Editing Eurovision Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (section)

===Evidence of working collaboratively for effective improvement===
ITN is mainly a discussion forum – nominations and proposals are made and they are then discussed in an adversarial fashion with '''Oppose''' and '''Support''' !votes. This tends to encourage conflict rather than collaboration but I try to stay high on [[Graham's hierarchy of disagreement]] – focussing on the content, helping to improve it, providing detailed evidence and avoiding personal attacks. To see this in action, please see my most recent initiatives, before this blew up today.
 
:* '''Most recent nomination'''. I browsed the ''New York Times'' this morning and noticed a [https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/09/science/meteorite-europe-crash-germany-roof.html report] of a big fireball from a meteorite which hit Germany. This sounded interesting so I found the [[2026 Koblenz meteor|new article]] about it and [[Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#German_fireball|nominated it]]. The aspects which especially interested me were that the [[European Space Agency]] has a planetary defence unit which took a close interest in this. And that the US armed forces in the region were initially concerned that this might be a missile strike. The fact that some fragments crashed through someone's roof also seemed unusual. The nomination was opposed but it doesn't seem to be my behaviour which is at fault in this case.
:: Note that this nomination was the <u>only</u> news item nominated for that date of 9 March. (There were a couple of recent deaths too but they are more routine). So, it seems that ITN has few nominations and that's a major reason that it is often stale. Punishing such bold nominations therefore seems unhelpful as it will have a chilling effect.
 
:* '''Most recent ITN talk''' It was [[International Women's Day]] two days ago and I noticed that most main page sections were acknowledging this in some way. ITN was the only exception and so I started [[Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Gender_gap|a discussion about this]] at its talk page. The discussion seemed reasonably civil as it explored the issue and some small progress was made as more RD nominations for women were made.
 
So, the OP wants "working collaboratively for effective improvement" and that's what I endeavour to do in such ways. The full range of activity should be considered rather than a few cherry-picked arguments. For example, here's a list of recent ITN credits from my talk page. These arise after successful completion of a nomination and so represent productive activity. This would be lost if I were to be banned from ITN.
 
# [[User_talk:Andrew_Davidson#ITN_recognition_for_Fauja_Singh|ITN recognition for Fauja Singh]]
# [[User_talk:Andrew_Davidson#ITN_recognition_for_Connie_Francis|ITN recognition for Connie Francis]]
# [[User_talk:Andrew_Davidson#ITN_recognition_for_Biddy_Baxter|ITN recognition for Biddy Baxter]]
# [[User_talk:Andrew_Davidson#ITN_recognition_for_2025_Ryder_Cup|ITN recognition for 2025 Ryder Cup]]
# [[User_talk:Andrew_Davidson#ITN_recognition_for_George_Smoot|ITN recognition for George Smoot]]
# [[User_talk:Andrew_Davidson#ITN_recognition_for_Sarah_Mullally|ITN recognition for Sarah Mullally]]
# [[User_talk:Andrew_Davidson#ITN_recognition_for_Diane_Keaton|ITN recognition for Diane Keaton]]
# [[User_talk:Andrew_Davidson#ITN_recognition_for_Yang_Chen-Ning|ITN recognition for Yang Chen-Ning]]
# [[User_talk:Andrew_Davidson#ITN_recognition_for_Prunella_Scales|ITN recognition for Prunella Scales]]
# [[User_talk:Andrew_Davidson#ITN_recognition_for_James_Watson|ITN recognition for James Watson]]
# [[User_talk:Andrew_Davidson#ITN_recognition_for_Horst_Panic|ITN recognition for Horst Panic]]
# [[User_talk:Andrew_Davidson#ITN_recognition_for_Tom_Stoppard|ITN recognition for Tom Stoppard]]
# [[User_talk:Andrew_Davidson#ITN_recognition_for_Rob_Reiner|ITN recognition for Rob Reiner]]
# [[User_talk:Andrew_Davidson#ITN_recognition_for_Brigitte_Bardot|ITN recognition for Brigitte Bardot]]
# [[User_talk:Andrew_Davidson#ITN_recognition_for_Khaleda_Zia|ITN recognition for Khaleda Zia]]
# [[User_talk:Andrew_Davidson#ITN_recognition_for_Greenland_crisis|ITN recognition for Greenland crisis]]
# [[User_talk:Andrew_Davidson#ITN_recognition_for_World_Health_Organization|ITN recognition for World Health Organization]]
# [[User_talk:Andrew_Davidson#ITN_recognition_for_Epstein_files|ITN recognition for Epstein files]]
# [[User_talk:Andrew_Davidson#ITN_recognition_for_Jesse_Jackson|ITN recognition for Jesse Jackson]]
# [[User_talk:Andrew_Davidson#ITN_recognition_for_Robert_Duvall|ITN recognition for Robert Duvall]]
# [[User_talk:Andrew_Davidson#ITN_recognition_for_2026_Iranian_Supreme_Leader_election|ITN recognition for 2026 Iranian Supreme Leader election]]

For comparison and to put this in context, note that the equivalent number of ITN credits awarded to the OP in the same period appears to be zero as they have not received one since 2023. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 00:44, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

[[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 23:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC) {{ec}}
*I think if you polled all the editors who have objected to your disruptive behavior, they would acknowledge a belief that you are contributing in good faith. But a huge part of the problem is you think that your intent justifies acting however you want and ignoring all requests to rein it in. Attacking me as the OP (for the apparent crime of not soliciting recognition ribbons?!) is just more deflection. ''<small>[[User_talk:GreatCaesarsGhost|<span style="color:#938f8d">GreatCaesarsGhost</span>]]</small>'' 02:56, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
*:And the reason you have so much recognition is because you add yourself as an updater [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AIn_the_news%2FCandidates&diff=1342517835&oldid=1342517531] when all you have contributed is a single citation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Country_Joe_McDonald&diff=1342517772&oldid=1342508916]. The documentation clearly says that is for those who "'''significantly''' updated the article in '''plain text'''".  ''<small>[[User_talk:GreatCaesarsGhost|<span style="color:#938f8d">GreatCaesarsGhost</span>]]</small>'' 12:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
*::That's [[Country Joe McDonald]] who is not in the list above.  He's still a work-in-progress and I was planning to do more but now have been distracted by this discussion.  But it wasn't the only edit.  That edit took care of the only {{tl|citation needed}} tag in the prose of the article at the time. I also made a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Country_Joe_McDonald&diff=prev&oldid=1342530623 copy-editing pass]. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 12:46, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::(NAC) I think that's a little unfair to say that those articles wouldn't have made it onto ITN (or been "lost") had it not been for you Andrew. For example, I would have taken up Prunella Scales had you not beaten me to the nomination. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> '''[[User:The C of E|<span style="color:red;">The C of E </span><span style="color:blue;"> God Save the King!</span>]]''' ([[User talk:The C of E|<span style="color:darkblue;">talk</span>]])</span> 19:28, 11 March 2026 (UTC) 
