-shopping,_circumventing_page_ban,_refusing_to_drop_the_stick]. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 20:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' topic ban, [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]], [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]] and other issues. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 11:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - Does this topic fall under GenSex? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*:The overall Tim Hunt article wouldn't but the section on the controversy would fall under a GENSEX topic ban, as they are "broadly construed". (So would this thread, I believe.) [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 04:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support topic ban''' for Wee Curry Monster. WCM had numerous opportunities to change course. All this has been sinking our time for over a month already. Since the editor is not willing to drop the stick, a sufficiently broad sanction is the only remaining solution. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 10:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support topic ban'''. Please somebody make it stop. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 17:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support topic ban''' per the really excruciating refusal to drop the stick or adjust behavior in any way. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 17:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' Pretty shameful episode for WP and ANI. [[WP:CIR]], and the lack of such competence is what created this mess. It's very clear that some editors pushed content, got an editor banned from the article, and opined in the RfC without first bothering to read the sources. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 18:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
*:{{ping|fiveby}} Your latest contribution on the talk-page is a bit cryptic, and invoking CIR here is bizarre, but I'm quite sure that if you were to participate in the constructive content discussions (i.e., the ones that don't involve WCM or Thomas B) the result would be positive. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 19:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
*::I try and limit my participation to finding and providing sources for other editors, how is it constructive and why would i participate when the remaining editors, those who survived ANI, are those which have demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to read those sources? I'll try and explain my 'cryptic' comment on the talk page. It was just a suggestion to WCM that what he is doing might be futile. You cannot force editors to read sources. An editor familiar with the reading may have reverted that content, but would never have called it "disingenuous" in the edit summary. As far as [https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-kokomo-tribune-but-i-cant-fix-stup/34981880/ "can't fix stupid"] goes, tho it is couched in terms of the content generated by conflict rather than collaboration, did not my choice to use that particular phrase make my opinion clear enough? [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 16:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::There is a reason that WCM's edits to the article get reverted but your edits a couple weeks ago did not, and it's not about the unwillingness of people to read sources. I mean obviously if you change your mind but decide that what you have to add is a bunch of comments about other editors not reading the sources then I don't think that will go great. But ''almost'' everyone who has contributed in the discussions on the talk-page has shown a willingness to listen to others as part of developing a consensus. Anyhow, don't mind me, do what you want! --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 19:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support topic ban'''. This is just blatant [[WP:STICK]] and [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]]. The consensus in the RFC was clear. The consensus on talk about how to implement the RFC is reasonably clear. Their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1213533575&oldid=1213481488&title=Talk:Tim_Hunt comments] after the RFC were full of aspersions and battlefield behavior, ending with {{tq|Feel free to disabuse me of the presumption that having "won" and righted a great wrong to expose the terribly sexist misognynist that you don't intend to do that.}} --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 02:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support topic ban'''. WCM has been popping up at literally anywhere on Wikipedia this is being discussed to re-litigate a view of the RFC that literally nobody else holds. The RFC close even mentions him showing up at the close request I made to pressure whoever was going to close it. Even after the close he's totally failed to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]], and thus unfortunately we've got to force the issue with a topic ban. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 04:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 
=== Comment ===
 
[https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Wee+Curry+Monster&page=Tim_Hunt&server=enwiki&max=] My contribution history on [[Tim Hunt]]. 100% of it reverted. 0.7% of all contributions on the article.
 
Note 2 tags added 13 March 2024. 25 March 2024 - series of edits adding context and information in [[WP:RS]] per [[WP:NPOV]].
 
That is all of my contributions.
 
[https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Wee+Curry+Monster&page=Talk%3ATim_Hunt&server=enwiki&max=] My contribution history on [[Talk:Tim Hunt]].
 
Note:
13 March 2024 - comment on NPOV tags, 17 March 2024 - Further comment, 25 March 2024 - Comment on revert of my contribution.
 
In the last month, I've made 3 comments in talk, 2 contributions to the article in total. Hardly the actions of someone who can't drop the stick.
 
I note editors have simply alleged misconduct, largely unsupported by diffs. Addressing the talk quote taken out of context by Aquillion. This is a response to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AS_Marshall&diff=1213522530&oldid=1213355874], where the editors responsible for the RFC indicate they do not feel the need to respond to the closer's comments. Reference to misoginy is not mine but for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tim_Hunt&diff=prev&oldid=1204016425] {{tq|he's just another misogynist}}.
 
I am mentioned in the close simply because as noted {{tq|Wee Curry Monster at WP:CR, and others here, have put forth some well-reasoned objections to this outcome, and I have to have regard to their objections because they're based in policy.}} I have not as claimed disputed the RFC, feel free to add a diff showing where I did but my exact comment was {{tq|a very good closure of that malformed RFC}}. I have commented, because as noted by the closer, I have raised relevant objections to what is proposed. Reference to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] isn't relevant here but [[WP:IDONTHEARTHAT]] certainly is.
 
[[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]]? I haven't raised the topic in any forums. Check my contribution history. This is the one and only time I've gone to a board, in response to an attempt to bait me into an edit war so the connection to the article is tangential. My comments at [[Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37#Talk:Tim_Hunt#RfC:_2015_remarks]] were simply to alert any closer to what they were walking into.
 
A number of editors have commented that the text isn't neutral and doesn't reflect what neutral sources say on the topic. This is a violation of our [[WP:BLP]] policy. I did in fact seek advice on this from {{U|Drmies}} at [[User talk:Drmies/Archive 147#Question on BLP]]. Which appears to confirm my concerns were well founded.
 
