This is an archive of past discussions with User:Doug Weller. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi Doug -- I've reverted some of their most-recent edits and at a glance they do look quite likely to be biased, though possibly I just hold the opposite bias too strongly to judge? I got out of my comfort zone though restoring indubitably unsourced material in BLPs, even if much of it seems to be broadly unproblematic. Taking a quick look at their contributions history there is an astonishing amount of this sort of bulk removal. I really wasn't sure what the right course of action was. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 07:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
@Espresso Addict I think the only choice was a block, in this case a partial block. You could call them NOTHERE as editing just to remove material for political reasons is not acceptable, and it certainly is disruptive. Doug Wellertalk08:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Do you think it would be reasonable to mass revert their edits? Not that I actually know whether that's feasible technically but the mere thought of going through >775 politically motivated but largely policy-compliant edits by hand is wearisome. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
If you would, I've still failed at making mass rollback work. I was just going to roll them all back as they were done for political reasons - ie gender, being socialist , etc, as I said on their talk page. Thanks. Doug Wellertalk10:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Mass rollback done. You have correctly installed the script; now you should uninstall Writ Keeper's script. This script will only show options if there are current revisions on a user's contributions page. Please check the documentation for more information. – DreamRimmer (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I've come across some odd rollbacks in this mass rollback. Things have been added in this mass rollback that are huge claims with no citations. Things have been added in this mass rollback that need serious copyedits. I came here for an explanation, but reading this thread only adds to my confusion. Can you please explain what this is about? Kingturtle = (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Ok, sorry. I was honestly not aware that it isn't allowed to delete unsourced information and copyright violations from articles of people with specific genders or political affiliations. Thank you for informing me. Lamptonian (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
You didn't label any as copyright violations, and how could you even spot any when you were sometimes editing 2 articles a minute.. You were almost certainly doing this by categories. As I said, disruptive editing. Doug Wellertalk15:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I was doing it by going through categories. Of course I was. Nonetheless, I removed a small number of crass copyright violations and many other forms of inappropriate content. But, again, thank you for informing me that this was not acceptable. Lamptonian (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough. But who is going to go through those one by one and address the ones that have issues? For example this rollback put a terrible edit back into an article. I went ahead and fixed it, but there seem to be some more dubious things re-added to articles because of this mass rollback. I hope someone as part of this project reviews each one of these. I don't really have time to.
Also, in the future please phrase things in the edit summary that help other editors. Hundreds of edits direct editors to this thread, and this thread doesn't really tell us what's up.
Ok, so if you judge something to be easy to source after the fact, a removal of unsourced content was not justifiable and needs to result in a ban? Lamptonian (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I've commented on your talkpage. Yes, the massive number of removals was disruptive; it doesn't appear that you've made any effort to determine if any unreferenced content can be referenced or is contentious enough that it must be referenced or removed. By going through categories, it created an impression that you had an agenda. Unfortunately, we can't discern your reasoning beyond what is in front of us in your editing history. I am willing to accept that your efforts were well-intentioned, but misguided. Wholesale removal of that kind is not intended or required by policy except in narrow circumstances. Now we have to go through hundreds of edits one by one to see how many removals are really required, and to judge each one individually on its merits, as you should have done. I'm no fan of article bulk for the sake of bulk, like lists of chapters, but I would expect editors to explain that sort of thing and to proceed carefully.Acroterion(talk)19:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Based on a brief sample, much of what you removed was eminently sourceable, sometimes with trivial effort. But that takes much more time and effort than just deleting stuff. There is a good bit of close paraphrasing in many of those articles, but that can be rewritten, and there's some junk. Many date from an earlier era of Wikipedia, where sourcing policy was less rigorous, but that's grounds for fixing. It will take months of steady work to find cites for all that, but most of the sources are out there. It's not fast, but finding sources and citing them is far more valuable tot he encyclopedia than summary removal based on a superficial evaluation. So as far as I'm concerned both the mass rollback and the blocked were necessary to protect the encyclopedia. The question now is; how are you going to edit moving forward, working diligently and with appropriate deliberation? Acroterion(talk)00:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
The issue isn't whether or not to block the sock puppet. The issue is some of those reverts were unnecessary. I understand the dilemma, that it is best to revert all those edits. But some of those edits were useful. Through time, I am sure they will be fixed as people come across them. Be well :) Kingturtle = (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
@Kingturtle, see my specific comments on Lamptonian's talkpage. I will take some time and look for good edits among the mass removals. There are some, but the overall slash-and-burn approach wasn't beneficial to the encyclopedia, in lieu of actually taking the time to check for references and sources and adding them where they exist and are easily found; it just takes longer than removing it. Acroterion(talk)14:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I didn't miss that fact. My initial complaint was that the edit summaries pointed to this thread, and this thread was not explicit in the reasoning. Maybe put something at the top of this thread explaining why the reverts happened.
