User talk:SandyGeorgia/sandbox9/archive 1
Where to now?
[edit]@Mako001, EEng, Gusfriend, Trainsandotherthings, Fram, and Mackensen: besides a few GARs, I can find no indication there was sustained followup per this discussion. Have I missed something? Now that we know Coldwell will persist via socks, I have some ideas of further things that might be proposed, and would appreciate feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Myself and Gusfriend have put some of his train-related stuff through GAR and it was all delisted, but there hasn't been a sustained effort. Also pinging User:Sammi Brie as another editor who may be interested. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hog Farm do you want in on this, or too busy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'll at least follow along, although I don't know how much I'll be able to help out. I was the reviewer of some of his GANs back in 2020 and 2021 for background, although I did fail a few. FWIW, the CCI is longer than what you thought - there's also Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 02. Hog Farm Talk 15:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Well, fiddlesticks ... I entered info on the wrong CCI. Why oh why was this not stopped sooner <sigh>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Because of excessive deference to someone assumed to be one of the website's best and most prolific contributors (as you can see from the history of the ANIs, people flipped their shit when the full extent of Doug's wrongdoing became clear, crying that the community was trying to punish a prolific and "skilled" editor). I was attacked by at least one of his defenders, despite saying multiple times I preferred to resolve the issue without a block. Even when people occasionally spotted issues before all of this came to light, they were unwilling to investigate further, assuming that someone of Coldwell's stature would not be making systematic errors such as copyvio, excessive reliance on very old and/or primary sources, and factual inaccuracies. That attitude of deference and hand-waving his stuff through GAN with minimal scrutiny is how we got here. It's no surprise Coldwell never engaged with FA; his shoddy editing would certainly have been exposed there. The good news is this seems to have prompted a reckoning and much greater emphasis on spot-checking at GAN. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- I might as well say that the attacks on you (and now me) are probably part of what has motivated my interest. What an abject failure of ANI to act when it should have. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm having a hard time finding the past similar occurrences at DYK, so may have to let that go, but no one in the thread I started at DYK picked up on or addressed the issue of how to prevent same going forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Because of excessive deference to someone assumed to be one of the website's best and most prolific contributors (as you can see from the history of the ANIs, people flipped their shit when the full extent of Doug's wrongdoing became clear, crying that the community was trying to punish a prolific and "skilled" editor). I was attacked by at least one of his defenders, despite saying multiple times I preferred to resolve the issue without a block. Even when people occasionally spotted issues before all of this came to light, they were unwilling to investigate further, assuming that someone of Coldwell's stature would not be making systematic errors such as copyvio, excessive reliance on very old and/or primary sources, and factual inaccuracies. That attitude of deference and hand-waving his stuff through GAN with minimal scrutiny is how we got here. It's no surprise Coldwell never engaged with FA; his shoddy editing would certainly have been exposed there. The good news is this seems to have prompted a reckoning and much greater emphasis on spot-checking at GAN. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Does anyone know who has been the main CCI admin on this case? I don't want to ping all of them and wear out my welcome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know that there's been a main one. The nature of the case leads to a lot of it either being things nobody can access or unsourced text from who-knows-where that can't be tracked down. It's kinda fizzled out because nobody's wanted to just start presumptively removing swathes of stuff. Hog Farm Talk 16:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Sennecaster: do you want to follow the proposals I've listed here? Should I ping in other CCI regulars? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: Sorry for the late reply; I'm currently very busy, but if other CCI editors say it's good I'm fine with it. Sennecaster (Chat) 14:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Well, we should "start presumptively removing swathes of stuff", because it's all bad enough to warrant that, and most of it is not in topics the average reader cares about. Does anyone know where to follow up on the notion that we did the same with Neelix? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm of the opinion that it makes precisely zero difference how many readers care about the stuff he writes about in any given article. If it's inaccurate and/or copyvio, it must be removed with extreme prejudice. We owe it to our readers. At least for his train-related stuff, as one of the most prolific editors on train-related matters in the Eastern U.S., I fully endorse presumptive removals and stubbification of his articles as needed. I don't really have the time or energy to rewrite these articles (my to-do list is already massive), but if anyone ever has interest they certainly can start from a basic stub. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Sennecaster: do you want to follow the proposals I've listed here? Should I ping in other CCI regulars? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know that there's been a main one. The nature of the case leads to a lot of it either being things nobody can access or unsourced text from who-knows-where that can't be tracked down. It's kinda fizzled out because nobody's wanted to just start presumptively removing swathes of stuff. Hog Farm Talk 16:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Well, fiddlesticks ... I entered info on the wrong CCI. Why oh why was this not stopped sooner <sigh>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'll at least follow along, although I don't know how much I'll be able to help out. I was the reviewer of some of his GANs back in 2020 and 2021 for background, although I did fail a few. FWIW, the CCI is longer than what you thought - there's also Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 02. Hog Farm Talk 15:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hog Farm do you want in on this, or too busy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- My reference point on this is User:Oanabay04, who was prolific on railroad articles, particularly those around the Philadelphia area. He also committed massive serial copyright violations, socked, wrote things that citations didn't support, and injected his own personal opinion as though it were fact. After a while I took the line that anything he contributed was presumptively bad--if it was prose and we didn't find the source, it was probably a copyvio regardless. If he claimed he took the picture and it wasn't something from the last two years with an EXIF date, it was a copyvio even if we never found the original. This resulted in whole articles getting deleted or stubbed, even on notable topics. Articles on Class I railroads were rolled back years to remove his copyvios from the history. This was terrible and disruptive and I think the best option available. If you don't trust what a contributor was doing, then you should remove their contributions.