Fiveby appears to have given up on commenting because he recognises its futile and I agree its futile. So having raised the issue, I think its time for me to simply walk away. I'm taking this off my watch list, mainly for the good of my own mental health and taking a wikibreak. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]</span><sub>[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]</sub> 08:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 
* I note that WCM continues to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EducatedRedneck&diff=1216940632&oldid=1214009693 expand the number of fora] in which they are conducting their battles, including [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newimpartial&diff=1216946694&oldid=1216280424 this] astonishingly condescending advice to another user to drop the stick. IMO, there are plenty of !votes in the section above for an administrator to make an assessment of consensus here. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 23:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
*:As WCM [[User_talk:Drmies#Question_for_you|continues to expand the number of different fora]] on which they're pursuing this matter, I am begging any administrator to review the discussion above and make a determination whether there is consensus for anything to be found there. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 18:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
*:I'm the one WCM was talking to in JBL's first link. I'm a little confused what JBL objects to; I had a nice conversation with WCM (despite us having differing opinions on the Thomas B matter). It seems to me that editors using user talk pages to talk about Wikipedia-related matters is exactly what they're intended for. There was no ongoing conversation I wasn't party to to canvass, and I've found that one-on-one discussions are very effective at helping both parties learn. I haven't read the rest of this thread, and so offer no opinion on it, but the first and third diffs presented above seem to me to be first an editor trying to give context, and second an editor asking for a sanity check. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 20:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 
== पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) ==
Line 1,879 ⟶ 1,457:
::::::::Agreed. When challenged on that, they made it clear [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHabesha212&diff=1217347073&oldid=1217345417 here] that [[WP:COPYVIO]] doesn't apply to them as they have a more important mission: "the intention with these pages is not to be honest nor is it to provide accurate information with valid sources". [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 12:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Indefinitely topic banned from the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes) [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 13:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 
== Sockpuppet ==
 
 
Message from the Teahouse on the 22 of March 2024:
 
Hello. I just want to signal that {{ping|Magonz}} and {{ping|DTMGO}}, mainly active on controversial subjects like genocide of indigenous peoples, in a trolling manner, are the same user (positive check user), did some horrible translations from en.wiki to fr.wiki (they probably do not speak French), and edited the same articles simultaneously. [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:V%C3%A9rificateur_d%27adresses_IP/Requ%C3%AAtes/mars_2024#Magonz,_DTMGO_-_22_mars Here] is the page for reference. Cheers. [[User:Encyclopédisme|Encyclopédisme]] ([[User talk:Encyclopédisme|talk]]) 21:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
:It does seem that's the CU finding on frwiki.
:Separately, am I correct in concluding from that page that frwiki has no prohibition against publicly confirming IPs against users? [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 23:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
::It is discouraged but I don’t think it’s straight out banned: {{tpq|De manière générale, ne pas révéler les adresses IP.}} ([[:fr:WP:VIP]]) [[User:Northern Moonlight|<span style="font-family:system-ui,BlinkMacSystemFont,Inter,-apple-system,Twitter Color Emoji,sans-serif;background-color:#f3f3fe;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap">Northern Moonlight</span>]] 04:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
::::That's very interesting. It seems to be used a lot more liberally than the wording you provided would suggest is expected. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 15:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Is it enough for a block? The users are involved in a pov-pushing campaign and edit the same pages simultaneously. [[User:Encyclopédisme|Encyclopédisme]] ([[User talk:Encyclopédisme|talk]]) 12:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
::::I rarely call for sanctions against any editor but I have been aware they were disruptive on [[British Empire]] and have active in producing some very poor content on genocide of indigenous peoples on en.wiki. They have been quite prolific. Suggest they be looked at for speedy deletion candidates? <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]</span><sub>[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]</sub> 13:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::I would assume a frwiki CU check is considered reliable, but I don't really know how our own CUs view that. In order to make it official, I've just moved forward with filing a case [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DTMGO here]. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 15:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::The two accounts are {{confirmed|confirmed}} to each other, and have been [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DTMGO|blocked]]. – [[User talk:Bradv|<span style="color:#333">'''brad''v'''''</span>]] 21:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 
== Disruptive editing by Llama Tierna ==
Line 1,908 ⟶ 1,471:
::When others have suggested adding more material from the source I used, you continued to decry the source. When someone suggested adding from much the same material, you [[Talk:Joseph_Edelman#Consensus|accused them of the "sin" of a personal attack for criticizing not you but a comment you had made]]. You then continued to deny the viability of that source at the new BLP thread, despite the reaction to it at the previous BLP thread and the original Jimbo page thread. You continue to engaged in problematic activity even after I made that edit; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Llama_Tierna&diff=prev&oldid=1217042693 here you are] describing me to another editor as "unethical", apparently because I noted that the claim he'd made about your comment was indeed a claim about the comment, not a personal attack. (You also bear a bit of false witness there, as you claim that [[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist]] had later removed the words "frankly silly" from their comment when that statement remains on the Talk page unedited.) If you've been having trouble with the degree of constructiveness of discussion, you may wish to look at your own actions. -- [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 18:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
::You made a point of accusing me of many (baseless or exceedingly minor) “sins”, and then threatened to have me banned for, it appeared, not adequately kowtowing to your perspective. Misapplying rules, insisting on your own perspective being the only correct one, and you appear to still be beating this horse. I’m frankly astonished that you keep coming back to the Edelman page-it seems like a clear [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] issue. [[User:Thedrdonna|Thedrdonna]] ([[User talk:Thedrdonna|talk]]) 05:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 
== Makks2010 ==
 
{{User10|Makks2010}}<br/>I just spent a good deal of my afternoon and evening in [[Talk:India]], following and responding to the user's queries and arguments. It is getting very [[WP:TIMESINK|tendentious]] now and they are [[WP:ICANTHEARYOU|admant on not understanding]] the guidelines and policies. I take it now as there's no point in continuing further discussion and leave it here to see if they need a topic ban or something. They were banned yesterday for editwarring and they still havent understood the reason for the ban. Thanks.<span id="The_Herald:1712164415932:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;[[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]]) 17:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)</span>
 