*::*[[Country Joe McDonald]] has now been posted at ITN by the veteran ITN admin {{u|Spencer}} who [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=prev&oldid=1343227750 commented] {{tq|Referencing issues resolved, nice work.|q=y}}  Spencer kindly awarded ITN credits to myself and others, especially {{u|Carlstak}} who did much of the heavy lifting.  I helped out in various ways by editing the article and its talk page, updating the ITN nomination and discussion and by engaging in [[User_talk:Carlstak#Starement_from_Anthropic|friendly conversation with Carlstak and others]] at their talk page.  This is the sort of congenial and constructive collaboration that we should encourage.  We need more carrot and less stick. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 08:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
* Would it be kosher under [[WP:CANVASSING]] for me to post a neutrally-worded note on [[WT:ITN]] informing those who may be interested of this thread? [[User:Chorchapu|<span style="color:#6F7AD6">'''Chorchapu'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Chorchapu|<span style="color:#146B55">talk</span>]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Chorchapu|<span style="color:#146B55">edits</span>]]) 00:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
*:Yes, [[User:Stephen|Step]][[User talk:Stephen|hen]] 22:50, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
* '''Support indef TBAN from ITN''', or at minimum a year if an indef isn't supported. Color me absolutely ''shocked'' that Andrew's response here is fundamentally based in "[[WP:IDHT|There's nothing wrong with my editing]]" and includes a silly [[WP:NPA|personal attack]]/"I'm better than you" statement towards GreatCaesarsGhost because... Andrew has more ITN credits? Really?{{pb
}}I don't have much else to add that hasn't already been stated (the pageviews stuff in particular is significantly disruptive), though I do still have some points to make:
*# I was going to bring up the existing TBAN from deletion discussions, but I see that's already been noted. What I will bring up, however, is that reading through the original thread there makes me realize that on a fundamental level, the exact same behavior from deletion discussions has continued at ITN: the [[WP:POINT]]y actions, snarky and sarcastic comments, apparent belief in his opinions' inherent superiority over other users', and complete disregard of existing precedents/consensus in favor of his own personal standards.
*# Regarding POINTiness at ITN, there's historically been a wide consensus at ITN that conflict-related blurbs are usually covered by an ongoing item or existing blurb; for instance, we've declined most blurb nominations about the events of the wars in Ukraine and Gaza as covered by their current or former ongoing items. With that in mind, Andrew, a veteran of ITN who knows this, has nominated [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#c-Andrew_Davidson-20260304224200-Shipping_crisis three] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#c-Andrew_Davidson-20260304224200-(Closed)_IRIS_Dena_is_torpedoed separate] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#c-Andrew_Davidson-20260306105200-(Closed)_European_navies_mobilise_to_protect_Cyprus stories] that most users rightfully pointed out were covered by the existing blurb for the war in Iran. At each of these noms, Andrew's behavior consisted varyingly of sarcasm, triviality, complaining about ITN being "stale" and that posting standards should simply be disregarded to keep it "fresh" (remember that [[WP:NOTATICKER|ITN is not a news ticker]]), and in general, a complete disregard/ignorance of others' comments on these nominations/his behavior. 
*<li style="list-style:none;">There's also a variety of other instances of the apparent self-superiority in instances such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#c-Black_Kite-20260308094400-Andrew_Davidson-20260307235100 wildly misinterpreting] [[WP:EASTEREGG]] regarding [[Ian Huntley]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#c-Schwede66-20260308020600-Andrew_Davidson-20260307235300 seemingly ignoring] [[WP:ITNQUALITY]] to protest the posting of an item, and so on. I really encourage people to read through the Cyprus naval defense nom, specifically his interactions with AusLondoner, for a good idea of how he just... utterly refuses to consider anyone else's perspective but his own.{{pb
}} While I can acknowledge he's contributing in good faith to some degree (i.e. not intentionally vandalizing things, he ''thinks'' he's helping the encyclopedia), the utter lack of introspection and attitude of superiority remind me considerably of [[WP:ARBATC2|Dicklyon's behavior]] that ultimately led to that siteban. He's worn out the time and patience of ITN contributors enough by this point. [[User:The Kip|<span style="color:#333f42;">'''The'''</span>]] [[User talk:The Kip|<span style="color:#b4975a;">'''Kip'''</span>]] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Kip|contribs]])</sup></small></span> 05:56, 11 March 2026 (UTC)</li>
** The first topic in The Kip's list of complaints is [[2026 Strait of Hormuz crisis]].  I nominated that because it's a significant topic, it's in the news and we have a substantial article about it.  Now I'm pointing that out because I notice that someone else has just made a [[Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Ongoing:_2026_Strait_of_Hormuz_crisis|fresh nomination for the same topic]].  This demonstrates that I'm not marching to the beat of a different drummer – just following the news and nominating the topics which I find there.  It's only by making such nominations and having the discussion that you can find out what the consensus is for each particular topic.  This is not disruption; it's the normal process. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 07:37, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
**:{{tq|just following the news and nominating the topics which I find there}}
**:That is an extreme simplification of your behavior at ITN, and another example of the complete failure to acknowledge any disruptive/POINTy/etc behavior. [[User:The Kip|<span style="color:#333f42;">'''The'''</span>]] [[User talk:The Kip|<span style="color:#b4975a;">'''Kip'''</span>]] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Kip|contribs]])</sup></small></span> 07:58, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
**::It's really that simple.  I go to a good news source like the NYT or BBC and see that they are reporting ''[https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/03/11/world/iran-war-news-trump-oil-israel U.S. Says It Hit Iranian Mine-Laying Vessels Near Vital Oil Passage]'' or ''[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cd70wzw9vqlt US says 16 Iranian mine-laying ships 'eliminated']''.  If I then nominate such a topic, I back it up with a list of such reputable sources, listing them in the nomination.  Sometimes the article might need some work but the process allows for that.  I also make some effort to identify and list the editors who have been updating the article(s) in question.  This is not pointy behaviour; it seems to be exactly the sort of good faith, collaborative action which is wanted.
**::The natural differences of opinion which then arise seem to be exacerbated by personal friction and unwritten "rules" at ITN about how such stories should be handled.  My view is that ITN is quite hidebound and so its output tends to be too slow and stale.  Naturally, I then suggest process improvements and this is constructive collaboration too.  If such activity is not allowed then the alternative is a chilly silence in which no-one dare speak out for fear of being pilloried.
**::[[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 08:20, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
*:The fact that many of the arguments against sanctions here seemingly rely on the notion of “but ITN bad” and/or “he’s just a dissenting voice” rather than a genuine assessment of Andrew’s behavior does not fill me with confidence that people are actually reading the evidence.