May your homes be warm with joy and your hearts be filled with happiness this holiday season whatever you celebrate and even if you don't. Sorry, it would take forever to post to everyone's talk page! Doug Wellertalk14:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Greetings, Doug Weller, may 2025 bring you joy! Best wishes for the upcoming year, and thank you for all you do for Wikipedia and for Native communities!
Happy New Year! I was reflecting recently on some of the folks that were welcoming when I first started here and am just taking a moment to say thanks. I like writing about topics where there are misconceptions, uncertainty, mystery, and so on. On Wikipedia, those topics are often pretty tense and fraught environments. I appreciated your invitation from a year ago and have consistently found you to be this level and stabilizing force where you show up even with the topic is contentious and fraught. Rjjiii (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
And also, reading the above messages, I'm glad you made it to 2025 and hope you get the most out of the time you have left. I cannot possibly imagine what you are going through. I am glad to have run into you, and I imagine that many people who have not explicitly said so, feel the same way. Rjjiii (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Hey I'm sorry if I'm stepping on your toes at the Vinland discussion. Happy to ease off the pedal - TBH I was trying to be helpful. Simonm223 (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
OK, just making sure. That discussion is a bit of a mess of threading and I know I get the bit between my teeth sometimes. TBH I just want the other editor to focus on one thing at a time as they seem to be far more concerned about winning an argument than actually putting anything valuable into the article. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Edit clarification
Doug, I noticed this edit which appears to be a troll or sarcastic comment made on what appears to be a relatively inexperienced editor's (239 total edits) talk page, but maybe I am missing something. Could you please clarify the intent behind this edit for me? Iljhgtn (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
@Iljhgtn You are really accusing me of trolling? You don't seem to have interacted with the editor so I'm wondering how you n oticed it. I meant very interested. They clearly weren't bothered by my comment. Doug Wellertalk08:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Wiki pedia lists a range of theories about mount Sinai. Its unfair that you are dismissing a theory based on alot of evidence. The book was accepted by the Israeli national library. I hope you can be a little more open minded. Georgeari (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
@Georgeari It's not a matter of being open-minded, it is just policy and someone as new as you are isn't even expected to always know our policies. As I noted on your talk page, all your edits have been reverted, most not by me - for being unsourced and poor grammar. If you think that self-published book can be used, go to WP:RSN. Doug Wellertalk08:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
It shouldnt matter if its a self published book. The fact is there are other theories about the location of sinai which you are not including in wikipedea. Shame. It should be a source of info Georgeari (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
@Georgeari This belongs on the talk page - make your suggestions there and please don't come back to my page as I'm not going to act on requests that aren't transparently on an article talk page and aren't clear vandalism, etc. Doug Wellertalk15:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Wishing you and your wife a happy new year, sharing water and icicles, winter stillness. My story today is about Dada Masilo and her Sacrifice. Enjoy whatever you can! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Original Barnstar
For tirelessly volunteering to safeguard an internet resource, I award you the original barnstar. You represent to me a life well-lived, and I am glad to be able to communicate this to you while you remain active on this website. There will never be another Doug Weller. jps (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
1) I am a good faith editor whose start on Wikipedia might have been not that good but I am getting better and now editing the space in good faith.
2) The enforcement started as a retaliation as mentioned by me in the discussion here.