:Am I seeing this right? .....some weird nationality bigotry about sources? That said the editor is clearly overwhelming the talk page making it impossible to deal with all these points being raised. I suggest they slow down.... let's see if this is something they agree to. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 17:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 
*We're rapidly approaching indef territory here. Category spam that's been reverted, spamming the use of IABot on far too many pages, completely ignoring all the warnings they've been given, blatantly inaccurate posts on [[Talk:India]] (the claim, for instance, that the article doesn't discuss culture); edit-warring, for which they've already been blocked; and copyright violation. I don't believe this user is capable of editing productively or collaboratively. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 17:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
:Yes, definitely a [[WP:NOTHERE]] case IMO. And they aren't taking it easy either. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&diff=prev&oldid=1217067280] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&diff=prev&oldid=1217066678]. [[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]]) 17:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
:Agree, see this edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babri_Masjid&curid=169013&diff=1217156061&oldid=1216139755] changing " According to Hindu nationalists, Baqi destroyed " to " According to Hindu, Baqi destroyed " with the edit summar "unnecessary use of word nationalists, 'According to Hindu' is okay." As a proper sentence, we are attributing the quote to someone named Hindu! I'm blocking. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Doug Weller#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Doug Weller|contribs]]) 06:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babri_Masjid&diff=next&oldid=1217156061 reverted] it. [[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]]) 06:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
::Without comment on any other behaviours or edits. "Hindu" in this context is a reasonable demonym in some English variants; where other variants might prefer the plural "Hindus". The editor is essentially saying, "not just nationalists". No comment on whether that's an acceptable edit aligned to the sources, but it's not necessarily incorrect linguistically. [[User:Rotary Engine|Rotary Engine]] <sup>[[User talk:Rotary Engine|talk]]</sup> 06:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
:::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pilibhit&diff=prev&oldid=1217164823 Unsourced additions] continue.[[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]]) 07:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Doug Weller}} Any updates? Topic ban could be a plausible step. [[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]]) 09:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:The Herald|The Herald]] Topic banned. Sorry it took a while [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 13:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::And they immediately asked why they can still edit pages while topic banned. They haven't tried yet though and I warned them about it. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 13:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 
== Multiple issues relating to [[Liverpool]] and [[Liverpool City Region]] ==
 
 
 
I recently nominated an [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Liverpolitan_identity|article for deletion]] - due to formatting problems it was closed and [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Liverpolitan_identity_(2nd_nomination)|resubmitted by another editor]] . The article tried to argue that the word 'Liverpolitan' was the accepted demonym for people from Liverpool or the Liverpool City Region. I immediately knew this to be untrue, and so it was no surprise to see that the article (though well written and formatted) was completely unsupported by its many references, contradicted even. The consensus in the AfD agreed with this, with many editors taking time to dissect each reference thoroughly. The admin's decision was to redirect the term [[Liverpolitan]] to [[Liverpool#Demonyms_and_identity]].
 
Throughout the discussion, the editor of the article, [[User:Liverpolitan1980|Liverpolitan1980]] continued making edits to the article (though these did not address the issues) and they were very resistant to any criticism. While or before the article was blanked and redirected, they moved much of the content to [[Liverpool]] and [[Liverpool City Region]] and it still contains many of the same problems (mostly [[WP:OR]], [[WP:SYNTH]] and [[WP:FRINGE]]) that had been brought up in the AfD discussions.
 
They also reported me during and after the process to [[WP:ANI]] and [[WP:AN]], simply because they disagreed with my contributions - no action was taken against me. In the [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Continued_questionable_editing_by_Orange_sticker|AN report they said they were deleting their account]] and so the matter was closed. They then made another [[User_talk:Orange_sticker#April_2024|report against me]] for posting their personal information. While I did not explicitly do this, I did make an allusion to a [[WP:COI]] I had become aware of because I had seen forum posts where a person had announced they had created the Liverpolitan Wikipedia article and were also the subject of at least three of the references used to support their arguments. It seems that for many years a person has been trying (unsuccessfully) to get the word into common use, this has been reported on in the media, and they are now using Wikipedia in a way which I believe contravenes the policies [[WP:PROMO]] and [[WP:FORUM]], as well as the [[WP:COI]] guidelines.
 
As this user is apparently no longer active, I have not tried to resolve this dispute on their talk page. However, today [[Special:Contributions/2A02:C7C:D7E6:2F00:241A:48A:DBC8:2095 | two]] not logged in [[Special:Contributions/94.14.184.212|users]] have been trying to get some of [[User:Liverpolitan1980|Liverpolitan1980]]'s content reinstated on the [[Talk:Liverpool]] page for the protected [[Liverpool]] article. They deny being the same person despite having the same combative style. I suspect this is [[WP:SOCK]].
 
I think there is both an issue of [[WP:NOT]] and also poor conduct/[[WP:HARRASS]] towards me relating to the vexatious reports and incessant replies to my posts with [[Talk:Liverpool#c-94.14.184.212-20240403192500-94.14.184.212-20240403191600|increasingly strange ad hominem attacks]]. While I enjoy friendly debate, this is having a very detrimental and time consuming effect on my Wikipedia experience.
 