- I agree with the areas that Sandy has singled out. We need to delist his GAs; that's a badge of quality we as a project can't endorse. That discussion is in progress. With the CCIs, I think we're aggressive about deleting or stubbing articles where he was the primary contributor. That's work and it's tiresome. I'll volunteer for some of it and I'm happy to play bad cop. One final thing: Doug's blocked indefinitely and he's socking. We should formalize a community ban so that further socking can be reverted and deleted on sight. That can probably happen in the existing ANI thread. Mackensen (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm unsure what step to take next then. Do you have a link that I can use to summarize the Oanabay04 situation? Of do I just post my Sandbox content to the ANI? Prob is the community ban discussion can happen at ANI, but the rest needs to go elsewhere ... not sure what process to use going forward on the whole picture, but I can see I'm likely to end up attacked at ANI as was Trainsandotherthings, so want to do this right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Here are the links; it helped that this was a narrower problem:
- Posting to WP:Trains: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains/Archive:_2015#Major copyright problem
- Block discussion: User_talk:Oanabay04#Block_extended
- Sockpuppet discussions: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oanabay04/Archive
- Sample notice I used when reverting articles: Talk:Pennsylvania_Railroad#Copyright_problem_removed
- Sample AfD of article I didn't trust: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fox Chase Rapid Transit Line
- Mackensen (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Here are the links; it helped that this was a narrower problem:
- Oanabay04 is familiar to me, as in October 2021 I found that much of both Pan Am Railways and Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway were copyvios from books added by him. I and others rewrote the affected portions of Pan Am, but ATSF is still gutted, the first 100 years of its history is completely missing. Mackensen has a subpage dedicated to cataloguing the extent of copyvio from one of George Drury's books added by Oanabay. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm unsure what step to take next then. Do you have a link that I can use to summarize the Oanabay04 situation? Of do I just post my Sandbox content to the ANI? Prob is the community ban discussion can happen at ANI, but the rest needs to go elsewhere ... not sure what process to use going forward on the whole picture, but I can see I'm likely to end up attacked at ANI as was Trainsandotherthings, so want to do this right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Initial proposals
[edit]I've put my initial ideas at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox9#Proposals for discussion.
More to come, but I need to do some homework going back more than 10 years (it's not like this is the first or even second time this has happened at DYK, yet nothing done).
I strongly disagree that moving forward on this will encourage Coldwell to become an WP:LTA; he is what he already is, and his personality isn't that hard to understand. He's going to be an LTA regardless, and that's no reason not to clean up the mess.
Feedback on the ideas I've started? How/where to gain consensus ... an RFC in what space ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia I would support proposals 1 and 2 (no comment yet on the other two) but 2 won't need a community consensus; since Doug's articles are already at CCI they can be presumptively deleted/stubbed under WP:PDEL. Ideally the articles would be delisted before they are deleted or stubbed. I believe that proposing those at ANI is the right way to go. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI, about the Darius Dhlomo CCI and subsequent cleanup, is the closest example of a big wide scale cleanup like the one here. I don't mean to reopen old wounds, but was a similar cleanup done during the Rlvese/PumpkinSky investigation? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- I just changed the numbering :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- PS, Moneytrees I missed your earlier question. Not gonna touch the Rlevse thing, thank you :) Not a good example to use anyway, but the gratuitous scars and fallout endure. That, along with the three other sockmasters working together and being able to take apart WP:FAC, from which it never recovered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
List of GAs
[edit]List of 223 GAs by Doug Coldwell
|
|---|
|
Found 223 successful nominations (GA promotion dates are given in brackets):
|
Taken from here. None of the associated accounts appear to have any nominations. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
This is every article Doug Coldwell had listed as an "achievement" in his userspace. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 01:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Ready ?