3) I have edited on Wikipedia and in the past month, we can not find a single instance where I indulged in vandalism or POV pushes as mentioned in the enforcement.
I request you to kindly give me a chance to work further on the platform.
Note: I am currently undergoing my semester exams in university till 15th jan, might not respond swiftly. I respect your fair-mindedness and have a good faith that you will take side of Justice.
Hi @Doug Weller, not really sure where to go with this, but I'm stuck in a bit of a pickle right now. An editor on Quranic Studies violated 3RR and is engaged in an extreme edit war. I have been unable to stop this editor as of yet but would like your input. Thanks!OrebroVi (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi Doug. I was unable to read anything at the URL following "see" in your message, because part of the diff had been deleted. Feel free to send me another message. Thanks, NightHeron (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Peopleing of the Americas
We keep coming across addition and changes over multiple pages adding the newest info. I'm assuming it's cuz our readers aren't understanding the complexity of the debate.... or it's progression over time. I have done a quick overview at Peopling of the Americas#Scholarly debate. I'm hoping I got this right..... I do see some minor date variances in the body after this section.... but believe what I've added corresponds with the sources there. Does this all make sense to you? am I clear? Do you think this will help? Moxy🍁00:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
@Moxy Except for the fact that I would rarely use "however" and see it as editorial, it looks very good. What other articles are of concern? Thanks for your work here. Doug Wellertalk14:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Dear Doug, Trust all is as well as can be expected?
I could do with your advice regarding [[userlinks|NotADev]] and their "edits" on British intelligence agencies. They have stated that MI5, MI6 and GCHQ are not "government departments" - but they are controlled by the Home Office, Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence - and have introduced a complete new initialisation for MI5, which I have never heard of and a search of the web does not show-up. I reverted their initial "edit". But they have reverted back my initial revision of their text with this wrong info. I have no wish to enter a "edit war", but their info is plainly wrong. Any idea of where to go from here? Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
your recent eliminations from the talk page of political Islam
wishing you well for your health and well-being in 2025 let me in all politeness ask you to reconsider the elimination of the recent contributions by users Frete unicolore etc. from the talk page of political Islam. Life is complicated and life is simple and the variety of what you call in Wikipedia jargon sock puppets is simply explained by the fact that one person uses a variety of tablets, phones, computers, etc. and what seems to be a dangerous conspiracy to run over Wikipedia voting mechanisms was just the honest attempt to look in a scientific way at the phenomenon of political Islam and the literature which I mentioned in my contributions is worthwhile to be considered, and I ask you to reinstate these contributions which you eliminated for the sake of scientific debate. 2001:4BB8:101:27AA:D9EA:70CB:6440:940C (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.
AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.
Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at WP:ARCA about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion.
Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
The community is encouraged to run a Request for Comment aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.
The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.
Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The digital security resources page contains information that may help.
Within this topic area, the balanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE.
Details of the balanced editing restriction
In a given 30-day period, a user under this restriction is limited to making no more than one-third of their edits in the Article, Talk, Draft, and Draft talk namespaces to pages that are subject to the extended-confirmed restriction under Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures.
This will be determined by an edit filter that tracks edits to pages in these namespaces that are extended confirmed protected, or are talk pages of such pages, and are tagged with templates to be designated by the arbitration clerks. Admins are encouraged to apply these templates when protecting a page, and the clerks may use scripts or bots to add these templates to pages where the protection has been correctly logged, and may make any necessary changes in the technical implementation of this remedy in the future.
Making an edit in excess of this restriction, as determined at the time the edit is made, should be treated as if it were a topic ban violation. Admins should note that a restricted user effectively cannot violate the terms of this and above clauses until at least 30 days after the sanction has been imposed.
They are topic banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, in all namespaces other than these four (except for their own userspace and user talkspace).
This sanction is not subject to the normal standards of evidence for disruptive editing; it simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive.
Any admin finding a user in violation of this restriction may, at their discretion, impose other contentious topic sanctions.
If a sockpuppet investigations clerk or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their existing authority to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators may remove or collapse contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.
.jpg)