[[User:Orange sticker|Orange sticker]] ([[User talk:Orange sticker|talk]]) 21:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 
:Full disclosure - I am Liverpolitan1980's friend and have followed the debate from the very beginning. He has now left the platform through feeling utterly harrassed by you in particular Orange sticker. He was made aware that you attempted to out his real life identity in talk pages - which is usually an instant block according to Wiki guidance. You were lucky just to get a warning. He made the article you mentioned in good faith and made arguments to keep that article in the best way he could. Some of the feedback acknowledged the merits of expanding on the demonym. When the information was being disputed - he made good faith efforts to incorporate some information in to the Liverpool and city region articles as was encouraged in the AfD discussion. You encouraged that yourself. There has been no attempt to harrass you but to challenge your relentless efforts to disaparage anyone that might choose to adopt the Liverpolitan demonym - both on and off wiki - and to disparage his efforts to contribute to the encyclopedia. You have made this whole thing very very personal and would simply not let things go. This is not sock puppetry and nor is meat puppetry. I am free to contribute to this platform as a separate individual. Amd that is why I am fully disclosing so you are not able to yet again - cause drama to disparage a former contributor. The criticism I have made to you on the Liverpool talk page can either be taken or not taken. I feel it is completely valid. [[Special:Contributions/94.14.184.212|94.14.184.212]] ([[User talk:94.14.184.212|talk]]) 22:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 
*'''Comment''' - I'm obviously involved in the discussions that have taken place so far and have been constantly, repeatably, civil in all cases. I have re-iterated wikipedia policies, and stressed that they are what is important to deciding the content of any article. I am happy to extend to Liverpolitan1980 that he made his original Liverpolitan Identity article in good faith. Utimately, following the AFD this article was rejected and it was made clear that Liverpolitan as a term was FRINGE, and that the content as written was OR / SYNTH. I gave the editor over a week after they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liverpool&diff=prev&oldid=1215387487 added the content to the Liverpool and Liverpool City Region] and following the closure of the AFD to handle the issues as mentioned on the AFD by other editors, but they instead chose to start another argument with Orange Sticker on the talk page that culminated in them "Leaving". The two new IP's have subsequently picked up the stick, with 94.14.184.212 all but admitting as a friend of Liverpolitan that they are a Meatpuppet. 94.14.184.212 has had the sources explained [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liverpool&diff=prev&oldid=1217046122 at length] but instead of presenting sources to support the inclusion of the wording has resorted to casting aspersions about what I would or wouldn't do on articles X, Y, Z and instructing me how to edit, all while berating me for my "bias". I can't even work out [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liverpool&diff=prev&oldid=1217088858 what they are on about] in some cases, but basic competency appears to be an issue along with the general uncivility. There are obvious potential sock issues at play, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liverpool&diff=next&oldid=1194836024 Liverpolitan1980 is not this users first account]. [[User:Koncorde|Koncorde]] ([[User talk:Koncorde|talk]]) 22:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
*:Yes, Liverpolitan1980 has a prior account and has never tried to hide that. That account has been retired and is labelled as such on the profile - and has never been used since its retirement. Wiki contributors are free to do that - again that is yet another attempt to damage a person's reputation. No intention to hide anything there on his part or my part. As regards my comments about your bias on the Liverpool talk page. You are obviously both intelligent people. I am sure by now that you know the difference between the Liverpool city region combined authority, the city region and Merseyside. What I have found curious is Orange sticker's encouragement for Liverpolitan1980 to incorporate some of his content in to the Liverpool city region account only for then to advocate for its merger with another - completely separate article. That makes absolutely no sense other than to make it increasingly difficult for someone to contribute in good faith. It simply makes no sense other than to cause confusion and tension between editors. And you have been actively involved with that as well as also joining in on the speculation of my friend's indentity - again you have been warned. You can call it what you like - no one is deceiving anyone here. I have fully disclosed myself as a friend. What is important are of course the policies. But we are not discussing content here - unless you want to. My input here is obviously concerned with my friend's former account being tagged. Brought in to drama again when he has left the site. [[Special:Contributions/94.14.184.212|94.14.184.212]] ([[User talk:94.14.184.212|talk]]) 23:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
*::"but instead of presenting sources to support the inclusion of the wording"
*::You were presented with sources and then complained that they were a laundry list that you didn't want in the first place. In other words, when presented with evidence you spat them out and complained that you didn't even want them in the first place. I am not being uncivil to you but this is obviously a very difficult position to put someone in and is not cohesive to a meaningful discussion. [[Special:Contributions/94.14.184.212|94.14.184.212]] ([[User talk:94.14.184.212|talk]]) 23:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::I tried to intercede on the LCR page as a disinterested party and made some minor revisions, cleaning up the demonym section to exclude much of the cruft. But it does honestly seem like these two editors have some form of off-wiki personal animosity that is driving this continued dispute. An SPI might be warranted for the IP associated with Liverpolitan1980 - and if it is, in fact, a different editor's account they should be cautioned regarding [[WP:MEATPUPPETRY]] - otherwise we're faced with the challenge of how to establish a mutual Iban when one party has loudly quit Wikipedia but is still not fully gone. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 23:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
*::::This could very very easily just go away. I have asked for minor edits to be made which I feel are fair. I have done this through observation of the debate. There is no need to involve my friend - he has left the site through feeling utterly harrassed. Let me stress again - minor edits are being requested - not an opening to old grudged on or off wiki. I have no interest in them and have no full knowledge of that in any case. I am not interested. I am here because this report has been filed. [[Special:Contributions/94.14.184.212|94.14.184.212]] ([[User talk:94.14.184.212|talk]]) 00:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::::@[[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] From what I can see, you made a good edit to the LCR page. I don't think this dispute really concerns you. [[Special:Contributions/94.14.184.212|94.14.184.212]] ([[User talk:94.14.184.212|talk]]) 01:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Coming to Wikipedia to pick up for a friend upset about an edit conflict is [[WP:MEATPUPPETRY]] and ultimately just stirs up petty drama. An edit conflict over a nickname has led to all this silliness. I ''decided'' to become involved explicitly because I am entirely neutral to the conflict and figured I could reasonably assess sources. Yet here we are. Again. I would encourage all parties to seriously calm down self-reflect a bit. And I would suggest that SPIs who are only interested in one very niche topic and in stirring up extensive, loud, drama should ask whether they should really be editing Wikipedia. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 01:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::There are many things which are frowned upon on the encyclopedia I believe. I know your edit was good faith. I have seen it. It is also not appreciated to see my friend's reputation dragged through the mud or his identity speculated on or his contributions - old and new - accused as anything other than the best of faith. Those that do that must expect their own contributions to be called in to question. You are absolutely right, I think the whole situation is just an awful situation of people not seeing eye to eye and maybe some very deep seated differences in viewpoints which seem intractable. I have certainly not come here to violate a policy. I came here to make my own mind up. My friend is in no way encouraged me to do so. I find the whole situation tragic to be honest. I certainly do not advocate for everything he did to come back either but I have questioned one or two edits on the Liverpool page. That is all. [[Special:Contributions/94.14.184.212|94.14.184.212]] ([[User talk:94.14.184.212|talk]]) 01:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::And you have been told what the issue is, in detail, as was Liverpolitan - and have chose instead to attack and harass other users. [[User:Koncorde|Koncorde]] ([[User talk:Koncorde|talk]]) 07:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I am deeply sorry if this is affecting you negatively. However, it is a voluntary platform and nobody is obliged to enter discussions they aren't comfortable with. I asked for two small edits on the Liverpool article. I can't stress enough how small they were. My request was forwarded to the Liverpool talk page and you were the first to reply there. It can be read at that page. You ignored sources there and even suggested I make the change myself which I cannot do unregistered. You have also undone some work by another user on 1st April there. You didn't have to do that. Liverpolitan1980 left because of how uncomfortable this environment was becoming. This whole page tells me that this platform is not always a nice place to be and I can see why. You also entered this ANI discussion voluntarily. You were given an admin warning to not conceal contributor's real life identity against their wishes because it puts them in potential difficult situations. Everyone has the right to post anonymously so you were told. You have ignored that and continue to engage in this discussion. Instead of sticking to criticism of the article and your part in the edits. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:C7C:D7E6:2F00:241A:48A:DBC8:2095|2A02:C7C:D7E6:2F00:241A:48A:DBC8:2095]] ([[User talk:2A02:C7C:D7E6:2F00:241A:48A:DBC8:2095|talk]]) 08:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I'm going to assume some of this is directed at Orange Sticker, however as it is also clearly referencing things that I have said I have no idea. However just for clarification:
:::::::::::*This isn't affecting me negatively.
:::::::::::*The IP that requested information to be added to the Liverpool article was 94.14.184.212 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liverpool&diff=prev&oldid=1217033575 (comments moved in this edit by Liu1126)]. So are you also that IP?
:::::::::::*I, Koncorde, was the first to respond and I explained the issue with every single source being either an issue of them not even mentioning the word at all, or mentioning it while dismissing it, and a big old dose of [[WP:OR]] or [[WP:SYNTH]]. I've been entirely on topic DESPITE repeated personal attacks on myself and other editors and general harassing behaviour both before, during and after this debacle.
:::::::::::*I did suggest 94.14.184.212 edit the page, I wasn't aware it was semi protected at the time. In which case refer back to prior point ^^ and requests for clear sourcing that supports the claims made.
:::::::::::*Serial Number 54129 is free to edit the page, reinstitute his changes etc per April 1st, but I have explained the issues in detail in both the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liverpool&diff=prev&oldid=1216946489 Edit Summary] and in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liverpool&diff=prev&oldid=1216948505 detail on the talk page].
:::::::::::*As the editor attacked me, and subsequently the IP have attacked me - casting aspersions about me personally, and my editing, I'm here to make it clear that there is an issue that needs responding to.
:::::::::::*And finally, regarding the persons identity: [[Streisand effect]].
:::::::::::I'm done on this page, I think the original editor and two IP's have sufficiently demonstrated the unwelcome uncivil behaviour, meatpuppetry, and if any Admin is so interested they can contact me by talk page or email about the relative difficulty of the "Anonymity" situation given the niche like [[WP:ADVOCACY]] and [[WP:SOAPBOX]]-for-one. [[User:Koncorde|Koncorde]] ([[User talk:Koncorde|talk]]) 09:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 
* Quite apart from the obvious sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry issues, I have a question. Why does [[Liverpolitan]] redirect to [[Liverpool#Demonyms]] when it is clearly associated (and is actually discussed, rather than mentioned in passing) with [[Liverpool_City_Region#Demonym]]? [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 09:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
*:There was apparently an AfD although it happened before I became aware of this situation. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 09:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
*::I found it and, this is odd, it was for [[Liverpolitan Identity]] the result was speedy keep but the page was deleted anyway. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Liverpolitan_identity here] [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 10:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::Ok there was a second AfD [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Liverpolitan_identity_(2nd_nomination) here] [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 10:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
*::::I have spoken to Liverpolitan1980 and he is absolutely mortified at how this has going down. He would like the opportunity to discuss this with the arbitration committee. To prevent further breakdown in trust within the community perhaps there is a better more appropriate way to discuss this topic. Maybe an admin could advise on this. ([[Special:Contributions/2A02:C7C:D7E6:2F00:241A:48A:DBC8:2095|2A02:C7C:D7E6:2F00:241A:48A:DBC8:2095]] ([[User talk:2A02:C7C:D7E6:2F00:241A:48A:DBC8:2095|talk]]) 13:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC))
*:::::This is getting rather absurd. I sincerely doubt the arbitration committee is going to involve themselves in an edit conflict between two editors. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
*::::::At this point, I think enough has been said about the concerns surrounding content. But there are things to address if Liverpolitan1980 is to continue or rejoin in good faith. He has left the platform feeling helpless in the weight of COI claims. And now claims about sock puppetry and meat puppetry. You can see from his contributions that Liverpolitan1980 has never been a single issue account and has made valuable contributions to the encyclopedia that have survived over a long period. What has caused tension is the issue surrounding the Liverpolitan demonym. Ulitmately, that has led to some friction, most notably between two, possibly three editors. Too much time already has already been spent on this but Liverpolitan1980 has a sincere desire to contribute if the air will be cleared and any disagreements resolved. [[Special:Contributions/94.14.184.212|94.14.184.212]] ([[User talk:94.14.184.212|talk]]) 14:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Drop the [[WP:STICK]]. {{U|Liverpolitan1980}} is not currently blocked from editing and can re-join the project if they choose. This drama is not making such a decision more likely to succeed. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::: Just in case anyone is getting confused here, 94.14.184.212 and the IPv6 editor starting 2A02 are one and the same. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 14:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::He might not be blocked but he is facing a wave of claims about COI. Doing this has had a detrimental effect on his enjoyment of the site. Editors should not do this if that are not willing to substantiate it. It also cases confusion as to which parts of the site are acceptable to edit or not. Liverpolitan1980 is willing to address these concerns with the appropriate admins. But he cannot do this if his account is going to be harrassed. [[Special:Contributions/94.14.184.212|94.14.184.212]] ([[User talk:94.14.184.212|talk]]) 14:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::* '''Comment''' Happy to substantiate COI privately with an admin.
*::::::::::[[User:Orange sticker|Orange sticker]] ([[User talk:Orange sticker|talk]]) 14:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Thank you - Liverpolitan1980 is willing to contribute to that in good faith. [[Special:Contributions/94.14.184.212|94.14.184.212]] ([[User talk:94.14.184.212|talk]]) 14:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
There is a COI here in my view – Liverpolitan1980 has been involved in real-life campaign trying to promote the use of this term. A glance at the track record of their former account (which was "retired" a day before creating the current one, following a block and several appearances at ANI) suggests they don't play particularly well with others. [[User:Number 57|<span style="color: orange;">Number</span>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<span style="color: green;">5</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<span style="color: blue;">7</span>]] 17:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 
:* '''Comment''' I feel I should point out that the above is basically all I have said publicly on Wikipedia and it resulted in the editor [[User talk:Orange sticker#April 2024|reporting me]] for posting personal information.
:[[User:Orange sticker|Orange sticker]] ([[User talk:Orange sticker|talk]]) 18:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 
==Disruptive behaviour by [[User:ExpertPrime|ExpertPrime]] at [[History of the chair]]==
Line 2,031 ⟶ 1,521:
*::David is responding at Commons now. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 01:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}
 
