Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Proposed Block on Newimpartial

After the close a few sections above which said no more warnings, Newimpartial has continued his efforts to obstruct spam cleanup and processing stale userspace drafts here [1] by dragging in an editor with similar views to him on protecting spam pages which lead to this by his new proxy [2] He is still questioning my activity with admins here [3] and here [4]. He's still casting aspirations against me still based on wrong assumptions and a lack of understanding of deletion process and policy while digging deep in my extensive editing history to find justification for his little obstructionist project. Legacypac (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose for now - this whole thing kicked off about 15 hours ago, and as near as I can tell in the fifteen threads started since that time (on 12 different pages) Newimpartial is simply trying to figure out what's going on. They're new, they got excited about something, and they're trying to figure out why the guidelines say one thing while (multiple) editors are doing something seemingly contradictory. I do agree, however, that they're being less-than-civil with regard to their tone regarding Legacypac, but to say that Godsy is a meatpuppet purely because they became interested in the case is a bit problematic in and of itself. I think both sides need to chill out. Primefac (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Give him a chance. He's stopped the disruptive tagging, and it is reasonable to ask questions. WP is not all that simple to understand: the policies and guidelines interact in complicated ways. And, Legacypac, you need to AGF about the other editor, not call them a "proxy". DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to mount a "defense" except to note the mass of MfDs and CSDs here <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Legacypac&offset=&limit=500&target=Legacypac> and the uncivil exchanges on the part of Legacypac here <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Lasersharp/Taipei_Interactive_English_Club> and here <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Andwats/Don_Fex> Legacypac also referred to my removal as CSD tags as "vandalism", which is not very WP:CIVIL to say about a WP:GOOD FAITH edit. I apologize for being opinionated beyond my experience, and I have withdrawn in participation in MfD or deletion nominations, but there was certainly no bad faith in my part. I do feel that WP:BITE has not been followed in this case so far, present company excepted :).Newimpartial (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

And I never was "obstructionist"; I only wanted the process outlined in WP:STALE to be followed as I understood it. But I have let that go. Newimpartial (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I never used the term meatpuppet but I provided a diff where he asked another editor to do what he was being told not to do. I AGF but CIR. mass targeting my CSD tags to protect spam is vandalism just like inserting spam yourself. Legacypac (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you not tell the difference between "protecting spam" and WP:GOOD FAITH due process, Legacypac? Because that is literally what this whole thing hinges on. I was never "protecting spam".

Nor was I "mass targeting". I was looking at each case on the merits - maybe not correctly, but thoughtfully - which is why I was annoyed and wanted to see the pages that were deleted so quickly that I didn't get a chance to look at what you were labelling. And there were definitely errors in your CSD tags; I think everyone can agree about that, even the admins who deleted.Newimpartial (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• I first noticed Newimpartial due to their participation at miscellany for deletion which I frequent. I noticed the first an/i thread through my watchlist which lead me to become interested in the related drv. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

No it hinges on WO:CIR and unwillingness to listen to experienced editors who are trying to educate you. When you start accusing me all over the site of plots and misdeeds while systematically undoing my spam clean up work, you exhast my WP:AGF toward you. Legacypac (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

But at no time was I "systematically undoing". First I was reviewing MfDs on their merits - not especially yours, and not always voting "keep" - and then I was reviewing CSDs on their merits - not just yours, and not always "undoing" or objecting. You can say I wasn't applying the criteria used by the group currently engaged in patrolling the userspace drafts, and you would be right as it turns out, but I was certainly not "systematically undoing" anything, and I only referred to what I understood as your attempts to get around WP:CONSENSUS on a few of the pages in which the actual deletions were being discussed, until I "made it" to ANI. Then I stopped participating in XfD discussions, pretty much immediately, and only then - and because you had not made any response to the issues that I had raised about WP:STALE policy - I mentioned it to a couple of other editors and admin. That isn't "accusing you all over the site", by any stretch of the imagination, and I'd stand by my record of remaining relatively WP:CIVIL; I certainly didn't resort to threats, as you did. Your WP:AGF was over pretty much before it started, as I think the diffs I posted above demonstrate.Newimpartial (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. THis is another example of how Wikipedia fails disaterously to properly inform new users about what they can and can't do when they sign up. Not everyone is as intuitive as us old-age pensioners who never even grew up in a computer environent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• Newimpartial's comments are very condescending with bullshit blue links and redundant advice. It might not be trolling but either it is intentionally provocative in the hope that Legacypac will explode or go away, or Newimpartial's comments indicate WP:CIR problems. If someone has a point to make, just make it. Newimpartial has recently been involved in a lot of "discussion" on numerous pages (including my talk)—has there been a commensurate benefit to the encyclopedia? Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• Wait and see. If there's one thing more loathsome than a spammer, it's a spam enabler. What I see here is a new user off to a very very bad start, and compounding the situation by refusing to listen to advice, being argumentative, etc. I don't think it quite raises to the level of an indefinite block just yet, and I've seen new editors recover from worse, but if Newimpartial continues along their current path their time on Wikipedia will be short indeed. At this point, the ball's in their court: they can take some advice from Legacypac and others and help us improve wikipedia, or continue their current trajectory until they've spent so much time on the naughty list that a block is inevitable. I'd like to hope it's the former, but we shall see. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• I see an allegation by Newimpartial of "Legacypac, who has a terrible record with Speedy Delete nominations" as justification for CSD detagging. This is a serious allegation. I ask User:Legacypac to enable User:Legacypac/CSD log, to turn it on using the preferences panel, for transparency. A quick random check of contributions reveals a lot of tagging and some bad tagging [5][6][7][8] (NB this search is biased as it can only find CSD taggings on undeleted pages). I suspect Legacypac may be slightly deletionist with respect to random useless stuff, but not deserving of anything beyond a polite discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as blatant NOTWEBHOST violations is currently chock-full of mistagged article drafts. I'd go through and decline just about all of them (maybe one in twenty so far have been bad enough to speedy as a G11), but I already know the ensuing discussion wouldn't be polite. —Cryptic 04:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I checked the As. Mostly the tag is good. The rest, U5 is a stretch, with a stretched overlap with G11, and none will ever make mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Surely there is some spam fighting or New Page Patrol or something more productive for SmokeyJoe to do then searching my CSD tags especially since every tag is already directly reviewed by an Admin. As best I can tell my CSD acceptance rate is over 99%. Occasionally Admins don't see something I spotted (could not spot the hoax in one case today) or disagree. I've analysed SmokeyJoe's 4 diffs here [9] I feel it quite unfair to call any of those 4 (out of 1000s generated fighting spam) to be bad tags.

The last couple days made some progress on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Stale_userspace_drafts but WOW there is a lot of accumulated spam/copyvio/hoaxes etc in there. @Cryptic I've observed your understanding of WP:U5 differs from that of many other Admins. For me if you combine unsuitable material for wikipedia plus no or few mainspace contributions (usually zero outside a single user page) that = U5 and I apply U5 in line with how I've observed other Admins use it. There are often other reasons to delete the page but I tend to pick the one that is easiest for the reviewing Admin to confirm (like U5). Copyvio and hoaxes take longer to confirm for example. Legacypac (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

If by "other Admins" you mean User:RHaworth, who'll delete almost anything that's tagged on the basis of whether he thinks it's a viable article rather than looking at what the criteria say, and who ended up deleting every one of those, then I suppose you're right - no other admin was willing to touch them in the intervening seven hours. (It neither surprises nor disappoints me that nobody declined any of them; I couldn't see any of them ever surviving a move to mainspace either.) U5 specifically excludes pages that are plausibly intended to be drafts, though, and every one of those was, and most were explicitly marked as such: if you look at the discussion enacting U5, you'll find that allowing drafts was unanimously opposed. It's largely because of stretching the criteria like this that we haven't been able to pass speedy criteria that cover these hopeless drafts, whether by removing the AFC requirement for G13, by introducing modified versions of the A* series, or by anything else that's been proposed. —Cryptic 16:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

If someone else adding a "User Space Draft" box turns drive by editor dumps into drafts that can't be deleted we should change the wording on that box asap to say something like "this is a page in userspace that may have never been reviewed by anyone other than its creator and may be subject to deletion according to Wikipedia policy (link UPNOT). Legacypac (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - The characterization of this situation is inaccurate. An editor disagreeing with another editor isn't a reason for a block, especially if they are newer and have just been given advice from the community (and appear to have made adjustments). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment One thing which may want to be asked is "Who is Newimpartial, anyway?"
  The account was created on 4 August 2008. They then made two edits, and didn't edit again for 3 1/2 years, when they made 5 edits, then laid off for 2 1/2 years until September 2014, when they edited for 7 days. They edited for 2 days in February 2015, 2 days in March 2015, and 1 day in August 2015. They then skipped to January 2016, when they edited for 3 days, then to March 2016 when they edited for 3 days, then to February 2017 for 3 days of editing, March 2017 for 2 days, April 2017 for 2 days. Since then Newimpartial has edited more or less continuously from May 16, 2017. This is an extremely odd pattern of editing. It's almost as if they were editing with this account when another account wasn't available to them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support block - After looking at Newimpartial's arguements at MfD, I see only two possibilities: they are either a troll, or they are incompetent. This is not an editor who's trying to "figure things out", this is an editor whose arguments show that they believe they have already figured things out, only their interpretations of our policies fly in the face of their obvious and accepted meanings. Their comments also show a great deal more exposure to those policies (albeit with total misunderstanding of them) then is explainable by their editing history (see my comment just above). I do not believe Newimpartial is here to build an encyclopedia, they seem to be here to stir things up. I see no reasonable alternative given this editor's behavior than an indef block, and if a CU could see their way clear to doing a scan, I think it's likely that there would be positive results. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

reply by Newimpartial I have agreed to stay away from XfD discussions until I have an appropriate level of experience and insight into the relevant policies, including MVUA training, and am doing so. I accept that there are unwritten rules that I need to learn in order to interact constructively on XfD.

BMK, I do not understand why you see my pattern of editing as extremely odd - it is called being middle-aged, having a life elsewhere, and looking at Wikipedia as a side project. I also do not see how one such as myself, half of whose edits are unreverted improvements to articles, is "not here to build an encyclopedia". For some reason you seem to be out to violate WP:AGF and WP:BITE, in spite of good faith on my part that literally almost everyone else I've interacted with seems able to see.

I was asked to stay away from XfD until I knew what I was doing, and I am complying with that. The only administrative discussion I have participated in since then has been the Godsy/Legacypac debacle, which I unknowingly found myself in the middle of before this round got underway - I was accused of being Godsy's "proxy" by Legacypac, or technically vice versa, before I knew what that meant, just as I was accused by Nyttend of gaming a set of rules that I didn't even know existed.

BMK, I accepted you going through my comments to the Godsy/Legacypac ANI and inserting that "the above comment was made by a clueless noob" because (1) I had already provided my piece of the elephant and (2) you were right in an important way. But your accusations are way, way over the line. Go ahead and scan if you like, and I have already agreed to leave XfD alone, but please don't call for a block on someone who is just here to edit articles and who only got involved in XfD out of a fear of draft loss and content deletion. Newimpartial (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• I would like Newimpartial to leave be. If a stale user page is improperly tagged for CSD, I'm sure an admin will be smart enough to figure it out. I know I am. And until (s)he learns to recognize obvious G11's, (s)he needs to stop arguing for G11 userpages to be kept. There are many areas on this wiki that could use improvement. Maybe some of that zeal could be used sourcing the many BLP's that need sourcing. Anything but worrying about user pages and CSD's.Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

agreed. Newimpartial (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• PS Legacypac and Newimpartial should stay away from each other. Nothing goog comes of them being on the same page.Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Nothing goog at all? EEng 08:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Newimpartial (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose block At least soem of what was assigned as "disruption" was a perfectly proper DRV nomination of a grossly improper CSD deletion. Some of Newimpartial's edits were in error, but i see no reason to assume bad faith, nor the kind of competence problem that is likely to mdo significant harm to the project. There is no reason to block here. DES ^(talk) 23:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is too soon. Newimpartial may have made mistakes or jumped to conclusions, but throwing a block his way is overkill. Yintan  09:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for WP:BOOMERANG

As this ANI has proceeded, I have continued to stay away from XfD, as I offered to do, and have also left Legacypac completely alone on all pages except ANI. Meanwhile, Legacypac, who launched this ANI, has continued to WP:HOUND me [10] and threaten me [11]. I would therefore like to see a boomerang ban placed on them, and would be willing to accept a two-way interaction ban (since I am already honoring the terms of one already). Legacypac's "attention" is distracting me from contributing to content, which is why I am WP:HERE.Newimpartial (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

What on earth is a boomerang ban? Yintan  19:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I am requesting that Legacypac receive a one-way interaction ban so that the hounding and threats noted above will stop. I referred to it as a "boomerang" because Legacy's attacks on me essentially started with this ANI. Newimpartial (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

In which case you have shown, once again, that you're not quite up to speed with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. A ban? After one message that isn't even a proper threat? Come on. I strongly suggest you withdraw this request because you're not doing yourself any favours. Furthermore, with all due respect, you seem to keep a closer eye on Legacypac than the other way around. Judging by the updates you post here about his edits, at least. Finally, if you find this thing "distracting" from contributing to the encyclopedia, then simply walk away from ANI. Nobody is forcing you to read/write on this board. Kind regards, Yintan  20:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I have requested a one-way Iban after I asked Legacy to stop hounding and they responded with the threat I linked above. I thought that mine was a measured response, considering they have an open ANI against me. Under this circumstance, I can't really unfolow ANI but I will once this is over. Newimpartial (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

This ANi is a direct follow on to this ANi [12] started with:

"Would someone mind imposing a WP:CIR block on User:Newimpartial? This user's repeatedly declining userspace spam tags (see User:Bubba1987/Kyle Irion, User:BucaFan3/Shy Kidx, and User:Rabbithatch/Gina Phillips), getting past the point of WP:STICK, and complaining at my talk that these aren't spam when I delete them (see [281] and [282]), and when I gave a final warning, he conveniently decided to file a DRV for Shy Kidx, which means that I can't block him. Comments by other users at his talk demonstrate that he doesn't understand how we apply multiple speedy deletion criteria. Nyttend (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)" and closed with

"Newimpartial, with your minimum experience, if you want to avoid being called to this page and risk getting blocked, I suggest that you focus on adding new content or cleaning up vandalism - you just qualify to enroll at the WP:CVUA - and leave the heavy maintenance areas to people like Legacypac and admins like DGG who know perfectly well what they are doing with user sub pages and Drafts, user names, and spam. You probably think you have been acting in good faith, most new users do, and I think you have, but the onus is on them to read the rules. People are calling for a block here, there won't be another warning. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)"

I'm one of the editors that have been willing to help Newimpartial learn, but the continued digested grass opinions popping up in ANi and elsewhere consistently attacking me have stretched my WP:AGF. Per the warning I posted on Newimpartial's talk [13] which has been completely thumbed by this new section, I suppose I should get started on assembling diffs. I was planning on something more fun this evening after eye surgery. Legacypac (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac, how did I "thumb" your "warning"? I cited the diff of your threats in the opening post I made to this section. And I do not see how posting relevant diffs to your ANI below constitutes "digested grass". Is WP:CIVIL of no relevance to you at all?

Take your time on the diffs, though. It doesn't seem that this is going away quickly, much as I would like for the whole ANI you started to be over, so I can concentrate on contributions without looking over my shoulder. Newimpartial (talk)

You mean posts like this attacking my editing and confirming how confused you really are?

"Question for clarification how is sifting through stale userspace drafts "deleting vandalism"? Now I am even more confused than I was before. Newimpartial (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)" with the response:

"The above editor is a clueless newbie who recently had a dispute with Legacypac. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)"

I've got more quotes to post too. Legacypac (talk) 01:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

That was a perfect example of a good faith question which, by the way, you never answered. Newimpartial (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Also note that after BMK questioned my bona fides for participating in your ANI, below, I have not editorialized but only presented (and briefly explained) a couple of relevant diffs. That is, I ceased participating in the back and forth when asked. Newimpartial (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

you are an inexperienced editor with about 1000 total edits, with maybe half on ANi, DRV, MfD and assorted Admin talk pages all telling experienced editors [14] they have vandal fighting all wrong. AFAIK Newimpartial has never applied a CSD tag (but did remove some), initiated an MfD or AfD, or done anything resembling vandal fighting or content curation. One who has never swung a hammer is not entitled to tell all the experienced carpenters they are clueless about framing. Legacypac (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

That is a completely inaccurate characterization of my posting. When it was suggested that I stop participating in XfD until I had a clue (advice, not a decision), I followed the suggestion.

I only participated in your ANI because it was your pursuit of someone you had referred to (bizarrely) as my "proxy" (see the ANI against me that you linked above), and because it concerned the same behaviour on your part that led you to this ANI against me. And when BMK suggested that my opinions were not wanted in that discussion, I stopped offering them. I most certainly haven't "told all the experienced carpenters they are clueless" - all I want is to be free from your hounding and threats. As I pointed out above, I would be willing to accept two-way Iban since I am already observing the strictures of one on my own initiative. Newimpartial (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Newimpartial:. You've now moved up from "threat" to "threats", plural. Where are Legacypac's other threats? Apart from that one message you consider a threat on your Talk? Because if he is making personal attacks he should of course be sanctioned. But as far as I can tell he isn't. Yintan  15:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Another of Legacy's "contributions" that I regarded as hounding/a threat is the one on another admin's page which I replied to here [15] which, curiously, does not seem to show up on edit summaries. I did not receive a reply to this query. Newimpartial(talk) 16:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Newimpartial:. Being mentioned like that is not a threat. Other editors are perfectly entitled to do that. If you want to see threats, read my userpage. And since both your and Legacypac's ban requests have less chance of survival than a snowball in hell, I'm leaving this thread. As much as I like circles, going round in them is boring. Kind regards, Yintan  17:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The "Islamic Political Science Mafia" looks like an online roleplay to me. ;) 01:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it?

User:Godsy is WP:HOUNDING me again. Interaction tool show 36 content pages [16] in the last few days Godsy edited just after me and zero I've edited after him. I'm not sure how to tell exactly what percent of pages I edited that is, but it's alot. Although I have 8000+ pages on my watchlist it shows Godsy, Godsy, Godsy, Godsy, on about every other line. Godsy's past hounding and harassment in various forums was a key reason I stopped editing for months until recently. I've posted some nice and some more pointed requests on his talk page to stop the stalking but he deletes them with snarky comments and keeps stepping up his "oversight" of my edits. Surely Godsy can find some other pool of articles to work on then those in my logs. One solution might be to restrict him from editing any article I've edited within the last week. Sorry to bring this to ANi, but I've got no other way to stop his behavior which is ruining my enjoyment of editing (except to stop editing again). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 03:54, May 31, 2017 (UTC)

• To basically repeat what I said here: "Appropriate use of others editing history includes but is not limited to fixing unambiguous errors and correcting related problems across multiple articles (paraphrased from WP:HOUNDING). I've done nothing outside of those things. That aside, many of the pages we've both edited recently have not been reached through your contribution history, e.g. pages at and related to miscellany for deletion (a venue which I frequent)." — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Just looking at this as someone who is not familiar with the history between you, Godsy's edits are improving the articles. One way you might handle this is to examine the edits that he's making and try not to duplicate any patterns of mistakes that you see. For example, I see at least a couple of times where he has made categories visible hours after you moved a draft. If you slow down your editing just a bit and unhide the categories yourself next time, that would be one less reason why any editor would have to come behind you and clean up. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• (@Godsy) You're ignoring what comes before and after the statement you quote above:

  Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

  Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. ... The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason.

  Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• I agree this is continued wikihounding, and I suggest a one-way interaction ban on Godsy relating to Legacypac. This has been going on long enough, and Godsy has been warned numerous times. Softlavender (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Per BMK's quote from WP:HOUNDING above, I have a suspicion that Legacypac's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. I support a one-way interaction ban to avoid Godsy raising similar suspicions again and again. Johnuniq (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• I've given Godsy a 24-hour block; one-way interaction bans are rarely useful, and a two-way ban would be inappropriate for Legacypac. The bit paraphrased from WP:HOUND is for editors whose work actively needs to be cleaned up, e.g. the same person's consistently mis-tagging pages for speedy deletion, adding copyright infringements, just simply writing in poor English, etc. What we have here is nothing of the sort: it's simply finding anything, even minor spacing errors or missing punctuation, and you'll note that many of the edits are made to content that Legacypac did not create or modify. In other words, there's absolutely no reason to go after Legacypac's contributions, because Godsy's not modifying any of Legacypac's actions. All he's doing is making clear statements of "I'm watching you and following you wherever you go", a sense reinforced by the fact that a bunch of these are new creations that Godsy can't possibly have found any other way. Nyttend (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• 'One-way bans are rarely useful' - the exception I have found is where one editor is clearly and unambiguously stalking another. From looking at the above editing history where, as far as I can see, there is no other explanation than stalking for Godsy to show up, I would say this qualifies as umabiguous. So I would support a one-way ban on this occasion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• And in most of those cases, the stalking is significant enough that we need to block, not merely Iban. Bans are awkward to keep track of, especially one-way interaction bans, and easily gamed, including by third parties; if he decides to stop stalking, the ban will be a pain with no benefit, e.g. punishment not prevention. Either Godsy will stop stalking after the block expires (so why saddle him with a ban?), or he'll keep it up, and a longer block will follow. Nyttend (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Am I correct in reading this as "I didn't wikihound but I'm going to wikihound more aggressively? [17] I have so much to look forward too. Legacypac (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I read it the opposite way. "I'm in the right, but I'm willing to stop fixing all Legacypac's mistakes until the arbitration case is done". Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

He plans to research my edits and start an Arb case. That sounds like even worse hounding, not a promise to stop. Legacypac (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Use of proper community processes to address problems, particularly ones where there's a significant chance of a boomerang (ARBCOM and ANI), should really be considered exempt from the definition of hounding. Of course, if the use of those processes becomes abusive to the processes themselves, access to those processes might be restricted (though I generally oppose such restrictions there is precedent for them). One of the primary goals of anti-wikihounding policy is to keep editors from following each other around to other articles, and having their personalized dispute impacting articlespace. Another primary goal, of course, is to prevent the loss of useful editors through harassment. But there has to be a safety valve for such policy, either where it's misapplied or where the person being protected has also engaged in bad acts. Allowing ARBCOM and, perhaps to a lesser extent, ANI to handle these complaints strikes me as a far better answer than the alternative. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Looking at two of these articles (Ya cai and Pacific Premier Bancorp), I feel User:Legacypac should do more janitorial work when moving articles out of user space. Most of Godsy's edits appear to be non-controversial things like fixing categories and/or templates, while the articles themselves are "barely notable at best". Glyptography is egregiously bad as a new article. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• I actually agree with this. While I'm absolutely sympathetic to the fact that perceived stalking is not welcomed behavior, Godsy's case that there was actually a valid reason to review this user's page moves doesn't seem entirely unreasonable, and I wouldn't go so far as to consider this 'unambiguous stalking'. I will also point out that this is part of a long term dispute that appears to be in need of arbitration proceedings. Oppose any one-sided sanctions. He should obviously leave Legacy alone from now until arbcom proceedings begin, but this dispute should be addressed via dispute resolution rather than a rushed censure of one party. Swarm ♠ 05:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Swarm you rightly make the point it is a long term issue - one where Godsy drove me away for months with his harassment and cherrypicking words from a certain RFC he helped engineer to give himself ammunition against me. I've warned him multiple times nut he persists.

You miss that any page I send to mainspace goes through NPP where there are hundreds of editors that specialize in cleanup and further checks. I've found that they do great work and I appreciate them. Further I watch and revisit promoted pages to further improve them. Godsy's hounding is not required to protect the project, and I feel you are implying I'm some sort of vandal that is hurting Wikipedia and needs to have every edit scrutinized.