[edit]Could you all have a look at my sandbox now to see if it is in shape to bring forward at ANI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think this is good; I'm a bit concerned that there will be debate around the Cban that could distract or diminish from the other proposals and cleanup, but I'm guessing you also have that in mind. I have a question about the DYK RfC-- is that being proposed in tandem with the other proposals? I'm wondering if it might end up getting ignored or swatted down over "this is just one user" (it isn't, but you know...) or "this is doing too much". I think it's an important point but that a different and more focused avenue for it might be more effective. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- You raise important issues, and I have an infamous history of launching terrible RFCs, so now's the time for others to opine whether I should trim this back or reword! Please feel free to speak plainly so I don't have to read between the lines ... nuance and subtlety out the door please :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm definitely concerned that the DYK proposal will distract from the main point. The other three are more related to each other, but anything with DYK will be more controversial and may generate heat that draws light away from the other items. Hog Farm Talk 18:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- You may be right (although it is DYK that brings us to where we are in all these (similar) cases. I'll wait to hear from others before launch, but I think I'm otherwise ready to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: Perhaps separate the DYK bit and discuss it at the DYK talk page instead? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Will do when launching ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: Perhaps separate the DYK bit and discuss it at the DYK talk page instead? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- You may be right (although it is DYK that brings us to where we are in all these (similar) cases. I'll wait to hear from others before launch, but I think I'm otherwise ready to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm definitely concerned that the DYK proposal will distract from the main point. The other three are more related to each other, but anything with DYK will be more controversial and may generate heat that draws light away from the other items. Hog Farm Talk 18:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- You raise important issues, and I have an infamous history of launching terrible RFCs, so now's the time for others to opine whether I should trim this back or reword! Please feel free to speak plainly so I don't have to read between the lines ... nuance and subtlety out the door please :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Iazyges re this feedback, I'm not sure the VP is the right place for what I have in sandbox here. Pls have a look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: Yes, I'm inclined to agree with you, given the form. Perhaps the regular AN might serve better though? I am not deeply affected by where the discussion ends up, as intend to show up and vote straight-ticket on all proposals, just concerned about the possibility of an "ask-your-mother" from ANI. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, always a problem ... will wait for more feedback before launch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Considering the bludgeoning and insults already at ANI, you may be right that AN may result in a better discussion. I've got all the relevant info relinked anyway, so maybe ... why continue at ANI? But if I switch forums, will that be considered FORUMSHOPPING, or is AN actually the more appropriate place ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- I doubt it would be FORUMSHOPPING; the first three ANIs were all actual incidents: Doug's weird behavior, weird behavior part 2, and sockpuppetry. This is not an incident, so much as a discussion that involves everyone; AN is definitely more appropriate, if not perfect. Perhaps hosting an RFC here would not be so bad, but that's about the only new alternative I can think of. Of course, I'm certain FORUMSHOPPING will be invoked; there is an unfortunate percent of regulars that view tenure as the One True God, such that everyone involved should feel sorry about the Doug situation as if it wasn't the product of his own faults and refusal to learn. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- OK, leaning now towards AN, with a link from ANI and requesting the ANI be closed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm less worried about that at this point; confirmed socking tends to harden attitudes (as it should). Mackensen (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Mackensen: There was active bludgeoning at that very thread... Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yep ... from the same editor who bludgeoned my last ANI participation. Unless people think it won't get a broad enough audience, I'm thinking AN instead. And some of those who added toxic posts to my last ANI may be less inclined to do same at AN. So please speak up vociferously if you disagree with AN over ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Legitimately the only time I have seen socking bite someone in an ANI convo was when they directly said "I will sock if I am blocked", now that I think about it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yep ... from the same editor who bludgeoned my last ANI participation. Unless people think it won't get a broad enough audience, I'm thinking AN instead. And some of those who added toxic posts to my last ANI may be less inclined to do same at AN. So please speak up vociferously if you disagree with AN over ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Mackensen: There was active bludgeoning at that very thread... Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- I doubt it would be FORUMSHOPPING; the first three ANIs were all actual incidents: Doug's weird behavior, weird behavior part 2, and sockpuppetry. This is not an incident, so much as a discussion that involves everyone; AN is definitely more appropriate, if not perfect. Perhaps hosting an RFC here would not be so bad, but that's about the only new alternative I can think of. Of course, I'm certain FORUMSHOPPING will be invoked; there is an unfortunate percent of regulars that view tenure as the One True God, such that everyone involved should feel sorry about the Doug situation as if it wasn't the product of his own faults and refusal to learn. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Looks good. Given the ban, sockpuppetry, and offline sources WP:PDEL is the only practical way to deal with this.
There were a few GAs amongst the ItsLassieTime CCI. They were dealt with presumptively, blanked and listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment under the individual review procedure. I'd wait until Wikipedia:Good Article proposal drive 2023#Proposal 14: Merge individual and community good article reassessment is enacted. Ping @Wizardman: who may want to comment on this. MER-C 16:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)