== COI and possible legal threats at [[Bennett S. LeBow]] (BLP) ==
 
Hi all, I've done my best to summarize the situation in a concise manner here. Apologies for any errors. Any guidance is appreciated.
 
'''Summary:''' For years, IP editors and new editors have continually removed content from [[Bennett S. LeBow]], often related to his involvement in cigarette manufacturing and his political activity. Some of these editors have indicated that they have a relationship with the article subject. These removals have been reverted by various users, including {{User|Algyx0262}}. On 16 March, {{User|Jlebow112}} removed content related to LeBow's business activity, personal life, and reported connection to [[Vadim Rabinovich]]. Reverts ensued, as did additional sourcing/expansion (by me). Jlebow made comments that were perceived as legal threats, though they said they were not making legal threats. Algyx removed the contested content, I reverted, they reverted again. See diffs below.
 
;Article history
 
16 March
* Series of removals by {{User|Jlebow112}}. Edit summary {{xt|Bennett LeBow does not wish this to be inserted in his Bio}}. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bennett_S._LeBow&diff=1214007479&oldid=1214003925]
20 March
* Revert by {{User|Algyx0262}}. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bennett_S._LeBow&diff=1214709059&oldid=1214007479]
25 March
* Revert by IP user. Edit summary {{xt|Mr LeBow believes this is NOT accurate so please remove}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bennett_S._LeBow&diff=prev&oldid=1215487980]
* Revert by {{User|Boyinaroom}} using [[WP:HG]]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bennett_S._LeBow&diff=prev&oldid=1215488271]
27 March
* Removal by Jlebow112. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bennett_S._LeBow&diff=prev&oldid=1215906296]
* Revert by {{User|C.Fred}}. Edit summary {{xt|restore sourced material}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bennett_S._LeBow&diff=prev&oldid=1215906443]
* Revert by {{User|Wracking}} (me). Edit summary {{xt|Further revert of unexplained removals}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bennett_S._LeBow&diff=prev&oldid=1215920882]
29 March
* Removal by Jlebow112. Edit summary {{xt|Bennett LeBow never had a business with this man and never built a hotel.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bennett_S._LeBow&diff=prev&oldid=1216165329]
* Revert by Algyx0262. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bennett_S._LeBow&diff=prev&oldid=1216212968]
* Copy edit by Algyx062. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bennett_S._LeBow&diff=1216215661&oldid=1216212968]
* Series of edits (expansion and copy edits) by Wracking. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bennett_S._LeBow&diff=1216397643&oldid=1216215661]
2 April
* Removal by IP user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bennett_S._LeBow&diff=prev&oldid=1216795629]
* Revert by {{User|Discospinster}} using [[WP:HG]]. Edit summary {{xt|unexplained content removal}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bennett_S._LeBow&diff=prev&oldid=1216795770]
3 April
* Removal by Algyx0262. Edit summary {{xt|Taken down by request of subject}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bennett_S._LeBow&diff=prev&oldid=1217088313]
* Revert by Wracking. Edit summary {{xt|[[WP:COI]] ''removal of info w/'' [[Wikipedia:RS|reliable sources]]''. Discuss on talk page.''}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bennett_S._LeBow&diff=prev&oldid=1217102894]
* Revert by Algyx0262. Edit summary {{xt|Taken down at user request, not a major portion of the biography when taken as a whole}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bennett_S._LeBow&diff=prev&oldid=1217120836]
 