Pacific Premier Bancorp is a $6 Billion NASDAQ listed bank so its a strange example of "barely notable at best". Legacypac (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not implying anything about you nor am I justifying Godsy's behavior, nor am I disagreeing with the validity of the block. I'm just agreeing with the obvious fact that Godsy's edits are actually helpful, and pointing out that there's an underlying dispute between two established editors and an IBAN would unfairly constitute a summary judgment of bad faith against one of them and indefinitely prevent DR proceedings. DR processes up to arbitration are the way to go about handling this and if undertaken in good faith then there's nothing wrong with that. Of course, there's no more room for this "feuding" behavior. Swarm ♠ 07:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me the feuding is all coming from Godsy despite numerous warnings, and needs to stop. This bad-faith hounding cannot and should not be painted as a positive thing. If Godsy had been in good faith he would have simply noted to Legacypac on his talk page how to be more careful with his draft moves (or whatever), or brought up his concerns neutrally in some neutral quarter. Instead, he has engaged in bad-faith feuding and hounding for over a year, and has been asked to desist numerous times. In my opinion the community as a whole is beyond assuming good faith at this point. We can see blatant stalking and harassment when it continues over more than a year despite warnings, and even an RfA which failed because of this harassment. Softlavender (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I offered Godsy a conditional acceptance of their unblock request in exchange for, essentially, a show of good faith. Their offer was an RfC as to whether WP:HARASSMENT actually applies to this situation. If validating their own behavior in a dispute stands out to them as the most important aspect worth devoting resources to, I see no reason to try to aid them further in seeking DR. Swarm ♠ 07:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'm puzzled that an editor with a clean block log has been blocked without a single warning or chance to desist. I'm also puzzled by the statement that "one-way interaction bans are rarely useful", when there was already a clear consensus for the one-way, and they have generally worked in this sort of situation. All of that said, I'd like to forewarn Godsy: If you file an ArbCom case request, in my opinion one (or both) of two things are going to occur: (1) It will be thrown out due to lack of exhausting other forms of dispute resolution (other than your personal vendetta against Legacypac, neutral forms of dispute resolution have not been exhausted) or as a content dispute which belongs elsewhere; and/or (2) you will be hit with a boomerang, which may actually be harsher than a one-way IBan. You've already had your RfA fail because of this nonsense. One would have thought you could take a hint then, but you didn't. I hope you'll take a hint now. Softlavender (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong with reviewing Legacypac's edits, Legacypac's CSD tags, and Legacypac's page moves. Editors have public contribution histories for good reason. Legacypac has returned to very active editing, and some of what he does has somewhat dramatic. I find Godsy's alarm understandable. Few others review Legacypac's actions, and it is entirely possible that his actions may include bad actions. Bad actions may come about because: (1) Legacypac does things quickly; and/or (2) when cleaning out large amounts of crap, it is normal to have your judgement on borderline things desensitised.

I think Legacypac should stop objecting to scrutiny. If Godsy is "hounding", better evidence needs to be presented. Legacypac should welcome critical review of his valued cleaning efforts. It is my experience that Legacypac responds perfectly well to polite conversation.

I think there is no case for bans, no case for admonishment, but both editors would be well advised to keep teir interactions (1) polite; (2) collegiate, (3) professional; and (4) product focused. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• I've been rather reserved here, but remaining so will allow a boisterous accusation of harassment and a hasty block for it (which I maintain was inappropriate) to remain partly unchallenged. Wikipedia:Harassment states: "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." and vaguely alludes to "overriding reason(s)" (WP:HOUND) – this clearly applies to the interactions referenced in this case; "It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly." (WP:AOHA) – This thread, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Godsy Disruption & GAMING the System, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Godsy/sandbox, etc. may show the accuser engaging in that; "Incidents of wikihounding generally receive a warning. If wikihounding persists after a warning, escalating blocks are often used, beginning with 24 hours." Wikipedia:Harassment#Blocking for harassment – I was never warned, except for complaints by the accuser. If an administrator had warned me and stated that I would be blocked the next time the behavior they believed to be inappropriate occurred, I would have ceased and sought relief from the community.; "However, there is an endemic problem on Wikipedia of giving 'harassment' a much broader and inaccurate meaning which encompasses, in some cases, merely editing the same page as another user." and "Neither is tracking a user's contributions for policy violations; the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight. Editors do not own their edits, or any other article content, and any other editor has a right to track their editing patterns, and, if necessary, to revert their edits. Unwarranted resistance to such efforts may be a sign of ownership behavior and lead to sanctions." (WP:HA#NOT) - again, this clearly applies here. No diffs have been provided that show me being tendentiousness, disruptive, making personal attacks, or being uncivil (as one user once said regarding my behavior during this situation "Godsy was quite civil in all of the dispute that I've read. At worst he sounded frustrated, but he certainly wasn't rude.") because I haven't done any of those things. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 22:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

BLP concerns

Following on from this, has anyone actually looked at the sample articles from the original interaction tool link, above? Looking at a few of the subjects, found the following:

• Naomi Schiff moved from draft to live here as the article "Appears notable". Well, either it is notable, or it is not. Now the article at this stage has no refs. So that's an unref'd BLP moved into the mainspace. Do they meet WP:N? Well, there's nothing to WP:V that at the point of move.

• Lena Gorelik moved here with the rationale of "Stale draft meets a red link on page where she won a major prize". The ref in the article failed verification, which was tagged by an editor with the next edit. Again, at the point of move a WP:BLP failing WP:V.

That's just a couple from this small sample. Who knows how many more have been moved in this state. So, is it acceptable to move unsourced, draft articles of living people into the mainspace without a) attempting to source them or b) verifying that the content in them is actually true and they meet some sort of notability? Or, to put it another way, if an editor was creating BLPs from scratch straight into the mainspace, didn't source anything, how long before they were at WP:ANI? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial about the author or race car driver and they both easily meet WP:N. If you are so concerned you could have added more refs in the time it took you to post at ANi and making unfounded broad attacks. The each had at least 1 source so were not Speedy deletable under BLP .Legacypac (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:CIR. You should be taking a lot more care in what you're doing. If you can't see what the issues of moving an unref'd BLP into the mainspace, then you should not be doing it. Thankfully this issue you have created has now been brought to the attention of the community. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:AGF and not making false allegations are also important. These were not referenced BLPs, and I did Verify so kindly retract. Many editors put unreferenced BLPs in mainspace every day and I don't see you attacking them at ANi. Further, BLP policy is manly concerned with negative content, not author wrote a book and won an award stuff. Legacypac (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a concerning statement. We delete unsourced BLPs, Legacy. Swarm ♠ 17:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The pages had sources ♠, they just could have used better/more inline references for uncontroversial content. I've already added some additional inline references, as is my normal practice to review and improve these pages soon after unearthing them. Legacypac (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

They did not have sources when YOU moved them. You just left them. They've only been sourced after this issue was brought to your attention. The WP:BURDEN is with you, and you alone, to source any draft BEFORE you move it back to the mainspace. Pretty poor work. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Lugnuts that's inaccurate. As far as I know every BLP had at least one source and I've added more within several days. Retract your personal attack or back it up. I did not write these pages I handled them, so there is not much more burden on me then Godsy or a New Page Patroller to make them perfect. Further we've established Godsy has been stalking my edits on nearly every page I touch but he was not tagging the alleged serious deficiencies, he was adding periods and cutting out extra spaces. Anyway you show up and throw mud at me every chance you get and no amount of facts will dissuade your ugliness.

The diffs are in the opening lines of this section, above. I'm retracting nothing, as you clearly moved unsourced BLP articles. Those are the facts. You clearly don't understand the serious nature of this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

well you continue to post false statements here. Legacypac (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You have a bad case of WP:IDHT. Show me what statments are false, and I'll show you how wrong you are. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: As I mentioned below in response to Iridescent I wonder if this confusion arises due to different interpretations of 'unsourced'. Both the examples cited lacked working inline references at the time they were moved, but did have a single working external link to an official page. An official page isn't enough to support a BLP, but it does make it ineligble for BLPprod assuming it supports some statement in the article (AFAIK anyway) which it probably did. Also I keep mentioning working since I'm pretty sure the reason why Lena Gorelik failed verification is because the link is dead which doesn't necessarily make a difference compared to the reference just didn't say what was claimed, but probably will to some. Nil Einne (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Non-Admin Comment glance at my recent ANIs, initiated by Nyttend and Legacypac, to see examples I provided of other questionable treatment of userspace drafts. Legacypac has (rather obliquely) assured me that they do not purposely move articles out of draft to get them deleted, as I had naively thought, so it seems that at least for Legacypac, "Stale user- or draft-space articles" are apparently a problem that calls for resolution in each case by one of four remedies: Speedy deletion (on broad criteria), MfD (if speedy deletion seems too dubious), AfC submission (which seems like a bit of a shell game if the user submitting has no intention of doing further work on the article), or movement into mainspace in hope that issues will be resolved (by other editors) there. However, I have not seen such a "userspace draft policy" approved anywhere, and this procedure seems to violate both the spirit and the letter of WP:STALE. Newimpartial (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

This post, given the wide rejection of this editor's other misunderstandings of deletion policy, could be the beginning of more trouble for Newimpartial. See his talk ANI closed with a warning and threat of a block next time and look through current Mfd discussions [18] for editors nearly universally rejecting his spam protection ideas.In addition to the options he listed, Blanking, redirection to mainspace, and removing valid userspace pages from the userspace draft category are good options. Legacypac (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

You don't mention that your request for a topic ban for me here at ANI received no votes of support and multiple "Oppose" votes. And I have not been participating in any XfD or CSD issues since the first ANI by Nyttend, except for a CfD where an admin asked for my input today. Also note that my voting record on AfD was better than on MfD :) but anyway that is all in the past. This discussion right now really isn't about me at all. I don't see how you can read my post immediately above as anything but good faith participation in the discussion of BLP draft moves - it isn't personal.Newimpartial (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

And thanks to Legacypac for their link - I now think I see the heart of the issue. The instructions on <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Stale_userspace_drafts>, which presumably reflect a local consensus, conflict openly with WP:STALE. Newimpartial (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

"Newimpartial, with your minimum experience, if you want to avoid being called to this page and risk getting blocked, I suggest that you focus on adding new content or cleaning up vandalism - you just qualify to enroll at the WP:CVUA - and leave the heavy maintenance areas to people like Legacypac and admins like DGGwho know perfectly well what they are doing with user sub pages and Drafts, user names, and spam. You probably think you have been acting in good faith, most new users do, and I think you have, but the onus is on them to read the rules. People are calling for a block here, there won't be another warning. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)" ... and yet 4 days later Newimpartial has become expert enough to come to ANi and criticize my handling of these exact issues and tell us that instructions that have not changed in years are wrong? With your recent 200+ consecutive edits of pure disruption around MfD topics WP:CIR, WP:NOTHERE WP:CLUE all apply. Legacypac (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

90% of my recent edits are content work, mostly in article space. All I am doing here is pointing to the apparent conflict between this [19] and WP:STALE, as an issue arising from an ANI about editing of articles recently moved from draft space to article space. Nothing personal, and basically an FYI for admin who may be interested in raising the policy issue. It seems clear that the stale draft guidelines were never revised in line with last year's stale drafts discussions and the consensus arriving therefrom. Newimpartial (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Um, reread your first post. Pretty clear you don't think I follow policy and that is why you posted here. Legacypac (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Per my first post, I have the impression that you, Nyttend and some of the other "Stale draft cleanup" crew are not following, or are tendentously interpreting, WP:STALE. I now understand that your local consensus is reflected here [20]: thank you for drawing that to my attention. As several admins here have expressed interest in the treatment of user- and draft-space articles, especially in this case their being moved into article space, I am offering my piece of the elephant. Nothing personal directed at anybody.Newimpartial (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The tagging of a userpage by someone or a bot as "Stale Userspace Draft" [21] does not mean that only WP:STALE applies now and we should ignore WP:UP#NOT. A tiny minority of pages so tagged are legitimate efforts to draft an acceptable future article. Most are spam/promotion, fake articles, garage bands, inappropriate copies of mainspace, hoaxes, general meaningless nonsense from throw away accounts, copyvio, zero chance of notability ever and more. The pages Lugnuts is complaining about is some of the best content from that category! If the pages I'm promoting are so bad someone wants to ban me from promoting pages, than let's save everyone a lot of time and mass delete the current 30,000+ pages tagged Stale Userspace Drafts. Legacypac (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Propose "topic ban" for Legacypac

I'd suggest 'topic banning' Legacypac from moving any type of draft content into the mainspace, instead allowing/requiring them to move potential new articles into the Draft namespace where they can be submitted/reviewed through the Articles for Creation review process. That way BLPs and other content with verification and referencing issues remains out of the way of search engines and the 'encyclopedia proper' until it's checked by a AfC reviewer. Nick (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Interesting idea Nick. Do you trust me less than every spammer or new editor that can directly create content in mainspace?

Every new article goes into WP:NPP and is not indexed by search engines for Not Enough 90 days/until marked reviewed anyway. These have such old creation dates they go to the back of the list where they are quickly reviewed by people that work the oldest first. There was backlash from the peanut gallery of rabid inclusionists willing to protect spam that submission to AfC could be a back door to deletion, so I don't use that option much. Crazy but true. Legacypac (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It's 30 days, not 90,[22] and my reading of the source is that it goes by page creation date, not when you move it into mainspace. (I'd be happy, on a number of levels, to be shown to be wrong about that.) —Cryptic 15:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Update here - there is considerable confusion among involved admins about 30 vs 90 days but the best evidence is it's 30 days no index currently, but 90 by default, and probably consensus and a way to make it 90 Days of no indexing. Legacypac (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I was working from memory having read all the NPP pages recently. I could be wrong on the 30/90, and I can't find where the discussion was now. User:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง should know. Does the code look for creation date of the content or the creation date of the new mainpage page? If the former, a spammer could create nonsense in no index userspace and just wait awhile to move it, circumventing the noindex on new pages. Also, noindex anywhere is not foolproof, as I found recently when I searched a user coined term and the first Google result was the supposed to be no index user draft I was evaluating. Legacypac (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support, at least with regards to BLPs. Given the BLP policy is manly concerned with negative content, not author wrote a book and won an award stuff and other responses from Legacypac, it's very clear that—regardless of whether Godsy was acting appropriately or not—Legacypac has a serious misunderstanding of one of Wikipedia's most fundamental policies. ‑ Iridescent 18:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

  Escalating to support total ban from moving pages to mainspace in light of The pages had at sources^(sic), they just could have better inline references for uncontroversial content. The pages in question were this (no references of any kind) and this (reference that obviously doesn't contain what it's supposed to). Either LP is intentionally lying, or is so sloppy they shouldn't be trusted to make decisions as to what is or isn't appropriate for the mainspace. ‑ Iridescent 18:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out in case people either don't check or missed it that although both lacked working inline references, both did actually have a single working external link to an official page. These weren't inline but I presume they both supported one claim made in each article. I mention this because although I still think (as mentioned in great detail below) they shouldn't have touched main space in the form they were in, it does mean they weren't AFAIK eligible for Wikipedia:BLPPROD. (I haven't been involved in BLP much in recent times, so I'm also not sure how BLPPROD treats cases when a reference is dead. Particular in this case where robots.txt meant the page wasn't archived at archive.org. Ultimately of course if the reference isn't easily recoverable then it can't support any statement made in the article.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support per Iri. BLP is something we have to get right. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Reality Check If you are really concerned about BLPs there are 99,787 mainspace BLP articles lacking sources [[23]] to delete. Be sure to bring all the creators to ANi to BLP ban them all. Start with the ones created June 2006. Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• You think "We have a huge admin backlog so I'm deliberately adding to it" is helping your case? To be frank, while I haven't looked over your contribution history, just judging by your comments in this thread I wouldn't oppose your being community banned; I appreciate you're under stress, but you clearly have a spectacular attitude problem. ‑ Iridescent 18:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't patronize me. I don't recall interacting with you before, but you are misrepresenting my edit history which you admit to not checking. Anyone on earth can create completely unverifiable BLP content. There are almost 100,000 pages live we know about. Pushing punishment on me for not adding more refs in 4 days to content I did not create but only managed to try and improve the project is crazy when you are not seeking to punish people that created similar content last month or 10 years ago. Most of my effort goes toward deleting vandalism. Occasionally in that effort I surface something that appears to be useful. Sometimes it just needs to be merged and title turned into a redirect. A core idea of Wikipedia is its a work in process and no editor is required to make everything perfect. Legacypac (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Question for clarification how is sifting through stale userspace drafts "deleting vandalism"? Now I am even more confused than I was before. Newimpartial (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The above editor is a clueless newbie who recently had a dispute with Legacypac. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Support per [I agree with] Iridescent. A similar boomerang restriction was proposed last time they opened an an/i thread regarding me, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Proposal: Temporary restriction on Legacypac (a thread which includes evidence that they have made many more inappropriate page moves). They also recently introduced Glyptography into the mainspace which was deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support his attitude stinks and he refuses to understand why his edits are problematic. The block of Godsy was probably a bad one. A block of Legacypac looks increasingly like a very good idea. Lepricavark (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

  FYI the admin who placed that ban on Godsy stated, in an earlier ANI targeting me, that they would have banned me if I hadn't coincidentally initiated a deletion review (which they misinterpreted as a game on my part but was nothing of the kind). That ANI however produced no support for a ban or any sanction on me as long as I take time off XfD and play well with others. That admin seems to see a ban as the tool of first resort... Newimpartial (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

q.v. the same admin threatening a block in response to a policy question here.[24] Newimpartial (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The above editor is a clueless newbie who recently had a dispute with Legacypac. Beyond My Ken (talk)

• Not supporting or opposing this, but a comment. Legacypac has the dubious distinction of being the only user I've ever had to give three separate "stop-doing-this-immediately-or-I-will-block-you" warnings to for three completely different things. Though all of them are well in the past, one of them directly relates to the proposed remedy here. I don't watch his talkpage anymore, and don't have the heart to check if he's been misdirecting AFC comments to his talk page again since he returned to Wikipedia. I'm frankly afraid to even look, because I don't feel up to dealing with the dramahz involved. —Cryptic 22:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support - WP:CIR and in light of Legacypac's comments here alone, I am not seeing a readiness to handle moving any drafts into namespace.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support - At best these are questionable moves, at worst incompetent, and their responses here, especially regarding BLP policy, are cause for serious concern. I was agitated by Godsy's "I did nothing wrong" attitude, but Legacy is taking that position in response to actual problems they're introducing into the mainspace. Swarm ♠ 00:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support The easy explanation is per Iri, but I had independently reached that conclusion by the time I got to Iri's position. I'm merely stunned that an experienced editor would move an unreferenced BLP into mainspace, but I'm gobsmacked that the reaction isn't contrition, it's effectively Other Stuff Exists and NPP will clean-it up. Absolutely. Unacceptable. --S Philbrick(Talk) 00:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. If we're actually worried about BLP competence, then the proposal should be a topic ban from BLPs entirely. It should not be confined to moving BLPs to mainspace, and it should not include moving non-BLP articles to mainspace. As it is structured, this proposal improperly exploits the community's strong policies regarding BLPs to achieve the longstanding goal of a few editors to prevent Legacypac from moving stale drafts to mainspace. I urge those supporting to reevaluate the logic behind this proposal from an objective basis. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Seems to be a bad faith strawman. I have nothing to do with this purported "longstanding goal" of preventing Legacypac and his page moves. I merely reviewed the situation as an uninvolved administrator and the problems associated with their moves were obvious to me. Also, the problems regarding his interpretation of BLP are obvious to most of us. The claim that the proposal is twisting BLP in order to achieve a subversive goal is also ridiculous, considering the even just the examples presented by iridescent. It's poor form to oppose a proposal based entirely on an assumption of bad faith. Swarm ♠ 02:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• I wasn't talking about you. Might want to strike your entire response. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• What? I never thought or claimed you were referring to me, and your suggestion that I strike my response is fallacious and bizarre. Swarm ♠ 07:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• I have nothing to do with this purported "longstanding goal"... seems pretty clear to me. Unless your argument is that by your participating in this discussion somehow negates my point: It wouldn't be ANI if the threads didn't attract noise, masking the underlying problem. Your retreat to AGF as somehow negating my point is equally bizarre: Where did I assume bad faith? The individuals, such as Godsy, who have long sought Legacypac's removal from draftspace and MfD genuinely believe they are acting in the best interests of Wikipedia. I would almost rather their actions be taken in bad faith—those would be much easier to correct through blocks and bans, for it wouldn't be powered by the moral imperative and righteous indignation we've seen, time and again, in this dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Kibbitz from what I have seen over the last couple of weeks, most of the moral indignation has arisen on the Legacy/Nyttend side of this dispute, for what it's worth Newimpartial (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The above editor is a clueless newbie who has had a recent dispute with Legacypac. Beyond My Ken (talk)

requested review here [25] I've requested a complete review of my move logs for the last 30 day. I'm well aware my judgement may differ from others and that I occasionally make mistakes. Cryptic even picked up a many years old copyvio I missed (embarressing!) Instead of Allowing people to continue to make unsubstantiated false allegations here, I'd prefer that an Admin take me up on this requested review. It should not take very long as there are not many moved articles involved. Legacypac (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time, since there has been no previous warning. I'd recommend a formal warning from an admin that continuing to move unsourced BLP articles into mainspace will result in a block, which could escalate at that time into a topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Premature. There are things to be worked out, but I see no evidence of actual damage being done. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support User is increasingly showing signs they don't understand the problems this causes in relation to BLPs with possible WP:CIR issues too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support as per the previous comments. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support. In the past, Legacypac was admonished by the community for moving drafts into mainspace to nominate them for AfD. This was done with the self-proclaimed goal of getting rid of non-notable drafts or drafts that are incomplete. Now, about a year later if memory serves, Legacypac is moving incomplete and potentially non-notable drafts to the mainspace with frequency and leaving them to be reviewed by new page patrollers. I don't think it takes a genius to connect the dots here. As the disruption has continued, a topic ban is appropriate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. We need to apply at least a semblance of fairness. We are not talking vandalism or blatant disruptive editing in disregard of all rules. Sure, there have been valid concerns about Legacypac's WP:GF editing, especially that we do specifically insist on sources for BLPs. But trying to resolve such concerns by applying blanket bans usually results in more harm than gain to the project. For an established editor who edits in a poorly regulated policy areas (per above discussion on STALE), the very fact of having this debate should be enough to modify his/her behaviour; a formal warning will be more than sufficient. We are not a kindergarten here. — kashmiri ^TALK 12:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

New non-admin comment I would suggest that edit is pertinent to the discussion here. Newimpartial (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

'Also, [26]. Legacy continues to submit articles to AfC he does not intend to work on then delete the feedback from his talk page, and to move articles to mainspace which other editors are then required to move back, in spite of the entirety of this discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't forget to sign your posts, Newimpartial. And so far Legacypac is completely entitled to do what he does. If it's a smart thing to do is another question but that's up to him. Yintan  12:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry; I was having trouble with that mobile edit. Fixed. The point was that, while he is not subject to any kind of a ban, Legacypac is continuing to do the moves which the majority of those posting here agree that he should either be banned from doing or should refrain from doing. There are various ways to proceed in advance of a ban, and Legacy has clearly chosen to stick with his previous course. Newimpartial (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Newimpartial you have demonstrated beyond any doubt to be WP:CLUEless in regard to deletion policy and handling of drafts (multiple experianced editors have said this). You experiance in the area is limited to roundly rejected MfD disruption and running around the site accusing me of not knowing what I'm doing. I've never seen you nominate a page for deletion or move a draft or anything. Yesterday you posted on DES's talk you are not interested in such activity. Since you have no experiance or interest in this area I invite you to stop posting about it. Yesterday you accused me of hounding you - but your "contributions" suggest you are hounding me. Advice from people like User:BeyondMyKen should be heeded. Legacypac (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I am heeding all advice given and acting in good faith. For my reply to Legacypac'a accusations, see the new section of the ANI they filed against me, above. Newimpartial (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Kashmiri above. However, I do urge Legacypac to be more careful with the BLP moves and a formal warning sounds like a good idea. Yintan  09:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't be confused by the baseless accusations here. Not all editors are acting in good faith. There was no BLP moves that qualified for a BLP Prod (Ie no sources) and I improved the sources before anyone did anything but tag the pages as needing better sources. Legacypac (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not confused. Yintan  19:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Has anyone with admin privileges spot-checked any of the thousand or so speedy deletions Legacypac has flagged in the last couple of days? I was just wondering. Newimpartial (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Admins don't "spot-check" my CSDs they approve nearly all of them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Legacypac/CSD_log Legacypac (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

And sometimes do so in error. Any time someone tags a thousand pages in such short order, a spot check would seem reasonable to me. :) Newimpartial (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Drop the horse. EEng

Newimpartial, drop the dead horse already. I've been staying out of this so far but enough is enough. Everywhere I turn around, there you are hassling Legacypac again and again, well beyond the bounds of the reasonable discussion of the reasonable editing concerns brought up by others earlier in this thread. If it's not one thing with you, it's another, and it appears to be downright personal. I notice you don't have even close to the same level of concern or interest in any other editor's editing habits. Today it's a suggestion for spot-checking Legacypac's CSDs? What next, a suggestion that we notify you and an admin every time Legacypac edits, so we can spot check everything he's doing to make sure it's to your liking? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion so far.

