Hi Tony, I don't believe there's any current formal policy on this, so absolutely feel free to ignore this message. However, as one of the GA backlog drive coordinators, I noticed our numbers were heading backwards this week, and wondered why - and then I saw your recent nominations. You have almost 70 nominations currently active on the GAN page! I wonder if you could hold off on further nominations until the bulk of these have been reviewed, or at least until the end of the GA backlog drive on April 1st. This is just a personal request, not related to any rule or policy - but hope you will consider it. Thanks for your many GA reviews and articles over the years. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
:User:Ganesha811, I am participating in WP:CUP, I have a pretty low success rate at FAC, so I need to wind up dozens of GAs in the queue to have date priority position so that in the rounds where I need a lot of points, I can get lots of GA points. I am willing to stop nominating new articles until April 1 if you can promise that there will be another backlog drive in October.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
::I can't promise that, especially since it isn't up to just me. However, I certainly support another GA backlog drive pretty soon after this one, since we have made only moderate progress so far this month. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
::Hi Tony, I noticed the same thing as Ganesha did above. Speaking as a regular editor, rather than as a WikiCup judge, I have to say that, unfortunately, some of your most recent GANs have issues that may make them liable to a fail or even a quickfail. Here's a sampling of what I'm talking about:
::* Steven Hoggett - this article has four sections, one of which (Personal life) is a single sentence that is completely unsourced (and is tagged with {{tl|cn}}). The Early Life section is just three sentences, and most of the article is about his career. A reviewer might point out that the article fails GA criteria 3a (broadness) and 2b (sourcing).
::* Pilot and Chapter Two - the production section is just one sentence long, and it lacks any info about background or themes (for comparison, have a look at articles like Faces (Star Trek: Voyager) or Gender Bender (The X-Files)). A reviewer might point out that the article fails GA criterion 3a.
::* A Christmas Story: The Musical - the article lacks citations in several places, and it also lacks info about reception - there are just two reviews, whereas for a Broadway musical you can usually find 4-5 good reviews just about the Broadway run (and, potentially, other reviews about the runs in each of the other cities). A reviewer might point out that the article fails GA criteria 3a and 2b.
::* Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - I just removed your GA nomination for this article because it has at least three maintenance tags and multiple pieces of unsourced information (failing GA criterion 2b). In addition, the history section seems heavily weighted in favor of the agency's first four years, failing criterion 4. There is a standalone controversies section with four very detailed sections about past controversies, but controversy sections are best avoided per WP:CSECTION.
::{{pb}}As a WikiCup judge, I should mention that {{tq|I need to wind up dozens of GAs in the queue to have date priority position so that in the rounds where I need a lot of points, I can get lots of GA points.}} could be considered gaming the system. If you are submitting subpar GANs so you can gain more points in future rounds, then these articles are liable to be ineligible for points (per Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring#General rules: "All reviewed content must have been worked on significantly by you to receive points. ... If this is abused, the judges reserve the right to not award points."). There is no time limit on GANs. The probability of them being reviewed does not increase substantially when you nominate dozens of articles at once, because if you have more than 20 GANs, the additional GANs will be hidden from potential reviewers.{{pb}}This is surprising given your track record of successful GA nominations. I highly encourage you to take a look at the GACR criteria again, then go through all of the articles you just nominated and see if any of these articles still need work to meet the GA criteria. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
:::User:Epicgenius, I do not intend to abuse the system. I am actually working through a list of several hundred DYKs that I have had since I last entered the CUP in 2010. I am trying to figure out which are within striking distance of GA. I have a spreadsheet with two lists. I am only nominating those on the good list. Some of those may need a bit of work, but for the most part I don't think they are in quickfail range. If so, I should be quickfailing some of the ones I am reviewing. Surely, 90% of the nominees that I have posted would be considered suitable nominees by most reviewers. Further, it is my understanding that the GANs continue to accrue date priority while hidden. As the visible ones get reviewed, I believe the newly revealed one will be in better position to attract reviewers.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
::::Thanks for explaining your thought process. If you are nominating old articles for GA, however, I'd suggest looking through them carefully to make sure they don't have obvious issues (like breadth of coverage or maintenance tags). This would help weed out some of the articles with more serious issues, especially as you haven't edited some of them in years; for example, the CFPB page has undergone quite a few changes since you last modified it. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- {{ping|Ganesha811|Epicgenius|BlueMoonset }}, Thanks for checking in. I will try to be more careful with my remaining strategic nominations. Unless, I can count on an October backlog drive, I don't think I should stop nominations. What if there is a September drive. I need to make sure things are nominated in time for a 180 day bonus to kick in with time remaining to review. I apologize for the problems I caused the backlog drive results. I would be willing to allow your to remove all the {{tlx|GA nominee}} templates of all hidden nominations until April 1 if that would make the backlog look good. They would have to be restored with the current date priority info on April 1 though.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- :My main issue is that these mass nominations may be unscrupulous, as seen in the articles I mentioned above. For me, the primary problem is not the backlog number or the fact that you didn't wait until April 1 to nominate the articles. The problem is that, of the articles you nominated, some of them seem to be nowhere near GA status (the CFPB article being one of the clearest examples of this). It's better to ensure that your articles are up to GA standards the first time around, rather than nominating a slate of articles at once and seeing what sticks. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- ::I second this. I've skimmed through all of your nominations, and for what it's worth, I believe that 22 (a third of them) have major issues which could result in a fail or even a QF. I don't doubt that these could get to GA with a good push, but I feel that this many of this quality is too much. I suggest denominating the articles that seem further off from the GAC; it would save you and your reviewers' time! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- :::Most of my GAs are sports, visual arts or Chicago related stuff, so my calibration may be off in other fields, but that number seems a little high.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- ::::Perhaps, but I'd at least leave it at "major issues". I could give a quick rundown if you'd like, but I hope you understand our sentiment.
:::::And of course, a lot of the articles (especially the basketball bios) look quite alright! Either way, I respect your commitment to all of these noms and wish you good luck with the WikiCup! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::My personal suggestion would be to take it slowly. Like you, Tony, I have a backlog of about 150 GA-ready pages, but I never have substantially more than 20 nominations at any one time, and I try to have a selection of nominations that is a representative slice of everything I do. It makes a big difference. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
::Holy hell, I didn't notice this response before. {{tq|I would be willing to allow your to remove all the templates of all hidden nominations until April 1 if that would make the backlog look good. They would have to be restored with the current date priority info on April 1 though.}} What entitles you to make these demands? Who do you think you are, Jimbo Wales? – Teratix ₵ 16:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
:i can see you've nominated 6 more articles for GA today, including Mekia Cox, which (from what i can tell) you haven't edited since 2017 and which cites IMDb, and The Firm (2012 TV series), which you haven't edited since 2016 and which cites not only IMDb but also facebook. please slow down with the nominations, and do your due diligence in working on the articles you nominate. thanks, sawyer * he/they * talk 21:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Tony, it is absolutely an abuse of other editors time and energy to mass-nominate a bunch of articles – many of which are old and have existing issues – just so you can get points in a game. And saying you will refrain from nominating more, but only if Ganesha can promise you there will be another backlog drive for you to exploit in October? The level of entitlement to other peoples' time and effort you're exhibiting here is fucking staggering. An editor with your level of tenure and experience ought to know better. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging WP:WIKICUP judges Cwmhiraeth, Frostly, and repinging Epicgenius. Based on recent behavior, TonyTheTiger is not going to stop this flood of nominations unless told to do so, and far too many of the GA nominations so far have been of articles that are far from meeting the GA criteria, if they're being quickfailed. As PMC notes, that's not fair to regular editors who spend time to review them when they could be improving Wikipedia with that time. The nominating instructions are very clear: {{tq|Ensure that the article meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines as expected of any article, including neutral point of view, verifiability, no original research, and notability. Then check the article against the good article criteria and make any improvements that you think are necessary.}} This should be done for every single article prior to nomination, and if it had been, many of these nominations would not have been made, or would have been delayed while the articles were improved to meet the criteria. Also, even though he's {{tq|working through a list of several hundred DYKs that I have had since I last entered the CUP in 2010}}, just because it was once a DYK doesn't mean that he's a significant contributor to the article—as witness Rodgers + Hammerstein's Cinderella (Beane musical), which he originally nominated at DYK but did not create and only made a dozen minor edits—and should not be nominating those articles at GAN given the recent changes to GAN rules. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- :i've just quickfailed Mekia Cox, which not only cites IMDb, but also a forum post from 2010. this is completely disruptive and taking up reviewers' time when we could be reviewing articles that had the absolute bare minimum amount of attention paid to them before nomination, or working on our own projects. i'm frustrated, to say the least. sawyer * he/they * talk 00:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- :Thanks for the ping @BlueMoonset. I mentioned a sampling of the issues above, and I recommended that Tony go through all of these nominations to see if they actually meet the standards. Judging by the fact that some of these nominations have just been quickfailed, I'm not confident that this has been done.
- :Tony, I strongly encourage you to go back and double check all of your remaining nominations to see if they meet the GA criteria. From the looks of it, you are nominating articles that you haven't edited in years, so it's hard to determine whether you can vouch for the quality of these articles. I suggest you double check these nominations as soon as you can. Epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- ::I just quickfailed three sports submissions, and I think a half dozen more probably qualify in that section as well. To echo {{u|Premeditated Chaos}}, Tony, I'll be blunt: making dozens of spurious GA nominations at once – saddling down the system just to game the WikiCup – is a cut-and-dry case of disruptive editing (not to wildly inconsiderate to everyone else in the GA process), and continuing to engage in it will result in a block. It is absolutely disruptive to make a small number of relatively minor additions to an article and renominate it after it was quickfailed, without even coming close to addressing all of the concerns, as you did at Michael Schofield (American football). {{u|Epicgenius}} is right: you need to go through your nominations and withdraw everything but the ones that are actually reasonably close to good-article status, and then we can talk about whether we still need to space them out. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- :::I'm stunned by Michael Schofield (American football). Two quickfails in under ten hours? -- asilvering (talk) 04:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I apologize that I have not participated in this discussion in a while but I was noticing the reviews below and not noticing up here. There is certainly an active effort to remove a lot of the nominations. I can see clearly that some are weak. Mostly those outside my stated areas of editorial expertise above. However, there is also a lot of exaggerating going on regarding what is far from WP:WIAGA. E.g., compare Michael Schofield (American football) to the most recent WP:GA sports and recreation promotion other than my articles Jerry Atkinson (American football). The current version of Schofield not remotely in quickfail territory. Overzealous posse of editors is simply over reacting. This is WP:GAN is not WP:FAC and there seems to be a largescale effort to require me to attain a closer than normal proximity to WIAGA all of a sudden. Most experts can talk me into submission on some of the media topics, but I am quite expert on sports GACs and I know Schofields article is better than most offensive linemen on WP. Failing this a second time was clear lack of understanding of what proximity to WIAGA is. Calm down and stop quickfailing stuff for no reason, There is no requirement that 100% of a persons nomination need to be promoted. If you fail a 20-25% of my articles that does not make me a problem editor.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- :You're an experienced editor, you know how talk pages work. It makes no sense that you wouldn't have been checking this section for responses, given that it was an active discussion about your behavior. I frankly don't believe that you somehow didn't see them.
- :That aside, this response is utterly tone-deaf and fails to actually address the breadth of issues people have brought up with these nominations. If a dozen people are pointing out problems with your behavior and your nominations, it might just be that there is a problem! That you have the audacity to say things like {{tq|Calm down and stop quickfailing stuff for no reason...If you fail a 20-25% of my articles that does not make me a problem editor.}} is just incredible to me. Not a single one of those quickfails was for no reason. And it does make you a problem editor if you nominate 70+ articles en masse solely because you want WikiCup points on a schedule that suits you. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- ::It seems Tony had had this problem of thinking WP is there for his benefit for a long time. Back in 2011, Tony was topic-banned from the featured sounds and from "uploading images about himself". The reason for the first of these TBANs was, and I quote, for:
- :::{{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. Until TTT is made to understand that he cannot ignore what other people are saying, and that Featured Sounds exists for more than just to fill the trophy wall that is his userpage, I believe that he is harmful to the process.}}
- ::What goes around comes around, eh? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- :::There's also the following, from the same discussion:
- ::::{{green|he seems unable to understand the ways in which he disrupts and abuses of processes and other editors' time in his goal of promoting himself. Last year, 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.}}
- :::It's sad to see that such an experienced old hand can't move on from the disruptive habits that got him into trouble in the past. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
:As someone who is a neutral party (not in the wikicup this year), and who has done his share of sports nominations and reviews in the past, I 100% agree on the quick fails just from eyeballing a handful of them (Irwin, Demens, and Hudson are nowhere close to GA). You'rs focusing on how fast he can write things to send to GA rather than actually focusing on making good articles, and it's entirely against the spirit of the Wikicup, and for that matter, GAN. I've reviewed legitimately good articles from you in the past (Cato June comes to mind), so you can make proper good articles, you would just rather apparently do the minimum to get the badge/points/whatever, and that's a significant problem. Wizardman 14:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
::User:Wizardman, I am sure you are aware that if an Offensive lineman is not a Pro Bowl caliber player, they don't get much press. Neither Heath Irwin nor Michael Schofield (American football) has any significant content missing. The fact that the articles are not expansive does not mean that they do not cover the topic with adequate breadth. I have not looked closely at some of the others, but neither of those two is missing anything that is very encyclopedic, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
:::While true, there are still things that can be added that would help with adding context and understanding where the player was at in their career. To use Heath Irwin as an example, did he have a draft projection? What were his contracts that he signed? Since he was a spot starter in his career, were those 29 games all in a couple seasons or was he a spot starter due to a guard's injury or ineffectiveness? Did he just play guard or did they throw him elsewhere on the line, which we know happens rather frequently with non-stars? Did any of his coaches have projections on him especially early on? It's little things like that that, to me, encapsulate the difference between a Good Article and an alright one (coincidentally enough a lot of that info is in Schofield, so maybe a qf on that one wasn't ideal). In fact, to answer my very own question above, since he started most games in 1999 then joined the Dolphins I imagine there has to be an article or two on that as to what happened there. Wizardman 15:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
::::User:Wizardman and regarding Demens and Hudson, they may have been predominately special teams (non-returner non-placekicker) contributors, so they may be at about the same level of press exposure as linemen, if not lower.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'll say that I'm not quite sure I agree with some of the quickfails (Michael Schofield doesn't look that bad IMO) – but Tony, you really should be cautious about what articles you're nominating and make sure they're of very high quality, especially if they're things you haven't edited in years. Just my two cents. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Administrative action is appropriate at this point, since this apparently won't stop otherwise. In addition to frivolous re-nominations that have continued after all of the above warnings, we have these:
- Complained about the quickfails at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup#Open season on qfing me, saying {{tq|There is an overzealous posse of editors quickfailing my articles.}}
- Left a harassing message for a reviewer at User talk:Teratix#Heath Irwin review, saying {{tq|I assume you are lieing to pick a fight. Is that your intention.}}
- Attacked the reviewer at Talk:Michael Schofield (American football)/GA2, saying {{tq|many of the fails are pure vindictive frustration by a posse of GA reviewers looking hard for stuff to quibble with}} and {{tq|You are bending over backwards to fail this article. No one who knows football would consider this far from a GA. Maybe stay in your lane in a field you know.}} Of course, one of the main benefits of GA is that it allows for occasional feedback from someone not involved in the topic area.
- Participated in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/March 2024#Reason for "backward" progress, responding to claims of not being a significant contributor with {{tq|Bold-faced lie. Every one of my GAN submissions is from my own WP:DYK submissions. PLease point out an article that I don't have any edits on?}} because there were significant contributions, they were just from many years ago (sometimes over a decade).
:There might be more, but these are the ones I found. If polite requests aren't going to work and warnings aren't going to work, then the community is going to have to find a solution that will. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- The renominations Heath Irwin, Michael Schofield (American football), Kenny Demens, 1000M were all after addressing the failing concerns.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- :you clearly did not address all of the failing concerns, though. Schofield & 1000M were both quickfailed again because the new reviewers felt you did not adequately address the concerns of the first quickfails (regardless of how unfair you believe the QF of Schofield was). sawyer * he/they * talk 20:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- ::i'll also note that @Theleekycauldron put the possibility of a block on the table last night, and after her comment, you've renominated at least three articles, one of which resulted in two quickfails in a single day. sawyer * he/they * talk 20:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- :::I stand by my quick fail of the first Schofield GAN, and wasn't aware that you had issues with it Tony. If you'd like to discuss my review please get in touch. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