;Talk pages
 
[[User talk:Jlebow112]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jlebow112&oldid=1217087715 permalink]. See history for full context; I will give some highlights related to the possible legal threat.
* 27 March: C.Fred warned Jlebow112 for removing content [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJlebow112&diff=1217087715&oldid=1215912356].
* 30 March: IP user comments; message includes {{xt|Would you like to speak to Mr LeBow's attorney? Can we arrange a call with the Kasowitz law firm as soon as possible so you are assured that he never had such an affiliation with him in any potential business venture.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jlebow112&diff=prev&oldid=1216386767]
* 2 April: C.Fred responds; message includes {{xt|Regarding the mention of a law firm, please review [[WP:NLT|no legal threats]] before mentioning them again.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jlebow112&diff=prev&oldid=1216874842]
** C.Fred also warned IP user on their talk page for making legal threats [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:66.248.183.138&diff=prev&oldid=1216874978]
* 2 April: IP user responds; message includes {{xt|That was not a threat.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jlebow112&diff=prev&oldid=1216879919]
 
[[User talk:Wracking]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wracking&oldid=1217109968 permalink] (3 April)
* Algyx0262 comments on my talk page following my revert of their removal; writes {{xt|Lebow is suggesting legal action. I say it is hardly worth keeping the Rabinovich material at this point since this is only one relatively minor portion of a fairly detailed biography. It is just not worth it.}}
* I respond, telling them to report legal threats and to discuss at the article talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wracking&diff=next&oldid=1217106392]
* Algyx0262 responds; mentions discussion at Jlebow112 and that they do not know where to report legal threats [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wracking&diff=next&oldid=1217107197]
 
[[Talk:Bennett S. LeBow]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wracking&oldid=1217109968 permalink] (3 April)
* Following my reply on my talk page, Algyx0262 writes {{xt|Lebow is suggesting legal action. I say it is hardly worth keeping the Rabinovich material at this point since this is only one relatively minor portion of a fairly detailed biography. It is just not worth it.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bennett_S._LeBow&diff=prev&oldid=1217108399]
 
Best, [[User:Wracking|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;border-radius:9em;background:#E0E8E0; color:#1a4c39; padding:4px;">Wracking</span>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Wracking|talk!]]</sup> 04:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 
:I'm not denying that there might be a COI issue here but when I read those talk page messages, it sounds like Jlebow112 is suggesting referring to an attorney who can support the claims in the article and his editing decisions, not that he intends to sue Wikipedia or any of its editors. But that's how I read his two comments. They didn't seem like threats, they sounded like he thought the legal firm would provide evidence for the spin he wants in the article or the point he's trying to make. But I might be wrong here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 07:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
::I agree. I did not take IP's comments as legal threats, and interpreted them in the same way you describe. (Also on the topic of COI, IP says they are LeBow's wife [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:66.248.183.138&diff=prev&oldid=1215906061]<small>(apologies if I missed this diff in my first post; I was doing my best to make a concise timeline)</small>) [[User:Wracking|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;border-radius:9em;background:#E0E8E0; color:#1a4c39; padding:4px;">Wracking</span>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Wracking|talk!]]</sup> 07:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
:::I am beginning to see your point, and my apologies if I was wrong. But he was already warned (I can guarantee there are multiple people on that thread, one whom to me is pretty obvious) and if you look at the wording in the messages, you might feel different if you were me. I just got a bit thrown when Fred said you need to use published reliable sources, and he/she offers a letter from a law firm. To me, that is not a published source, but I see your point - they just may be wanting to be able to add their spin in a note on the page. Also, I could not tell if he/she was responding to Fred or myself, the way the system works, so when I read "letter from a law firm" ("like talk to his lawyer") it, again, kind of threw me. And if the person on the Jlebow thread had their comment misinterpreted, I apologize to them as well. This is not an easy medium to work in. Moving forward, I made my suggestions for what to do on the jlebow talk page. I say just let it drop, but I will let others like you guys decide. And like I said, my apologies to everyone if I misinterpreted things. [[User:Algyx0262|Algyx0262]] ([[User talk:Algyx0262|talk]]) 09:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
::The first mention of the law firm was not a a full-on legal threat. However, when a COI editor says "Would you like to speak to [the subject's] attorney?" there is a degree of a chilling effect from bringing lawyers into the equation. That was the point of my message. I hit the IP with the {{tl|uw-legal1}} template because they appeared to be "third man in" on the discussion; I missed the fact that the first message about the attorneys was left by the IP and not {{u|Jlebow112}}, although based on the combination of the username and the IP's statement that she's LeBow's wife, the IP and user are presumptively the same person.
::On that note, it's pretty clear that the IP and Jlebow112 are the same person. I'm not sure how {{u|Algyx0262}} fits into the picture, but they appear to also have a COI, since they have made at least one edit at the request of the subject.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bennett_S._LeBow&diff=prev&oldid=1217088313] Even though their account is 13 years old, all their substantive edits have been to the LeBow article. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 12:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Fred, I am just trying to be helpful to provide you with the truth. there are no legal threats just offering up a letter to support what i am saying is true. Please delete the reference to doing business with this man because it never happened. I cant find news articles to this affect. People do not report as a general rule that they did not consummate a transaction. Yes, I am the wife and have 40 years of business experience so please do the right thing and let this man enjoy the accolades his career demonstrates. [[User:Jlebow112|Jlebow112]] ([[User talk:Jlebow112|talk]]) 12:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
::::The claim concerning the hotel is sourced to the following [https://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/05/world/a-cosmetics-heir-s-joint-venture-is-tainted-by-ukrainian-s-past.html?pagewanted=all New York Times article from 1997]. Unfortunately a letter from Mr. Lebow's attorney would not constitute a [[WP:RS]]. If you have reliable secondary sources that refute the NYT article please present them. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
:::To be correct, I should point out that I actually don't know if there are multiple people using the jlebow thread, I obviously cannot see the person doing the editing. I said that while trying to clean this up and it was based on what I felt were large differences in style. Having said that, I again vote for removal of the subject matter. I think she has a point about being able to, essentially, enjoy his success; after all, he is 86 and the biography of living persons states the importance of being sensitive to living people in general in their biographies [[User:Algyx0262|Algyx0262]] ([[User talk:Algyx0262|talk]]) 15:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
::::No. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 15:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::How about if we separate the contended material into a separate section perhaps labeled controversies
:::::or something like that and maybe put a banner over it that says the neutrality is disputed, or the facts are disputed, or something like that. At least we should move it away from the philanthropy section, in my opinion [[User:Algyx0262|Algyx0262]] ([[User talk:Algyx0262|talk]]) 17:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::This is the wrong venue for editorial discussions. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 19:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 
== [[user:Untitled740]] Tag-bombing football articles despite talk page warnings ==
 
 
 
This user went through a spree of tag-bombing football articles in February and January, and was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AUntitled740&diff=1202414843&oldid=1194574497 warned] about it on their talk-page by {{ping|Sgubaldo}}, {{ping|Govvy}}, {{ping|Jfire}} and {{ping|Syvä-äksy}}.
 