It's basically a pile of mashed up guts at this point. —JJB^ers 02:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Fine. <stepping away from the horse>. But I will point out, contra PMC, that the only place I have mentioned any of Legacy draftspace moves in the last week is here at ANI, that I do not see a consensus that these moves have generally been ok, that I am not trolling, and that Legacy's revert of my above comment, here [27], is not in accord with ANI norms as I have seen them expressed. But I will defer to my "elders" and leave this thread alone now. Newimpartial (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Now can we put this horse properly away now. (aka close the whole thing) —JJB^ers 03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Response moved out of premature archive as still relevant to other allegations.

• 100% CSD acceptance rate [28] since I fixed my log, and close to perfect before that based on how all the pages I CSD in edit logs turn red. I've always followed up to ensure CSD tags were not removed by someone or if an admin declined.
• 100% success at MfD nomimations [29] recently AFAIK, and
• not much red on my page move log [30] indicating that pages I promote are rarely deleted.
• In my participation in all XfD my vote is nearly always in line with the conclusion. [31] ie 82% at MfD.
• No documented BLP violations or warnings in recent years
• My record demonstrates a strong and ever improving understanding of existing deletion policy and I actively engage in discussions to improve it.
• I don't recall ever making a substantive edit to any deletion policy page, and certainly not in the last year.
• I'm an approved Pending Changes Patroller, and was recently approved as a New Page Reviewer but held the previous version of that user right. I don't abuse these rights.
• I do a lot of useful work even if some people don't appreciate it's value WP:NOTNOTHERE says in part "A user may have an interest in creating stubs, tagging articles for cleanup, improving article compliance with the Manual of Style, or nominating articles for deletion. These are essential activities that improve the encyclopedia in indirect ways. Many "behind the scenes" processes and activities are essential to allow tens of thousands of users to edit collectively."
• My work is fully in line with the project WP:ABANDONED and long standing instructions at Category Stale userspace drafts which I had no part in drafting. [32] where I've made significant progress on a huge backlog.
• I'm at times a prolific editor so it is possible to pick out the odd mistake, but there is no pattern of incompetence as my logs prove.
• I have not been engaged in any dispute with Godsy since returning to editing 6 months ago, except for this WP:HOUNDING report. In fact I have been carefully avoiding any interaction with them including generaly skipping XfD they comment on etc. Therefore any attempt to punish me for alleged or actual behavioral issues a year or more ago is misguided.
• This proposal below amounts to a complete ban from the areas I enjoy most and goes against my established track record of work in line with existing policy and practice. Legacypac (talk)

Allegation re Pending Changes Approval

• Support and Remove advanced permissions per the user's disregard for WP:BLP, WP:CIR issues and WP:COPYVIO. This came up on my watchlist yesterday: they used their pending changes reviewer right to accept this edit containing 7,000 bytes of unattributed quotation. From Wikipedia:Reviewing_pending_changes: "The process of reviewing is intended as a quick check to ensure edits don't contain vandalism, violations of the policy on living people, copyright violations, or other obviously inappropriate content." zzz (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a pretty damning diff. I'd be intrigued to hear the explanation. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

No surprise: apparently my fault, or something, as expected. zzz (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Yep, this is 'pac's modus operandi. Have him banged to rights on having massive WP:CIR issues, complete with solid evidence, but he'll remain in denial, blame everyone else and throw his toys out. Maybe everyone else in this thread is wrong too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

This is completely outside the scope of the TBan discussion, which only deals with pagemoves from draftspace. You're welcome to start a new proposal regarding the removal of PC reviewer rights for this one instance. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Signedzzz are you still topic banned from Boko Haram or all things ISIL or did you get that restriction formally lifted? As someone who is not a Pending Changes Reviewer, you may not understand the purpose of the right is to prevent vandalism. The edit I approved may not be perfect but it is a major expansion on an important subtopic, well researched and heavily referenced to top quality sources like UN documents, the exact opposite of vandalism. Had I declined the edit I would have insulted a promising new editor and maybe driven them off the project. Normally if there is something you see that could be improved I'd suggest fixing it but given your history on the article and especially if you remain topic banned I'd suggest taking the article off your watchlist to prevent temptation. Thanks for showing up at ANi to make ridiculous accusations. I appreciate your consistency in hating me for finally stopping your abuse of the Boko Haram pages. Legacypac (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

No, I've never been banned from the article; see my !vote, above, for what pending changes reviewers are supposed to check for. zzz (talk)

Allow me to refresh your memory (also put on your talk page, but you deleted that):

Blocked – Signedzzz is blocked four days for long-term edit warring at Boko Haram, as well as a 3RR violation on 8 January. The closure of this complaint was delayed due to discussions which took place both here and in a report above. It appeared for a while that Signedzzz was agreeing to take a break from the article, but he made this controversial edit on 10 January which removes article tags, showing that he has not stopped editing at Boko Haram. This block can be lifted if Signedzzz will accept a topic ban from Islamic extremism and Boko Haram, which will apply everywhere on Wikipedia on articles, talk pages and noticeboards. Signedzzz is already banned from editing on WP:GS/SCW per an earlier complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[33]

Result: User:Signedzzz is banned from the topic of the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant on all pages of Wikipedia including talk and noticeboards under the WP:GS/SCW community sanctions, for three months. EdJohnston (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC) [34] This expired, so he is ok to edit again as far as I can tell but note Boko Haram is an ISIL affiliate so the topic ban covered the page in question. Legacypac (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it didn't. zzz (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Signedzzz's allegation, seconded by Lugnuts, that I accepted copyvio is false. The UN material is in the public domain, as I fully expected. See here [35] for further explanation. Legacypac (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

No, I "alleged" that it was "7,000 bytes of unattributed quotation". I was unable to ascertain the copyright status. zzz (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't get cute. You linked WP:COPYVIO as a reason you want me sanctioned and claimed it was copyvio in the quote in the same post (the only thing listed that matches "unattributed quotation") and you deleted the whole article section claiming copyvio in the edit summary [36] Legacypac (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

"as I fully expected" - in other words, you only just realised. Which is all beside the point, since 7kb of unattributed quotation is "obviously inappropriate content". (Wikipedia:Reviewing_pending_changes: "The process of reviewing is intended as a quick check to ensure edits don't contain vandalism, violations of the policy on living people, copyright violations, or other obviously inappropriate content.") zzz (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

but you falsely accused me of passing copy vio and when confronted with the evidence you are wrong you resorted to saying you are not qualified to judge. If unqualified, you should never have made the accusation at ANi. Legacypac (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The issue as I see it, and the reason your rights need to be removed, is that when you accepted the edit, you had no idea about the copyright status - when I raised it here, you assumed as I did that it was copyvio, and nevertheless insisted that you were right to accept it, for some reason. zzz (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I know instinctively from all the law courses I've taken and working in HQ of an NGO operating in 140 countries that short quotes from a UN publications are fine, I only needed to find the proof. Legacypac (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The edit needed 7,000 bytes of pointless unattributed quotation/copyvio immediately removed, and the rest totally rewritten (suicide bombing = "altruistic suicide", etc.) You definitely did read it, then, and not just accept it blindly? I'm not sure which is worse. Either way, there is nothing more to discuss, since you still cannot see any problem. zzz (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

"Wrong, wrong, wrong. I know instinctively from all the law courses I've taken" Hahahaha. Priceless. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

section break

• Support Just looking through the moves from draft Legacypac provided in their first post there is a slew of awful stuff. Promotional, redundant, badly sourced. I see no benefit in this continuing. Capeo (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support the competency issues are fairly glaring. Iridescent sums things up nicely, but Signedzzz makes some good points as well. I think we'll be removing advanced permissions sooner rather than later. AniMate 19:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support at a minimum for BLPs. On Mendaliv's point, I do have concerns about LegacyPac editing BLPs point blank, but haven't seen enough evidence to support a general topic ban. It isn't unheard of that editors may have a specific problem in one area of BLPs. As for extending this to non BLPs, the urgency isn't so great there but still the evidence presented suggests this is a longstanding problem that LegacyPac is moving stuff to the encyclopaedia proper when they shouldn't be, causing problems and considering that this has happened with BLPs it's not something we can let slide. In other words, were it not for the BLP problems I'm not sure we'd be considering a topic ban, but since we are considering a topic ban, the question then is how far should it go to minimise problems to wikipedia. By that same token, I don't see the need for a clear cut warning. (And I see even less reason for a warning from an admin.) An experienced editor need to be familiar with our sourcing policies and also BLP and if they've already been causing problems and had people talk to them about it, they need to take that feedback on board warning or not and especially shouldn't be allowing their problems to extend to BLPs. I don't really understand and frankly don't give a damn about the politics here, whatever disputes LegacyPac has had with other editors about how to handle drafts in the past, the thing which matters here is whether LegacyPac's behaviours is causing sufficient problems to wikipedia to merit a topic ban. If sanctions of other editors is suggested, I'll consider the evidence and weigh up the appropriate course of action. Regardless of how editors feel about how to handle stale drafts, moving clearly unacceptable articles, especially BLPs, to main space is definitely not the way to handle them. (Drafts obviously aren't immune, if a clearly unacceptable draft BLP is preserved despite no sign of editing, then yes this is a problem too.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, see, there's the problem. This discussion started about, and has largely focused on, the concerns regarding BLPs. Few of the comments make or even consider the point you make, that even though the BLP rationale cannot justify a blanket pagemove ban, the other effects of pagemove behavior are problematic enough to justify it. With respect, "minimizing disruption" as a justification requires we agree on whether something is disruptive. To my understanding there is no consensus that Legacypac's pagemoves are, as a matter of policy, disruptive. Rather, this argument seems to push the blame for the disruption caused by the interaction between Godsy and Legacypac entirely onto Legacypac's shoulders. Moreover, we should not, and probably cannot, enact new policy through an ad hoc behavioral sanction. There is no reason to believe that, should a consensus form that stale drafts should not be moved to mainspace, Legacypac would persist. This is not a preventive measure at all: It is purely punitive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Except the interaction between Godsy and Legacypac is irrelevant to my my concerns. My concerns are their behaviour in moving clearly unsuitable articles to main space. I don't care whether they are stale, I do care that they lack any sources, and that Legacypac said they did. This is more of a problem with BLPs, but it's still a problem with normal articles. Whether or not it's okay to move a stale draft to main space is irrelevant, what does matter is when you move an article to main space, you are to some extent taking responsibility for it. This means if it has severe problems, like lacks any sources, you should not be doing so. Again I don't give a damn whether it's stale or not, only whether the article is in any shape to be in main space. I.E. If it we created, in current shape, does it have hope of surviving AFD? If it does not, then it does not belong in main space, and anyone who creates problems on main space by moving it there should rightfully be sanctioned. Again I don't give a damn about the politics of involved, I only care about the harm to wikipedia caused by going against our existing guidelines and policies, and these guidelines and policies do not allow people to continually create mainspace articles which are AFDed which is what LegacyPac is doing by moving these to mainspace. Admitedly I WP:AGF when making the argument above that Iridiscent was correct and that the articles mentions had zero references, however looking more closely at them both did have links to official sites. This does mean the problem isn't quite as severe as I thought. Still the articles moved still have no bsuiness being in main space in the form LegacyPac moved (created) them. Now if LegacyPac was the one doing the cleanup, this would also be okay. I'd prefer them to do it before moving to main space, still someone who creates multiple junky articles in main space, but quickly fixes them isn't going to be sanctioned. But the history seems to suggest this often isn't the case. (It does seem to be the case for the two examples highlighted by Iridescent but the comments above strongly suggest this often isn't the case.) In addition, frankly as a BLP hawk, I'm very reluctant to let anyone with such a fundamental misunderstanding of BLP create any article on wikipedia (actually edit point blank if possible) unless they quickly correct that misunderstanding because even normal articles can easily involve LP which is another nail against LegacyPac. In this case, in many ways moving an article to main space is actually worse since you didn't actually write everything, and if there is evidence you aren't actually looking closely at what you're moving, there's a good chance you may inadvertedly move something with a major BLPvio to main space. In other words, the slopiness demonstrated thus far makes me think that if an article on some place said in Kenya said "There are rumours Barack Obama was born here", this article is going to be moved to main space because if you don't know the history this isn't inherently negative so who cares if it isn't sourced right? Wrong of course. (This isn't the best example because of how well known the controversy is and also because Barack Obama is such a notable individual these sort of things aren't actually the sort of BLP issues that worry me that much as there's already so much other nonsense, however it would be much harder to understand where I was coming from if I would come up with an obscure example.) And let me repeat for one more time, this has nothing to do with the interaction between Godsy and LegacyPac. Frankly I know very little about this interaction. Or for that matter the history of the concerns over LegacyPac and Godsy's editing. I think I vaguely recall hearing LegacyPac's name before. I have heard over the fights over stale drafts but frankly they bore me. My only concern is protecting wikipedia, particularly main space and it seems clear that moving junk which has no business being in main space to main space without then being putting in the work to allow it to stay in main space is not allowed by common policies or guidelines because anyone doing so is taking responsibility for the "creation" of this article, and we do not allow people to regularly create junk in main space. And the evidence presented here suggests that LegacyPac has done this recently and has a history of doing so. I don't care why they are doing so, simply that they are doing so and so harming wikipedia. P.S. In case it isn't clear, I'm generally a deletionist and it looks to me like many of these drafts have no business being on wikipedia. If we can't come to a consensus to delete them because they're drafts, that's unfortunate. I wouldn't personally mind moving them to main space to AFD them, at a resonable rate. Still as I understand it this has been rejected before. Whatever does or does not happens, what is clear is that moving them when they are utter junk and have no business being in mainspace and then leaving them like that and hoping someone else will come along and fix them is not acceptable anymore than creating them like that in the first place. This problem is of most concern where the article appears to be a BLPvio (e.g. lacking any real sources), and as said, at this stage I'm not sure if we should have bothered with a topic ban on moves were it not for the BLP concerns. Not so much because it isn't justified but rather such a discussion tends to waste a lot of time so we have to ask whether it's worth it yet. But since we were forced to have this discussion anyway, the question then becomes how far should the ban extend and my believe is that the problem is bad enough that even if the concerns aren't as high with non BLPs, they are still high enough to merit a topic ban for non BLPs. And yes we accept stubs etc and aren't generally going to sanction someone for creating a lot of notable stubs. But there's a difference between notable stubs and junk. And yes, editing is a collobrative process, there's nothing wrong with an editor creating a not very good article, particularly a new editor, and with other editors coming later to fix it up but it also depends on how bad is "not very good" and how often you're doing it (WP:CIR etc). In other words if LegacyPac were moving content that was bad, but not bad enough that it had no business being in mainspace then yes there would be no problem. Likewise if LegacyPac only did it once or twice instead of having done it over a long period. While it would be nice to think they will learn from this experience they need to pay attention to what they are moving and not just move any old junk. Or perhaps more likely, to understand what is and isn't acceptable in main space as I think this is the bigger problem. Unfortunately, there seems to have been a long enough history of problems that I have no confidence this is going to happen. Hopefully time away from this problematic area will give LegacyPac the room to learn what is and isn't acceptable in main space (or the need to consider what you are doing properly before doing it, whichever the actual problem is) and they can return sometime in the future. And yes I think I've repeated myself about 3 or 4 times now, it's an unfortunate habit. Still I tried to clearly explain my concerns without much repetition in my original long post, but it still seems to be misunderstood and have no desire to come back to this discussion, so I'm hoping it won't be misunderstood anymore. Nil Einne (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• Needs more work, but generally Support. Those moves I've checked are mostly clearly inappropriate and are mostly not adequately cleaned up. Unless it is appropriate to request deletion of the drafts, they shouldn't have been moved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 22:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• I absolutely support a TBAN for Legacypac from moving drafts into mainspace. There was a class last year (Wikipedia:Education_program/B_K_Shah_Medical_Institute#Year_of_2016) that was badly managed and started drafting a bunch of medical articles that were full of COPYVIO, used bad sources or no sources, and were written in English that was highly technical and often terrible. Legacypac just came upon them and moved them three of them to mainspace with edit notes like this, Looks like a complete page. and Decent page (diff). Unbelievable. If this is the kind of "work" they do, they have no business doing it. Shoveling garbage into mainspace with that kind of cursory review in order to clean up draft space is insane. Not to mention the disruption they have caused over the last year and a half. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You seem to confuse ANi with MfD or AfD. I believe these pages would survive either. When/if you can show a high percentage of pages I promote have been properly deleted at XfD we can discuss my judgement. Legacypac (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not going to offer a "vote" because I was recently in a very short and minor editing dispute with Legacypac a few days ago. But I will say that Legacypac added this unsourced negative material which I removed from a BLP a few days ago. Legacypac restored it immediately, again without a ref. When Legacypac brought it up at the talk page, they refused to accept that negative material requires an inline citation. To Legacypac, it seemed to be more important that the material be in the article than Wikipedia policy be followed. This has since been resolved.--v/r - TP 02:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: One-way IBAN on Godsy towards Legacypac

I propose a one-way IBan on Godsy towards Legacypac. Any gaming of this IBan by either party may incur further sanctions or a block.

This IBan already had support above, so now that this is a formal proposal I am pinging those already who directly or indirectly opined on it above: Beyond My Ken, Johnuniq, Only in death. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support, as nominator. This harassment and hounding has been going on for over a year, and Godsy has been warned numerous times. He is also now trying to use a policy talk page to subvert/avert sanctions on his behavior: [37]. It's time to put a stop to all of this extensive targeted harassment, which has lasted well over a year. Softlavender (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I was hoping Godsy's old RfA and the 24-hour block would discourage him from any further hounding. Instead, Godsy has engaged in forum shopping for consent to carry on as before. Now is not the time to keep calm and carry on; now is the time for Godsy to reevaluate their behavior and leave Legacypac alone.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - This has already been raised in the first section and no consensus has been gained. Furthermore, Softlavender has only pinged individuals who supported it and not those who opposed it, which seems like cavassing to me; blanket pinging all participants here except the individual who started this thread i.e. EricEnfermero, Beyond My Ken, User:Johnuniq, Nyttend, Only in death, Mendaliv, Power~enwiki, Swarm, Lugnuts, Newimpartial, Nick, Iridescent, Ealdgyth, Lepricavark, Cryptic, and TheGracefulSlick to counter that. I'd also ask that all those who have already expressed opposition here but do not do so again still be counted in opposition. That aside: I have not harassed anyone. The contributions in question here are unambiguous improvements to articles. If I notice any editor regardless of their experience moving pages from the userspace of others to the mainspace that are in poor shape, I should have the right to unambiguously improve them. I do not understand why anyone, including the mover themself, would oppose that. In fact, such actions are explicitly protected by the harassment policy, i.e. "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles."; fixing unambiguous errors is an "overriding reason" (quote's from WP:HOUND). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Missed Sphilbrick, please see above. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose One-way interaction bans are always trouble. If a single contributor can't work well with others or harasses someone, block them. If they're both going at it, do a two-way interaction ban. One-way interaction bans allow one person to enter a discussion and force the other to leave. That's a recipe for disaster. I also don't think following an editor known to make a particular type of error to fix that error is actually objectionable. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't read the part of the proposal that says: Any gaming of this IBan by either party may incur further sanctions or a block. We have had plenty of effective one-way IBans -- that's why the option exists, and they are the only viable sanction for a case when only one party is tracking/hounding the other. WP:Blocking longterm editors in good standing (i.e., with no prior block logs) is a drastic solution, and should only occur after other attempted sanctions have failed or been breached. Not to mention the fact that blocking does not prevent the blockee from resuming their behavior when the block expires. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I don't agree that one-way interaction bans are unworkable or ineffective, and since Godsy doesn't seem to be willing to curtail their behavior, I really don't see any alternative which would keep Godsy as a contributor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm not an admin and I'm not familiar with the full history of this case, but it seems both parties are at fault here; I oppose any one-way sanctions. I might support this if Legacypac was banned from moving articles into the main namespace, as that seems to be the cause of most of the contentious edits. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Power-enwiki, you've been active on Wikipedia for one month. Why are you even posting here? You know nothing about the history, and nothing about Wikipedia policies and sanctions. I realize you came to ANI when you posted a thread on the Greg Gianforte article a few days ago [38], but you really shouldn't be opining on other threads. See the top of this noticeboard: "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." No offence, but as a vastly inexperienced editor (one month, 1,400 edits), you should not be opining here; it just muddies the waters. Softlavender (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You and Godsy are both canvassing people for this topic; based on that I figured my opinion was warranted. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support per BMK, though I suspect the point that there's little other hope of retaining Godsy as a useful contributor will quickly be mooted given Godsy's stated intent to bring an ArbCom case against Legacypac. This obsession with Legacypac's actions is unhealthy and the repercussions will certainly lead to burnout in the not-too-distant future, no matter what the outcome of this as-yet-unfiled ArbCom case is. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support- Godsy could be considered a contentious and somewhat invasive editor. I worked extensively with them on Gun show loophole while it was being considered for good article status. It seemed as though Godsy only started editing after it was being considered for GA status. In any case, I did not mind Godsy's technical acumen and ability, but Godsy was extremely bossy and tendentious IMO. As I was under pressure from the GA nomination, I had no choice but to compromise with Godsy. At least, that's how it felt anyway. Darknipples (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Godsy's review of Legacypac's actions is important. Legacypac has a reputation for pushing the envelope. No one else is reviewing. Some more civility in interactions on both sides should be advise, but bans? No. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Jytdog below. If there are userspace-to-mainspace moves requiring cleanup, what is the issue, really? El_C 05:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The issue is bad-faith WP:HOUNDING, which has been going on for over a year and which Godsy has been warned about numerous times, including at his failed RfA six months ago. Softlavender (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

If Legacypac makes moves with too many errors, why would they be objecting when those errors are fixed, by anyone? El_C 06:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The presence or absence of errors is not at issue here. The issue at hand is WP:HOUNDING; please read the quoted passage from the WP:HOUNDING policy page that BMK posted in boldface at the top of this thread. Godsy recently stalked Legacypac to 36 articles in the course of just one week. He has been similarly harassing Legacypac for over a year, and has been warned about it numerous times, including at his failed RfA six months ago. It has to stop, per WP:HOUNDING. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Did Legacypac make errors in 36 articles in one week? If so, I'd like to thank Godsy for cleaning up after someone leaving a mess behind and trout Legacypac for not being more careful. If not and they're unjustifiably following around Legacypac, then we have something to talk about. What you're calling hounding, most Wikipedians call cleanup. We have a contribution history for a reason. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I have now looked more closely at the inteactions that legacypac listed. They are not all moves to mainspace. If they had been I would have been completely unsympathetic to legacypac. But a good chunk of them are not and really do look like hounding (please do take some time and look at them -0 I should have done that); Godsy lost any high ground they may have had in my view. The high ground is still there! There is a dispute about how to best clean out draft/user space and legacypac is moving sometimes (not always) pretty crappy things into mainspace. Messy. Jytdog (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Besides edits to deletion discussions (some of which are articles for deletion discussions which were started by other users due to Legacypac's page moves from the userspace to the mainspace), which I frequent in general, the edits to pages in the userspace and draftspace which I edited after Legacypac are because Legacypac listed them at miscellany for deletion (e.g. User:Annejacqueline/Yasmine modestine, User:Annadurand/Local Suicide, and User:Annswer1/Royal Park Flats). I commonly do a bit of cleanup to pages nominated there so they are easier to evaluate by editors who review them before commenting. I have patrolled a large majority of miscellany for deletion discussion subpages (i.e. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/X) (and the nominated pages themselves that have not already been patrolled) since October 2016 created by every user that is not autopatrolled or an administrator (I started this practice when the ability to patrol pages was restricted to those with the the newly created new page reviewers user right and administrators instead of being available to all autoconfirmed users as it was before) which is viewable here. I view every miscellany for deletion discussion subpage; I often close them early when appropriate, e.g. if the page has been speedily deleted and the administrator did not close the discussion or it is the improper forum for the page (e.g. if a redirect, mainspace disambiguation page, non-userbox template, article, etc. is nominated there), or choose to comment. Basically, to summarize, I try to help keep miscellany for deletion running smoothly. SmokeyJoe can perhaps attest to part of those statements (they are also a regular at mfd). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comments above, the hounding claim is somewhat weak given the legitimate concerns of many users including myself regarding the content issues. Any one-sided sanction would apparently validate the other user. The source of this drama is one user's bizarre insistence to perform a maintenance task of low priority, poorly, and when questioned as to why there's such an apparent competence issue, they demonstrated a troubling lack of clue. Would there be hounding without the competence issues? If you have to ask that question, it's not obvious harassment. Swarm ♠ 07:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

If you look at Godsy's actual edits [39] you could rightly call them "one user's bizzarre insistence to perform a maintenance task of low priority, poorly". Deleting spaces and the like in pages that are almost surely going to be deleted at MfD in less than a week is exactly that. Edits made to random articles minutes or hours after me is no coincidence. It only serves to tell me he is watching me after I've told him to leave me alone. If Godsy was truly concerned with how bad my editing is one woild expect him to make substantial edits to fix it not trivial meaningless ones. Legacypac (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support with Conditions There are clearly serious issues with Legacypac's behaviour and attitude, all of which are part of the reason Godsy is following their contributions and why allegations of WP:HOUNDING have been made. The problems that Legacypac is creating, the issues with their behaviour, their disruption and fairly blatant disregard of the WP:BLP policy are all issues which have been raised previously, and which unfortunately did not attract sufficient community attention (contrary to the claims by Beyond My Ken and SmokeyJoe, Legacypac has been made aware about moving poor quality drafts previously and has continued this, so we are past the formal 'please don't do that again' stage - see [40] and [41]) which is why I proposed a topic ban which will allow Legacypac to continue moving good quality material out of userspace and into the main encyclopedia eventually, but which will prevent unsourced and unverifiable content being moved there with little or no oversight. Godsy has clearly got himself into a position where he's slightly too obsessed with Legacypac's behaviour (though that's perhaps unsurprising, as the community didn't want to deal with it the last time it was brought to ANI) and he now needs to disengage. If the proposed topic ban against Legacypac is successful, there should be no reason at all for Godsy to be reviewing Legacypac's page moves and contributions, as the AFC route will present Legacypac's page moves to the AFC reviewers. It's probably still sensible to keep Godsy away from Legacypac in general, but I can only support such an IBAN if there's simultaneous attempts at resolving the underlying problem of Legacypac's editing issues, particularly when they demonstrate such ignorance of the BLP policy and display a 'someone else will fix it' and 'other stuff exists, so what' attitude. Nick (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Nick, last year Legacypac did make some improper moves to mainspace, but is there evidence of him doing it recently. He claims to be only moving the very best. Unsourced material is not strictly forbidden, but you also say "unverifiable". Can you point to things unverifiable that he moved to mainspace? If so, it is worth a discussion. Godsy seems to me to be rules-obsessed, and Legacypac seems to be rules-casual. Neither approach is uncommon, but it does explain much of the friction. If there is to be an IBAN, I think it must not prevent Godsy from participating in any XfD discussion. There has been several mention of BLP, can someone help me see where Legacypac has violated WP:BLP? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support Comment - The key thing about harassment is that being right is not an acceptable excuse for doing it. I do not condone this behaviour and am perturbed by the amount of gall being displayed by Godsy in !voting on all of the proposals here. I personally do not think that people should be given the opportunity to vote on matters that concern them - have you ever seen the defendant act as a juror to their own case before? I urge Godsy to strike their votes here and on the other proposal. Leaving a comment is fine and the reason for posting here for the sake of having a fair trial is understandable, but, for a long term editor to show such disregard in voting on the matter is disturbing to me. Not least of all the fact thay the matter at hand is more harassment of which this just seems to be a continuation of that same behaviour. This hounding is not limited to page moves. There is a ridiculous amount of very obvious following around. Look at Nam (war) or Fume for the most blatant examples of stalking. A lot of it is page moves, but, that is zero excuse for this. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Mr rnddude: I appreciate you bringing up specific examples; my edits to Nam (war) and Fume were absolutely not stalking. They resulted from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 28#Fumed and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 8#Nam (war). I regularly comb through listings at redirects for discussion and I've commented on hundreds and hundreds of of redirects listed there. I'll also consider changing my support on the other proposal to a comment. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 12:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose given the severe attitude and competence issues demonstrated by Legacypac throughout this conversation, we really don't need to validate his misguided notion that he's being persecuted. I see this more as cleanup than hounding and I don't understand this escalation toward sanctions. We've had a hasty and bad block and now a push for an unfair topic ban. And some of you wonder why Godsy has dug his heels in. Lepricavark (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Give me a solid explanation for the interaction for the articles I posted above. These were not cleanup, they were hounding. Then do a detailed review of their editing interaction and notice how many times theyve done that before. Then answer your own questions. Godsy has done precisely that. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Godsy has provided an explanation for both. Godsy, I am satisfied with your RRD explanation for the two specific incidents I mentioned. Indeed I appreciate the time you took to provide me with that information. I see now that you are an active editor at RRD. I'll take some time to reconsider this in light of this information. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support Looking through the history, this is clearly a case of wiki-hounding. The behavior is clear and clearly requires correction. David in DC (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Question is the consensus that (uncontroversially) making improvements found by following an experienced but controversial editor's contribution history always wikihounding, or only when there is a precious history of history of extensive conflict, as appears to be the case here? Newimpartial (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Case-by-case basis. Here, the 36 instances mentioned below by Softlavender alone are darned near dispositive. As User:Jytdog observes, some are nearly impossible to explain absent wiki-hounding. David in DC (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

But have you actually looked at the "36 cases"? I had avoided that, until just now. That number includes the handful of pages that Godsy edited first, as well as a number arising from what seems to be their routine participation in XfD discussions, which (by timestamp) doesn't seem to have anything in particular to do with Legacy. It also includes responses - editorial improvements and/or Moves - to Legacy's outlying treatment of userspace drafts, which seem good faith to me and not HOUNDy in anyway. I don't actually see anything reflecting the key descriptors listed in WP:HOUND.

Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors ... to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

Godsy received a temporary block within the course of this ANI, in spite of these criteria not being met.

I would also point out that, if I understand how one-way bans work, the result would be that Godsy could no longer participate in any XfD discussion initiated by Legacy or in which they participate. I for one do not believe that such an outcome would benefit the project. Newimpartial (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Newimpartial maybe you don't understand the interaction report. All 36 content pages were first edited by me, then Godsy. You should not count posts to high traffic project pages. Kindly stop posting misinformation. Legacypac (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per SmokeyJoe. I don't see anything alarming from Godsy's behavior, rather someone cleaning up after an editor who seriously needs some cleaning up after. If there's a claim of hounding, I'd need to see some questionable behavior such as personal attacks or harassment by Godsy, and that's been severely lacking here. I also agree that interaction bans are more trouble then they're worth. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Travix I respect you, but it appears you have not looked at this carefully. There is significant evidence of the hounding in this thread, its much longer then this week. Godsy lost his RfAdminship over his harrassment of me 6 months ago and he has been told repeatedly to stop stalking me but instead he fills my watchlist with his name by removing extra spaces and other little edits. The hounding was already proven and resulted in a block. He came off the block and went right back to harrassing me. Legacypac (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

First off, it's Tavix, not Travix. I've followed this dispute from a distance for a while now, especially when it spills over into RfD where I'm active. For the most part, I understand where both of you are coming from. I don't have any opinions on the heart of the dispute at hand, but the way the both of you have carried out your respective agendas have been vastly different. Godsy is someone is who very methodical and by the book (perhaps too much at times). Just about everything he does is backed up by a TLA shortcut explaining his actions. You, Legacypac, come off to me as almost the complete opposite. You're reckless and oftentimes inattentive, and Godsy has been the one to clean up after you for a long time. If there is to be an interaction ban, I would need to see evidence of Godsy personally attacking you or harassment of the sort, and the examples I've seen are fairly harmless. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Disclosure: I've had a fair amount of unpleasant dealings with Legacypac (I ended my interaction with him at the RfC I created as a proper measure), but I'll try to be objective here. Godsy is constructive and this IBAN goes further than just infringe on his editing abilities. Softlavender (not just them) has again and again found Legacypac to be in the right and Godsy in the wrong, even when that is not the case (refer to the numbers of cases beforehand), so I find it really underhanded that an established editor would use this opportunity to establish their unjust cause. I think Tavix, Swarm and SmokeyJoe have stated why this proposal does not deserve to be implemented and that is pretty clear, I just gave some added backstory in case anyone thinks this proposal is neutral or intends to actually make a "constructive" change rather than a blatant invalidation of an editor. --QEDK (愛) 18:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Godsy cleaning up, as best as they are able, the relentless dreck Legacypac keeps digging up from draft space should be commended. There is no inhibiting another editors "work" when that work amounts to putting crap into WP, leaving it to new page patrollers, all in the hope it's going to get deleted anyway. Capeo (talk) 06:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. As I've mentioned in other discussions, it's accepted and supported practice to follow another editor when their edit history raises significant concerns. However this can rise to hounding if it goes to far, especially with a long term editor and if the actions of the follower are sometimes not supported by the community. I'm not certain that this case hasn't crossed the threshold, but I don't think it's clear enough to support action in light of the fact there may be a significant change if the above topic ban is implemented. Nil Einne (talk) 06:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as long as this does not lead to edit wars. There is nothing wrong in one editor following another's edits, especially if they have a history of problematic editing. I have done this on many occasions. Wikihounding is something entirely different - WH's purpose is not to improve the project but to intimidate the hounded editor. I do not believe this is the case here. — kashmiri ^TALK 12:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Clearing up bad/sloppy edits by one user should not equate to an i-ban. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• Weak support. Godsy should have realised by now that his behaviour, even if it is within WP guidelines, is causing friction. There's no need for him to stay on Legacypac's tail, there are plenty of other editors who can do that, and I frankly don't understand why he didn't step away earlier and defuse the entire situation. Now it has escalated, there's been a block, there's talk of ArbCom, etc. However, I do find an IBAN a bit Draconian, hence my weak support, and I prefer to see a friendlier solution. Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be one. Should one come up, I'd happily strike my !vote. Yintan  09:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, generally per Lugnuts. I might have more to say about Legacy's edits, but that would be appropriate for another section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 22:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, as it would rather obviously be shooting the messenger. VQuakr (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Stop the presses?

So the issue here appears to be that some people are very concerned about old junk (especially promotional or BLP-violating junk) piling up in user/draft space and have been trying to various approaches to get rid of it, which has upset various other people in various ways.

This has been through boatloads of community discussion:

• 2015 Nov: ANI: User:Legacypac -- NAC closes as "delete" about AfDs in main space
• 2015 Dec: ANI: Attempt to subvert the AfD process - this is about redirecting articles that survived AfD in mainspace
• 2016 Feb: small ANI -- MFD relistings - withdrawn by OP, Ricky81682 - this was about SmokyJoe fiddling with relistings, which has to do with old stuff being retained in draft/userspace. Apparently where LegacyPac got interested in draft/user space junk? (commented: The really bad thing is that any random editor can create a page of nonsense, but it takes real effort to get rid of it. The page has to be analysed, CSD criteria considered, and (if no CSD fit exactly or CSD declined), listed to MfD. Very few editors comment at MfD. If no comments the junk page is retained?
• 2016 March: mammoth ANI -- MfD end run GAME (closed with no action -- this was about Legacypac moving user/draft space junk to mainspace to try to get it deleted there)
• 2016 April: mammoth ANI -- Godsy Disruption & GAMING the System - closed no consensus. Led to RFC
• 2016 May (closed): RfC1 RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring (please read; nice close. calls for another RfC with respect to what counts as an "inactive user" for userspace drafts)
• 2016 May (closed): RfC2: Should old user space drafts have an expiration date? (close = no expiration date but can be deleted...)

It seems to be (?) that Legacypac has responded pretty well to the RfC. The ANI thread above appears to be about Legacypac trying to move ~near~ good enough things from draft/user space into mainspace as fast as possible, and Godsy being concerned about the quality and following up.

On the specific issue of hounding... As far as I can see Godsy has done nothing to move anything back out of mainspace (which I would think would be Legacypac's main concern), and has just cleaned up after Legacypac's moves - no personal attacks or anything, just following and cleaning. I do not understand why this is offensive to Legacypac and I very much do not understand Godsy being blocked for doing this, or prevented from doing this. (perhaps i am missing something) Things in mainspace should be minded.

On the bigger issue:

• I get the urge to clean up user/draft space but I don't care about it. Not indexed, and we are not running out of server space. So I don't really understand this.
• Pretty much all efforts to push the envelope to clean up user/draft space have been met with resistance, which has generated loads of drama, that we have not resolved. The 2 RfCs for the most part affirmed the status quo (it is almost impossible to clean up userspace; we already have processes for draft space that just need to be given their time)

From what I can see, Legacypac's desire to cleanup draft/userspace is fine, but they need to understand the background and that their page moves are going to be scrutinized. They should not make drama over that, especially when the edits are constructive and not personalized. Following up is not hounding. Legacypac should be extremely careful not to push the envelope on this, including bringing this kind of ANI. Jytdog (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Reasons for wanting to reduce the pile of draft/user stuff include:

• Many are WP:NOTWEBHOST violations that contain inconsequential content or blatantly misuse Wikipedia for promotion.
• Some may be WP:BLP violations—possibly not blatant "Joe Smith commits fraud" but more subtle nonsense or WP:CHILD violations that are lost in the pile of inappropriate stuff.
• Some may be copy/paste WP:COPYVIO violations.

In all cases, keeping the pages encourages more, and encourages more extreme cases. The only reason to want to keep inappropriate draft/user pages is the hope that someone will one day find a gem that can be turned into an article. However, the growing pile of junk makes finding gems very difficult. If the ratio of junk to plausible pages were reduced, editors might be encouraged to look for content that could be used in the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• You've failed to address the WP:HOUNDING issue (which is what this thread is about), or the fact that Godsy has been hounding and harassing Legacypac for over a year, and has been warned numerous times about it. As I mentioned above, I think the community is beyond assuming good faith on Godsy's part at this point, given that not only has he been warned numerous times over an entire year, but he also he lost an RfA 6 months ago because of it. In my opinion anyone acting in good faith would have taken any other course of action but to hound/stalk the same user after all of those warnings. Softlavender (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it has been established that edits to articles Legacypac moved into article space, which uncontestedly improve said articles, constitute hounding, however. At least it has not been established to the point of consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 06:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Softlavender thanks for your remark - as you know I respect your judgement a lot. Is it really hounding, or have they been on the opposite sides of this underlying argument for a year? I am open to hearing and might be missing something. Jytdog (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

He followed Legacypac to 36 articles in the course of just one week. He has been harassing Legacypac for over a year, and has been warned about it numerous times, including at his failed RfA six months ago. Please read the quoted passage from the WP:HOUNDING policy page that BMK posted in boldface at the top of this thread. Softlavender (talk) 06:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes he did; I looked at them and some of them are indeed hard to reckon outside of a HOUNDING context. I would have been more sympathetic had they all been articles moved to mainspace but they are at drafts nominated for deletion and other inexplicable places. So I am more in agreement with you than I was before. I went and read the RfA - thanks for pointing to it. Godsy's answer -https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FGodsy&type=revision&diff=752223007&oldid=752216810 here] says that the interactions with Legacypac were driven by his opposition to legacypac's methods in trying to clean up draft/user space. Godsy was not the only one who opposed the methods right? But meh, Godsy has shot himself in the foot and should avoid legacypac in the future. I agree with this now. Jytdog (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• • (ec) I don't agree that the hounding allegation has been substantiated. Instead, I see plenty of good intention, just with some poor interactions. Godsy could be more relaxed, Legacypac could be less sensitive. Both are doing worthy jobs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• As you note, Jytdog, there have been numerous mammoth ANI threads on this in the past with little or no resolution. I had stepped into the MfD morass some months or a couple years ago, I forget exactly, only to find some very entrenched positions. I'm not a big fan of Legacypac's sink-or-swim strategy for stale drafts, but I'm not about to condemn it when I've not seen a consensus that it's impermissible. We must make progress beyond the current state of using draftspace as a bottomless pit where we throw failed articles and article drafts to be forgotten. What I find particularly disturbing about the BLP panic above is the counterfactual assertion that moving BLP violating drafts to mainspace somehow makes it worse: BLP applies project-wide. Perhaps Legacypac should be sending those drafts to MfD, I admit. But perhaps instead of demonizing Legacypac, we should do something crazy like make MfD actually useful, or create DfD, or create CSD criteria that apply to non-AfC article drafts. Something constructive to break the back of this dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Mendaliv. The big RfC I linked above had several areas where followup RfCs were needed and no one has done them - like the application of NOTWEBHOST to userspace (right now its application is unclear but I betcha we could get that applied). Also what to do with drafts that appear to never be able to reach GNG. One thing the close didn't say but that I found everywhere confirmed is that things like BLP and COPYVIO apply everywhere including user and draft space. If there are not speedy tools to get rid of violations of those two core policies, there would probably be consensus to create them. I am not clueful with regard to draft/userspace and the intricacies of deletion policies but someone who is should tee up those RfCs. I think they would help break the back as it were. I agree with the concern you and Johnuniq are raising. Jytdog (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Point of Clarification: the 36 pages edited firet by me then Godsy only unambigiously prove the hounding. It is an attempt at intimidation and a "I'm watching you" by an editor hell bent on driving me off the site. It's not the removal of a space or insertion of a period that is problematic per se, its the repeated moving of otherwise usable pages back to stale user space with zero notification, running from MfD to ANi to Talk pages to proclaim I don't know what I am doing, starting bogis RfC's (see WP:HARASSMENT talk for the latest one) and making repetitive unsubstantiated accusations that tarnish my reputation. Ya I'm bold and ya I push the envelope sometimes but only to improve wikipedia so it can be a more useful place. Godsy's continual harrassment drove me off the site for months. I only came back when a concerned editor contacted me about his RfA, which failed largely because of his outragious behavior toward me. Now, in the thread that already resulted in a 24 block for hounding, he is throwing up more nonsense trying to get me punished. (Maybe Revenge over his RfA, stupidity, some strange fixation with his narrow interpretation of policy for policy sake?)Enough already! This is supposed to be a relaxing hobby where I can read lots of interesting topics and enjoy doing some writing. I don't come here to be hunted like some monster and vilified like some vandal. It's ironic that some of the same editors complaining about promotion of content to Main-space today have in the recent past freaked out about deletion of content mosylt people consider spam in userspace because it might be useful in mainspace someday. Legacypac (talk) 06:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac you are doing pretty controversial work and you need to expect to be scrutinized. Every time I deal with a COI issue I am very aware that if I mis-step there are plenty of people who will come down on me like a ton of bricks. I don't complain about that -- I understand the underlying concerns and I know that I need to be mindful that there are conflicting values in the community. I struggle to see what is offensive in Godsy's doing clean up after you. I acknowledge I might be unaware of such bad blood that even seeing his name on your watchlist is upsetting but you have not described him doing anything harmful - not attacking you, not screwing up articles, not moving them back out of mainspace. Your complaint ~looks like~ over-sensitivity to me. To me, based on what I know now. I don't think you are any kind of monster, fwiw. You are pursuing what you think is important, and have pushed that a bit too hard sometimes. I can sympathize with that. Jytdog (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

So let me make a point here: There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that forbids editing that some editors disapprove, but has not been expressly prohibited by policy. We might discourage it as a matter of keeping the peace, but we don't forbid it, especially when it's done with a genuine intent of improving the encyclopedia. We likewise don't prohibit editors from cleaning up the problematic aspects of other editors' editing practices. However, we do frown upon editors who have a history of antagonizing—intentionally or unintentionally—from following their victims around the encyclopedia. I'm reminded of C. S. Lewis quote: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies." It would be best for everyone if Godsy just dropped the stick, because the negative effects of his conduct far outweigh any positive effects. Legacypac should, and presumably does, expect scrutiny. There's nothing wrong with reasonable scrutiny. What's happening here is far outside the norm. Above, we're getting a few possible mistakes being bootstrapped into proof positive of incompetence, with ANI ready to steamroll over a victim of wikihounding. Mistakes that, though perhaps contrary to policy, are within the "error rate" we tend to accept out of every other editor without dragging him or her to ANI to have a topic ban implemented. Wikipedia has never demanded perfection. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac's treatment of user and draftspace articles is certainly in violation of policy, both in the imprecise and unauthorized use of CSD criteria and in moving unreferenced or improperly referenced articles to mainspace. As far as I can tell, there are only a handful of editors or admins who actively endorse this "local consensus", which will consistently produce issues of the kind Godsy was (mostly quietly) cleaning up. This isn't a matter of "error rate". Newimpartial (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac's treatment of user and draftspace articles is certainly in violation of policy Says you. But the tban discussion above is not about this, it's about BLP (and yet, as I've pointed out, paradoxically is targeted at all draftspace articles rather than draftspace BLPs, and does not involve mainspace BLPs). If you want to start a RfC on whether Legacypac's moves are outside of policy, you're welcome to do so. So far the tban discussion above is about a few diffs that may well just be isolated incidents. I've seen no proof of a "consistent" flow of problems as you claim, without evidence, exists, let alone evidence that such problems are so far outside the acceptable error rate as to merit the draconian response proposed here. You can't bootstrap a consensus to stop Legacypac's work in draftspace by tapping BLP panic. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, says me. And my only claim to say so is that dubious user- and draft-space decisions were what I originally observed (re: userspace articles), and my (crude and impolitic) attempts to raise these issues so led to threats from Legacy and Nyttend and two ANI reports against myself (in which no admins voted for sanctions, but still).

So what I am saying now - my piece of the elephant - is that the pattern of poor decision making by Legacy WRT CSD tags, moves to mainspace, and BLP violations emerging from the latter (all of which have been documented by others) is precisely how we arrive at thus ANI, in all its complexity. Newimpartial (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: You are an editor with a little over 1,000 edits, less than half of which are to articles, yet you keep sticking your nose into these noticeboards, despite the fact that you obviously don't know jack about Wikipedia policy or customs. I strongly suggest that you stop doing that, because if you don't I'm going to open a thread suggesting that you be formally banned from posting here and on AN. Edit articles, please, and forget these pages exist until you have a better idea of what's what than you do now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Moving BLP vios to main space clearly does make it worse. While it's true BLP applies to all places, there's a reason why for example it's okay to have discussion about the possibility of including some content on an article's talk page, and even discuss this on BLP/N etc and even preserve is once it's decided no way, but adding it to the article will be instantly reverted. There are clearly problems here that need to be dealt with, many of theses drafts should be either fixed or deleted. If LegacyPac were deleting these or fixing these, then LegacyPac should be commended for fixing a bad problem. Instead they're turning a problem from bad into severe. Clearly that isn't a desirable out come. Whatever failings of the community, there's no excuse for damaging the encyclopaedia in this way. As you say, I'm sure LegacyPac is trying to help, they aren't causing this damage intentionally, but ultimately they are causing damage by moving junk that has little business being on the encyclopaedia but which at least isn't presented to the reader, or search engines etc as normal content, onto the main space where it is and generally leaving it there with the hope someone else will fix it, in some cases even when these are BLPvios. Often this may be fixed by others, but LegacyPac has now of guaranteeing anymore than they would have if they were creating these messes in the first place. Nil Einne (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I've looked at the history here, and it does look to me like this is unfortunately probably going to need to go to arbcom. And it does look to me like both Godsy and LegacyPac should have been sanctioned long again. However as much as I'd like to sanction Godsy now, the issue is that their current edits don't seem to be the sort that actually made the encyclopaedia a worse place, unlike with LegacyPac's edits which did, or quite a few of their historic edits which also did. Of course hounding is making the encyclopaedia a worse place, even if those edits were otherwise good, and it does seem Godsy is very close to that line if not already crossed it, but I'm still not sure that cross is clear enough to warrant sanction especially since the edits nearly all seem to be good. If Godsy was still doing dodgy crap like moving these drafts, particularly the BLP vios back to draft space rather than either fixing them or AFDing them then yes, sanction would be warranted. Thankfully it seems they've mostly stopped that. (And yes moving this crap back to draft space isn't the way to go, the fact it should never have been moved to article space doesn't mean it's justifiable to keep it around by simply moving it back to draft space now that it's been found. It needs to either be fixed or deleted. These are all examples of compounding an already bad problem: Bad article, particular BLP -> Moved into articlespace without fixing or nominating for deletion -> Especially in a BLP case, moving back into draftspace again without actively fixing or nominating for deletion. You can't make a bad problem worse, and expect not to be sanctioned.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• I am going to withhold !voting above until I hear the answers to these questions to User:Legacypac and User:Godsy:

1. Please give a simple yes/no as to whether you understand and agree with the following -- if the community needs to send this to Arbcom, your entire WP histories will be closely examined. All of it. Arbcom tends to have a "off with all their heads" approach to resolving these kind of long term disputes, and the most likely outcome will be that both of you will be given pretty severe editing restrictions - as or more severe than what is being proposed above. And the process will suck up yet more community resources. Neither of you will "win" - and the community will lose - if we need to send this to Arbcom. Again please just provide a yes/no.
2. Neither of you have acknowledged that you have done anything problematic. Both of you have been provided clear feedback on your own behavior here. Would each you provide a statement about what you yourself need to improve in your own patterns of behavior? In other words, what have you done wrong?
3. following on that, what are you yourself willing to commit to doing differently in the future?

Please note that if you don't answer, or don't give an answer that provides hope that you each understand the issues with your own behavior, that I will recommend TBAN(s) from a) draft space and b) userspace outside of your own userspace and other people's Talk pages. That is the only way I can see for the community to end this, if you will not each fix it yourselves.

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

response to Jytdog

1. I'm interested only in being able to edit as a hobby. If I wanted an extended "legal" fight I can do that in real life where money is at stake. If taken to ArbComm I will likely stop editing and let the haters hang themselves. A yes/no answer would be inappropriate

2. I've always maintained I make errors. Sometimes stupid one. AfD and MfD proves there is a wide variety of opinion as to what is suitable or notable. If you look at my moves log you will find the vast majority of my moves are blue not red articles. There has been no rash of AfD or CSD nominations even though all go through NPP and this thread has people crawling through my edit history looking for any excuse to hang me.

As noted in edit summaries sometimes I feel the material may not be a good stand alone page long term and should be merged and redirected, but putting it in mainspace creates the title and as others categorize and attach the pages to Wikiprojects the new pages get on the radar of subject experts who can consider the correct course of action. This is after all a collaborative project where no one is required to make every page they touch reach perfection. To editors that say "he should spend a lot more time on each page" or that I'm responsible to remove extra spaces or reformat a ref so Godsy does not have to clean the page up, I could just as easily say they should be spending their time deleting spam in userspace or doing NPP. We each should do what we enjoy.

3. I'm constantly looking for ways to improve the quality of My editing and implimenting new tools to make evaluating content easier (I finally figured out why CSD log was broken, and added a copyvio script just this week.) I continue to expand my knowledge of policy by reading and asking questions.

I welcome fair objective editors reviewing my edits and regularly thank editors for improving the pages I touch. For example I don't have a good grasp of categorization or formating refs to prevent link rot and I sincerely approciate the editors that do such work. On the flip side, Editors that have a grudge over some past dispute are not welcome to harrass me by WP:HOUNDing which was the point of my ANi request.

We could all find some problem edits out of any 36,000 edits. I believe one needs to look at the percentage of errors and remember there is a range of opinion on all issues at Wikipedia. A look at my User:Legacypac/CSD_log or my MfD (especially recent ones) AfD and (in the more distant past) RfD nominations or my page moves going back for years will show my error rate is well within acceptable ranges. I consider my success rate in these areas to be very high and getting better over time.

Finally I'm quite tired of Godsy harassing me. I've avoided interacting with him and especially debating him for a long time. His opinions will never be changed by anything I post so I don't bother. When he started getting on my case again when I returned to active editing, I asked him to stop. He took that as a cue to increase his stalking. Now I'm being viciously attacked at ANi because I felt the only way to stop his escalating WP:HOUNDING was a limited report about his behaviour over the last week, not dragging up diffs from months or years back. This whole thing is very discouraging. Next time I'll take a different route to deter such unsavoury behaviour. Legacypac (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. This response is messy. It is great that you acknowledge making mistakes sometimes, but I am not hearing clearly that you see any pattern of behavior that you should improve. The lack of that leads me to believe that the problems that you have been part of - that you have a role in - are going to continue. If you cannot see the problems so that you can work on fixing them yourself, that means we need to restrict you. I don't want to see that happen. If you want insight, you can read what others have written here, or ask me and I can tell you what I think. If you are not interested in discussing this further, please see say so and I (and others reading here) will take that into account. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to address specific issues or edits, perhaps on my talk page, the article talk page, or during an AfD as most appropriate. An extended mud throwing session at ANi is not appropriate and spending a lot of effort defending false or sweeping allegations where no difs are provided seems pointless. It just makes me look combative. Legacypac (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

For you to address what you (not Godsy) has been doing wrong and make it clear that you "get it" and will try to address it, is the opposite of combative. From my perspective, if you cannot or will not do this, here at this ANI, then the community should proceed to restrict you. This has been going on over a year now. (My perspective is the same with respect to Godsy btw) So again, pl will you please do that? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

This is rarely a fruitful forum for general issues. It's probably better to keep discussing on the editor's talk page and be more specific there. Jonathunder (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

That is not the point. If Legacypac (who has at least tried to respond) and Godsy cannot see and acknowledge what is problematic in their own behavior that has driven this year-long disruption, then the community needs to take action, as we have no reason to hope that these two editors will self-correct; these disputes will just keep arising and will keep sucking up other editors' time. I wanted to give each of them the opportunity to give us hope that they will self-correct. If they had, this could have been closed with no action for now. Please see below. Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Are you willing do discuss what is problematic with your own behavior, here in this forum, as an example and show of good faith? Bomis Babe (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bomis Babe: Intriguing. Can you tell us more about yourself?Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Bomis Babe is blocked indefinately, per NOT HERE, but also for the implied connection to Bomis Babe. Jonathunder (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal - TBANs for both from draft/userspaces and NPP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Mendaliv mentioned above "breaking the back" of this dispute. In my view, the underlying dispute is how to handle stuff lingering in draftspace and userspace. For over a year Legacypac has been at the center of efforts to find better ways to handle it, and has unfortunately often pushed the envelope in doing so, in various ways. Godsy has been one of the main people pushing back. The community is unsure how to manage stuff lingering in draft/userspace, but the behavior of these two in that ambiguous situation has disrupted the community for over a year now.

Neither editor has shown any insight into their own problematic behavior around this issue. In my view, this means that both are very likely to continue causing disruption; we have no valid reason to hope that the disruption will stop.

Therefore I am proposing that the two proposals above be abandoned, and that both editors be topic-banned from:

a) draftspace

b) userspace outside of (i) their own userspace and (ii) other people's Talk pages

c) new page patrol activities in mainspace, broadly construed

d) directly editing policies/guidelines related to draft or userspace (they are free to participate in discussions on the associated Talk pages or elsewhere in projectspace about how to improve them)

If this enacted, we should not see further disruption. -- Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose restrictions on Godsy (myself). I have done nothing inappropriate in draftspace, userspace outside of my own, or while patrolling new mainspace pages, and I have not inappropriately edited any draft or userspace policy or guideline. No diffs that show me doing anything inappropriate or disruptive in those areas have been provided because none exist. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as draconian and not properly targeted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. BMK said it better than I could. The above proposals are much better focused, and the one against Godsy isn't going to pass anyway. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as against Godsy. He can be annoying but the proposed restrictions are not warrented nor is there any evidence presented to support them. I posted my Response right below the proposal but Jytdog keeps messing with subheadings to throw it out of order or make it harder to identify. I consider voting! on yourself misguided as we all know no one wants a restriction. Legacypac (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. While the two undoubtedly keep clashing, the net worth of their edits is a definite plus for the project. Banning them from their work may leave us with one conflict less (out of thousands) but will more significantly degrade the work in draft/userpaces. A net loss for the project. Additionally, I am not sure of Jytdog's awfully patronizing posture towards the two editors (unless he is a judge by profession, in which case I put it on professional bias). — kashmiri ^TALK 01:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Continued discussion

• User: Beyond My Ken it is kind of draconian, but as I said neither editor is able to see their own role in causing this year-long disruption (see legacypac's post above and here at my Talk page, and note Godsy's lack of response to my question as well as their response to their block). The behavior of both editors over this vexxed issue is the problem, and many editors have named the problematic behaviors in this vast thread as well as the preceding ones that I listed above. Removing them both from the topic will definitively end this disruption, and in light of the lack of self-insight that both of them have displayed and each of their convictions that "I am Totally Right and The Other Guy is Totally Wrong", anything else is a half-measure that will simply lead to yet more boundary-testing and conflicting, and more sucking of community resources. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I never said I was always right, I have instead provided solid evidence I edit well within community standards. I also never said Godsy is always or even mostly wrong. He does plenty of good work. I just want him cut out the WP:HOUNDING as it is quite unpleasant. Legacypac (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seeking help!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User: JJBers recent behavior has led him to an 0RR based on persistent edit warring. Since then the article Norwalk, Connecticut has been protected as a means of ending, or subduing an editing war involving said article. Nonetheless, user JJBers has resumed edit warring on Talk:Norwalk, Connecticut as well as on my user talk page User talk:StephenTS42 with threats of blocking this user. Additionally, User JJBers has attempted unsuccessfully to have my sandbox deleted MfD nomination of User:StephenTS42/sandbox . I believe this all qualifies as harassment although I am making no such accusation. I would much rather seek, and follow, the judgement of administration in this matter. Thank you! ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I've not edit warred at all, and I've not violated 0RR at all. The MfD nomination was well over a week ago and unrealted. This is harassment because I warned you for misusing a article talk page. Please retract your statements or you run a very high risk of being blocked. —JJBers 14:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Also requesting boomerang block per WP:ASPERSIONS. —JJBers 14:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• JJBers, I am a little concerned. You sent the sandbox to MFD when it is CLEARLY a valid use of a sandbox. It is in fact the intended use of it. I also notice his talk page is mainly peppered with your warnings, so you seem to be a bit too preoccupied. StephenTS42, edit warring over the archive bot (where you were wrong) wasn't the best show of judgement either. You both are edit warring way too much and begging to be blocked here. I'm looking at your many reverts on the article, which is what made it get Full Protection, JJBers, so to say you weren't edit warring is demonstrably false. If anyone appears to be harassing it is you, so I wouldn't get on a "boomerang" soapbox here if I were you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  I'll admit, I was edit warring before, and that's why I got 0RR, but this is claiming I have since, which is untrue. —JJBers 15:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  The article is Full Protected, so claiming you are no longer edit warring rings hollow. ANI is not a good place to throw around claims and boomerangs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  The OP says the talk pages. Anyways the article was protected for another unrelated edit war that I never participated in. —JJBers 15:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  Unless he told you that, you do not know that. Admin look at more than the last 10 edits when setting protection, they look at patterns. The fact that he didn't just block the other two in their own little edit war may mean he full protected (which is somewhat rare) due to ALL the edit warring. That is pretty standard. Regardless, your behavior is not something to be proud of. StephenTS42 has his own set of problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  "Nonetheless, user JJBers has resumed edit warring on Talk:Norwalk, Connecticut"
  It says it right in the comment. — JJBers 15:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Let me ask you this StephenTS42, why did you replace a 2nd party reliable source (book) with a 3rd party encyclopedia here? Normally, that is stepping down in quality of references. I am seeing you making a lot of odd edits, and flat out mistakes, that raise the issue of your editing being disruptive on that article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• Can we just pass out IBANS, TBANS, or both and get it over with? The edit warring on STS's talk page by JJB was completely out of line. It's a wonder the ANEW report only cut one way (IMO, edits like this are basically revert baiting). The MFD nomination was either made in bad faith or was a stunning error in judgement. Conflicts surrounding this article in particular have been going on for months, and have gone from the top to the bottom of WP:DR and back again. We've had one user blocked three times, another get a 0RR, and now that the article is fully protected, there's apparently nothing better to do than war over archive bot settings, with edit summaries that are at best puzzling, appeals that are equally so, and closed by an obviously involved editor to boot, and probably the single most pitiable attempt at WP:OWNership I've seen so far, and apparently that out of all things is what warrants an ANI report. Jesus Christ. Enough. TimothyJosephWood 16:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  I've been thinking about a IBAN with Stephen for months, but I wasn't sure if I should carry it out. But I guess I should...I'm requesting a one-way IBAN with StephenTS42. — JJBers 16:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers: Beware the boomerang. @StephenTS42: Enough of this. Till/unless some other admin closes this or over rules me, or comes to a different resolution, I will block either or both of you if you edit Norwalk or related pages in the next six months.Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC) struck over eager unilateral actionDlohcierekim (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

Editors JJBers and StephenTS42 are hereby topic banned from the article and talk page of Norwalk, Connecticut or from any edits that mention Norwalk, Connecticut, broadly construed, for a period of 6 months. Additionally, the two editors are subject to a two way interaction ban for a period of 6 months. Any breach of these restrictions will likely result in an immediate block with an extension of this restriction as a condition of unblocking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I would support if it was 3 months instead of 6. Quick question, does this apply to any article mentioning Norwalk, or just Norwalk related articles. — JJBers 16:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• Strongly support - And to be clear, yes, broadly construed means History of Norwalk, Connecticut. TimothyJosephWood 16:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  I know that...I meant any articles that just simply mention Norwalk, because I regularly edit articles like Connecticut and so on. — JJBers 16:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  A TBAN normally covers both full articles related to the subject, as well as portions of unrelated articles which themselves also do. So someone might make the case that the main article on the state is broad enough not to be about the town, but seeing how it's mentioned about a dozen times, its going to be hard to make the case that you pass both criteria. When in doubt (i.e., when it's likely someone could make the case that you are tip-toeing around violating the ban), it's usually better to err on the side of caution. But you're quite lucky this didn't turn into your first ever block at some point, and I think everyone will probably be happier for the next six months anyway, even if it is an inconvenience. TimothyJosephWood 16:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarification, I'll try to avoid the sections mentioning Norwalk a lot. — JJBers 16:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  That's... not exactly what I was getting at. TimothyJosephWood 17:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  Oh...not edit the article at all? — JJBers 17:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  I mean, there are 2,500 stubs in WikiProject Connecticut, most of which I'm sure are not at all connected to this particular town. Folks don't normally take kindly to people trying to Wikilawyer community sanctions. TimothyJosephWood 17:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  It would not stop you from editing Orange, Connecticut, unless you were trying to edit a mention of Norwalk in that edit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support as means to curtail disruption, and as a relatively non-intrusive way to keep two editors apart who "have history". 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support From what I got in the definitions, I'll support it. — JJBers 17:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support, yes, this bizarre disruption has to stop. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support this whole matter has become excessively fraught. The restrictions are not at all unreasonable. There are millions of articles on Wikipedia. I suggest carving a new niche among themDlohcierekim (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support Half StephenTS42 needs to stop. --Tarage (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• Dissaprove This is a witch-hunt! ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• Strong OpposeNeutral: although the two users' conduct has not always been admirable, they are the only ones actually benefiting the Norwalk article, the only ones actively editing it, and have done a lot of good. A six-month ban would only be detrimental to the encyclopedia. I might support a few weeks' ban, to cool off tempers and any potential ownership ideas? Disclosure - I have been involved in a few past issues with JJBers and Stephen, as a somewhat active editor of the Norwalk article. As a heavy content editor I really want to see the lackluster Norwalk article improved, and it won't happen with its two lead editors banned from it. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

  As I understand you, you are saying that these two editors should not be banned from the topic because they are the only editors who can save the topic. Some of us will recognize similar statements made in the 1970s. However, in my opinion, if these two editors are the only two editors who can edit this topic effectively, then it is important that we avoid either or both of these editors being indefinitely blocked. In order to avoid either or both of these editors being indefinitely blocked, we need to topic ban them. For now. (Incidentally, I see several other editors making constructive edits to the article also, therefore one of your premises is broken too.) MPS1992 (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, the first point is your opinion, which is fine. The second, about other editors, I don't hold true. Sure other editors will make minor changes, and especially as these issues have erupted it's given the article a bit more attention, but the only editors who have been doing the major edits and being involved in all the major discussions are Stephen, JJBers and me. The other two can attest to that. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

After reading what others wrote, reminding me of some of the craziness that has been going on here, my feelings for supporting and opposing this are significantly conflicting; changing vote to neutral. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support - The way to shut edit warring down is by sending both warriors off the battlefield. Carrite (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Support Crossing out previous vote, even though the 6 month IBAN is fine, the 6 month TBAN is a tad unnecessary. —JJBers 00:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  Did not know the proposed bannies got a !vote. I think is important for both to gain new perspective via 6 month TBAN.Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  Most, if not all of the disruptive matter came from our interactions, not the article itself. Putting a TBAN is pointless, as no disruptive action has come up between us and other editors. 6 months is also way too long, at least in my opinion. —JJBers 00:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Weak Support TBan, Oppose IBan These editors have never really interacted anywhere aside from this article so I see the IBan as pointless. I'm weak on the TBan simply because StephenTS42's response since the start of this has shown a pretty stark lack of competence. I was on the verge of suggesting an indefinite TBan for StephenTS42 just based on their needless personalization against Dennis on his TP which just compounded the competence issues. Capeo (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

As there seemed to be a consensus for a 6 month TBAN and as the disruption has continued, I have TBAN'd both StephenTS42 and JJBers, pending the community's approval. Feel free to reverse me if I have been unduly harsh/lenient.Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC) struck over enthusiastic unilateral action.Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support - a TBAN appears to be the only solution. Neither editor is back peddling from the cycle of repeated reversion, despite one of them promising to. However, when StephenTS42 broke his promise, JJBers jumped right in and reverted. 6 months of editing other articles will give needed perspective, and the only other option I see is lengthy blocks. It's the article, not the interaction. John from Idegon (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support TBAN and IBAN - Despite numerous warnings, instructions from multiple editors and this AN/I thread, JJBers continues to skirt the 3RR line and needlessly revert at Norwalk, Connecticut. In the past 24 hours they have reverted three different edits. While the latter two reverts are both supportable and reasonable, they still show a lack of sound judgement. JJBers should not be touching the revert button at all, even to revert obvious vandalism at this moment. The other user, StephenTS42, is also struggling to display sound judgement. This edit was first reverted by user M for the following reasons; You removed valid info; you contradict the source and your own writing. How can there be 35,415 housing units but only 33,217 households?. Despite this, Stephen reinstated the edit with little change under the guise of "typo's". This new edit was reverted by JJBers as "... disruptive, and borderline vandalism". I disagree with the call of vandalism, but, obviously the revert was both appropriate and reasonable. Not to mention that the edit summary is misleading. The last revert was to remove a category added by StephenTS42 into the middle of the article. I have never seen categories dumped into the middle of an article like this. I would have removed it myself if I had noticed. We don't normally throw people behind the scenes in article space. I would consider category space to be a form of maintenance space for editors, not readers.
  In terms of this whole series of events I want to quickly explain why I support a TBAN and IBAN.
  TBAN; I've been scanning through the past 500 edits made to the article Norwalk, Connecticut. While there are some edits that draw concern, like this one made at 19:24, 20 February 2017 where Stephen tells M to go jump in a lake for ... removing the "px" parameter from all but one image per the image use policy; Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width. Emphasis is not mine. Most of both editors contributions to the topic have been positive. Unfortunately, things have take a turn for the worse in the last few months and now the edits being made are disruptive from both sides. Because of this, I agree that an escalated response is necessary. JJBers holds a quite strong OWNERSHIP of Connecticut articles, hopefully a Norwalk TBAN will suffice.
  This leads me into IBAN; Though the most recent edits are plain disruptive on both sides and a TBAN on from Norwalk would be adviseable. It's interpersonal skills, which both are struggling with, and more obviously the inability to discuss when conflict arises. In fact I have a much greater issue with JJBers edit summaries than I do even StephenTS42. JJBers repeatedly threatens blocks against StephenTS42, in the course of normal editing, on their talk page and even here at AN/I. If a TBAN needs to be implemented its really from the words; "block and ban" (includes XBAN). For example; this, this, this and even here and here. These are idle threats. They make editing uncomfortable and put other editors on edge. In this situation, I see no viable improvement except an outright IBAN between the two editors.
  Other issues; I took a look at the discussion page, Talk:Norwalk, Connecticut, only to be disappointed at the level of discussion there. There is a significant amount of back and forth, however, it's of no quality when happening between JJBers and StephenTS42 alone. Supposedly an IBAN with rectify this. Recently, JJBers has taken a pointed authoritarian attitude, while StephenTS42 has tried repeatedly to back down without actually backing down. I can't tell whether this is a ploy of some kind or repentence. I'd like to highlight the discussion on Population density. JJBers refused to hold any discussion over it insisting that they are right and that further discussion on it should lead to a block. Even when M points out that every reliable source calculates population density on land only, JJBers continued to insist that the way currently done must stay in the article and that only a formal consensus through RfC is valid for making a change to the article. Of course, this is plain and unproductive stonewalling. If you take a close look at discussion throughout the article's talk you'll see time and time again that JJBers takes an authoritative attitude and repeatedly threatens blocks. In fact, they do it five separate times. JJBers, you are not the arbiter of Wiki policy and you do not hand out blocks at your discretion. Even administrators do this only where such arbitration will not result in community backlash and only when necessary. That said, I think this issue may have arisen from Stephen's atitude to discussion recorded in archive 2 of the article talk page. In archive 2 you can readily identify the following issues that StephenTS42 has; 1. Lack of good faith, 2. makes spurious accusations, 3. complete incivility and 4. a complete lack of competence. I do not, however, think this is the case for the discussions, or attempted discussions, currently on the article's talk. There is something of a competency issue still, but, it's much more minor. In essence, JJBers needs to back down and reduce their tone from commanding to collaborating. I can understand the occassionally raised tone of exasperation or annoyance, but, right now JJBers is doing it quite consistently. Examples of issues for both editors; Threatens block for attempting discussion and requesting non-personal comments, Stephen intentionally being obtuse, JJBers acting as sole arbiter of policy and being aggressive (MPS1992 intervented on this thread), JJBers demands that discussion cease on population density and then later threatens a block for FORUMSHOPPING and then clarifies, erroneously, that repeating the same question on the same page is FORUMSHOPPING. I'm going to stop here because I am sick of pulling up diffs. I focused on what is currently on the article talk, if you go into the archives you could easily find at least twenty noteworthy diffs of StephenTS42 being generally non-collaborative and uncivil. Whereas JJBers, Ceoil and M put concerted effort in dealing with Stephen. I think JJBers just left the dial turned up and needs to turn it back down.
  I can't think of anything else, and this is already a very lengthy post, so I'll just leave it here. Just one side note; I have the temptation to propose indefinite BRD compliance (1RR), but, that's only a useful solution if the issues aren't localized to Norwalk and the two editors interactions. I'm not convinced that it is so local, but again, I haven't figured out where the lion's share of the issue is coming from. I'll have to have a think on that. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'll admit, I've been on the edge for the last week. I'll accept the TBAN and IBAN right now if you want. I just believe that I've been slowly, and slowly put on edge, with the pure WP:CIR issues, and the threats. I did try for quite a while to be WP:AGF, but after 3 months, I started growing tired of it. It's the end of the school year, and I might take a small Wikibreak, and try to focus on articles outside of Norwalk. I did, and still do wish for a shorter TBAN, but there's no use in fighting it anymore. I think most of the reason of this pure anger this past few days have probably been from this WP:ANI, and I do thank you for diving a bit deeper into the edit history. Sigh... —JJB^ers 21:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• I can understand the being on edge after several months. I read archive 2 after the main talk page and about then is when things started to become clearer to me. Your dial slowly wound up throughout those earlier discussions, so you didn't start off the bat with the aggression it came as your živci su popuštali (nerves were giving up? I think is the translation). I don't think a Norwalk TBAN is too disruptive, unless Norwalk holds any special significance to you personally, because, it's a small town (six biggest, but, still small) within a small state. You'll still be able to keep working on practically every other Connecticut article, which is where most of your editing is. I'm trying to think of this in terms that apply to me. I edit mostly Roman history articles. If I was TBANned from Roman History that would hit quite hard on me, but, not completely prevent me from enjoying the encyclopaedia. By contrast, being TBANned from, say, Caracalla - an article I contributed a lot too - would be less devastating even though I'd be very disappointed. I'm thinking of your Norwalk being like my Caracalla. I think the IBAN is more important than the TBAN here, but, because you're both very active at Norwalk, CT it's going to be impossible to impose the IBAN and still expect that you'll be able to carry on working at Norwalk without violating the IBAN. Whatever the duration of the IBAN, so too must be the duration of the TBAN. Six months is both long and not that long; it is only about 180 days. I've been editing for something around 900 days now. So I've been editing about 4.5 times as long as the duration of the TBAN. It'll get easier after the first few days and weeks. AN/I is a stressful process to be dragged through and it's much different to volunteer to help out with other people's concerns than it is having everyone focus in on you. Consider this as a sort of HR department, you're being reprimanded for failing to uphold company standards, and your pay is being docked, but, you've still got the job. Clearly the company thinks you're still worth the effort. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Protest I made a comment in my defense and as an answer to Dennis Brown above. It was deleted without explanation. I needn't go on by trying to blame or point my finger at anyone at this point as it appears I have been railroaded, tried, convicted and sentenced. I hope you are all very proud of yourselves. StephenTS42 (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I already told you on my talk page that I reverted you because you erased this entire section. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add it in without removing the whole section next time. —JJBers 18:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you shouldn't be commenting so much. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It appears that the blame and finger-pointing should be aimed directly at yourself, StephenTS42. Your edit – I hope inadvertently – deleted comments from at least five other editors, and was reverted for that reason. The problem is pretty conspicuous if you look at the diff of the revert (or of your original edit). And even without looking at the diffs, the problem was explained to you on Dennis' talk pages by two different editors [42][43] (including Dennis) within minutes of your objection; you've had plenty of time to fix the problem and re-add your comment without deleting anyone else's posts.
Instead, you've gone from shooting yourself in the foot to blowing your whole leg off, by blaming your own failure to detect or repair your own edit conflict – even after the problem was explicitly explained to you – on a conspiracy to railroad you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Forgive me if you think I blanked anything. I have reviewed the history and found no evidence to support your claim. I do make mistakes and I apologize for being human. I have no qualm with you, but you did not tell me I had blanked any section: JJBers made that claim. Nonetheless, whether I did or did not do what you said was no grounds for deleting my comment. As it stand now it appears you, or whoever, has attracted (incited?) an editor/administrator rush which my comment in my defense very well would have fended off. I believe that constitutes a slant and an injustice for whatever reasons you have against my contributions. Furthermore, I find it strange how you made such an abrupt or hasty turnaround from you initial stance in this matter. Once again, if I made a mistake, I apologize. Now, would you please do the right thing? Thank you——→StephenTS42 (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

This is beginning to push the limits of WP:AGF. TimothyJosephWood 18:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I think this will become a WP:CIR issue if this doesn't stop. —JJBers 18:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment)You gotta admit that blanking something in the act of supposedly apologizing for blanking has a certain dadaist zen to it. Anmccaff (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Stephen TS42, This is the edit where you blanked an entire section. JJBers, it's already been suggested to you that you curb the commenting. You should follow that advice. It does not look good that you're throwing jabs in like this. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Stephen, you really are making me question your competence to edit here. [44] is the diff. Look at the left "before" column and the right "after" column. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • And as pointed out, I see you did the exact same thing again, deleting TenOfAllTrades post.[45] Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Might I gently suggest that some of the "history" between these two be re-looked at, with the above in mind? This is heading toward a two-part solution to a one-part problem, IMO. Anmccaff (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

No, JJBers is not innocent. I don't question his competence, just his willingness to back away when common sense says you should. There are still two problems here, even if different and of different magnitudes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, and there isn't much percentage in splitting hairs whether a problem is 50-50, or 55-45. But when it looks like 80-20, that is a norse of a different calor. Anmccaff (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

But JJBer still edit wars, their behavior is bordering on harassment, and doesn't know the first rule of holes. I get what you are saying, but I'm not nearly as interested in fairness (we aren't judges) as much as I about a solution that works. My first concern is all the good editors they are getting in the way of with this behavior. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

This whole "protest" strains my credulity. Gently suggest that StephenTS42 drop the stick, back away, and maybe get some rest. If that means politely agreeing to disagree, great. Disengagement at this point would be for the best.Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I apologize

OK! It appears that my edit submissions here occurred while some one else was editing. That is to say during an editing conflict. At this point I can't explain the missing comments. I thought I was doing the right thing when in fact I fudged it. I apologize and regret my error. I did not do that on purpose. I promise to re-read the instructions and learn from my mistake. It won't happen again. Now would you all put down your torches or pitchforks, remove the noose and disperse the lynch mob. I apologize, I apologize, I apologize! Please accept my apology! I may not be new here, but I do get distracted at times. If anyone believes I was 'throwing jabs' at them then please allow me to take them back. My people skills must be a little rusty, but with some patient social oiling I can become a valuable ally here. So, can we all stop slinging mud get back to the business at hand? Can we all try to be nice to each other? Thank you——→StephenTS42 (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

You... you're editing the entirety of ANI with every comment aren't you? TimothyJosephWood 20:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit conflicts can cause that, even when someone starts out editing just a section. Might really be a systemic problem. Anmccaff (talk)

Wikipedia is not therapy... --Tarage (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• I can forgive the mistakes on this page. The proposal to topic/interaction ban you was before those mistakes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems Stephen did something similar on the Norwalk talk page.[46] I think the added material is now in the archive and on the talk page. TVGarfield (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Archiving was changed and info is in both places. The simple thing to do is someone who can should revert it and fix it before and bunch of talk page needs to be reverted to fix it. TVGarfield (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@TVGarfield: Fixed. —JJBers 00:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Request

I'm requesting that my TBAN from Norwalk can be at least shortened to 2-3 months, as outside of a small edit war (which really is just me removing a misused template) with the other user involved in this discussion, I've not been very disruptive to the article. Secondly, I have been talked about the minor edit war anyways, and I got a 72-hour 0RR, so I see no reason for it be dragged further. I'll still upheaval the 6 month IBAN with StephenTS24 afterwards. —JJBers 21:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

If you enjoy editing Wikipedia, then you should be either agreeing to the 6 months, or asking for 12 months. Being blocked from editing everywhere, is much worse than just being topic banned from one topic. So, please move on from this one topic. MPS1992 (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers: I think y'all both need to find another area in which to contribute for at least six months. The subtext to your shortening request is that you are overly invested in editing Norwalk. We need to see a stepping away for a while in hopes that problems won't recur with a new perspective.Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• My opinion is that this has dragged on enough, and perhaps an admin might look at closing this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone monitoring Norwalk, Connecticut? ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks like you and your friend are merrily editing, hopefully amicably.Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Kibbitz I feel as though this whole RfC is a kind of reverse-fishbowl experiment. Newimpartial (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Nah. It's looks an awful lot like the continuation of an edit war, and, for good measure we'll throw in deceptive edit summaries and accusing other editors of being vandals. TimothyJosephWood 20:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @StephenTS42: Stop removing massive chunks of the demographics section for no reason. —JJB^ers 20:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

As of 7 minutes ago, they are still edit warring. Can a passing admin block them both until a decision is reached here? John from Idegon (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I am stepping back and away. Today, I was not and will not participate in any editing war. I asked JJBers to explain his edits or deletions in the article's talk page. If that is considered edit warring... then I think its time for a change in perspective. ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The last few edits on Norwalk and on WP:AN3 are showing massive WP:CIR issues with Stephen, I think if it doesn't stop soon, I think we should carry out a full block to StephenTS42. — JJBers 16:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

JJBers, that ignores the fact that you are still, despite this novel - length thread, reverting him repeatedly. Granted, Stephen promised to step away and 4 hours later was back to editing, but c'mon....You've made more than one trip around the block on Wikipedia. If you don't realize that you reverting his edits at this time is an incredibly bad idea, well, the CIR sword has two sides. Your hands are not clean here, and that makes your last comment at best disingenuous. Seriously, as long as this thread has been open and as many editors have participated, don't you think if his edits were seriously problematic, someone else could have dealt with it? Short of blocking both of you, the only solution is a topic ban. Obviously, Stephen is not the only one with an issue regarding this particular article. John from Idegon (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I might add that clerking a report at WP:ANEW where you are the subject, as you did here is another incredibly bad idea. Yea, it's malformed. It's also closed and will be archived (a little less quickly tho because you edited). WP:STICK is very relevant. John from Idegon (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It's disappointing to see JJBers advocating that another editor be blocked. JJBers did the same thing yesterday, leaving this message about another editor stating "I would support a block for making large-scale changes without consensus, along with edit warring pretty hard". You would?

On June 6th, User:JJBers Public reverted 46 edits in a row made by User:AirportExpert. This is one example. Also on June 6th, using account User:JJBers at Middlebury, Connecticut, this editor reverted the same edit--made by two different editors--three times in nine hours, [47],[48], [49].

Several cautions about edit warring were left on JJBers talk page, which seemed of little use. On June 7th, JJBers made this edit, removing another pushpin map which had been added by User:AirportExpert.

I rarely come to this board to add my comments, but this edit war and finger pointing is very disruptive to regular editors of US city articles, and I am in agreement with User:John from Idegon that some action needs to be taken. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

May I point out that my use of the words stepping back and away was intended to apply to my participation in an editing war; not to editing in general. However, I can see how it could be taken as John from Idegon implied; I apology for any confusion and will make my future comments more direct and clear. Nonetheless, I have kept my word and not made any reversions of JJBers contributions (and for some time now) thereby not contributing to that editing war. Thank you——→StephenTS42 (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

While you didn't directly revert me, you still indirectly re-added the content after I reverted it, contributing to the edit war. — JJBers 14:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Page protected for one week

Page protected. Since reverting continued today (June 10), I have fully protected the page for one week. El_C 06:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, El C. Primefac (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PerfectlyIrrational

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A block is needed to stop PerfectlyIrrational (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from repeatedly adding poorly-sourced and unsourced content to high-visibility articles, including unsourced WP:BLP content. They have also edit warred and made other reckless edits. Numerous warnings and attempts to communicate[50] have not been effective.

Most recent example here: June 5, 2017

Warnings

• April 27, 2017
• April 27, 2017
• May 4, 2017
• May 5, 2017
• May 12, 2017
• May 12, 2017
• May 17, 2017
• May 20, 2017
• May 25, 2017
• May 26, 2017
• June 1, 2017
• June 1, 2017
• June 2, 2017 & [51]
• June 4, 2017

Thank you.- MrX 03:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah...I think enough attempts have been made to communicate and this person is not getting it. It's consistent across multiple articles and despite warnings and advice from numerous users. I'm seeing a previous 24 hour block so I'm escalating to two weeks. No objection if any other admin wants to reduce or extend that time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, PMC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs) 23:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Ah, yes. I remember now. endorse blockDlohcierekim (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• Previous noticeboard threads concerning PerfectlyIrrational: [52], [53], [54]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support block Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rangeblock to stop Illinois IPs

Can we get a rangeblock for the vandal who has been messing with hip hop and R&B music articles for more than a year? This person replaces song titles and artist names with wrong titles and names.[55] He also changes dates and lyrics. The disruption is considerable.

Since July 2016, the IPs geolocate to an area of Illinois which includes Park Forest and Chicago Heights. The base IP is 50.201.7.46 who has been at it since October 2016, but this person often shifts to IP6 addresses. He was blocked by Widr for one week. The disruption started out with Chicago IPs, and goes farther back than I'm showing.

Long list of IPs.

Here's a list of involved IPs: June 3, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:1D56:B24A:E869:800 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) May 29, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:E9D0:89BD:2EEE:14E4 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) May 29, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:88C7:F14D:3620:1854 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) May 28, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:98D0:3587:B409:AE9D (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) May 7, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:E10C:9ED1:8BA1:BC11 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) May 4, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:D402:D21B:C2F0:A5F (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) May 3, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:FD63:FFDD:9615:F3B1 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) May 2, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:D1EB:D085:277C:3FA6 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) April 29, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:7905:72C1:C675:4A05 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) April 29, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:C2E:7BC6:1ED8:764C (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) April 29, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:D55F:32BA:5B90:435F (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) April 27, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:A477:6A8E:27E3:2509 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) April 21, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:C826:6898:F222:246B (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) April 20, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:D98C:346D:6547:6A2 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) April 19, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:C11E:87C:197:BE2F (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) April 17, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:84D1:FA7B:819F:9EDA (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) April 17, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:F45F:EF5E:DDD6:C69E (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) April 14, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:995B:26D2:49A5:6FCD (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) March 26, 2017 2601:244:4900:2560:C91D:B6F8:A710:C42D (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) March 22, 2017 2601:244:4900:2560:D17F:536E:DF41:2112 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) March 14, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:B5C5:32AA:D66A:2042 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) March 10, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:256F:86D8:78AE:E697 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) March 7, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:2018:2819:7A1:AB4F (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) March 6, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:2511:A951:3A2:D891 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) March 5, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:752A:B5FC:147B:A8B2 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) March 3, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:7DC0:2C93:AC0D:3882 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) February 14, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:75E3:948F:49D7:D767 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) February 5, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:B980:727E:4A1C:814A (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) February 3, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:B820:6FD1:5A5A:D2B1 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) February 3, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:5004:D382:3574:6BDB (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) February 3, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:B00A:ACE8:BA60:E76 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) January 22, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:91EE:2A01:7637:47B4 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) January 20, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:2C31:BD4E:1D08:68AE (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) January 19, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:2126:A80C:C896:6125 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) January 19, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:38EF:E5BD:82E6:B630 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) January 18, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:C926:159D:AECA:594A (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) January 17, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:19D2:85FE:61FA:ACC3 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) January 16, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:3D7A:E54A:19F7:B0D7 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) January 16, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:7855:FEB3:EEE1:B09A (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) November 6, 2016 2601:244:4900:12B0:5C2F:1D2B:7DE2:602 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) September 6, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:5514:A6A4:66A6:4AA9 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) September 1, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:78FB:71D7:BFA7:B929 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) August 16, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:B8BB:36D4:D21:358A (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) August 10, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:7C4A:CD29:FC29:D3F3 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) August 6, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:1870:5CF2:1367:CEA0 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) August 3, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:45E4:E174:D386:E5C (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) August 2, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:6467:E1FD:31FD:CAF6 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) July 27, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:1178:E73C:8866:9400 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) July 12, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:894F:4432:6E84:6990 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) July 12, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:9C23:D23D:122B:354B (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) July 10, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:3CF1:F0FA:BD3F:F5DD (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) July 9, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:11B5:1AE1:C76B:862D (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) July 9, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:6093:A84:FDED:C719 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) July 8, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:9872:3D25:13AC:4DA0 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) July 8, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:E904:996C:92C1:D1CB (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) July 7, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:6DFC:A274:2D94:F0B4 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) July 7, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:5CF6:9E60:76F7:5040 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) July 7, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:10F5:A735:3C09:13B (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) June 20, 2016 2601:241:8304:AAC0:5839:85DB:30E1:2694 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) June 20, 2016 2601:241:8304:AAC0:3009:382C:99B:AA39 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) May 21, 2016 2601:241:8304:AAC0:CC8:2105:2F9E:8B65 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) April 1, 2016 2601:241:8381:2850:D011:F442:820A:EB44 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) March 8, 2016 2601:241:8304:BCD0:FCC1:D4B:64A0:B214 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) February 13, 2016 2601:241:8381:2850:DC3B:8F3:8797:5809 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) November 22, 2015 2601:241:8302:41EA:2802:873F:E20E:E080 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) September 23, 2015 2601:241:8302:41EA:2D84:ECC0:AA5A:F527 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I think we can get good rangeblock on this person, with very little collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 04:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I did a collateral check and it seems doable, so I've blocked 2601:244:4900:0:0:0:0:0/48 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), which covers all the IPs you listed back to November 2016. The rest of them are a bit stale by now, so I haven't placed any blocks covering them. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. That will go a long way toward slowing this person down. Binksternet (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

These all (or all that I clicked on) belong to Comcast. Comcast assigns IPv6 addresses in /64 chunks, so anything that's not part of the current /64 is probably never going to be used by this vandal again. I have blocked 2601:244:4900:AC60:0:0:0:0/64, and any future vandalism can easily handled with a block of the applicable /64. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Donmust90

• Donmust90 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

User:Donmust90 keeps peppering the reference desks with questions, mostly without any indication that he reads the responses. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Might I suggest a warning from an administrator followed by a topic ban if the warning doesn't do the trick? --Guy Macon (talk)

• Support immediate warning per Guy Macon. I'd be tempted to go straight into a Tban as well, notwithstanding that there has been no previous warning. This is because I'd assumed this was a new account that didn't know better. Wrongly- the stats are completely bizarre. 298 edits in total- 291 to the ref desks??? Account active since October 2012?? I think they know very well what the purpose of the encyclopaedia is, by now- and they don't appear to be interested. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• I think Guy is on target here. At the very least, this Don posts questions about very specific but seemingly obscure topics, with a tone that suggests everyone must have heard of what he's talking about. (That is, he doesn't link to any articles.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• Further to the above: of the 291/298 edits being to the Ref Desks - a visual scan of the 50 most recent shows the great majority are "new section" - i.e. no participation in follow-up. I recommend these queries be turned around as a question to the OP User:Donmust90 requesting clarification. If User:Donmust90 doesn't respond - hat the query as [some form of RD abuse?]. Otherwise - is there a precedent for limiting a querent to one New section post/day/desk (or all desks)? -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• ...and the edits that are not marked "new section are mostly minor edits to questions he has already asked, not reactions to responses and/or answers. It really does look like he mostly posts a question and then never checks back to see if anyone answered.

• I think he is trolling. The sophistication of some of the questions tells me they aren't stupid and are likely just wasting someone's time just to waste it. I'm trying to think of a reason to not just block them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose warning or any other action. Show me the policy that says the questioner has to read responses. Show me how you know the questioner has to read responses. If you think there should be a policy that someone should thank you for a great answer, or limit his questions to N a week, or not register an account mostly to ask questions at the Refdesk, you can propose that policy, and I will most likely vote against it. Sensible questions are a resource that we archive for future use, and which may already be in use by commercial question-answering applications whether we know of them or not. Sensible questions keep volunteers at the Refdesk because it gives them something to do. Do not randomly sanction people, nor admonish them, without a reason. Note that WP:NOTHERE is specifically not a good reason because we apparently believe, as a community, that the Refdesk is useful to have; therefore participating it is a valid reason to be here. That said, I would not oppose for people to speak to this editor and try to persuade him to write better questions (with more context, links to works or ideas being asked about) in order to get better answers. I am not convinced this is a troll; it may just be someone who thinks/acts a little differently than most. Wnt (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• Weak support. A warning is well in order but a ban? I'm sure the people at the Ref Desk are smart enough to recognise Don by now. They could just ignore him and don't feed the troll. Yintan  06:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment The RefDesks, like their real-world namesakes, have long been interpreted as a service for encyclopedia readers as much as anything else. If "Not here to build an encyclopedia" is really a good argument to topic ban someone from the RefDesk, its entire purpose and mandate needs to be reexamined. ApLundell (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• I do not believe that this is a reader who benefits from any answers he gets. In fact I do not believe that he reads the answers. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: What is your evidence that he does not? Wnt (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC) How can web sure that all the people who post questions read the answers afterwards? Also shouldn't we warn Donmust first before posting at AN/I?Uncle dan is home (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Guy, that's a fair point. I was objecting only to "Not here to build an encyclopedia".

How we gauge if he's "here to use the reference desk legitimately" is a question I'm not personally comfortable answering, but I certainly agree that some users ask a whole bunch of random questions that they seem to have only a passing interest in, while others ask specific questions they seem to have a real desire to know the answer to, more similar to what you might ask an actual reference librarian. And I agree that it would be better if we had less of the former, and more of the latter. ApLundell (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

At what point does asking many, many questions and pretty much never entering into a discussion about the answers become disruptive? Clearly posting one or ten questions is fine, but a hundred? a thousand? a hundred thousand?

Scene: A cafe. One table is occupied by a group of Vikings wearing horned helmets. A man and his wife enter.

Mr. Bun: Morning.

Waitress: Morning.

Mr. Bun: What have you got, then?

Waitress: Well there's egg and bacon; egg, sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg, bacon and spam; egg, bacon, sausage and spam; spam, bacon, sausage and spam; spam, egg, spam, spam, bacon and spam; spam, spam, spam, egg and spam; spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, baked beans, spam, spam, spam and spam; Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and spam.

Mrs. Bun: Have you got anything without spam in it?

Waitress: Well, there's spam, egg, sausage and spam. That's not got MUCH spam in it.

Mrs. Bun: I don't want ANY spam.

Mr. Bun: Why can't she have egg, bacon, spam and sausage?

Mrs. Bun: That's got spam in it!

Mr. Bun: Not as much as spam, egg, sausage and spam.

Mrs. Bun: Look, could I have egg, bacon, spam and sausage, without the spam.

Waitress: Uuuuuuggggh!

Mrs Bun: What d'you mean, uugggh! I don't like spam.

Vikings: singing) Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam ... spam, spam, spam, spam ... lovely spam, wonderful spam ...

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, if he gets to a thousand, maybe you can make some kind of policy. Maybe a seed-to-leech ratio wouldn't be completely out of the question - if you ask >50 questions, try to answer at least 2 for each new one after that? Least that way you'd get to hear if he's as erudite as his questions make him seem. But again -- you make the policy first, then enforce it. I know that's not popular in governance nowadays, but Wikipedia should aspire to be old-fashioned. Wnt (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

(Psssst... Guy Macon... are you sure it's a good idea to post the entire script of a copyrighted work here?) Yintan  06:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't post the entire script, just an excerpt.

The Copyright Law of the United States (Title 17) says:

"107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use"

"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:"

"(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;"

"(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;"

"(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and"

"(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

Further advice from the copyright office is here. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, fair point. No need to quote the entire law at me ;-) Yintan  08:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I see what you did there. (big smile) --Guy Macon (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose He's done nothing wrong. Asking questions at the reference desks is not against the rules, and he's not required to check in afterwards. Demanding a ban because he's done those two things is ridiculous. Leave him alone. --Jayron32 02:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support - This is trolling, pure and simple, deliberate disruption of the RefDesk. Jayron32: every inquiry in a DOS attack may be legitimate, but the collection of them in mass amounts makes them a problem. The pattern is what's important, not each individual question. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Banned editor?

The foot model in Toronto made a very obscure edit at Commons to tag a file that is a variant of a more used one. The thing is that this file isn't used very much and was uploaded by banned editor, Beh-nam aka Le Behnam at Commons. He used one of his Toronto area IPs to dissociate from en.wiki. Also, the other IPs that touched that file are primarily from the Toronto area except a couple from Manitoba and one UK address.

Following his IP led me to this which when I go look up this article here, it leads me back to Beh-nam.

Examination of their questions as DonMus look to be quite inline with the banned editor's topics. I will let others analyze.

The inconclusive bit. I believe that there are likely sock cases that could be tied in here. This Italian ref by DonMus may be significant because there is some crossover with this editor and that sock case (speaks Italian?). I also had to consider the crossovers to this case. I'm leaving this post because I can't work anymore at the present and will let others begin looking to see what they may turn up.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems like you were a bit too successful here. First you link him to one banned editor and one country ... then to another banned editor and another country? I mean, so many long-serving and formerly respected editors from wikipedia have been banned that it is very easy for an editor who modifies files on Commons to end up touching one of their images. Finding a city based on coincidences of several IPs with a number of questions doesn't totally clinch the case in my mind. Wnt (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

If I were sock hunting, I would start with User:Sagittarian Milky Way, and see if he passes the WP:DUCK test compared to Donmust90 --Guy Macon (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The editors don't seem particular similar. Donmust90's question suggest to me a immigrant to Canada probably Toronto and probably Muslim and of South Asian descent with imperfect English. SMW is a young editor in the US, just finished middle school a few years ago. In both cases, their questions and comments tend to reflect that. Notably Donmust90's interest seem to often relate to their religion or less commonly other religions, South Asia, Canada, elections, or politics. SMW I'm lazy to pin down but space etc is one area they seem particularly interested in. (Donmust90 has asked a small number of space related questions but AFAIK it isn't much of s focus.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

BTW, AFAIK Donmust90 has been around for many years (at least 2007 if not earlier). In the earlier years, they use to ask a lot of weird demographics related questions, primarily relating to immigrants particularly but not exclusively people from Muslim majority places. I think in the early years these were generally relating to Toronto or at least Canada e.g. Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 January 5 (probably), Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 July 31#Sri Lankans tamil Toronto, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 November 22#Ethnic breakdown of Toronto, Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2008_February 1#Somali-canadians in toronto, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 March 11#Toronto demographics but they seemed to branch out to other areas like Indonesians in the Netherlands Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 June 3#Largest Muslim population in Europe 2 and Central Africans in Belgium Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 August 25#Africans in Belgium Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Entertainment/2011 November 6#football teams by cities in Belgium with African population.

As evidenced in those discussions and elsewhere (e.g. the RD talk page such as Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 86#Which cities in (random country) have immigrants from (other random country)) people did get frustrated with this editor at times, especially as their questions got more obscure like football teams or were asking many different populations. And also given the number of different questions, the editor didn't show signs of checking basics sources like wikipedia articles or demographic sources that had been pointed out earlier. Actually I think there was also a concern over whether the editor was even reading the responses given that they often asked very similar questions and as said didn't seem to check basic sources despite repeated requests to do so. They also at least one made the questionable claim that they weren't the same editor who'd been asking all the questions Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 December 24#Torontonian Enclaves in response to the frustrations.

That said, reading some of these I'm not sure how often they actually asked the same question again or it was mostly a very similar but subtly different question perhaps indicating they had read. (With the number of different questions and the similarity it was easy to get confused.) There was also a thought that even if they were reading, they didn't seem to really understand or were incapable of learning given the lack of searches, source check etc.

But in any case, I'm fairly sure we never came close to sanctioning them probably since they seemed sufficiently sincere and while there were occasional peaks, it generally died down; although I think many of us gave up on trying to help. Perhaps the fact their IP changed a lot (although generally belonging to Bell Canada and geolocating to Ontario usually Toronto IIRC) didn't help.

Anyway I've always been fairly certain and I don't think I'm the only one who believes Donmust90 is the same editor, especially since some of their earlier questions were similar e.g. [56] [57] [58] [59]. I thought they had another account too which they abandoned but it may have been the Donmust90 one as they were inactive on it for a lot of 2013 and 2015, and all of 2014.

Note that if you look at the contributions of some of these IPs e.g. some of the earlier links and also Special:Contributions/65.92.154.228, Special:Contributions/65.92.154.112, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 December 28#UN peacekeepers Bangladesh Sierra Leone, Special:Contributions/76.64.129.222, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 July 25#Bangladeshi Parliamentary seats (probably) you can also see an interest in areas besides that demographics focus that is similar to Donmust90.

Anyway my ultimate point is I've never been convinced Donmust90 is a troll. Whether the RD is the right place for them I don't know but I'm not sure if a sanction is needed. There are also other regular question askers that are probably more frustrating, a certain IP comes to mind. I haven't looked that well at the socking thing but since it's from 2007 it's by now sort of the almost clean start thing. Not a proper clean start since if it is them they are banned and in fact, they were definitely using IPs on the RD before the ban and basically continued until and after they made the account. Also their questions on the RD do seem to have been in similar topic areas. That said what got them banned before looks very different from any problems they may have now which as said I'm not sure are sufficient for sanction by themselves.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I also am having doubts about sanctions, but I am also concerned about a larger issue, which is the reaction on the reference desks to Donmust90 and certain other people who only ask questions. Previously, these editors would end up generating long, pointless threads on the refdesks talk page as other editors complain about them. This has been happening on a weekly basis. Based upon the basic principle that we should discuss user behavior here instead of on the refdesk talk page, I raised the issue here. I thought about asking about an IP I have in mind (much worse offender), but was concerned about the fact that we already have admins actively trying to deal with the IP troll, and I doubted that an ANI report would be helpful.

So what is the answer? Looking at how the discussion is going here, I think we can wait until an admin closes this (please don't let it time out and be archived; we really need admin help here!) and then if anyone start a thread complaining about Donmust90 on the refdesk talk pages, ask them to stop because it has already been decided. Repeat for any new editors that a lot of people on the refdesks think are problems, with some of the ANI threads ending in sanctions and others ending up with a consensus to drop the stick. Eventually we will run out of people to complain about. The alternative is more long pointless threads on refdesk talk forever. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Gravuritas

Gravuritas (talk · contribs) was asked not to call other editors "twerps" in 2013[60] and 2016[61]. He's continuing to do so[62]. DrKay (talk) 07:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

DrKay's second pop at me in a few days. have no access other than via an ipad atm, so would like to respond at the weekend

Gravuritas (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• I can't be accused of being a supporter of DrKay, nor of having any interest in Soviet history (the topic in question), nor of being a hardline civility enforcer, and this looks absolutely clear-cut to me; the thread in question is worth reading in full, in which as best I can tell Gravuritas is arguing for the right to use whatever insulting and belittling language they want because these terms "aren't pejorative or disrespectful in my vocab". As far as I'm can see the only discussion here is whether Gravuritas is blocked outright, or gets a Gravuritas is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors. If Gravuritas finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve. formal topic ban. You're not a new editor; why would you think "twerpikins" would ever be appropriate?

  Wikipedia is a collective enterprise, and someone who isn't capable of grasping the concepts of "other people might disagree with me" and "my personal opinions aren't necessarily representative of consensus" without lashing out isn't welcome here. (That is non-negotiable Wikipedia core policy, not just my personal opinion: In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as “the truth” or “the best view”. All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong. if you want chapter-and-verse.) In this particular context, what numerous people are trying to explain to you on that talkpage and you're steadfastly ignoring is that while there are numerous historians who consider Lenin a murderous dictator, there are also numerous historians who consider him a visionary leader who did only what was necessary, or who consider him a poor leader in hindsight but no worse than other European leaders of the period, and these points of view need to be given appropriate weight. ‑ Iridescent 10:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

  • As far as I can see, no response is needed. This sort of childish namecalling is not acceptable here regardless of the circumstances, and I will not hesitate to block User:Gravuritas if there is a repeat performance. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC).

• • • @Iridescent: you seem to be taking a stance as to content, which I didn't think was appropriate on this page. If you would like a considered view as to my editing approach on the article, you could review the RfC that I posted there recently: at the very least the results from uncommitted editors show that, on that point as a for instance, there are arguments in favour of the edit that I am proposing. @Lankiveil: The response I would like to make, but cannot until the weekend, is to provide you with a series of diffs. These will show that I have had a series of allegations of bad faith levelled at me by a pair of editors. Each of these allegations is, taken alone, too small to take to ANI, taken altogether, these amount in my view to a worse offence against WP policies than I have committed. That should justify sanctions equal to or greater to mine, on one or more other editors. I am a bit shocked about the 'regardless of circumstances': even murder can have extenuating circumstances and, I suggest, this is not quite a capital offence.
    • Gravuritas (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• This is not a content discussion, it's a discussion of your aggressiveness and rudeness. That you appear to think this is a content dispute is an argument against allowing you to remain on Wikipedia in any capacity as opposed to just restricting your methods of interaction with editors with whom you disagree. To be blunt, you give the impression not to be here to improve Wikipedia, but to wage war against it, and that's not something we want here. ‑ Iridescent11:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Gravuritas: Really? Content? The problem at hand is your abuse of other editors. You should know better. No one is a special case to whom rules of civility do not apply. The simple solution is for you to pledge t stop and then stop.Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Gravuritas: I don't care what the other party has done; there are ways to raise issues like that for discussion without resorting to namecalling. There will be no need for sanctions or consequences if you refrain from using that sort of language towards fellow editors in the future. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC).

• On the grounds that Gravuritas, when presented with the option of striking the "twerpikins" insult and/or apologizing, not only refused to do that but went on, apparently, to defend it as a valid tactic to use against his opponents (see user talk page), I see blocks (which should escalate if it continues) as the only real way to prevent this unacceptable approach to interaction. I have, therefore, issued a 31-hour block with a warning of escalation if the (clearly deliberate and calculated) incivility continues. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• Looking back further (at User talk:Gravuritas, at article talk pages, and at various past ANI reports), I see a lengthy history of caustic interactions, incivility, insults and personal attacks from Gravuritas, and I really am surprised that this is their very first block. @Gravuritas: something seriously needs to change in your approach to interaction with other editors, and it needs to change now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Bobbybobbie

The above user has adopted a highly combative style when contributing to the AfD discussion on N4 (record producers), an article he created. At least three other users (one being another administrator) have expressed opinions that the subject of the article doesn't meet GNG, and the user in question has responded by repeatedly questioning their individual bona fides, suitability to express opinions on the topic and knowledge of policies and guidelines, as well as suggesting that they may have been canvassed in one instance.
For my part, I accept that I may have been shorter with the user than is entirely a good thing, however I do have a dislike for the same arguments being hashed and re-hashed again in the hope that someone may give in. I honestly believe that Bobbiebobbie has adopted an attitude of ownership to this article, despite frequest protestations to the contrary, and is at least at risk of being here for reasons other than building an encyclopedia. I note in particular what seems like feigned surprise at the suggestion that Wikipedia's still a work in progress. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Why am I the only one accused of being "combative" when the rest of you are (collectively) doing the same thing to me? That's unfair. Bobbybobbie (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with that assessment. We're responding to the AfD discussion, citing policy and expressing our opinions, which happen to differ from yours. We're also responding to the arguments you're (to put it mildly) bludgeoning us with. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is the same experience I am having... Bobbybobbie (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

[The following is the last I intend to say directly on this subject] Attacking users who disagree with your opinions and quoting sections of policy out of context is different to citing policy and expressing opinions. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• I have hatted the (putting it politely) 'extended content'; @Bobbybobbie: Please do not undo it. It would not be unhlepful- the discussion is still there for the closing admin to see, but the visible walls of text, et., may put off potential !voters. Cheers, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Bobbybobbie You are waging a singled handed war to try and impose your opinions. I am the least experienced editor in the discussion but I am a new pages patroller with a bit of experience in deletion discussions. The others that have !voted to delete include 2 administrators with over 10 years experience each and 2 other experienced editors. You started a discussion on the WP:NMUSIC talk page but have had exactly the same reply here. Everyone has said the same thing that regarless of which criteria apply for presuming notability WP:GNG has to be met and this article fails. You refuse to listen to them and accuse everyone of not being capable of understand the different guidelines and policy. Domdeparis (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I just want consistency on Wikipedia. It's obvious that these voters are set on deleting it; however, another article I created (DJ Montay) was deleted, then approved on the same grounds. It's obviously not a clear case and improvements can be made over time.

Domdeparis, that is still an open topic (we are still contributing to it) and this is not the place to continue such a discussion. Bobbybobbie (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

"but the visible walls of text, et., may put off potential !voters". Which, I think, is why others avoided that discussion like the plague, despite aspersions cast, till I broke through said wall to !vote in a manner displeasing to the user in question.Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey, this is supposed to be a complaint against me, we are not here to hear about your strength and determination. Bobbybobbie (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Getting out the old bludgeon? Which is very much the point.Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Bobby you may be right when you say that the other article is in the same situation as this one. I'll have a look at the sources and see if they prove notability or not. Thanks for the pointer it may be that the person who approved its creation did not look closely enough at the sources. You are right about looking for consistency! Domdeparis (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Domdeparis, that is fine. I was waiting for you to react this way. You can also search for some more while you are at it. As I mentioned earlier, this is not the place for such discussion. Bobbybobbie (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if this qualifies as a WP:BOOMERANG here...I looked at the 15 sources and not a single one of them is in-depth coverage of the subject. There is a source that cites him as being the composer of an award winning song but so there is no doubt that he meets the WP:NMUSIC criteria and "may" be notable because of this. The trouble is that there are no articles that meet the WP:GNG conditions of significant coverage. I had a look but could find nothing else on the web but as you have finally admitted to understanding what is needed to prove notability here after 6 people explaining the same thing to you I imagine that you will understand why I am going to PROD the article because it should uncontroversial now. That will give you a 7 day period to find the necessary sources. I'll cite the other deletion discussion in the PROD nomination. Domdeparis (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

This is not the place. Go to the page. Bobbybobbie (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Domdeparis: Pace, but I don't think we need a PROD now, no offence to your good intentions- it's just that there's been plenty of drama over this so far, and the AfD seems now to have settled down. In any case- the AfD is now well into its 168-hour run, and will (probably) finish before the PROD expires. Just a thought. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I hear what you are saying but the page clearly doesn't meet GNG and as Bobby seems more inclined to listen now and not go round in circles without improving the article this might be exactly the right time to deal with this. 7 people (including 2 admins) have told him exactly the same thing in a multitude of different ways and it was only after one of the Admins took this to ANI that he finally calmed down and accepted the idea. I am afraid that if we don't strike whilst the iron is hot and he is in the right mood to understand then this will go on and on again. I don't want to Afd it because there is probably a good chance that he is notable, Bobby has shown no willingness to add extra sources himself as a show of good faith so a PROD seems to be the soft option that may be fruitful. Domdeparis (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Domdeparis; I think I misunderstood you. Are you talking about PRODding the second article mentioned above? I thought you were talking about re-PRODding the one already at AfD! -which, you see, I thought was unnecessary. As, indeed, I see you do too :D cheers! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear I should have mentioned that it was the DJ Montay article I was talking about but to be fair every time I try to write something I'm in edit conflict with Bobby chiming in so often so I get a bit lost. Domdeparis (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• In a nutshell, Bobbybobbie is bludgeoning the process at AFD. This is a type of disruptive behavior and is sanctionable. I see it has calmed down, but if it picks back up, you are looking at a block. At AFD, make your point and allow others to make theirs. Leave it to the closing admin to decide which arguments don't hold water. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Good news! Bobby has just added the sources needed to prove GNG on the DJ Montay article and has rightly removed the PROD. I think that he may have finally got the message. Domdeparis (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Just a note - nominating the DJ Montay article, which came through the AfC process, for deletion, might be some as pointey or an abuse of process. Newimpartial (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Newimpartial:--Just No.We had our fair share of problems w.r.t the reviewing of S.T-- culminating in him being revoked of the NPR and Autopatrolled user-right and (if my memory serves me well)--once nearly shown the door at WP:AFC.Keeping all these in mind and the solid PROD rationale, I fail to see any grounds for aspersing allegations of gaming the system on some experienced folks.Winged Blades ^Godric 07:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that @Winged Blades of Godric:, @Newimpartial: you misunderstood my motives in PRODDING the article, there is no gaming or vengeance involved. The editor kept referring to this article as being the proof that he was right and everyone else was wrong. It was impossible not to carry out due diligence and look at the article and see if he was right. When I looked at the article there was little doubt that the subject had claims to notability but the sources did not back this up. I PRODDED the article there and then because its creator seemed in the right frame of mind to understand the concerns and be willing to look for the sources required. I was proved right as he did the research, found the sources and added them and quite rightly removed the PROD. I admit I could have done that myself but my aim was to get him on board in terms of policy and guidelines and not to get the other article deleted. I honestly thought it would help him show good faith especially in the eyes of the admin reading this...it worked for about a couple of hours and then he got the bludgeon out again. Domdeparis (talk) 08:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• Could someone uninvolved in the page take a peep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N4 (record producers). He may or may not have his bludgeon out again. I haven't looked myself. (ulcers) Thanks Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I skimmed the page's edit history and found that the vast majority of edits came from Bobbybobbie. Most of them were accompanied by big green numbers, suggesting he was adding quite a lot to the page. Quite a few of those numbers are boldened. Your worst fears may have been realized. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
    • It's not just there either. He hasn't only been talking about it there either. We should also keep an eye on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)#Producers. I see it's been brought up before, but might get lost in the shuffle. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 12:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the actual discussion on notability, rather than byte counts, I think you'll see earnest discussion rather than bludgeon, in that case. Newimpartial (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Taken on its own at face value, you're probably right. But considering what is under discussion here, it seems Bobbybobbie is dead set on seeing something turn out his way, and all I'm saying is we need to keep an eye on any avenue he has chosen to address the issue or anything related to it. It borders on Forum shopping but it's not nearly as out of control there as on that AFD... yet, at least. I also did not say I examined byte counts on that discussion, I only did so on the AFD. In fact, I didn't even bother with doing so on that other discussion since that's only one part of the page whereas the entire edit history of that AFD page is relevant to the topic at hand. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 14:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I've clarified my initial remark. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 14:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

He's at it again the bludgeon is out here Domdeparis (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Dom took the words out of my mouth. I was just about to check to see if he had an opinion on this latest, and here it is. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

He continues to repeat the same "WP:GNG does not apply 'cause it passes WP:Music" argument after every single "delete". I can see the badgering deterring people from commenting.Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems like most of you cannot fully understand the guidelines (pride?). That is not my fault - at all.

I don't see where I responded to every vote, or deterred anybody from voting. That's a little exaggerated.

If it is deleted on the ADF, I will just find it amazing that it's possible for a group people to band together on here (with assumptions) and overrule what has been written. Bobbybobbie (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Nobody said you were actually deterring people from voting. It would simply be understandable if they did refrain on that basis. Also, it was only said that you responded to every "delete" !vote. In fairness, that's not true - at least two !votes for deletion currently stand without a response from you - but be honest with yourself for a moment here: Four of your responses to delete !votes were placed inside collapsible templates. I've never seen such lengthy conversations arise from delete !votes - not even close. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bobbybobbie: I think that you have really put your finger on the problem of your lack of understanding of Wikipedia when you use the phrase "group of people to band together on here (with assumptions) and overrule what has been written". Wikipedia is a community (a "group of people who band together" is almost a definition of a "community") that uses consensus to make decisions. There are now about 10 editors including admin and experienced editors that are telling you that you have misunderstood policy and guidelines. We are almost all saying the same thing that even if you think producers should be included in NMUSIC criteria they aren't at the moment. But even if they were we are all telling you that general notability criteria apply to all stand-alone articles. And we are all telling you that N4 fails these criteria as per the sources you have added. There is consensus on this point and you repeating over and over again your arguments does not outweigh this consensus of opinion. You may think you are right but no one agrees with you so you should really just walk away because your behaviour has become disruptive. Domdeparis (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Zeke, the Mad Horrorist: I don't know where you are getting this data from, but to one of the voters, I responded, "Thank you", as they took the time to try and understand the argument from neutral point of view.

My reason for responding to any delete vote was to find out how the voter came to their conclusion - not to change their vote. To be fair, they continued the discussion with me.

I can say that I repeated the same questions - that I was not getting answers to. I do apologize to the community for doing so. It is a very complex topic - perhaps this is why it is ongoing.

@Domdeparis: Yes, it's a consensus, but does't mean it is right. We are talking about the topic at WP:NMUSIC. I am no longer discussing the article, but I am discussing the subject of music notability (producers). Bobbybobbie (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

This is getting tiring. Bobbybobbie, NMUSIC gets it's a authority from WP:GNG. GNG trumps NMUSIC. This isn't my opinion, it is fact. Passing NMUSIC means something is likely to pass GNG. It still must pass GNG. The problem is that you don't believe this, but you are wrong. Ignorance isn't the issue, however, actions are. Replying to most votes in an AFD with the same tired line (which is factually incorrect) is disruptive. Let me put this in plain Texas talk for you: Do it again and I will block you, no discussion will be needed. Actions like yours are exactly why I wrote the essay WP:BLUDGEON so many years ago. Consider this your last warning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

If I might just add here we have your attitude in a nutshell Bobbybobbie... "it's a consensus, but does't mean it is right". This ANI is about your attitude whether it be here, on the Afd page or on the NMUSIC talk page, you are waging a one-man war of attrition in the hope that by endlessly repeating the same thing everyone will finally give up out of frustration and let you win. Not sure that is going to work because it's disruptive and you refuse to accept one of the basic principals of editing in Wikipedia that consensus is important. Domdeparis (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, if the consensus is not following the guidelines - I am not obligated to agree with it. I am not here to win or lose. If my argument is not valued - the final outcome does not require nor depend on it. Bobbybobbie (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are not obligated to agree with it, but you are obligated to follow it. That's what consensus is. And it's very unlikely to be one that is against guidelines; I don't see that happening in cases like these, where no one has anything to gain by disputing the subject's notability. If you're the only one or one of the very few who agree with your own point of view, that likely speaks volumes about what you're trying to defend. After a certain point, you just have to accept it and move on. And yes, you did thank one of the !voters - I saw that. But that doesn't change the fact that you engaged several lengthy conversations that were collapsed via templates and seen as bludgeoning by multiple observers; yes, they replied to you, but you didn't have to reply to them either. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The AFD has resulted in me opening a discussion over at WP:NMUSIC in regards to producers. I hope it contributes to the improvement of its guidelines. It may also result in some improvements to the record producer page. Bobbybobbie (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I see I am at risk of being bludgeonous (is that even a word?) myself, so I'll be brief and make this my last reply. Be all that as it may, even if your intentions are the best possible, you must accept the result regardless of what it comes to. If the community at large does not agree with you, you must accept it and not open further discussion on the issue - exactly the same as you would do if your preferred consensus were achieved. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 12:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

If that was what you wanted Bobby then you should have started there rather than driving us all to despair with you stubbornness. Read WP:CONSENSUS try and understand it and try and comply. Read WP:GNG and do the same thing and remember that it trumps everything as Dennis Brown said and you will waste less of your time and the community's. Domdeparis (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

this has got to have gone too far now, he's accusing an admin of being corrupt here because he said he went off topic (and I did too BTW by replying to his comment...sorry) Domdeparis (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• I've blocked Bobbybobbie 24 hours for continued disruption after my final warning above, and for casting aspersions atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/N4 (record producers) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Vandals claiming a company, WOT Services, has gone out of business

Dear Wikipedia:

An article on the company WOT Services is repeatedly being vandalized to imply that WOT Services has gone out of business, with every "are" changed to "was" (in some edits the article lead is left "are" with "was" left in the remaining article)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WOT_Services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WOT_Services#Massive_vandalism_by_users_claiming_WOT_Services_went_out_of_business https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WOT_Services&action=history

The two vandals claim their edits are "sourced" yet fail to provide any reputable source that the company has gone out of business, either on the talk page or their user pages.

WOT services is a company which owns a browser security addon WOT, and a social community myWOT.com, which uses crowdsourced ratings of Web sites to power the addon.

WOT and its users (such as myself, myWOT user redblade7) have made many enemies over the years, mostly from MLM operations and right-wing organizations. Additionally there was a recent scandal involving the addon collecting excessive personal information.

I have been threatened with a Wikipedia ban for standing up for this company and its users, against the failure to provide any reputable source that WOT Services has closed its operations.

I have informed WOT services of this issue and am awaiting to hear from them. Also, there is a forum discussion on this (signup required):

https://www.mywot.com/en/forum/77466-wikipedia-was-completely-rewritten-to-say-wot-doesn-t-exist-anymore

Please examine the situation and I ask that you lock the article against future vandalism.

Thank you, myWOT user redblade7

You mean this edit . If that's the same message - you appear to be moving the privacy concerns to the bottom, and are arguing over the use "was". No where in the article does it say WOT went out of business. You appear to be edit warring  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  20:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

How is a company "was" unless it doesn't exist anymore? -20:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

That is the modified, second vandal edit. Here is the original vandalism edit, by a user with no history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WOT_Services&diff=781833618&oldid=769777980 -

I am one of those vandals. I agree with the IP that the verb tense issue needs to be cleared up. However, Edit-warring [63] [64] [65] [66], shouting and accusing established editors of vandalism [67] [68] [69] [70] Are not the way to go about it. ANI is about behavior, not content - and the behavior of the IP should be examined closely. I can think of a few uses for a bent stick. Scr★pIron^IV 20:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

AndyDingley was the one who told me to go to ANI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WOT_Services#Massive_vandalism_by_users_claiming_WOT_Services_went_out_of_business

It looks like the ip editor stopped reverting the article as soon as he was warned about the relevant edit-warring rules.

On the other hand, It's tough to see edits like this one as anything other than goading the IP editor who was trying to correct a legitimate problem with the article. ApLundell (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Goading? As an admitted "involved editor", what are you even doing here? That is a straightforward question to the IP editor(s) as to what they're complaining over. They claim the article says the company went out of business, when it said no such thing. If they have a real complaint here that needs fixing, then they need to be specific about what it is. If they're just here to bounce between accounts, to make unsigned ANI posts, or to accuse other editors of "CLEVER VANDALISM", then they're NOTHERE for anything we want. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh please. You're edit warring to maintain a version of the page that uses, almost exclusively, the past tense. And then you oh-so-innocently say "Where in the article does it say 'was'?" Infuriating.

Either you're not reading the version you keep reverting, or that edit was intentionally obstructionist. Not good either way.

As for how "involved" I am, I apologize. That was a typo. On the talk page I meant to describe myself as "a completely uninvolved editor." The truth is I learned about this dispute here at ANI (I was here to read a thread about the RefDesk, and scrolled down.).

ApLundell (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

All of the tenses I can see in this article are correct. This is a company that has had a past. It is uncertain if it can have a future afterwards. If you have found errors in it, then please state where they are. It is not enough to say "this is all wrong" when clearly so much of it is right and is sourced. The add-ons were pulled from distribution - you can't change that, just because it's highly embarrassing to WOT and they wish that they could. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• You are required to notify the editors you are accusing of vandalism. Why didn't you? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

You told what appears to be a novice editor that he should report you to ANI, so he did.

Novice users often miss the edit notices warning of them of the ANI rules.

ApLundell (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

redblade7 persists in describing other editors as vandals and making false claims like this, "There was another edit overnight where a user barely changed the lead but added "was" throughout the article. " in their outing thread here: https://www.mywot.com/en/forum/77466-wikipedia-was-completely-rewritten-to-say-wot-doesn-t-exist-anymore I don't believe such behaviour is compatible with editing Wikipedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Complaining off-wiki is entirely normal behavior for any person or company that feels libeled or vandalized on Wikipedia. You've steamrolled this user and then you complain that they haven't responded well to your behavior. So what? I think the user is acting quite reasonably to you.--v/r - TP 18:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Rashidun Caliphate / Rashid review

After failing to sway an editor through WP:Consensus, in a long discussion on WikiProject Islam/Talk Page, reduced to a rinse-and-repeat cycle. Its come to the point where we require some Administrator attention.

Excerpt from the initial discussion:

I was going to post this request to Wikipedia:Peer Review then figured it involves non-experts on the subject so might end up not working out.

Hasan ibn Ali / Rashidun Caliphate

I would like to bring to attention of the project's members (I am not a member) a certain user Leo1pard (talk) has been editing several articles, which from what I have seen involves changing the "four" Rashidun to the "five" by including Hasan ibn Ali, and effectively editing all related articles to reflect the same. In addition to various minor (but extensive) edits such as use of punctuation, namely the unconventional insert of apostrophe before everyone's name (Ali to 'Ali, and Uthman to 'Uthman). I think it constitutes WP:DIS and furthermore makes consistency harder to maintain among editors (WP:TRANSLITERATE), in addition to making it harder to search-find (for users who make the mistake of not inserting the 'apostrophe while searching the name). [See also: WP:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Grammatical standardization]

From View History for a better understanding:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hasan_ibn_Ali&type=revision&diff=781184705&oldid=732780086

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rashidun_Caliphate&type=revision&diff=770913523&oldid=766436803
— [[User:DA1 (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)]]

Despite an attempt to reach consensus through discussion, the user changed it anyways. That was 4 days ago, and I decided not to revert, until today. As its become apparent we can't reach "mutual" consensus...even if there was a consensus between the rest of us, as 3 editors including @Eperoton: @HaEr48: informed him that four Rashidun is conventional and backed by WP:RS, including Oxford & Britannica (besides religious sources); and all the other user can tell me is analogies and a few links which constitute a minority opinion or WP:Fringe theory (see also: WP:RSUW). At the very MOST we could make an inclusion of "XYZ regard Hasan to be a fifth Rashidun Caliph"; but this seems to be about narrative (WP:SOAPBOX), and what dictates the lead section, infobox, et al.

In lieu of repeating it all over again, please review the discussion and facilitate a verdict, if need be through technical measure. DA1 (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

ANI is not a place to facilitiate a verdict. You need to look at suitable forms of WP:Dispute resolution. That said, if another editor is changing multiple articles from a stable version and with multiple objections, they need to stop. Note however this doesn't mean discussion to reach a consensus should stop. Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Looking more carefully, it seems an RFC was already opened. This is a suitable form of dispute resolution. Hopefully others will join in the discussion soon. However since it doesn't seem a clear consensus has been reached (3 against 1 is always going to be seen a bit iffy until the arguments have been evaluated), and it's only been 4 days it isn't time to close the discussion. When it is time, hopefully someone uninvolved will come along and close it. If not, you can make a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfCs for closure. Note you do not need to go into great detail about the dispute there. In the absence of a clear consensus, you should wait at least 7 days but since I don't see any urgency here I don't see any reason not to wait the whole 30 days.

One final comment, it seems the discussion between all of you has died down there. This is probably a good thing since the primary purpose of RFCs is to get outside inpute. Ideally already involved editors should have hashed out any details beforehand and can just leave a summary of their opinions in the RFC. This didn't quite happen here which isn't necessarily wrong but still a long discussion between existing editors can be offputting to anyone else joining in.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Thanks for the replies, you've been very helpful. Yes, I was really hoping we would get additional input from others. Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam seems to be 'dead' when it comes to cohesion and discussion (PAUSE). Even the Manual of Style section seems to be lacking; a lot of problems like inconsistent layout between articles, could easily be avoided if it was updated (and highlighted) so people could turn towards it for reference; The same way WikiProjects for say boxing or film or other Projects have. But we would need participation for that!

I don't know if it exactly "died down" per se, the other two contributers made their point and moved on. If you're an Admin (are you?), would you know about how to get about bringing more discussion and consensus for the WikiProject? The MOS could use some updating, its about time really. The RFCs weren't really of help either, since no one seemed to have joined after it was posted actually. -DA1 (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

P.S. In case, anyone else is reading this: the term "four Rashidun caliphs" and "four Rashidun" gives 930 and 1130 results on Google Books, respectively. The terms "five Rashidun caliphs" and "five Rashidun" gives exactly One and Two results, respectively. One being a blog, the other recommending our very own WikiProject discussion alongside the 2 results.

One of the ideas of an RFC is that hopefully people will see it listed and if they think they can help will join in. Unfortunately this hasn't happened yet, and it's not certain it will happen but there's still a chance at least some others will joun. While it's too late to change now, the wording of the RFC isn't terrible but may not have helped. I don't think it's necessary to have the red text. In particular, while experts are always useful, it seems unnecessary as the primary point of contention is whether the sources available support the claim. Since some of the sources are in Arabic, if you wanted to say anything perhaps "It would be especially useful to get the input of people who understand Arabic but everyone is welcome". And probably the wording could be a little more neutral. By "died down" I did mean that it looked like everyone seemed to be satisfied they had made their point and were leaving it be. It isn't uncommon that people seem to feel they haven't and keep arguing back and forth which often results in something no one else feels like joining . The structure can also help, I recommend considering the structure at WP:RFC with a subsection for survey and one for threaded discussion in future. Discussing the RFC before hand can also help, both in phrasing the question and ensuring people have had the opportunity to make their important points. That way these can be summarised when opening the RFC and people hopefully don't feel they have to wade through a long discussion to understand the issues of contention. Unfortunately no matter how well you design the RFC, you also can't get round the fact there may not be enough people who are interested who will see it and there's no real solution to that. Nil Einne (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Biskovski7

• Biskovski7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On 3 June 2016, Biskovski7 made what looked like a good faith edit to Life Is Strange. However, despite numerous edits to the contrary, and a warning, he repeated the edits until 8 April 2017, invariably without edit summaries. The same has been done to Vampyr (video game), which made me submit this to you today.

It is also clear that Biskovski7 does not care to correct mistakes,1234 as he received 4 disambiguation link notifications, none of which he repaired.

On 4 July 2016, the user made another dubious edit on a genre, now to The Notebook. On 7 July, having been reverted, he changed it back. User:Loriendrew warned of disruptive editing.

On 19 March 2017 to 2 April, he once again edited a genre disruptively, this time of The Conjuring 2. User:Dane notified him to no response.

His next project was Fifty Shades Darker, which also earned him a warning. He did not join the discussion concerning the edits, instead proceeding as normal. Another warning given.

In May, User:NinjaRobotPirate warned Biskovski7 about edits he made on Alien: Covenant.123 These edits did not stop until 21 May.

The last warning is as empty as the ones preceding it, this time concerning Black Swan.

With multiple warnings and no consequences, what do you expect will happen? Cognissonance (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

This editor has refused to respond in my experience and it is my opinion that his behavior rises to the level of disruptive editing, potentially even WP:NOTHERE as his actions continued even after we assumed good faith. At the very least, i'd recommend a block to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia. -- Dane ^talk 17:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I worried a bit that maybe I was overreacting when I warned him, but he was repeatedly breaking the same citation. Once or twice, OK, it seems like an accident. But by the third or fourth time, it looks like it's intentional. Maybe it's a case of being so incompetent that it's indistinguishable from outright vandalism? I don't understand why someone would repeatedly return to an article to do nothing but blank parts of a citation. If Biskovski7 would explain these edits, maybe we could avoid a block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging more involved editors @EdJohnston, Betty Logan, Giantdevilfish, and TheOldJacobite: to extend the range of consensus. Cognissonance (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I've only had the one encounter with him, on Black Swan, but a glance at his talk page indicated he's a long-term problem editor. If he's not willing to change or explain himself, I'd favor a block. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The user is now continuing to edit without responding to the ANI. I think it is time for a block. Back in April I had warned him due to a complaint at WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes this fellow. I warned him numerous times to stop fudging the numbers for Fifty Shades Darker. He'll leave it alone for a couple of days and then come right back and fudge the numbers again. He's doing this on purpose. He knows we're telling him to stop and he keeps ignoring us and blatantly goes back to posting an inaccurate gross. Its time to ban this fellow because its obviously intentional. If you look at his page. other editors have told him to stop (and check the edits on Fifty Shades Darker), but he won't listen.Giantdevilfish (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Adequate amout of warnings given without any evidence of collaboration or understanding of policies. I'd say we have had enough disruption from this person.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

This is just outright disruptive, I would block for being WP:NOTHERE. — JJBers 15:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Editor is now blocked 3 days for disruption and failure to respond to concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Quick additions and deletions of blank lines

Hello,
I have noticed something strange on the categories about Brazil. For instance, please look at the history of the category "Workers' Party (Brazil) politicians". On this category, since 23 October 2016‎, several users are only quickly adding and deleting blank lines. When looking at the contributions of these accounts, it seems that they are doing that on many pages.
Is it a known phenomenon? Is it a known vandal? What to do?
Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's someone I call "the Brazilian whitespace vandal". He engages in crapflooding and article blanking. You can read a bit more at User:NinjaRobotPirate/Socks. I blocked the IP for 31 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Since there's no content issue, but since it makes the page history rather useless, I've deleted the revisions-in-question at the Workers' Party politicians category, and if someone's got the time and the inclination, I think similar action should be done elsewhere too. Nyttend (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, NinjaRobotPirate and Nyttend. I have read User:NinjaRobotPirate/Socks and the related discussions. Well, when looking at his global contributions, yesterday, he attacked 4 wikipedias at the same time during 40 minutes. The next time, what should I do? request the stewards at Meta-Wiki for a global block? or request for a block here? or do nothing (because he will certainly be long gone when I will see the vandalisms)? --NicoScribe (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but requesting a global block at m:SRG might be the best solution. You can always request a block here, too. If I see it, I'll block him. People unfamiliar with the case may be reluctant to block him, so you might want to show them the page I wrote (or make your own page about the vandal). I should probably report him to the stewards after I block him, but sometimes I'm lazy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

This guy has the ultimate dynamic IP: both IPv4 and IPv6. I therefore don't see the point of a block. Perhaps we could do a filter that looks for repeated adding-and-subtracting of lines? People constantly add or remove single lines for good reason (e.g. there's no line break, or there's too much whitespace), so of course we'd want it to go only if the same thing's been repeated. Nyttend (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

IP 116.74.236.77 having difficulty with http versus https and getting abusive

116.74.236.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been requesting edits to change https links to http on articles with citations to the Wall Street Journal and making similar edits: Special:Contributions/116.74.236.77. They are also becoming abusive in their requests and edit summaries when challenged: [71], [72]. Based on wording, they also appear to using 109.26.26.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): [73], [74]. Warned by myself and @Safety Cap: on the 116 Ip address: User talk:116.74.236.77. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Guessing this might be related? That pleasant outburst merits an immediate block. John from Idegon (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, has now moved on to 130.180.211.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It's Nate Speed --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Now at: 2A03:4A80:A:B:B:CED:748A:8F55 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. Might have to semi talk pages as well. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Also 2A03:4A80:A:B:B:302A:7191:AEAE (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I hard blocked the /64 as a webhost. It's probably safe to assume that pretty much every IP Nate Speed uses is either an open proxy or webhost, but this one was very easy to verify. The site itself advertises its services as a colocation provider. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

How should I handle this situation?

Pivox has been on an editing spree to change the name of the Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present) article to PKK–Turkey conflict (1978–present). This is an obvious POVPUSH since the Kurdish conflict in Turkey has a lot more to do with just the PKK. At any rate, how should this be handled? Obviously, there's no consensus for these edits and it's quite disruptive considering the POV behind it. Should all of their edits be reverted? But that would look disruptive on my end. I'd appreciate it if someone can advise me on what to do here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

As of now, just do what you just did: revert the changes and ask them to get consensus before implementing them. If they do it again then it might be worthy enough to bring it here. Also, I told the editor of this ANI discussion, which is required. Maybe I was too fast, but whatever. SkyWarrior 20:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@SkyWarrior: do you know if using my Rollback feature would be okay in this case? Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Rule #1 of rollback: if you don't know whether you should use rollback or not, don't use it. In any case, you have two options: use Twinkle (which is what I would prefer, since there really isn't that many edits to revert in this instance), or do use rollback, but leave a message on the user's talk page. Again, I would advise using Twinkle in this case. SkyWarrior 21:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't have Twinkle. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet:: For your information, I just moved Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–present) back to its usual place. That had been moved to a 'PKK-Turkish' spot as well. Yintan  21:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Reverted another one. I will also be reverting other related edits, since I do have Twinkle (which you can install in your user preferences). SkyWarrior 21:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Left a message on Pivox's Talk. Yintan  21:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

And I just finished reverting what he did. Please feel free to let me know if I messed up, and clean up if I did. Thanks for letting us know about this. SkyWarrior 21:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• RE Rollback - See here. In short - if you are using rollback in a good faith content dispute, you risk having the right removed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Page creation disruption by Bappy.iucse

• Bappy.iucse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dr.Kh.A.N.M Abdullah Jahangir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dr. Kh.A.N.M Abdullah Jahangir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kh. A. N. M. Abdullah Jahangir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user has been creating COPYVIO pages (material from Facebook) repeatedly and seems to have no inclination of stopping. 4 pages have been created if a talk page containing the same material is included. Pages have been deleted by RHaworth. Not sure if block is warranted, but this is getting disruptive. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Qcpsyear4

User:Qcpsyear4 looks like a class name rather than an individual - and has gone mad creating new categories for their user page.Le Deluge (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

User and categories are gone.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Fresh from scandal about 50K-edits administrator Shirt58 admitting he eats kittens, Wikipedia lurches to new low as it blocks K-6 girls prep school/primary school/elementary school from creating year four/grade four class project about "foods around the world". Update: usual WP:ANI gadfly suspect EEng not available for comment, confirmed kitten-eater has apparently proxied for them. Pete "actually it was kittens sent to eat me, not the other way round" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• Um, OK. Proud to be a role model for the community. More seriously, let's say this class of eleven-year-olds makes suggestions for contributions which the teacher types in as edits. Isn't there any way we can see this as fitting in with our licensing model e.g. the students are transferring the copyright to the instructor when they raise their hands and make the suggestion? Do we have to make a cute class project hypertechnically complex? EEng 15:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Disruption and edit warring by User:Chas. Caltrop

@Chas. Caltrop: See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect&action=history Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

What action is it you are asking administrators to take here? I see no attempt to engage this user in a conversation or attempt to talk with them. That route should be taken before bringing them here. Anyway their diffs just look like a standard content dispute. Please try and resolve this on the talk pages. Canterbury Tail talk 14:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

he/she is clearly edit warring over a number of days is this not a bannable offence?Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

So far, what conversation there has been has come in the form of edit summaries. In that mode, he has been asked to take it to the talk page at least once, without result. His own edit summaries tend to be vague boilerplate cut/paste style, with hints of WP:IDHT, and accusing other editors of his own behavior. Several experienced editors have reverted him over the last couple of weeks, and still he persists. The dispute seems to be mostly a matter of encyclopedic style, with fussy, verbose "grammar corrections" being what drew my attention to this editor's activity. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

A pure content edit war that doesn't require admin intervention. All parties are just as guilty of edit warring. Engage in talk on the talk page and get consensus as some of their edits seem reasonable. If you get consensus on the talk page and they persist against consensus then we can discuss warnings etc, but until then it's a pure content dispute and the worst of it seems like the article may just get locked at this point. Canterbury Tail talk 18:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've opened a topic at Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect and pointed Caltrop at it, on his own talk page. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Page protected. I've protected the page for three days to prevent further edit warring. El_C 07:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Possible tampering with article history

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article is History of Tallahassee, Florida.

In the article history, under 7 June 2015 ([[75]]), it states that User:SeminoleNation is author of a 14,411 character section on the black history of Tallahassee. That section in its entirety was written and posted by me without the help of anyone (as of that date). I did not give it to SeminoleNation to post. I do not understand why I am not credited correctly. This is a type of theft, as I see it.

I have brought this to SeminoleNation's attention, he does not claim it is his writing, but he has not replied to my request for an explanation. See [[76]].

If you look at User talk:SeminoleNation, you might want to look at the 60,000 characters he has recently removed from it: [[77]].

What I most want to know is how this happened. We have had some mildly hostile interactions before, mostly concerning Florida State University, where I was Distinguished Research Professor, but nothing like this. See User talk:Deisenbe#Florida State Seminoles and User talk:Deisenbe#FSU.

I'm sorry but I could not figure out how to use the link templates. I have left the required notice on his talk page

Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: Did you have a draft of that section in your user space? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm not sure of the complaint here. The software records the history of whoever put that section in. In this case, it is saying that he inserted that 14K section of text. Are you saying he copied it from your sandbox and added it? Are you saying you made it and the software screwed up and said he did? Not sure there is much we can do with the latter, but we need to understand the actual claim. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• It seems to be a direct copy and paste of Deisenbe's sandbox, with some minor formatting changes. Compare: The diff that it was added and her sandbox on June 7, 2015. They don't look very different. — JJBers 15:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• I was just going to say that. Is there any way page histories can be tampered with? deisenbe (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • No. They just copied your text without giving attribution, which is a copyright violation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• If it was copied from your sandbox, and they did not author the text, then it should have been attributed in the edit summary at the time. However there are ways to add the attribution: See WP:CWW. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I really think I posted it myself. I would have noticed it being deleted from my sandbox. Look at the article history and, if it's relevant, you'll see how many edits I have made, compared with only 2 of his, both on 7 June 2015. deisenbe (talk)

Your sandbox merely had to be copied, not deleted. There's nothing in the logs to indicate anything unusual - such things can be engineered by admins but it would always leave a trace. The only possible scenario, besides the obvious one discussed above, is that there was a software glitch mis-assigning authorship of the edit. I find that very unlikely but if that is the case then there is nothing that can be done with it now, apart from adding attribution according to WP:CWW. I think you can rule out "tampering". -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• • • I would appreciate it if someone could take care of CWW, since I've never dealt with it before and it's not obvious to me what to do. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you seriously crying about an edit from two years ago deisenbe? I have better things to do than try and "steal" your so called "contributions" on wikipedia. Only you make a big deal about an edit that will literally have no effect on your life whatsoever. Grow up and stop accusing people of things of theft you child. YOU posted all of that info on the main Tallahassee page and ruined the whole page with your edit. I moved all that information to the correct article where it should have been posted to in the first place which is the "History of Tallahassee" page. You were vandalizing that main page for a while with your agenda. Don't come here trying to act like a victim now.--SeminoleNation (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

This response could have been move civil but it looks like SeminoleNation moved text from one article to another. [78]. SeminoleNation please see WP:CWW on how to attribute properly when doing this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I will not stand for anyone going around and accusing me of tampering edits and being a thief! That is completely disrespectful and uncalled for. I have no tolerance for it. Yes that's exactly what I did. I was completely new to wikipedia in 2015 and I didn't know there was a certain way to go about that back then. This guy was vandalizing and pushing his own personal agenda so hard on various articles that I started watching two years ago. It seems like he hasn't changed his "I'm a victim" mentality one bit.--SeminoleNation (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I've added the "copied" template to the talk pages of both articles, which clears up the copyright problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Am I the only one amused that SeminoleNation basically said "How DARE you accuse me of theft! I did it, but how DARE you call me out on it?!" --Tarage (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you dumb Tarage? I literally just explained what happened. I never stole anybody's work. I moved his edit to the proper article. Stay in your lane.--SeminoleNation (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@SeminoleNation, if you would have responded when I asked for an explanation we could have saved everybody all this trouble. deisenbe (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

SeminoleNation and the way you did it is a copyright policy violation, and a breach of protocol around here, moving something that someone is working on and not being informed enough to attribute it properly. So you really aren't in a position to be a smart ass. Asking someone if they are dumb is also breaching our policy on civility. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@SeminoleNation: Not to pile on, but I want to comment as an editor who extensively deals with copyright matters on enwiki, Commons, and via OTRS. Every time you hit submit on Wikipedia, you agree to release your contributions under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. Both licenses require attribution to the original author, and part of the agreement you make when you click the Save button is that such attribution is made via link to your userpage or via your username. It's not just a breach of policy but it's prohibited by copyright law to copy text from Wikipedia without attributing it to the original authors. Please be more careful in the future, and adjust the tone of your response. It is not anyone's business to attack another editor for insisting on their rights under the licenses they agreed to. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Linode racist

Relates to the thread above Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Extremist racist edits from User:104.237.147.221 - I've seen this guy a round a lot in the last few days and have just blocked another of his Ips. He uses Linode, usually duplicates his edits in the edit summary, and has a very distinctive pattern that I'm not going to repeat here. I'm about to vanish for the weekend, so someone else will need to do the investigating, but here are the IPs I've seen so far:

• 104.237.147.221
• 66.228.57.232
• 45.33.100.84
• 45.79.197.52

There are probably more (I'm sure there were a few others) but I don't have the time to search them out right now. Yunshui ^雲_水 22:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I range blocked 38.132.120.0/24 for a week. It seems to be spewing a lot of racism. I also range blocked 45.33.0.0/17, 66.228.32.0/19, and 104.237.128.0/19 for a year as webhosts. 45.79.0.0/16 is already range blocked for a year. I assume it's safe to just range block any of these Linode IP ranges that become disruptive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Another Jack McCauley related legal threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See you in court [79]. Time for some serious protection to stop this joker? duffbeerforme (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I see protection is already done. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conflict of Interest at Jesse Vint

After reading both this edit summary and this user page, I have no doubt to believe that Pagan wulff and Jesse Vint are the same person. I have warned this user about WP:COI twice on his talk page and I have also reported the user on WP:COIN. Regardless, he's still contributing to the article about himself. I need an administrator to please warn User:Pagan wulff about Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Dealing with single-purpose accounts and Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption-only. Please note that I consider myself an inexperienced editor on Wikipedia (e.g. I don't understand what diffs are). My intention is NOT to start an edit war, so if I've made a mistake, please correct me. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Block evasion by CombatMarshmallow using New Jersey IPs

User:CombatMarshmallow was indeffed for promoting his hardcore punk band Hogan's Heroes (band) from New Jersey. He has returned to editing with IP addresses from the same area of New Jersey. As before, he has very strong opinions about hardcore punk and metalcore music, and he's been trying to put his stamp on music genre topics, so that the history shows his point of view.

• 50.234.3.132 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 73.150.168.222 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2603:301B:701:3200:1540:4DDC:16FC:4184 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2603:301B:701:3200:65C1:5119:E95F:B1C8 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2603:301B:701:3200:4970:A214:767F:A8D8 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2603:301B:701:3200:C9EB:5F76:A29:4C35 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2603:301B:701:3200:8D17:F493:BBAA:CC1C (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2603:301B:701:3200:B5F2:42C2:86A7:450F (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2603:301B:701:3200:129:49A2:EA99:1CB8 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2603:301B:701:3200:F9F9:CA3B:611D:D78B (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2603:301B:701:3200:59A0:B4AB:2913:5BD8 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2603:301B:701:3200:A4EB:8AB2:4CE9:4E60 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

This guy has accused others of socking, for instance Statik N[80] and myself.[81]

The IP 73.150.168.222 has previously been blocked for block evasion. Needs another, longer, block.

The IP 50.234.3.132 is the relative newcomer here. His first-ever edit was to continue an edit war at hardcore punk,[82] restoring an edit he had made earlier using another IP.[83] His second edit was to revert an accurate change at one of the Hogan's Heroes articles.[84] Please give 50.234.3.132 a lengthy block.

I would be interested to know whether a rangeblock can be tightly focused on the 2603:301B:701:3200 series of throwaway IPs, without serious collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I blocked 50.234.3.132 for a month. The IPv6 range is stale. Nobody has used it in two months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah - I just blocked it. Actually, it's a no-loss situation, because there are no edits on that /64 from anyone except the editor concerned, and they might go back to it now that their other IP is blocked. Black Kite (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

User:TravisGTAGamer

Personal attacks: [85], [86], [87].

Removing valid maintenance templates and merge proposal notices after final warning [88].

Misleading edit summaries: [89], [90], [91], [92].

Vandalising other user pages: [93], [94], [95], [96].

Repeated copyright violations: [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102] after multiple warnings on talk page: User talk:TravisGTAGamer

This user seems to think that adding a notability template on an article, opening merge proposal and tagging copyright violations on files are examples of vandalism. Responds with uncivil behaviour, shouting, personal insults, making false claims that other users are vandalising, and edit warring. --The1337gamer (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I've left him a note to play nice. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Language issues at El Wa3ra

• Boumediene15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am having ongoing issues with an Algerian editor at El Wa3ra. Boumediene15's user page indicates he is able to communicate with an "advanced" level of English but, as a native English speaker, I'm having trouble accepting that based on his edits. Our first interaction was over Category:Public Establishment of Television which I nominated for deletion and from which Boumediene15 deleted the CfD notice multiple times.[103][104][105] He then created El Wa3ra, which had a number of issues that I fixed,[106] but since then it has been nothing but an uphill battle. I have attempted to explain on the editor's talk page and provided more detailed edit summaries but I seem to be getting nowhere. When I fix something or add a tag, like a request for clarification of an obscure phrase, it's generally reverted without explanation and Boumediene15 doesn't seem interested in engaging on his talk page. Some of the issues that keep getting fixed and then reverted are:

• Incorrect use of infobox fields
• WP:OVERLINK
• WP:REPEATLINK
• WP:REDNOT
• removal of {{clarify}} requests without clarifying - what, for example, does "to register artworks" mean?
• restoration of Algerian month names (i.e. "juin" instead of "June")

I'm trying to assume good faith, hoping that this is a case of an editor with a poor understanding of English rather than someone deliberately being disruptive but I only speak English (and a little German). I don't understand French, Algerian, Arabic, Algerian Arabic or whatever Boumediene15 speaks and am hoping someone here might be able to help. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)