*:ITN is flawed for sure, but there’s ample evidence Andrew’s behavior rises above and beyond into the realm of [[WP:IDHT]]-laden disruption and has become a time-sink for virtually every other contributor to ITN. [[User:The Kip|<span style="color:#333f42;">'''The'''</span>]] [[User talk:The Kip|<span style="color:#b4975a;">'''Kip'''</span>]] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Kip|contribs]])</sup></small></span> 14:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
*:As somewhat expected, this is going nowhere and getting directed off-topic. See you all again in a few months when Andrew's continued to be a disruptive time-sink and this gets brought up again, only to be shot down on vague assertions of "ITN bad" or "if you ignore all the disruption he's actually quite a good editor." [[User:The Kip|<span style="color:#333f42;">'''The'''</span>]] [[User talk:The Kip|<span style="color:#b4975a;">'''Kip'''</span>]] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Kip|contribs]])</sup></small></span> 07:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:Honestly, this claiming of ITN credits absolving all sins and the reference to TRM reminded me of another user who wound up getting (IIRC) Community Ban, whose username escapes me at the moment. 
:Their issue was more close paraphrasing and straight up misinterpreting sources in the GAs that he wrote (I think he was also responsible for an excretable article on [[Preparation]] of all things, complete with a photo of him “preparing” to write a GA used in said article, plus just badly out of place turns of phrase written in that article itself). 
:However, when called on their issues, they retreated behind their numerous GA credits and asking why people didn’t have an issue when during his GARs, eventually exhausting the community’s patience with his repeated IDHT about any and all complaints regarding his poor sourcing. And when he did wind up CBANned when his actions were brought up here at ANI, TRM showed up at his Talk Page lamenting the removal of what he considered an “extraordinarily prolific editor” for what he also considered rather minor faults blown out of proportion and grudges against the user, never mind the poor interpretation of sources.
:I’m not saying that Andrew has reached that point, but among the ITN regulars, there seems to be a consensus that he’s reaching that point, given the discussion on WT:ITN before the opening of this report here. There was a decent amount of reluctance to actually bring this to ANI on WT:ITN when it was discussed, mostly from people who didn’t feel comfortable bringing things like this to the drama boards without more experience interacting here. But since repeated discussions in ITNC and WT:ITN were getting nowhere with Andrew and his repeated IDHT and POINT-y noms, many felt we had little choice but to bring this issue here. [[User:GhostStalker|<span style="color:gold;">'''Ghost'''</span><span style="color:blue;">'''Stalker'''</span>]]<small> ([[User talk:GhostStalker|Got a present for ya!]] / [[Special:Contributions/GhostStalker|Mission Log]])</small> 04:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::@[[User:Doug Coldwell]], that was it! CBANned back in 2023, man how time flies. Seriously, you have the see the whole [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Preparation_(principle)|preparation AFD saga here]] as an entry point into what went down with the kind of articles Doug wrote (and got some into GA).
::Again, not implying that Andrew is anywhere near as bad as Doug, since he doesn’t tend to respond with walls of text (too much or to the extent Doug did) to any criticism, although some of the snarkiness of his replies reach towards that level, and hasn’t committed widespread copyvio and misrepresentation of sources like Doug did. 
::But seeing TRM brought up reminded me that Doug still had a number of supporters after the CBAN who thought he wrote very good GAs despite the copyvio problems (or ignoring them because they didn’t find any in the GA reviews they did for articles he wrote). And whenever he was criticized, Doug would hide behind his large number of GA and DYK credits, even if they were flawed because of copyvio or source misrepresentation issues, like Andrew was hiding behind his number of ITN credits above, and talking about how the person who started this ANI doesn’t have many compared to him, again mirroring a favorite tactic of Doug of disparaging his critics whenever issues were brought up with his content. Very much in the IDHT mold that was a contributing factor to Doug’s CBAN and even before that his rejected unblock requests descending into WALLOFTEXT.
::I would very much like to head this off at the pass before it gets worse, as Andrew does mostly operate in Good Faith on ITN, it’s just the POINT-y noms and the constant harping on pageviews as a reason why a particular story should get a blurb that is disrupting the rest of ITN IMO. [[User:GhostStalker|<span style="color:gold;">'''Ghost'''</span><span style="color:blue;">'''Stalker'''</span>]]<small> ([[User talk:GhostStalker|Got a present for ya!]] / [[Special:Contributions/GhostStalker|Mission Log]])</small> 04:25, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Here's where I stand on this. The reason I brought up the AfD topic ban, is that I still see the same behavioural issues as were present five years ago. Also, the AfD ban is still active; had Andrew successfully appealed it, it would be indeed wrong for me to bring it up.

I mostly agree with what Andrew says and does; indeed I've met him in real life on a number of occasions and had productive conversations, and he clearly has the encyclopedia's best interest at heart. The problem comes from when he disagrees with others, and the language he uses comes across as stubborn and intransigent. I don't even think Andrew ''means'' to act like this, which is why I see his conduct here, and in previous disputes, with an overall air of not understanding why there's any issue at all, and coming to the logical conclusion that other people are just out to get him. It frustrates me doubly because a lot of the time (such as wanting to keep / improve an article or put something on the main page) I find the "other side" carrying favour because they don't come across as disruptive.

Unfortunately I don't have a good answer to any of this, and I feel resigning myself to seeing another topic ban as being an inevitable outcome, sadly. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 10:30, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

:I've had the same impression, tried to help [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#c-Kowal2701-20260306133100-Andrew_Davidson-20260306131600 here]. This has been sizzling away at ITN for a while, before I joined AFAIK. Idk, but it seems Andrew editing is informed by the old battleground of inclusionists vs deletionists, and because the inclusionists (or rather [[WP:ARS]]) 'lost', he has grievances w the community in general (which is understandable), as shown by the 'blank paper protest' on his userpage? It isn't helped by people personalising his noms, though one could argue he does that himself. He could be really constructive if he listened to people and treated them like teammates, though people have long been fed up [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Kowal2701|contribs]]) 11:38, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:I've commented before that thus situation is running close tobthebsame reason The Rambling Man was blocked from ITN, though there, incivility was a major contributing factor. Andrew has rubbed against but not surpassed civility expectations. 
:But more so, its the lack of acknowledgment that the ideas they push for are not being accepted, and failure to drop the stick, making their edits tenacious. They are nominating a fair number of good candidates but we also need to look to those that are bad if not pointy nominations. The continued push on page views as a reason to post is very tiring, and they constantly bringbuo other other language wiki's do things and consider end.wiki lacking even though the purpose if the main page and of the equivalent of ITN on these other pages is very different and is comparing apples to oranges (though we are looking at how de.wiki does do more expansive RD coverage..it is fair to bring ideas in but will still need to adhere to what end.wiki main page serves) [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 13:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:'''Oppose sanctions''' – I don't edit at ITN, but I watch the page near daily, and, truthfully, hold contempt for some of the regulars at that venue. Considering that another editor wrote {{tq|I'd sooner support WP:OWN sanctions on many of the editors active there, including a few of the admins}}, I appear to not be alone in that regard. This thread is principally demonstrative of an inability to tolerate dissenting views. The frontmost example in the OP is an exemplar of the problem of immaturity in that venue. Andrew values pageviews as a metric for what reader's are interested in; many other editors do not. Ok... ''and?'' We are not the [[borg]], assimilation is not required. There is no policy violation and thus nothing for this board to be concerned with. {{pb}} The other raised issue, that Andrew's nominations often do not fare well, is in part a symptom of ITN's own failures. ITN's principal outputs are: famous death; significant political event; sports ball results; major awards ceremony results; significant disaster occurrence; armed conflict (these are also usually the only thing that is ever in ongoing). If your nomination isn't in those categories, you are fighting an uphill battle. ITN has a system whereby the results of a cricket championship are deemed more significant than the eradication of leprosy from an entire nation. There is a failure there to present medical and scientific news. They are rarely nominated as it is (and Andrew is someone I've seen make multiple attempts to get news from those fields posted), and they receive any support yet more rarely than that. Look at [[Wikipedia:In_the_news/Posted/February_2026|last month's posting archive]]. Which ones don't fit into any of the six categories listed? {{pb}} I'm getting annoyed as I pen this and consider the processes and state of ITN, so I will cut myself off here. [[User:Mr rnddude|Mr rnddude]] ([[User talk:Mr rnddude|talk]]) 19:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
::Most editors at ITN have viewpoints that differ from the consensus on one issue or another, but for the benefit of the project we are obligated to promote these viewpoints in productive ways. His preference for pageviews for example, has been rejected by the community. So for him to constantly bring it up as a rationale in individual discussion does not serve the purpose of building consensus. It disrupts that process as we must stop the real work and deal with him. ''<small>[[User_talk:GreatCaesarsGhost|<span style="color:#938f8d">GreatCaesarsGhost</span>]]</small>'' 20:48, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:::No, pageviews have not been "rejected by the community" as there's no rule of that sort at ITN.  There was an [[Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_113#Page_views_and_significance|attempt to create one]] in 2024 but it did not have consensus as five editors opposed it.  The noisy editors who still say things like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news&diff=prev&oldid=1342630395 "we absolutely care naught about reader counts"] are in denial, rather than stating an actual policy. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 21:16, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Have you read my comment above, stating policy-based reasons why Pageviews are not a valuable tool for determining post-ability? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Chorchapu-20260310164000-GreatCaesarsGhost-20260310131900] [[User:Chorchapu|<span style="color:#6F7AD6">'''Chorchapu'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Chorchapu|<span style="color:#146B55">talk</span>]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Chorchapu|<span style="color:#146B55">edits</span>]]) 22:43, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::Yes, but your reasons there don't seem based on the relevant guidelines.  The ITN guidelines include [[WP:ITNSIGNIF]] and [[WP:ITNATA]] which include {{tq|It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits.|q=y}}; {{tq|Any user may, of course, support or oppose a candidate for any reason|q=y}}  Note how that says "any reason".  That would include pageviews.  [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 23:28, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::Policies and the like I think would trump vague wording in what does not even seem to be an official guideline. The phrase "for any reason" leaves room for valuable sharing of opinions but disruption using justifications that go against site-wide policies are a very, very lenient interpretation of ITNATA. [[User:Chorchapu|<span style="color:#6F7AD6">'''Chorchapu'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Chorchapu|<span style="color:#146B55">talk</span>]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Chorchapu|<span style="color:#146B55">edits</span>]]) 23:47, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::What site-wide policy does talking about pageviews violate? [[User:Katzrockso|Katzrockso]] ([[User talk:Katzrockso|talk]]) 23:21, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Read my reply above. From it:
::::::::{{tq|{{bq|One of Andrew's most common talking points, and one that he has been scolded for before, is Pageviews. The previous ANI thread had the sticking point of whether or not the Pageviews argument actually had merit. I have, however, done some thinking and come up with a few reasons why this isn't valid. Firstly, Pageviews reflect only what pages our readers are going to, not how important things are in the grand scene of the world. As an example, ChatGPT consistently features in the top-read pages, but that doesn't mean we should be posting an item about ChatGPT each week. Next, the Pageviews argument leaves out the fact that our ITN criteria does not work based on popularity, but impact and significance. Many elections in WP:ITN/R do not receive massive amount of page views but nonetheless are significant enough to post. Thirdly, WP:ITNPURPOSE states that one of ITN's purposes is to "point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them." Pageviews only indicates what's making waves at the moment, and what is popular. This does not indicate significance.}}}}
::::::::What it boils down to - impact, significance, and post-ability does not equal popularity and virality. [[User:Chorchapu|<span style="color:#6F7AD6">'''Chorchapu'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Chorchapu|<span style="color:#146B55">talk</span>]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Chorchapu|<span style="color:#146B55">edits</span>]]) 00:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Those are not sitewide policies, they are your interpretation of ITN guidelines. A reasonable editor is more than welcome to disagree with your interpretation, as I am sure Andrew does. [[User:Katzrockso|Katzrockso]] ([[User talk:Katzrockso|talk]]) 00:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::You can disagree but local consensus is that his Pageviews argument is disruptive. There is no site-wide consensus and so local consensus triumphs. [[User:Chorchapu|<span style="color:#6F7AD6">'''Chorchapu'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Chorchapu|<span style="color:#146B55">talk</span>]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Chorchapu|<span style="color:#146B55">edits</span>]]) 00:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::“Local consensus” means you had a discussion about this somewhere that reached that consensus, right? Could you link to it? [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-15806-98|&#126;2026-15806-98]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-15806-98|talk]]) 02:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::I'm going to bed now, but tomorrow I could link to the dozens of times Andrew has been scolded over this. [[User:Chorchapu|<span style="color:#6F7AD6">'''Chorchapu'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Chorchapu|<span style="color:#146B55">talk</span>]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Chorchapu|<span style="color:#146B55">edits</span>]]) 02:58, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Scolding is not discussion. [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-15806-98|&#126;2026-15806-98]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-15806-98|talk]]) 03:21, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Indeed – such scolding tends to be uncivil personal attacks and you'll find that no policy or guideline is cited in such cases.  And that's because there isn't one.  For an actual discussion, see [[Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_113#Page_views_and_significance|Page views and significance]] which proposed that page views be added to the local guideline [[WP:ITNDONT]].  There was no consensus to do this and so ITNDONT is still silent on the matter.  Besides myself and others, the proposal was opposed by the veteran ITN admin {{u|The ed17}} who can perhaps confirm my understanding that there is no prohibition of pageviews. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 07:45, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I opened up the most recent archive, [[Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/February_2026]]. Here I can find several instances of Andrew being told off for bringing up Pageviews disruptively. First by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/February_2026#c-GenevieveDEon-20260222091400-Andrew_Davidson-20260222080700 GenevieveDEon] and second [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/February_2026#c-Dmartin969-20260222094600-Andrew_Davidson-20260222080700 Dmartin969], after which the thread was hatted for Andrew's disruption. Third by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/February_2026#c-QuicoleJR-20260217155400-Andrew_Davidson-20260217151600 QuicoleJR] and fourth by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/February_2026#c-The_Kip-20260219043800-Andrew_Davidson-20260217151600 The Kip]. We now go to [[Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/January_2026]]. Fifth by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/January_2026#c-Masem-20260129141100-Andrew_Davidson-20260129095100 Masem], sixth by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/January_2026#c-The_Kip-20260129163800-Andrew_Davidson-20260129095100 The Kip], seventh by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/January_2026#c-GhostStalker-20260129201200-The_Kip-20260129163800 Ghost Stalker], and eighth by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/January_2026#c-Chorchapu-20260130160700-Salmon_Of_Ignorance-20260130091200 myself]. Ninth by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/January_2026#c-GreatCaesarsGhost-20260128115300-SpectralIon-20260124040500 GreatCaesarsGhost] (the editor who started this ANI discussion). We go back to [[Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/December_2025]] where we find a tenth by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/December_2025#c-Masem-20251216175900-Andrew_Davidson-20251216112400 Masem]. How many more times but we put up with this? [[User:Chorchapu|<span style="color:#6F7AD6">'''Chorchapu'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Chorchapu|<span style="color:#146B55">talk</span>]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Chorchapu|<span style="color:#146B55">edits</span>]]) 12:18, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::These were not policy-based and so were violations of [[WP:THREATEN]] and [[WP:INTIMIDATE]] which states {{tqb|On Wikipedia, personal attacks are not tolerated. In particular, it is unacceptable to threaten another with some form of action that cannot or will not likely be taken. When editors make threats like these, and the environment becomes hostile, the victims, especially those who are new are scared away from Wikipedia altogether.}}  ITN exemplifies such a hostile environment in which aggressive editors seek to drive off other editors who have views that they don't agree with.  The comments from other uninvolved editors here confirm this chilling effect. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 14:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::How were those threats? They were calling you out how you were being disruptive. [[User:Chorchapu|<span style="color:#6F7AD6">'''Chorchapu'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Chorchapu|<span style="color:#146B55">talk</span>]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Chorchapu|<span style="color:#146B55">edits</span>]]) 14:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::I was not being disruptive; I was just giving my view on the matter under discussion.  ITN's [[WP:ITN|guideline]] explicitly allows editors to {{tq|support or oppose a candidate for any reason|q=y}} and so an open discussion is expected.  [[WP:ITNDONT]] also explains that {{tqb|text=Please do not add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.}}  So, editors are expected to provide some detailed reasoning and so that's what I do. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 14:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::The 'disruption' in the first example is wholly of d'Eon and DMartin's making. The rationale to oppose because '[t]he article is too stubby and has zero prose about the film's critical and commercial reception' is perfectly inline with [[WP:ITNQUALITY]] and is the exact basis in Spencer's !vote immediately below which I have seen countless times. There was there-in no justification to attack Andrew or hat the !vote. {{pb}} That there was also a digression about another article employed both as a qualitative and relative interest comparative isn't fundamentally germane and does not merit the responses provided. The responses appear to be borne entirely from a deep-seated allergy to any mention of pageviews (even indirectly), irrespective of context. Both editors could (and ''should'') have simply scrolled on. {{pb}} I am far less impressed with any of d'Eon, DMartin, or the hatter's actions than I am concerned with Andrew's !vote on that nomination. If anything, it is demonstrative of the precise immaturity and intolerance to which I am referring. I've read literally every post under my own !vote, which has gained far more attention (praise and contention) than any other I have posted to AN/I, and yet have been perfectly able to exercise restraint to not rebut or argue or complain about every response that I have some disagreement with. I expect other editors to be capable of that '''everywhere on Wikipedia'''. Yet there are two venues that I have visited that are remarkably incapable of that: RfA and ITN. [[User:Mr rnddude|Mr rnddude]] ([[User talk:Mr rnddude|talk]]) 15:37, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::Wow this is getting really thin and contained  ([[User talk:Phlogiston Enthusiast|Talk]]) [[User:Phlogiston Enthusiast|<span style="color: orange">PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST</span>]] 17:38, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I’m looking for the discussion where this supposed local consensus was established. There was a discussion first, right? You didn’t skip straight to the scolding, did you? [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-16107-68|&#126;2026-16107-68]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-16107-68|talk]]) 18:50, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Chorchapu}}, that isn't a policy basis for post-ability because there is no policy basis for "post-ability". It's a concept entirely made up within ITN that has no community backing. And if someone proposed sanctioning everyone who enforces that "policy", I'd hear the proposal out. '''[[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#0c4709">Thebiguglyalien</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#472c09">talk</span>]]) 06:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
::::There’s at least a local consensus that page views are unimportant when it comes to considering an ITN nomination, no other site wide consensus outweighs that. Whenever Andrew brings up consideration of page views, the response is 95% of the time negative amongst many of the ITN regulars, which demonstrates to me at least a local consensus. Yet, he persists in the IDHT of bringing it up again in the next discussion.
::::Andrew needs to at least acknowledge that many seem to have an issue of how he handles this like his recently POINT-y noms and acting like no other opinion on page views matters. [[User:GhostStalker|<span style="color:gold;">'''Ghost'''</span><span style="color:blue;">'''Stalker'''</span>]]<small> ([[User talk:GhostStalker|Got a present for ya!]] / [[Special:Contributions/GhostStalker|Mission Log]])</small> 18:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::No, a [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]] does not and cannot overide any sitewide consensus. In any case, te way this discussion's going, it looks like there's an emerging consensus that WP:ITN/C is a toxic environment, and {{tq|needs to at least acknowledge}} that. Cheers, '''—'''[[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">''Serial Number''</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:#8B0000">54129</span>]]<sup style="color:black;"> (wake up Fortuna)</sup> 18:49, 12 March 2026 (UTC) 
::::::What sitewide consensus are you suggesting the local consensus is attempting to override? Because if there isn't one, then local concensus should prevail. ''<small>[[User_talk:GreatCaesarsGhost|<span style="color:#938f8d">GreatCaesarsGhost</span>]]</small>'' 19:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|Fortuna imperatrix mundi]] I think there's a misunderstanding here - GhostStalker is saying that there ''is no sitewide consensus on pageviews'', hence ITN's local consensus acts as the guideline. They're not suggesting that local consensus can override sitewide consensus. [[User:The Kip|<span style="color:#333f42;">'''The'''</span>]] [[User talk:The Kip|<span style="color:#b4975a;">'''Kip'''</span>]] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Kip|contribs]])</sup></small></span> 20:46, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Then to prevent further "misunderstandings" I suggest parties express themselves with greater precision. Cheers, '''—'''[[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">''Serial Number''</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:#8B0000">54129</span>]]<sup style="color:black;"> (wake up Fortuna)</sup> 22:19, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I thought I was, Kip certainly got my meaning. 
::::::::Maybe I shouldn’t have dashed out that reply during my lunch break after starting it last night at dinner and then promptly falling asleep shortly after getting distracted by other Wiki stuff. Bad habit of mine. [[User:GhostStalker|<span style="color:gold;">'''Ghost'''</span><span style="color:blue;">'''Stalker'''</span>]]<small> ([[User talk:GhostStalker|Got a present for ya!]] / [[Special:Contributions/GhostStalker|Mission Log]])</small> 01:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::Noms against the usual have never an issue at ITN (whether they be rejected is a different matter altogether), the problem arises in making noms and comments frequently as a soapbox for one's views or just to make a [[WP:POINT|point]]. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 04:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::{{Endorsed+}} This post should be incorporated into ITNC's [[Standard operating procedure|standing orders]] (if they had them, of course). '''—'''[[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">''Serial Number''</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:#8B0000">54129</span>]]<sup style="color:black;"> (wake up Fortuna)</sup> 12:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::Part of the issue with diversity if topics is a coupling of lack of news coverage of underrepresented topics, lack of nominations for under represented topics, and lack of quality updates to articles when they exist. Too many of the nominations are so focused on breaking news of late that it doesn't seem ITN covers anything but that, but we absolutely can, we can only do so much to promote those. 
::But at the sane time these underrepresented stories need to still pass expected thresholds for significance. For example, Andrew was trying to promote coverage of the Anthropic/DoD case as a precursor of Skynet. ITN (much less wp in general) doesnt do well with speculative stories, which typically post at the opposite side of a concrete event where significance and impact can be better judged. That said I introduced an idea about amonth ago that maybe we do need to strip news significance from the ITN criteria as to focus on quality articles updated due to recent coverage. This would improve throughput at ITN. But thus is all an aside to the issues with Andrew's behavior at ITN. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 13:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
:'''Oppose sanctions''' as well. Sorry for being lazy, but there's so much overlap of my own impressions with those described by Fortuna imperatrix mundi and Mr rnddude, plus I couldn't have put it even nearly as well. There's plenty of repetitive posting of arguments deemed invalid at WP:ITN, including completely non-metric, non-verifiable subjective reasons for opposing. I guess there is a problem when so many people react so allergically to his contributions, but I don't think this kind of reaction is warranted at all (silence is one possible reaction to what one would prefer to ignore). ---[[User:Sluzzelin|Sluzzelin]] [[User talk:Sluzzelin|<small>talk</small>]] 20:37, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
* One of issues w ITN is that it becomes a place for internet punditry on geopolitics, and everything less important than war and death gets opposed by people not interested in anything else [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Kowal2701|contribs]]) 20:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
*:"internet punditry on geopolitics"
*:The problem being that Andrew is a frequent violater of this in the form of off-topic ramblings (entirely to score a point at/against ITN) entirely unrelated to the project. And from what I can see, he would still not like to desist. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 03:59, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] I’ve brought it up in my vote and in the discussion at WT:ITNC, but the absolute refusal to consider that there’s any issues with his editing/that anyone’s complaints here or at ITN are valid bears substantial similarity to the behavior of [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] before and during [[WP:ARBATC2]]. He was subsequently sitebanned at that case.
*::Not that Andrew deserves a siteban nor has he been quite as bad as Dick was - Dick’s editing had crossed far into mass-scale disruption to the project and underhanded tactics to win disputes, rather than just constant [[WP:IDHT]] behavior. That said, the overall attitude towards other editors is not helpful to the project. [[User:The Kip|<span style="color:#333f42;">'''The'''</span>]] [[User talk:The Kip|<span style="color:#b4975a;">'''Kip'''</span>]] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Kip|contribs]])</sup></small></span> 05:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
* I strongly agree that ITN needs a major overhaul, but Andrew does not "work within the system" that currently exists. A lot of his arguments are [[WP:IDHT]]-related and he tends to [[WP:DEADHORSE|beat a dead horse]]. I personally think that we need to codify many of these "community norms", because he is correct to say that our current guidelines don't address things like pageviews.[[User:Natg 19|Natg 19]] ([[User talk:Natg 19|talk]]) 23:58, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
* '''Oppose any sanctions''' the ITN project is an utter mess, and the regulars who consistently water down any attempts at meaningful reform shouldn't get to outlaw someone who's a bit more messy than they like. Build a functional project with guidelines that actually function, and then we can talk about disregarding them. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 12:20, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
*:I also {{endorsed+}} Mr rnddude's comment. As an irregular to ITNC but very well-versed in reading policies and procedures, I am baffled by the unwritten rules especially when I tried to nominate a new aircraft's first flight 12 years ago (which of course gets piled-on oppose) yet we continue to post cricket and darts championships year after year. So I become another one of those contributors who basically stopped commenting at ITNC because the process is broken and nobody bothered to tell us of the unwritten rules. Dissenting voices are important in the process. We're not looking for hivemind or a [[Euphemisms for Internet censorship in China|harmonious community]] as a justification to ban someone. So I '''oppose''' sanctions. Andrew's behaviour has not risen to The Rambling Man's incivility or Kurt Webers's "prima facie evidence of power-hunger" blanket oppose at self-nom RfAs. [[User:OhanaUnited|<b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b>]][[User talk:OhanaUnited|<b style="color: green;"><sup>Talk page</sup></b>]] 13:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
*::The suggestion that ITN is a hivemind is absolutely laughable. Take a look at our talk page: we cannot reach harmony on the tiniest of changes. And I don't know how people who do not contribute to the project can say its a mess and then deny the unified voice of those trying to clean it up. This is probably the most I've seen ITN unified on anything. ''<small>[[User_talk:GreatCaesarsGhost|<span style="color:#938f8d">GreatCaesarsGhost</span>]]</small>'' 19:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::I do work on articles that end up being on ITN.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OhanaUnited/Archive_28#ITN_recognition_for_110th_Grey_Cup] Plus this is ANI and not the ITN/C walled garden so I am in a qualified position to comment on what I observed. [[User:OhanaUnited|<b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b>]][[User talk:OhanaUnited|<b style="color: green;"><sup>Talk page</sup></b>]] 21:27, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
*::::I would really love for someone to explain how this "walled garden" concept applies to one of the most visible and easily accessible projects on WP that is absolutely filled with IP editors. ''<small>[[User_talk:GreatCaesarsGhost|<span style="color:#938f8d">GreatCaesarsGhost</span>]]</small>'' 11:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::::I myself am a relative newcomer to ITN having started contributing there a little over a year ago. I experienced none of the supposed hostility others are mentioning. In fact I recall it felt rather welcoming. [[User:Chorchapu|<span style="color:#6F7AD6">'''Chorchapu'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Chorchapu|<span style="color:#146B55">talk</span>]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Chorchapu|<span style="color:#146B55">edits</span>]]) 12:58, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::::The “walled garden” is that place where you discuss what arguments should or should not be allowed at ITN and reach a “settled consensus”. Maybe “smoke-filled room” is a better description, as it seems no one can give us a link to it. [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-15806-98|&#126;2026-15806-98]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-15806-98|talk]]) 15:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::::The walled garden impression arises from the "regulars" who typically refuse to accept any external evidence.  When any of the following are suggested, they are typically opposed:
*:::::# The readership or number of views as evidence of significance, even if it's in the millions
*:::::# The project assessments of importance and quality which are usually recorded on article talk pages
*:::::# The level of coverage found in the news media such as on newspaper front pages
*:::::# The assessments of the [[WP:Vital articles]] project
*:::::# The activity and assessments of other pages which cover the news and trending pages such as [[Portal:Current events]] and the [[WP:Top 25 Report]]
*:::::# The activity and assessments seen on the main pages of other language Wikipedias such [[:de:Wikipedia:Hauptseite|German]].  These are usually quicker to post than the English ITN.
*:::::The "regulars" tend to indicate that they and only they should be deciding what appears at ITN.  But they often don't agree amongst themselves and so ITN then doesn't post anything new for days or even weeks at a stretch.
*:::::This "law unto themselves" attitude does not seem quite so common elsewhere.  For example, the [[WP:DYK|DYK]] project likes page views as it uses them as a measure of the performance of its postings.  See [[WP:Did you know/Statistics]] which lists various tables showing how DYK articles attracted lots of views or went on to become featured articles.
*:::::[[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 16:16, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::How can you claim that Andrew is “engaging in [[WP:DEADHORSE]] arguments on matters of settled consensus” when discussions on the talk page fail to settle any consensus? [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-15806-98|&#126;2026-15806-98]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-15806-98|talk]]) 22:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::[[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]]. I can see no cleanup attempts, just efforts to pretend that different rules should apply to ITN than the rest of Wikipedia. Outsiders know that sanctions are handed out to those who contravene definite [[WP:PAG]]s, not ITN's mess of norms; perhaps the "unified voice" could get that simple point? [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:07, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

:I was pinged above. I do think Andrew could stand to dial it back 15–20%. Some of his talk page and ITNC proposals have, especially recently, felt rather pointy. But at the same time, if ITN regulars don't want people to use pageviews as a metric, they should come up with and codify different guidelines that contain objective milestones. Right now, [[WP:ITN|their own inadaquate guidelines]] leave the door open to pretty much any argument. 
:"It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough," ITN's guidelines say, "and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits." To pageviews, the opening line says that it's to "direct readers to articles" about "current events of ''wide interest''" (my italics), plus a couple other criteria. Their [[WP:ITNATA|arguments to avoid]] say nothing about pageviews. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 14:57, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Oppose sanctions'''.  I hang out at ITN much less than I used to- partly due to my other admin/COIVRT stuff, but also because as time went on it has become more toxic. I'm sure there is consensus that ITN is broken but that breaks down when deciding what to do about it. I have come to believe that there should be less room to oppose proposed nominations based on subjective measures of importance and that much more of what is nominated should be posted. We shouldn't fear bringing attention to a topic that has a good article about it, it shouldn't need to be top level news that is only about death, disaster, destruction, and elections. I digress. I do think much of Andrew's postings are pointy, he must know by now that the pageview argument will be shot down but makes it anyway; if he wants ITN to be pageview ticker instead, he should propose that instead of beating the horse, but we can hardly punish him for disruption when there is no specific rule against that. I agree with Ed that Andrew needs to dial it back, though. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 15:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
*:Thanks for commenting.  I hoped you would say something as I already gathered that you were a disaffected ITN regular. I'm happy to take the advice about dialing it back.  The recent flurry of nominations were either related to the major news about Iran and related topics or they were just happenstance, like the meteorite.  There are plenty of other things to do on Wikipedia and variety is the spice of life.  And this discussion may help inform further community attempts to improve ITN so that it works more smoothly in future. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 15:32, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Oppose sanctions''': this is not to endorse any of the actions or comments mentioned above, but largely per {{u|AirshipJungleman29}}: given the amount of work clearly needed on culture, norms and clarity at ITN as a whole, singling out an individual editor for not fitting in with those norms or that culture is not the way to go. However, I agree with the editors above who suggest that the [[WP:POINT]]y approach taken by Andrew in some of these discussions has not helped matters. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 20:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::Honestly, this is all anyone is asking for. Just an acknowledgement that the pointy stuff is getting out of hand recently and to tone it down. ''<small>[[User_talk:GreatCaesarsGhost|<span style="color:#938f8d">GreatCaesarsGhost</span>]]</small>'' 11:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Right. I've said what I think the ''maximum'' sanction should be, but I should make myself clearer: what I actually want is for Andrew, who is in many respects an excellent and diligent contributor who does a lot more for the site than I do, to maange his contributions at ITN in such a way as to be less disruptive to the overall functioning of ITN. I am sympathetic to the general idea of his repeated attempts to get ITN working better through proposals at its talk page and elsewhere, even if we haven't yet hit on one that both addresses the issues well enough and gains enough popular support. But making ITNC harder to use and navigate runs counter to all that good stuff, and in fact contributes to the 'walled garden' effect discussed elsewhere. So all I really want is for Andrew to stop the IDHT tendencies and the grandstanding. If we get that, both in word and deed, then I don't think we need sanctions. [[User:GenevieveDEon|GenevieveDEon]] ([[User talk:GenevieveDEon|talk]]) 12:10, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - Separate from the discussion of Andrew and ITN: I have noticed that there are at least two temp accounts posting in this section whose ''only'' contributions are to this section. It seems highly unlikely to me that this would be anyone's first edit, so are established users employing temp accounts to participate anonymously in an admittedly contentious area? [[User:GenevieveDEon|GenevieveDEon]] ([[User talk:GenevieveDEon|talk]]) 08:10, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
*:Tricky question since ANI is a high-traffic "drama board" & certain subjects/pages attract more attention than others.  
*:You could be right, but TA's expire periodically so it could also be a long-term anon editor who hasn't created an account for whatever reason, there have also been cases where banned editors/LTA's have popped up here using TA's. 
*:TA's are anonymous to comply with various international laws, so they can't really be investigated without good reason. 
*:If you have evidence that a TA is being used abusively, please submit an [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations|SPI report.]] [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 08:34, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
*::Obligatory [[WP:HUMAN|IP/TA editors are humans too]] reminder. Ironic that the comment came from someone who's userpage wrote "I have a been long-timer lurker and unregistered editor". [[User:OhanaUnited|<b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b>]][[User talk:OhanaUnited|<b style="color: green;"><sup>Talk page</sup></b>]] 04:03, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I made the ill-fated Kerala(m) nomination that sparked Andrew's snarky comment in his subsequent nomination re Anthropic mentioned at the top of this thread. While I have enough of a thick skin to ignore that and go on participating on ITN, I can't help but wonder how an infrequent or first-time contributor to ITN might react if their first, unsuccessful nomination is referred to snarkily by other users. Such comments (and the pointy fights Andrew sometimes revels in) are what creates a less than welcoming atmosphere - which leads to less new people joining in on the ITN project, and the impression of ITN being run by a "clique". I've agreed with Andrew on many occasions in the past and I have also frequently disagreed with him. I have less of a problem with his hobby-horses (such as pageviews) than other contributors but find it difficult to support him here given his lack of acknowledgment that he's truly being disruptive sometimes and his unwillingness to collaborate in a way that makes ITN more welcoming to non-project veterans. [[User:Khuft|Khuft]] ([[User talk:Khuft|talk]]) 18:16, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
*:The importance of particular topics is routinely denigrated at ITN as it's a fundamental part of its process to be judgemental in establishing what is and isn't significant.  So, other editors are quick to disrespect topics that I and others nominate.  For example, see the recent [[Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/March_2026#(Closed)_Sea_level|Sea level nomination]].  This was a science story about a systematic error in the measurement of sea level.  This is one of the major effects of climate change which threatens millions of people including entire low-lying countries.  But many !voters dismissed this as "trivia" or "trivial".  I pointed out that this one-word dismissal was contrary to [[WP:ITNDONT]] while another editor observed that {{tq|these !votes straddle a line between absurd and in poor taste|q=y}}.  But, as usual, nothing was done.  So, per [[WP:SAUCE]], my comment was not especially exceptional for ITN which is generally a bruising experience for nominators.
*:And please note that my comment was not, in any way, personal as I hadn't even noticed who had nominated the Kerala story.  Khuft today made another nomination of [[Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#RD/Blurb:_Jürgen_Habermas|Jürgen Habermas]] and I was quite willing to endorse that.  I don't have a strong opinion about that philosopher myself but am content to accept the verdict of project [[WP:VITAL]] which has assessed him as a major figure in his field.  Masem rushed to disagree, of course, but so it goes. 
*:[[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 19:00, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
*:In what way is Andrew being disruptive? [[User:Katzrockso|Katzrockso]] ([[User talk:Katzrockso|talk]]) 06:22, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I recommend re-reading the above thread, and the evidence provided. [[User:GenevieveDEon|GenevieveDEon]] ([[User talk:GenevieveDEon|talk]]) 12:10, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
::::I did (this is my third time reading this thread) and I failed to find any evidence of disruption, just mere claims that his behavior constituted disruption. [[User:Katzrockso|Katzrockso]] ([[User talk:Katzrockso|talk]]) 16:28, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' sanctions.  Some of his more WP:POINTY editing has been over the top, but a sanction would itself be pointy and likely backdoor/bootstrap rule changes for ITN. [[User:Jahaza|Jahaza]] ([[User talk:Jahaza|talk]]) 16:49, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
*:Not to pick on you but I'm not understanding such references to [[WP:POINT]].  The point of WP:POINT is that {{tq|When you have a point to make, use direct discussion only.|q=y}}  It is mainly concerned with disruption to articles as a way of proving a point.  For example, if you think that an article is poorly sourced, it might be disruptive to [[WP:TAGBOMB|tag bomb]] it or remove all the uncited text.
*:But, while I may engage in vigorous discussion, I am more cautious when it comes to the actual articles.  For example, at the recent case of [[Jürgen Habermas]], there was a problem with some paragraphs of uncited philosophy that were difficult to cite because of their complexity and technical language.  I contemplated removing them to resolve the cleanup tags but, before doing so, I engaged in [[Talk:Jürgen_Habermas#What's_with_the_weird_formatting?|discussion at the article's talk page]] and pinged other editors who had relevant experience.  This then resolved the issue without needing draconian action.  So, such behaviour is what WP:POINT recommends and that's what I endeavour to do.
*:My impression that people use "pointy" to mean something else such as being [[WP:BOLD|too bold]] or a [[Gadfly (philosophy and social science)|gadfly]].  More clarity on this point might be helpful in clearing the air.
*:[[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 17:09, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
*:The fact that Andrew, in the above reply, ''still'' can't seem to even remotely comprehend how other users find his editing problematic should be enough proof that his editing is, in fact, problematic. [[User:The Kip|<span style="color:#333f42;">'''The'''</span>]] [[User talk:The Kip|<span style="color:#b4975a;">'''Kip'''</span>]] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Kip|contribs]])</sup></small></span> 17:37, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
*::I don't think that's what he's saying. I think he is saying that citing WP:POINT does not imply what this person thinks it implies.  ([[User talk:Phlogiston Enthusiast|Talk]]) [[User:Phlogiston Enthusiast|<span style="color: orange">PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST</span>]] 17:41, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::Exactly.  If people still think WP:POINT is relevant, they should please quote the relevant text and cite examples. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 17:53, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:Phlogiston Enthusiast|Phlogiston Enthusiast]] I wish I could share your optimism, but this sort of nitpicky "that's not ''technically'' what the policy/guideline says/means" is a recurring trait in his editing at ITN. [[User:The Kip|<span style="color:#333f42;">'''The'''</span>]] [[User talk:The Kip|<span style="color:#b4975a;">'''Kip'''</span>]] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Kip|contribs]])</sup></small></span> 17:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
*::::It's correct, though, isn't it?  ([[User talk:Phlogiston Enthusiast|Talk]]) [[User:Phlogiston Enthusiast|<span style="color: orange">PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST</span>]] 18:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::::It's differing interpretations of policy in tandem with the letter of the policies. As stated above, the problem has consistently been that Andrew believes his interpretations to be superior to those of other editors, ''as well as'' the letter of the policy itself, and [[WP:IDHT|fails to see how that can raise any issues]].
*:::::This discussion isn't going anywhere, though, so I suppose I'll see everyone back here in a few months when the exact same issues have continued without resolve. [[User:The Kip|<span style="color:#333f42;">'''The'''</span>]] [[User talk:The Kip|<span style="color:#b4975a;">'''Kip'''</span>]] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Kip|contribs]])</sup></small></span> 18:15, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
*:'''Oppose any sanctions''', fundamentally {{user|Andrew Davidson}}'s behavior is a direct consequence of ITN's general dysfunction. Irrespective of my opinions on his proposals, I won't support the [[chilling effect]] this will have on any substantive and meaningful ITN reform. Not a fan of the precedent of running people enthusiastic about reform off the project by ITN regularls when said regulars have basically provided fertile ground for people like him to sprout. — [[User:Knightoftheswords281|<span style="background:black; color:white; padding:2px;">'''Knightof'''</span>]][[User talk:Knightoftheswords281|<span style="background:#70c6ff; color:white; padding:2px;">'''theswords'''</span>]] 16:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
{{abot}}