I recently went through the tags they left on [[Inter Milan]], which was an hour and a half's work which resulted in only a tiny improvement in the text (with the exception of the removal of the tags, which was a considerable improvement). Most of the valid tags (and most were not valid) could easily have been avoided by the user simply changing the text themselves. To be fair, their edits on Inter predate the warning, however, they edited [[Tranmere Rovers]] and [[Bristol Rovers]] after the above linked discussion, with even worse consequences, including many entirely incorrect "close paraphrase" tags.
 
The user has not edited a football page for a month, but I would ask for a six month tban from football articles, as their edits on this topic create massive amounts of work for others. Football articles are edited very regularly during the season, so reverts are rarely possible. --[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 04:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
:[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]], requests like this for a topic ban generally require substantial evidence provided of disruption. Do you have diffs of this occurring? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 07:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Depends on your definition of substantial, Untitled740 would almost certainly have tagged that word as {{vague}}. Apart from the three pages mentioned, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inter_Milan&diff=1198348338&oldid=1198053846 Inter Milan], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tranmere_Rovers_F.C.&diff=1209069138&oldid=1209029906 Tranmere Rovers] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bristol_Rovers_F.C.&diff=1209044355&oldid=1205699160 Bristol Rovers] the same has occurred at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hull_City_A.F.C.&diff=1213635698&oldid=1208543628 Hull City], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Bayern_Munich&diff=1200736594&oldid=1200629904 FC Bayern Munich], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FSV_Zwickau&diff=1207552506&oldid=1187971637 FSB Zwickau], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SPAL&diff=1207544194&oldid=1205606968 SPAL], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piacenza_Calcio_1919&diff=1207540638&oldid=1193974266 Piacenza Calcio 1919], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LFA_Reggio_Calabria&diff=1207535320&oldid=1202058976 LFA Reggio Calabria], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AC_Reggiana_1919&diff=1211852313&oldid=1205603942 AC Reggiana 1919], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chemnitzer_FC&diff=1201646783&oldid=1185367162 Chemnitzer FC], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Erzgebirge_Aue&diff=1201639153&oldid=1196104835 FC Erzgerbirge Aue], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SV_Sandhausen&diff=1201633916&oldid=1199184522 SV Sandhausen], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1._FC_Saarbrücken&diff=1201610890&oldid=1200896941 FC Saarbrucken], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TSG_1899_Hoffenheim&diff=1201556317&oldid=1200448803 TSG 1890 Hoffenheim], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TSV_1860_Munich&diff=1201400095&oldid=1198698009 1860 Munich] and potentially another [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Untitled740&target=Untitled740&offset=20240124183649&limit=500 37 clubs] in the period since the 26th of January, when other users had already made their concerns clear on the user's talkpage. I haven't looked at the edits to football stadiums which occurred during the same period, I was frightened to. --[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 09:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 
::Yes it's disruptive, but why bring it up now, the guy hasn't edited wikipedia in over a month! :/ [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 08:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
:::The user goes through periods of incredibly prolific editing, and is capable of tagbombing very large numbers of pages in a very short period. I would strongly recommend taking the tban step as a preventative measure. Given the damage they can do, better not to take the risk. [[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 09:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
::::Well, I always thought he was a continuation of a banned editor, when the account was created it went on the created new categories, which really is not normal editing behaviour for a new user. I personally find the editing behaviour bizarre and annoying. But unless the editing starts up again I don't see what to do at present, it's possible it's jumped to another account to hide the workload he is doing, but that requires a sock puppet investigation. [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 09:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
::::They created their account and made their first edit on 13 December last year, and have made nearly 5,300 edits since &ndash; of which over 4,300 were in January. They have gone through a single very prolific period, and not edited for nearly a month; there's no indication of when (or even if) they are likely to return to editing. I can't see that sanctions are required at all given that this is clearly not an ongoing problem, but assuming ''arguendo'' that they really are so disruptive that they need sanctioning a month after their last edit, why propose a sanction which might time out before they even resume the disruption? [[User:Caeciliusinhorto-public|Caeciliusinhorto-public]] ([[User talk:Caeciliusinhorto-public|talk]]) 11:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::Fair question. It took me an hour and a half to resolve the problems they created on a single page, they have edited at least 50 pages in a similar way AFTER being warned about their editing style. Their last day of editing was on the 3rd/4th of March and included spam-tagging of the articles of Girona FC and Juventus (including tagging to ask whether "the fifties" referred to the 1950s, tagging to ask what the meaning of "a research" might be, and various other almost wilful failures to understand what sentences written by non-native speakers might mean). There is no reason to think that they have resolved their problem, despite their editing having either been paused or stopped.
 
:::::I am assuming the user is not a troll, therefore a notification of a topic ban will register with them in a way that the advice of other users wouldn't and will stop this activity. The cost in users' time of them returning and editing, say, 5 more pages merits a topic ban. The tban costs next to nothing in time and is a useful insurance policy against them returning and deleteriously affecting more pages.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 12:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 
== Insertion of false dates ==
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents"