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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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)

Prolific and long-term editor refusing to reference, or reference inline, or respond to any messages

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

---

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

I am opening this in the hope of starting a discussion with an editor who has contributed well in many ways to Wikipedia, by editing for more than a decade, including being a prolific article creator - according to WP:MOSTARTICLES (which is, I believe, very out of date so numbers will be higher) - Neddyseagoon is the 72nd most prolific article creator on English Wikipedia and many above him are bots. My concern is that there are serious referencing issues with every one of the many I'm coming across on New Page Patrol. Mainly, there are no inline citations, but there is an 'External links' section or similar, which may have been (although it's unclear) used as the sources. I feel after creating so many articles and editing for so long, the basic sourcing should be done correctly. A lack of inline citations is extremely difficult for any other editor to fix, as they don't know which sources were used for which bit of information, particularly difficult when the sources are not easy to get hold of (which is the case for most of them). These often end up unclear and blotted by a tag for many years, but could easily be rectified with little extra work at the start. The WP:BURDEN to make sources clear is on the creator. There are many messages on Neddyseagoon's talk page about this issue, over a long period of time, but from what I can see, in over ten years, Neddyseagoon has not responded to a single message on his/her talk page.

I would like to commend Neddyseagoon for his/her work over such a long period of time, and politely request that he/she responds to messages and creates inline sources in future. I'm only opening this after failing to manage to engage Neddyseagoon in conversation on the issue. I do think this type of editing creates real problems that other editors are spending a lot of time trying to solve, but that it is extremely difficult for them to solve, but easy for Neddyseagoon to do correctly from the start. Examples are: [10], [11] others are completely unreferenced like [12]. Articles this editor has created have been repeatedly tagged for deletion since 2012 (from looking at Talk page messages) for sourcing issues and lacking content. There are regular specific comments from New Page Patrollers and others about a lack of sources since 2013, and a message asking Neddy to stop linking dates from April 2013 (he/she still links dates in 2017). I'm not judging - I pigheadedly made mistakes with sources myself years ago - but would like Neddyseagoon to consider how this affects other editors and to please respond to messages and make citations clear and inline. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

That massive talkpage needs to be cleared for starters. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Yep, that's another issue that editors have left messages about but have not been responded to. Boleyn (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Convenience links to Neddyseagoon's userpage and talk pages, since they're not given above. I'm rather surprised that I've never heard of him, seeing how prolific he is. No comment on the issues raised here. Nyttend (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Should have noted this earlier, but I went ahead and archived the page for the years 2012-2016, following the pattern that Neddyseagoon himself had established for prior years. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• I wondered what area Neddyseagoon was creating articles in, so I clicked on a couple of the links above and found a further problem. Grigory Alexandrovich Demidov was not inter-wikied, but Italian and Russian articles exist (I have now linked them). There was a bit of untranslated Italian in the list of issue, and the text resembles content in the Russian article. I have accordingly added Translated article templates to the talk page attributing both as sources. There is a firm requirement under our licence to attribute when copying within Wikipedia, including when translating from Wikipedia in another language, no matter how loosely. Preferably the first edit summary should state this, in addition to the talk page templates. It looks as though Neddyseagoon has also been committing a form of copyvio by not doing this. (I also found a source on the Russian Wikipedia, but my ability to read Russian is insufficient to use it for footnotes, so I made it an external link). Yngvadottir (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• User:Ymblanter, could you help with your language skills? Nyttend (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

  I will have a look tomorrow.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• He developed a habit of blanking/moving his talk page as a matter of archiving, I believe. That is probably why you didn't see any of his responses but he does have them. See this. He appears to have gotten less communicative with "Please now stop telling me this...." when Kudpung raised concerns in 2011. Last comment was "I'm making stubs out from Template:rembrandt" in 2013 which was unsigned. Since he has this which mentions Ealdgyth, perhaps he would talk to him.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

SHE might when she wakes up in the morning. I can't remember ever actually interacting with Neddy, however. Not sure, given the editing stats, it'd make much difference, to me it looks like someone who went mostly inactive for a long time and hasn't figured out things have changed from 2007. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Neddyseagoon has edited since this discussion was started, including creating articles with the same issues [13]. I'm unsure if she reads her messages at all (I suspect she doesn't, or not regularly). She obviously has not commented here or on her Talk page thus far. I'm not sure where we go from here if Neddyseagoon is not willing to interact. Perhaps she will comment soon. Boleyn (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

He hasn't made a user talk comment of any kind for four years; while he obviously knows what user talk is for as he's made comments in the past, this appears to be someone who's flat-out refusing to engage. It seems like a real shame, given that this is obviously a long-term contributor who's trying to help, but if he continues to edit problematically and refuses to engage either on his talk or here, this may be a case where "indefinite block until you promise to stop" will be the only option. ‑ Iridescent 19:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• When I first looked at this thread I figured this was a disagreement over reference format (inline is only one method, a list of footnotes/references at the end of the article is equally acceptable) but it seems there are other editing issues requiring a response from the user. I dislike attention-getting blocks but this is a collaborative project, and when editors want to contact you to discuss editorial issues and you don't ever respond, you are being disruptive, plain and simple. She hasn't edited any page in user talk: space at all since she last edited her own talk page in 2013; she's clearly not paying attention to it. I'm about to be away from the computer for several hours so I won't block myself but another admin who can pay attention for a bit really shouldn't hesitate. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Ivanvector, why in the world would you block yourself? EEng 20:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I also just went to try to email her in case she's missing notifications from her talk page or something, but she doesn't have email enabled. It is entirely possible she has simply stopped looking at her talk page and isn't getting any of the messages left for her, but in that case (and without knowing) we really have no choice but to block to get her attention. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Where is all this "her" coming from? He has a big "this user is male" userbox. ‑ Iridescent 20:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so he does. I was going by Ealdgyth and Boleyn's comments above, editors who I trust to get that right. I wouldn't call that box big, really. Apologies, anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Ealdgyth was referring to herself above and not Neddy. See this.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Notwithstanding the proposal below which seems to have come up while I was mulling over a block rationale in another tab, I have blocked Neddyseagoon (and not myself, thanks EEng) for failing to respond to messages from other editors at all for nearly four years (or maybe six, depending on how reliable their archives are). More followup on their talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• The name rang a bell, and I found this interaction from 2008. I hadn't noticed at the time that the translation occurred without attribution. I am not sure whether this user's recent editing has changed markedly from back then, but there is a list of at least some translations at User:Neddyseagoon/To do list if anyone wants to put attribution templates on these articles. I believe what would be needed is an edit summary and the use of {{translated page}} on the article talk page.

  I hope that the issues can be addressed, as it is surprising that a prolific and long-term editor would be blocked for the first time, after a discussion lasting two days. Can we try and separate the communications issues (lack of responding) from the referencing issues? The 31-hour block is for the lack of communications, and the block proposal is for the referencing issues. IMO, the referencing issues need more investigation and discussion. That should happen while waiting for the 31-hour block to expire. If editing resumes after that, still with no response, then moving to an indefinite block may be warranted at that point (but hopefully not). Carcharoth (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

"After a discussion lasting two days" mischaracterizes the situation. Various editors have been trying to start a generalized discussion of Neddyseagoon's problematic editing for many years now. He last responded to any such discussion on 25 July 2013, nearly four years ago. As I explained in my block notice, I hoped the block would serve as a stimulus for him to finally participate in that discussion while prevented from editing elsewhere, but it seems he's elected to sit out the block instead (although he might just have not been around, it was a short block). I'm still hopeful he'll participate. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't make my point very well. What we have here is an editor where it is worth taking time and effort to establish working communications. It won't be easy, but a less brusque approach might work. If you look at his user talk page contributions just before he stopped talking to people who left him messages, you can see that he does understand the issues, but isn't the most voluble communicator. See here and here. This looks like a classic case where an attempt to engage with the editor may work better than attempting to impose authority (in the form of a block). Some people don't respond well to blocks and what they may perceive as threats. A personalised message on his talk page, rather than in the pressured environment of an ANI thread with an indefinite block discussion in progress, may be more likely to get a productive response. I am going to try that now. It may not work, but if anyone thinking of closing the discussion could give this approach time, I'd appreciate it. Carcharoth (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Update: I left this message. Carcharoth (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: I agree with your approach, though I think it is the same approach which Boleyn tried on 14 May without response. I don't see much reason to expect that your kind message will have any different effect from the series of kind messages which preceded it somewhat recently, such as [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], or [19], or [20]; all of which seem to have been ignored. I don't think this is a case where the user is not reading messages on his talk page, since he's clearly used it before, he started adding WikiProject banners ([21], [22], [23], [24]) after this suggestion to do so, and he does (or did) follow advice to add translation attributions in the past, so it seems to me like he's engaging selectively (and quietly) rather than not engaging at all. In my mind this suggests that he is aware of this discussion and choosing to ignore it. Of course I would like to be wrong about this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the earlier approach by Boleyn on 14 May. I hadn't been aware of that. I did scroll back through the user talk page, seeing the ten page curation reviews left by Boleyn. Reading through those, the attempts to communicate and the frustration at not getting any response are very clear. It is really difficult to make any progress with anything like this when one side is just not talking. He seems happy to do certain types of editing, but not others, but trying to force someone to communicate or edit in a certain way rarely works. In some areas of Wikipedia, people build on what others have done, even if that involves a lot of work to bring articles up to a certain standard. In other areas (BLPs especially), minimum standards have risen, and the burden is placed firmly on the people initially creating content. The note by Piotrus about WikiProject assessment tags is interesting. Piotrus included the comment "You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually." That could be said about a lot of Wikipedia: that you don't have to do X because someone else will do it eventually. If a further block is placed, it should be clear whether it is for issues with article editing, or with failures to communicate and respond to user talk page messages. If Wikipedia:Blocking policy or Wikipedia:Disruptive editing do not explicitly cover failing to respond to user talk page messages, maybe they should (following discussions in the relevant places, which might bring together previous examples). Carcharoth (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I think those policies do not cover "failing to respond" as a blockable offense, and I would say that not responding to messages is not problematic in and of itself. However, when an editor is doing things which other editors object to, and they repeatedly fail or decline to respond while continuing to do the objectionable things, then this can be seen as disruptive. Wikipedia:Tendentious editing covers this in a few different subsections ("One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors" is one). Wikipedia:Competence is required also has words about editors who don't interact well with others in a collaborative project. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

And what I mean by that is that if a user does things that are objectionable, and also either refuses to participate in or is genuinely unaware of discussions aiming to rehabilitate the objectionable behaviour, they cannot be forced to participate, but then the only option remaining to prevent more disruption is blocking. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

It is a bit strange that what to do when someone refuses to or fails to respond to messages is only described in two essays and not in any policies, unless I am missing something here? It has been a number of days since Neddyseagoon fell silent (no editing since 30 May). I am not sure the discussion here or below (the block proposal) covered this, though it is fairly predictable that this would happen. If someone has problems engaging with people on their user talk page, they are even less likely to engage here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'm deeply conflicted about what should be done here. But I feel constrained to point out that I followed a further link here to Gerda Arendt's query about Leise. I found an unattributed translation from the German article with inaccuracies, and was unable to find any source, even looking at the German article as it had existed at the time, and also at the Swedish and Finnish articles, for the statement Gerda had queried, that they were "often unanimous" (meaning in unison). I did find a source very close to the German, and an old and useful source, and a bit of different information in the Swedish Wikipedia, all of which I was able to use to make the article a bit better, and at least one error had been introduced by a disambiguator ... but this is the second one I've checked and unfortunately the sample indicates that Neddyseagoon's long list of articles all need to be checked for unattributed translation, and also that they should probably be checked for accuracy :-( Based on Leise, I do not believe he should be translating from German, and there appear to be other languages he has translated from that he is not able to read well. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that articles in the German Wikipedia are often without references, - they seem to think that an official website is enough, and that is often copied word by word. I often create unreferenced articles when (only) translating, and then have to look for refs afterwards. The other day, I had a university up for deletion because it started without refs. We can't blame an editor for the habits of a different Wikipedia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a different problem that makes things worse. Unfortunately, the real problems with that article were that it appears to have been copyvio by failure to give attribution and that it was a bad translation. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Block proposal

Much as I dislike it, I'll get the ball rolling with a formal proposal:

Now that he's been made aware of this thread, if Neddyseagoon continues to create unreferenced articles or unattributed cut-and-paste articles, and does not respond to concerns either here or on his own talkpage, he will be indefinitely blocked from editing until he agrees to comply with Wikipedia's policies on sourcing, verification and copyright violation.

• Support as proposer. ‑ Iridescent 20:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support This is not the first editor (named and IP) that I have seen who uses the "as along as I don't respond to talk page messages I can edit in any manner that I want" strategy. If this causes them to discuss things then a block will have served its purpose. Otherwise it will stop the disruptive editing. MarnetteD|Talk 20:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support C'mon Neddy. What we really want is for you to start communicating per WP:ENGAGE. Start working with your fellow editors. Don't let it come to this...pipe up.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Commenting out my support for now and hoping that Carcharoth is successful.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I'm truly sorry, but this is already long overdue. As noted above, there've been continuing problems with attribution of copied or translated material (the numerous talk-page notices from CorenSearchBot mostly relate to that), but there's also been more serious outright copyright violation, as for example at Violet Manners, Duchess of Rutland. The complete lack of any response to the many messages left about this means that we have no idea whether the user even understands that there is a problem. I hope that Ivanvector's block will be converted to indef, as proposed here – and that the user will quickly be persuaded to communicate. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support and hope Neddyseagoon engages and these issues can be resolved. Boleyn (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support An editor as prolific as Neddy ought to have been Autopatrolled long since. As things stand it's inconceivable that Neddy would be granted Autopatrolled (or that anybody would be inclined to nominate him). Regrettably, it's insupportable for Neddy to continue without engaging and improving. Cabayi (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Since you brought the Autopatrolled bit up, it should be mentioned that this editor has received that and had it taken away a few times for these issues. See their user rights log.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 09:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support - As proposed and per MarnetteD. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support, regretfully. Hopefully Neddy responds and this is not necessary. Bakilas (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support per MarnetteD. Interaction is essential, the head-in-the-sand strategy just isn't on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support, unfortunate but necessary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Harassment

I have a Twitter impersonator, as was called to my attention here, which is now buried in the archives of my Talk page.

Another editor, User:Let99, and I got into a content dispute over the past couple of days.

Let99 did some opposition research and just wrote:

• this on their user Talk page: It also appears that you advertise for and take payment to edit Wikipedia, so I think that it's more likely that you will be blocked. The Wikipedia rules are very clear about that.
• this on the article Talk page: My link has been reverted twice by jytdog without a good reason. If it's this same jytdog, it's someone who takes payment to edit Wikipedia, so the motivation for there is suspect.

This is a clear violation of the spirit and letter of WP:HA. I do not find this acceptable. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

No, that is not what is happening. There are statements on the Paleo Diet that have claims that don't have references. I added a reference. Like many of the existing references on that page, it doesn't specifically mention the Paleo Diet, but it does specifically address the claim made in the article. Jytdog is reverting my edits without discussion claiming that it doesn't belong there, because it doesn't have the words "Paleo Diet" in the source. (That is irrelevant, because it does perfectly address the claim in the article.) Because the Paleo Diet is a high controversy topic where some people are making a fortune, I did a quick search in Google to see if this user was affiliated with entities that make money from the Paleo Diet. The Twitter link offering paid Wikipedia editing was there, so I mentioned it. That is not harassment, just due diligence. The relevant talk section is here. Jytdog should have started a discussion there before starting the edit war. Jytdog is one of those Wikipedia users who uses heavy hands and Wikipedia gobbledygook to try to to force through edits and silence opposing opinions. That kind of behavior is why Wikipedia has a reputation for toxic editor culture. What should have happened, is that Jytdog should have started with a comment on the talk page instead of reverting my edits over and over. (They weren't the same edits. I changed it to make it even more relevant after the first revert.) By Jytdog's argument, any reference on Wikipedia that doesn't specifically mention the name of the Wikipedia article should be removed. It is not a convincing argument. Let99 (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Because Jytdog is repeatedly reverting my edits without any discussion, I've added a "citation needed" tag to the unreferenced claim in the article and proposed three possible references on the talk page. We should be having a civilized discussion about how to edit a page, rather than this knee-jerk reverting and threats. No single editor owns the content on these pages, so, in general, it should be discussion first, with reversion only as a last resort. I'm the one who is being harassed here. Let99 (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not "due diligence", it's a crystal-clear policy violation. (Editors are warned, however, that the community has rejected the idea that editors should "investigate" each other. Posting such information on Wikipedia violates this policy. if you want chapter and verse from policy.) Stop it now. ‑ Iridescent 22:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. How would you suggest dealing with toxic editors, who prefer conflict over cooperation, where there is a high suspicion of paid editing? Where should that be reported? Who would actually look into it? Paid editing is not a small problem on Wikipedia, and there are few tools other than a quick search of the username. Most discussions of editor behavior happens on third party sites. (Non-public information is obviously completely different.) Let99 (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Let99: Please review Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

That page says that people should disclose their payments, but obviously most don't. It's a big industry. Sources: [25][26][27]. A quick Google search will turn up links that offer that services. The paid users who have trusted accounts and who know how to do effective wikilawyering to silence the opposition with obscure rules and calls to the admins surely charge the highest prices. If admins are not willing to look into those situations, then how do you suggest regular editors should defend themselves? Let99 (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)This is not the location to discuss suggestions for changes to paid editing policy, particularly since it actually has nothing to do with this situation. The essay you previously claimed represented Wikipedia policy on that ("Wikipedia rules are very clear about that") is actually a failed policy proposal, as it says on the page, so it's not the rules. The action that Jytdog took in reverting edits he thought were improper is actually standard Wikipedia process. If you read up on the Bold/Revert/Discuss cycle, you'll see that a revert is the proper response to a problematic addition, and that it is then on you to start a discussion to overcome the objection. To arrange it otherwise, no reversion until after a discussion, would do more to keep bad edits in than to promote good edits. So, may I suggest that rather than continuing to contest Wikipedia standards in this inappropriate location that you apologize to Jytdog for your inaccurate and inappropriate treatment, strike through the accusation on the article talk page, and then move forward with a discussion of the edits focused on the edits, rather than on the editors? --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

It was not a problematic addition though. The given reason for reverting was that the source does not mention the words "Paleo Diet"--but neither do many of the sources on that page (or on the entire Wiki). I wonder if you all realize that this is exactly the toxic wikipedia editor culture that so many people talk about. There are more civilized, rational ways to deal with these disagreements. You think that the first response to the addition of a credible, relevant link that you disagree with should be reverting? That's what makes Wikipedia such a bad experience for many editors. Let99 (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Nat Gertler - the paid editing policy actually is very relevant. I'm asking what a user should do when paid editing is suspected. Should I just do nothing and let articles be overrun by extremely aggressive, toxic editors? I did not know the answer, so all I did was a quick search of Google for the user's username. It turns out that, buried in Wikipedia's extensive, cryptic rules system is a caution that editors are "warned" against doing any research on other users. So, sorry for doing that, but I think that my question is very relevant: what is the proper alternative action that I should have taken? I did not post any secret, personally identifiable information. Let99 (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I certainly assume enough good faith on your part to expect that you did not see it as a problematic addition. Jytdog clearly saw it otherwise, and did what an editor is supposed to do in that instance. You claim there are more civilized, rational ways to deal with disagreements; your method was to try to hunt down destructive facts on the editor you disagreed with, made public play of what you thought you had found, and repeatedly complain about his not having adhered to the rules you choose to invent for the situation. Faced with other people looking at the situation and not agreeing with your own evaluation of your actions, you have doubled down rather than listening. If your concern is a toxic editor culture, you may wish to stop looking for the mote in the eyes of others. My suggestions to you remain: apologize to Jytdog; whatever your intent was in suggesting he was a paid editor, it does not appear to be true, and in putting that forward, you are just giving more leverage to an existing attack against him. Read the directions at WP:STRIKE to see how to strike out your text; doing that will show that you are retracting that, while keeping the discussion integral. Stop attacking Jytdog, as you've done multiple times here. He has not asked for you to be "banned", despite your accusations of that. Read some of the relevant guidelines and essays you've been pointed to. WP:BRD has the material on the bold/revert/discuss cycle. WP:COI has material on what to do when you suspect that someone has a conflict of interest (look down to the "How to handle conflicts of interest" section, although you probably shouldn't zoom right there; the other parts on what Wikipedia considers to be conflicts of interest may prove useful in your editing.) Assuming good faith is needed even... no, especially... when dealing with someone with whom you have a disagreement, and will likely make your editing more comfortable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

You seem to not understand what actually happened. Let99 (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• I don't often express my emotion here at ANI but I find this behavior disgusting, with respect to a) the sloppy arrogance in presenting my impersonator's claim that I do paid editing as a "fact" b) the dragging of off-wiki garbage into WP; c) their ham-fisted effort to "win" the content dispute by presenting this at the article Talk page where the content dispute is happening (truly crass behavior that taints all efforts to effectively manage COI in WP); and d) their repeating here at ANI that they feel that this is perfectly appropriate behavior. I am seeking a block and a stiff one; what they have done, are doing, and intend to keep doing is unacceptable. Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

If someone is impersonating you on Twitter, you can get it removed. (File a support ticket.) I did not present paid editing as a fact. You seem quite intent on getting me banned at all costs though, even though my behavior is several times more calm and rational. The policy says that "editor are warned..." I have taken my warning. It would be really bad community management to ban a user for some obscure rule that no casual user could possibly have seen, unless they spend all of their time on this site. I've been editing this site for years and have never seen that. Let99 (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Ummm, this is a half-assed attempt at WP:OUT outing. The fact that it's false information doesn't really change that someone decided to post personally identifiable info on Jytdog to WP in an attempt to win an argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

There was no non-public personally-identifiable information posted. You should address my points above: how should one respond when paid editing is suspected? Where exactly should that be discussed, because it's a serious problem with Wikipedia in general. I've even encountered "professional" wiki editors here who seem to work in groups in order to shut down any possible hint of dissent with their opinions. Let99 (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

If this has been addressed already elsewhere, I apologise. If off-wiki evidence leads you to suspect someone is beeaking Wikipedia's rules, begin by emailing an administrator and asking for advice. There's a long and ugly history of on-wiki discussions involving off-wiki behaviour turning into doxing so we're (probably over-) sensitive about that. (That is a fake Twitter account - Jytdog is just too smart to do that.)

The reason we don't usually cite sources that don't address the main topic is to avoid WP:SYNTH. In the example above, the unsourced statement is supporting a bigger claim about the main topic so we need to find a reliable source that also adduces the unsourced claim in support of the bigger claim - otherwise Wikipedia is constructing arguments de novo. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole, thanks for the information. I'm aware of WP:SYNTH. Before judging me too harshly, you should see what Jytdog is up to. This is the sentence that I was providing a reference for: "Although little is known about the diet of Paleolithic humans, it is very likely that they did consume wild grains and legumes." It needed a citation, so I linked to this article, which directly addresses and backs up that statement. Jytdog did not want to discuss it, but instead, acting as if he owns the article, just started reverting. I tried rewording it once, but it got reverted again without discussion. I then added a citation tag to the sentence and proposed three links on the Talk page: this, this, and this--all very relevant. So then Jytdog deletes the entire sentence from the wiki article. I've been entirely calm and rational the entire time, encouraging discussion on the talk page rather than continuing the edit war that Jytdog started. He is doing everything he can to try and crush anyone who disagrees with him. I'm the one who is being harassed here. Sorry for looking up the user's name in Google -- please give me an alternative solution as to what I should do when paid editing is suspected. How would I find a wiki admin to email? What is the admin going to do--Google the username? It's a chronic problem on Wikipedia. I'm not saying that Jytdog is a paid editor, but only asking how else one should research that when it's suspected. There doesn't seem to be any way for regular editors like myself to defend against these kinds of attacks from editors who are more familiar with the intricacies of Wikipedia's cryptic policy system. We have no way of defending ourselves against things like this, and the final result is that many articles (especially controversial ones) have terribly wrong information on them. Let99 (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

That last source (Smithsonian Magazine) certainly brings the probability of grain-eating into the paleo diet debate, and the primary source it discusses (Science) is reliable, but the Smithsonian piece is just a brief comment by a science journalist/editor/generalist, so not a strong source. Jytdog says in his edit summary that this claim, about the probability of paleolithic grain consumption, isn't made in the body of the article, and if that's so, then per WP:LEAD it doesn't belong in the lead.

As for what to do about suspected paid editing: if you don't yet know any admins, take your concerns (without identifying the suspect or evidence) to WP:AN - as opposed to here (WP:ANI) - and ask for an email chat with an admin about possible ways forward. It's a very, very vexed issue and this community is still wrestling with how to deal with it, but discretion is essential. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Let99 your dehumanization of me violates everything we do here. You have treated me like I am filth, and why? In order to try to get a single ref into a single Wikipedia article. That is not acceptable behavior. Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to continue this discussion. I've replied to some of the points on my Talk page and will leave it at that. Let99 (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Let99: I reckon you should remove the claim you made about paid editing and the external link to the twitter account in Talk:Paleolithic diet as a show of good faith (and per WP:HA and WP:OUTING), now that you are aware it is an impersonator. Bennv3771 (talk) 03:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Bennv3771, I've removed the comment. Let99 (talk) 01:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Bennv3771, Jytdog immediately reverted my edit so that the Twitter link was re-added. I've left more comments on my talk page. I'm not sure if there is anything else to discuss about it, but I did leave some advice for the Wikipedia community in general over on my talk page. Let99 (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You deleted it in this diff. You cannot just delete things as other people have said to you; you need to redact. I restored it in this diff. And I did the strike-out for you in this diff. You refuse to follow community norms, and the resulting problems are everybody else's fault. Classic. Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, thanks for fixing it. The tone in which you are writing right now is exactly what I'm referring to on my talk page. You're trying to silence people and "win" by pointing out how Wikipedia's complex policies are not being followed to the letter, rather than cultivating a culture of users-helping-users with a spirit of friendly collaboration. That is what started this entire thing. If you're in a bad mood, take a break and write what you have to say when you feel better. There are real people on the other side of the screen. :) Let99 (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Let99: "The problem is you" and a complete lack of acknowledgement that what you did was clearly over the line do not convince me that a preventative block should not be imposed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: If you are an admin and you have the ability to do that, then I don't know how I can stop you -- I'm not in the Clique. (There seem to be a lot of non-admins here in this obscure discussion.) I think that it would be a mistake though, and would confirm what I wrote on my talk page about admins allowing certain long time editors to bludgeon other editors over the intricacies of Wikipedia policy. I've been calm and reasonable through this whole incident trying to encourage collaboration rather than conflict in the editing decisions, but Jytdog is trying to drag it out and get me banned in any way possible. If you can't see what is happening, I don't know what else to do about it. Edit: by the way, I already acknowledged that I now understand that searching Google for someone's public handle is off limits on this site, even if the motivation for someone's edits is suspect. That rule was buried in Wikpedia's policy pages, so I did not know about it. Let99 (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that added comment where you acknowledge what you did was wrong. We had to pull that out of you kicking and screaming and even in this you don't seem to understand that this is part of the fundamental protections that editors have here, but whatever.

Let99 you continually mistake people disagreeing with you as "toxicity". What is toxic is your inability to talk through differences and relent when you are not able to win consensus for your view, and instead just attacking others. What you did to me and your complaints about me here are exactly parallel to your behavior at Talk:Eidetic memory. None of that is OK - all of that is harmful to the community.

But the acknowledgement is good enough for me. I am done here. Jytdog (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't see any point in prolonging this discussion. If people don't know what I mean about toxic editor culture, read posts like this, this, and this. Let99 (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You are so doggedly not listening. What you did was so toxic but you are lecturing everybody else, like we have all not just witnessed true slime. Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Calling people "true slime" isn't a bannable offence on this site? :) I'm not sure which part of my message you're replying to. If you would act a little nicer towards other editors, we could have spent this time working together to make sure that the article is well-written and accurate, instead of this. Let99 (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I called your behavior true slime. You keep twisting everything to make you a victim. Your behavior here was completely unacceptable (in other words, "toxic") and every other editor who had commented here has made that clear. Every. Other. Editor. And you come here lecturing other people about toxicity. I am not writing here further as your continued lack of awareness and blaming of everyone else - even here after what you have done - is more than I can stomach. Jytdog (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Please note the smiley face in my comment. :) You made your comment ambiguous -- it could be read either way. Even so, it is not a nice way to speak to other people. Let99 (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Wait, let me get this straight. Somebody is claiming that Jytdog is getting paid to hide criticism about the Paleo Diet? Is this for real? A quick perusal of the history of that page, its talk page and the AE's that it has spawned would show how ridiculous that is. He is, on the other hand, a stickler for proper sourcing and properly reflecting that sourcing. Something every editor should be really. Let99, you're trying to stick something into the lead that's not even in the article. You're being told that's wrong and your response is to assume Jytdog is a shill and try to do opposition research against him? I suggest a quick course change, an acknowledgement of where you went wrong and a striking of your claims. You're already in blockable territory for harassment. Capeo (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment)He wasn'tThey weren't trying so much to stick something in the lead as to take something that was already in the lead and give it a reference. However, that reference was already objected to by another user for trying to stick it into another part of the article. After two users had rejected its inclusion by reversion, hethey stuck it in a third time, insisting that histheir version remain until there was a discussion, apparently not taking two different reverters as a sign that he had not achieved consensus. When histhat demand was ignored, that's when hethey started getting into really problem territory. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal (Re: Let99)

Propose indefinite WP:BOOMERANG on Let99 for attempted doxxing and WP:IDHT-related WP:CIR. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Not sure that counts as a "boomerang"; the initial complaint here was against himthen. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose No, we don't do that; blocking is a last resort, not a way of batting away people whom an admin happens to find annoying. All it takes is a "sorry, I misunderstood policy and I won't do that again" and we're done here. ‑ Iridescent 16:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Iridescent:, Sorry, I didn't see that you were talking about me down here. I already did that on 01:58, 31 May 2017, so I'm not sure what all of this is about. I do hope that the admins carefully read all of my comments here and on my talk page. Edit: also this and WP:RETENTION are relevant to this incident. Let99 (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Iridescent, I did not seek an indef, but rather a good stiff block. But where are you seeing any sign of awareness? And since when is bringing off-wiki "opposition research" onto an article talk page, to try to win a content dispute, just "annoying"? If Let99 showed a sign that he/she "gets it" that the behavior was completely unacceptable, of course no block would be needed. As it is, there is no sign of that and we have no reason to expect that they will not continue. (I find their protestations of "what else should I do?" disingenuous at best - my sense is that their "concern" about paid editing arose after they found the fake twitter account) Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

My "oppose" was to the IP's proposal (indefinite WP:BOOMERANG on Let99 for attempted doxxing and WP:IDHT-related WP:CIR). Blocking is preventative not punitive; provided Let99 agrees not to do it again and gives some indication that they understand why this was so over the line, then as long as they don't cause further issues that's all that's needed. It appears that this is someone who thought they were being helpful and didn't realize why this was so inappropriate in a Wikipedia context. ‑ Iridescent 07:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I completely hear that, with regard to what you were opposing. And I agree that if we get some evidence that they "get it" there is no need for action. By now it does not appear to be forthcoming at all -- their last two edits about this have been this and this About the "helpful" thing - I believe they thought they were being helpful in trying to initially add the ref, but their subsequent behavior had nothing to do with being helpful but rather was unacceptable tactics to "win" the content dispute they got into with me. And it is that subsequent behavior -- and the risk that this behavior will continue -- that is the subject of this thread. btw they are starting to make the harangue about "toxic editor culture" everywhere they run into content disputes -- see this thread - their comments and the diffs of their disruption of a closed RfC there. Jytdog (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• I put it to them plain as day (diff). They refused to acknowledge the issue and brought it back to the content dispute. (difff). No indication of understanding. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• I purpose that someone put this user out of our misery and move to something productive. - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Yeah, I agree with that: IDHT, Battleground, CIR, Outing. No need for this person here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• User:Let99 has learned that speculating on-wiki about undisclosed paid editing or off-wiki behaviour is pretty much forbidden here, and learned that if it's not in the body then it doesn't belong in the lede. I hope Let99 has now read about the norm WP:BRD. I think that's enough lessons learned for now, and this should be closed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• I have just come to this , read everything through, and following that would agree with a "stiff block" combined with a final warning. As in, once the block expires, do this again, and its indefinite. This is partly because I am not sure User:Let99 has learned anything.Daithidebarra (talk) 10:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you an admin? There are a lot of non-admins here for such an obscure discussion, and I'm wondering if you're friends of Jytdog, sent here for backup. This issue has already been resolved. Let99 (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Advice for Let99 - First law of holes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it?

User:Godsy is WP:HOUNDING me again. Interaction tool show 36 content pages [28] 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? [29] 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 [30] 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 [31] 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 [32]: 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" [33] 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,[34] 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 [[35]] 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.[36] 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 [37] 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)

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

• 100% CSD acceptance rate [38] 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 [39] recently AFAIK, and
• not much red on my page move log [40] indicating that pages I promote are rarely deleted.
• In my participation in all XfD my vote is nearly always in line with the conclusion. [41] 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. [42] 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)[43]

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) [44] 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 [45] 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 [46] 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)

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)

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: [47]. 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 [48], 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 [49] 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 [50] and [51]) 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)

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)

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.

User:Ukrainetz1

Resolved

 – Jauerback beat me to it, but the user has been indef'd for disruption, WP:NOTHERE, and WP:CIR issues. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I would like to propose a indef block on Ukrainetz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) per WP:NOTHERE. - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Might need a little more than that, Mlpearc. Of all the things to ask for just like that! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: It is meant to be abrupt, my feeling is we've wasted enough time on this user. - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

This strikes me as inaccurate; his problem instead seems to be an imbalance between his Englsh skills and his self-assesment of them. Anmccaff (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Their lack of proficiency in English is causing significant issues when communicating with other editors. In light of this, Ukrainetz1 needs to follow WP:AGF closely. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Look at their sandbox entry, which I've sent to CSD. There's a real competence issue here, likely a child editor based upon behavior. I concur with an indef block. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, seems to be an issue. I prefer they not edit till they understand what exactly is happening. --QEDK (愛) 18:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• I've deleted the sandbox. What I propose is giving them a final warning to stop playing around and focus on producing good content or else they'll be blocked indefinitely. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 I have no pressing objection to another final warning, outside of "we've had enough" and I think that would go well with Fortuna. - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

i thought the WP:ASPERGERS was closed, is the new version WP:NO ASPERGERS, i have that but the real issue behind it is a "weak willed personality" and and quasi-"Dissociative identity disorder am diagnosed with the first, weak willed personalities is nothing more than i like live qiet in the forest and you want to dance all night and that type of Dissociative identity disorder is real but cannot be diagnosed by World Health Organization's ICD-10 Ukrainetz1 (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

i still do not fully understund what happened, i realised this was not the other editors fault, i think i understood what NeilN meant, so FINAL WARNINS? WE HAVE ENOUGHT? what does that mean and how does that help? people make accounts in 1 second, ip block? nope proxies does not work? VPN always does and will always do. Ukrainetz1 (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

indef blocked warning for making joke at my user talkpage sandbox? well i guess it not so bad people get banned for nothing not understanding a WP:DISRUPTPOINT some admin did, see the banned people list, i dont renember specifically where i could search but it would take such a long time and 8 pm here in sweden and i very tired, meybe we could solve it without any unfrindlness such as an "indef block warnings" and begin anew tommorow, see most of my edits theya are acutally very good contributions to the wikimedia foundation Ukrainetz1 (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

That may be as you see it right now, but here is what others might see:

• You have difficulty understanding colloquial English, and don't seem to realize it. That makes communication difficult.
• You have personal issues that you appear to see as a shield against certain criticism, rather than as a situation that has to be dealt with. Active disassociation makes it very difficult to work responsibly; some aspy traits can be harnessed, but others have to be worked around or fought. If you wanna do stuff here despite them, you have to bring the final product -what gets actually posted - into good order somehow.
• Pointing out that blocks are evadable was not a good idea here for three reasons:

• Admins -which are most of the people in the conversation, I obviously am not- have to spendwaste a lot of time dealing with evasive socks. It's a hot-button topic to them. Don't wave flags at bulls, unless you like being gored.
• Evading a block while keeping the current issues with your work would be impossible. Doesn't matter where you post from, the distinct style, and the distinctive deficiencies, would mark the posts for nuking on sight.
• Evading a block after fixing the current issues would pose no direct problem for Wiki, beyond block evasion per se.

Anmccaff (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Man, that didn't take long, did it? Jayzuss. Anmccaff (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

New spin on "my little brother did it": "a Russian hacker did it". --bonadea contributions talk 05:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Chris troutman your comment on my talkpage: Notice this olny the lately! olny lately! most of my 500 edits are good but the 50-60 are not, youre the most latley i have stop taking things seriosly, i do not need a break or any further warnings, what happened today is a wake up call for me, just please explain to me what i have done wrong in semi-simple english Ukrainetz1 (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to note that this editor has now threatened to sock, per what they posted a few lines up. Block them now. --Tarage (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ukrainetz1: Perhaps you'd be better off contributing to the Swedish-language Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• A warning seems insufficient. I'm as patient as the next guy if there is any hope of rehabilitation, however, I do not think this is the case after viewing the deleted contribs. This is disruptive, and my gut says that we need to just block for WP:DE and an inability to conform to community standards (CIR). It will happen eventually. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support Indef block per WP:DE as further explained in WP:CIR and WP:NOTTHERAPY. There have been plenty of warnings already.- MrX 19:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• I'm less patient than Dennis Brown. User indeffed. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Good block: the ability to communicate is essential. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• Necessary block, sadly. I think it might also be necessary to look through Ukrainetz' edits, to check for blatant misunderstandings/errors (as seen here and in this edit summary of an otherwise good edit) and POV (as seen here), as well as for useful content that needs copyediting. Whether it was due to some language barrier or something else, Ukrainetz did display a very belligerent attitude with plenty of all-caps shouting and mild personal attacks in edit summaries, and that makes it a little more challenging to view their additions objectively. Hence, it would be good if a few different editors could take a look. --bonadea contributions talk 20:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Charlo Greene

Hey, I know that this isn't BLP/N, however that page is fairly dead (I'd brought it up there already) and this is a relatively urgent BLP issue. Long story short, some newer editors (Frjhnson, AlaskanCannabis) have started editing the Charlo Greene and has been intent on adding two things to the article: (this is more about AlaskanCannabis than the other person, honestly)

The first is that they kept adding information about an AMA Greene held on Reddit, where one of the participants posted a bunch of research where they claimed she was a scam artist. This was first added by Frjhnson and was his only edit to the page. ([52]) The claim was "She has since been outed as a scam artist following a Reddit AMA." The problem with this is that it was sourced to the Reddit thread and ultimately the participant's work would be seen as original research on here. If there was a ton of coverage of this failed AMA and the claims, then that would be one thing but even then we couldn't outright call her a scam artist without a lot of independent, very reliable sources to back this up because it'd pose a huge legal issue.

This is when AlaskanCannabis signed up and came to the page and added the information back and expanded it to also include information about Greene doxing someone on her Facebook page with the intent to encourage harassment. Again, this was only sourced to the Reddit thread. I removed this again and posted to the talk page explaining the reasons why this shouldn't be on the article. (IE, BLP and legal issues, NOTTABLOID, etc) They returned to the page to repost the same information and add her social media as a form of sourcing. ([53])

Another editor came in and removed some of this information and AlaskanCannabis tried to add some of it back in. I just now went back and removed some content with this edit, specifically the statement:

"After being evicted, Charlo continued to fight with her former neighbor, going as far as to get a temporary restraining order issued against her for "stalking and threatening sexual assault". She also got a temporary restraining order against her former landlord at the Kodiak Bar the same day. A judge later denied her petition for both short and long-term orders."

I just don't see where the coverage is heavy enough to include every single legal run in she's had since her infamous TV stunt, as the above statement was only sourced to this local news story. We don't do it for other people and I don't see where it should change for Greene. A search for "Charlo Greene restraining order" (without quantifiers) brings back almost solely tabloid type coverage and even that's sparse. What isn't a tabloid is more of a one paragraph or a few sentences type of deal that mostly just says that TMZ wrote something about this. I just don't see where this particular incident is major enough to include here. It may become more relevant when she goes to court and faces jail time as stuff like this can and does come up in these sort of cases, but we can't predict that in the here and now.

To be honest, I feel like AlaskanCannabis is more here on a SPA WP:SOAPBOX mission than anything else. It's not that I doubt that anything claimed by the Reddit person is false, just that the coverage isn't there to justify any of this and it's all stuff that falls within BLP territory. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: The second editor appears to be UAA violation, being named after an organisation, and they smell like dirty socks to me. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Meh, IMO that name is too generic, and doesn't match the org name "Alaska Cannabis Club" anyways (if it's what I think you're suggesting). No opinion on the sock thing. ansh666 21:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'd wondered slightly if it was a sockpuppet but it doesn't entirely feel like that to me. I think that it's more likely that it's more a case of a few people who likely know each other and frequent the same place(s) trying to raise awareness (albeit negative awareness) of Greene. (IE, probably meatpuppetry.) As far as username issues go, I don't think that they're representing an organization, it's probably a username they chose on a theme since they're dealing with a person who is involved with pot. It's kind of like where someone may write about an animal related non-profit and choose the username "AnimalLover" or "PET your Animals" (IE, styling their username after PETA even if they're here to write negatively about them). It's something that would raise some eyebrows but wouldn't be a username violation per se - it'd just mark them as someone to watch. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

User:CitationKneaded

Complaint against CitationKneaded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Despite the user casting accusations of hounding and cyberstalking, I find this and then this more serious hounding. The user starts off with distasteful semantic posts, to which I politely advised about the use of YouTube and for the user to maintain a level of civility. The user appears to ignore the comment and posts a duplicated thread, as if to spam a talk page with their pointy view, of which I merged the two threads together.

Another editor intervened with basically the same advice as I had previously given. I then reminded again about their lack of civility, and noting that I was aware of a DS against them, in a bid that it would calm them down and back-off on their pointy disruption, and further went on that the article on the London attacks that happened last night cannot rely on first-hand eyewitness accounts - noting WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS.

CK went on to be somewhat rude towards another user, to which I strongly advised about their behaviour coming across as disruptive and again repeating what I said about the use of first-hand accounts of news. To which I get called "tone-policing", "seniority pissing-contest", and "stalking". I did not know that taking part in an active discussion was now an act of stalking. Admin's are very well aware that I have been a victim of long-term abuse from various IP's acting in WP:SCRUTINY which can be viewed here, and I feel that this user may be connected to that WP:LTA that I have endured. But these ridiculous accusations, gaming the system, and hounding multiple editors about my persona, is unacceptable behaviour. I am happy to cooperate any further into this matter, should admin's require me to do so. Sincere regards, Wes Wolf ^Talk 05:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Of some relevance is this request on my talk page by CitationKneaded for sanctions against Wesley Wolf and my reply. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

After cyberstalking me ("have you forgotten about your ArbCom sanction? At least I have some level of intelligence to do a background check on your behaviour." - his exact words) & bragging about it for no apparent reason than to puff up his own ego in his condescending remarks, user was asked in no uncertain terms to refrain from further contacting me, but continued his harassment both on the talk page of the article & on my own talk page. And as you can see, he's continuing his cry-bullying here. Contrary to his wild, baseless, & narcissistic accusations of "hounding", I merely want him to leave me alone & not speak to me, but he clearly seems to have trouble comprehending this simple request. Now after his earlier unwarranted display of antagonism, he's trying to drag my name through the mud here, saying I was "somewhat rude" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:June_2017_London_attacks&diff=next&oldid=783714937 here, when there was clearly nothing rude about a remark that was merely discussing the broadness of context - WW's subjective feelings are not the basis for how articles are edited or how the Wiki is run. At every point, I simply asked him to please leave me alone, but he chose to ignore my request & continue harassing me with hypocritical lectures on "civility" while showing me none. Now he's acting like he has no idea what he's done despite repeatedly, clearly being asked to cease & desist after his initial inappropriate, linecrossing behavior. Moreso, he's crying victim & trying to cook up some conspiracy story for sympathy points to connect me to some "trolling campaign" when I have neither heard of him before (he's not as famous as he likes to think he is), nor do I ever wish to hear from him again. As if this narcissistic crybullying was not enough, now he's calling the mere fact that I reported him to an admin "hounding", when he himself said "And feel free to report" when I warned him that contacting me further would result in me reporting him to an admin. This behavior is simply beyond belief, especially from someone who's apparently such a long-time wiki editor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:June_2017_London_attacks#All_the_Islamic_apologists_can_stop_with_the_obligatory_cries_of_.22oh.2C_but_we_don.27t_know_for_sure_if_it_was.22_apologia_already.2C_it.27s_getting_old.2C_you.27re_not_helping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CitationKneaded#Notification_of_a_report_made_against_you_at_WP:ANI If I were a more cynical man, I'd say that I'd expect the admin bias to obviously favor their longtime colleague instead of some guy they've never heard of, but I've presented the truth for you to see as best as I could, & I leave it to you to make your final judgement - hopefully you'll decide fairly, & quell the suspicions that Wikipedia is turning into a "gated community", like so many other online communities have. Thank you CitationKneaded (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The remarks above are further evident to the disruptive behaviour of CK. S/he made this threat, to which I did inform them of the ANI route if they wished to raise matters further, but also noted to them about WP:Boomerang, so they cannot exactly claim they did not know how to report a matter. I warned the user at 05:44 about 3RR after they had made a third revert on June 2017 London attacks. Their request for me to stop talking to them was made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:June_2017_London_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=783716763 05:47} (3 minutes after the issued warning). So I fail to see how I have ignored their request, when I posted on their talk page prior to such request. CK has also been informed that they cannot stop anyone replying to comments on an article talk page. I have been very reluctant in taking this action of ANI, as I could clearly see this user was just going to hound and harass talk pages of many admins until someone informed them about ANI. So I merely saved them the chase-around. How is that hounding? And their attacking behaviour is clear in their contributions with attacks cast at other editors also at Talk:June 2017 London attacks and in their remarks above. I am happy to leave the user's talk page alone and disengage in further interactions. However, I will not be silenced from participating in any discussions on an article that I have interest in and have edited constructively. Wes Wolf ^Talk 06:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Another great example of why creating articles on breaking news just isn't worth the drama. I propose the article be deleted and then started again from scratch in 72 hours when the wheat sources have been separated from the chaff and tempers have cooled. EEng 07:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• The use of phrases like "narcissistic crybullying" to describe standard warnings for behavioral issues and "cyberstalking" to describe looking at previous talk page warnings is not indicative of a user here to build a collaborative encyclopedia in good faith. Nor is the ludicrous demand that another user not respond to their posts on article talk pages. Moreover, many of the user's talk page posts in question are entirely off-topic WP:SOAPBOXing and/or trolling, notably this pointlessly-provocative nonsense; they have done the same thing on other pages and declared anti-Trump protests to be terrorism. I would recommend an indefinite topic ban from any and all political or current events topics and if they have anything useful to contribute elsewhere, they can use those pages to demonstrate that they're able to collaboratively edit an encyclopedia before returning to such controversial topics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Where do I start with my response? I'll start with the discussion title from CK. It was uncivil and frankly insulting. Wikipedia has protocols and to brand every Wikipeadi user as "Islamic apologists" is truly uncalled for. Then came the condescending discussion from CK. "If that's not good enough for you, nothing ever will be." I mean seriously? Had the user asked politely, we wouldn't be in this mess. WP:OR clearly indicates that we cannot make assumptions on our own. We need reliable sources to verify what is being mentioned is true. CK instead went to attack Wesley Wolf out of nowhere. They were polite and calm in their response and then had to become defensive, which I would have done as well. They've accused Wesley Wolf with "tone-policing, the seniority pissing-contest, the condescension, and finally, the stalking". A) it's called WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. B) No one was flaunting their seniority. CK made it rudely clear that Wesley Wolf couldn't indent properly. C) There was no stalking of any kind. Also, you cannot warn a person to stop responding to your messages on any talk page except yours. There's no such thing as "For that last one, you can kindly not interact with me again on here or you will be reported, this is your first and final warning." A) It's called ignoring the person and B) it only applies to talk pages. There was no harrasment or stalking of anykind. All users are required to notify another of rule-breaking by posting warnings and ANI notifications and such. It's standard procedure. I second NorthBySouthBaranof. I don't think CK is entirely there to build an encyclopedia; however, I would support a topic ban and see if they truly are. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Chris Pine

Hi I'm not trying to cause a dispute i feel that the particular paragraph on chris pine's page should not be there at all. How would that person who keeps putting it there feel if someone put all of their mistakes for all to see on the Internet. I bet they would want them removed also, so would a celebrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bottleshock34 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

User is apparently edit warring over cited content rather than discussing on talk page as has been requested by other users. I would suggest not removing the content again w/o a consensus from other users. Alterantively, there is the blp noticeboard.Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

As Dlohcierekim sort of said, this is a WP:Content dispute which shouldn't belong at ANI, no matter whether or not your trying to cause a dispute. Instead you should follow the normal processes for dispute resolution as outlined in the previous linked page. Notably, the last non bot edit to Talk:Chris Pine was in August 2016 [54]. Discussing on the article talk page is pretty much the most basic step of dispute resolution. In this case, since it's a BLP, as suggested above you could also ask for feedback at WP:BLP/N although you really should generally discuss on the article talk page first. Note that the only reason this will likely belong here at ANI would be if one or more editors need to be sanctioned, and the editing history suggests if that ever were to happen, it's more likely to be a WP:Boomerang i.e. you will be the one being sanctioned. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Disruption and old socking by Leviathan648

• Leviathan648 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 97.106.151.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bob's Burgers (season 3) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bob's Burgers (season 4) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bob's Burgers (season 5) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The name account used to be named S hannon434 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The IP is blocked for 1 year by EdJohnston for edit warring over colours on TV seasons and for advising multiple accounts (see block log history).

Leviathan has resumed the edit warring over season color and images that the IP was blocked for. Will give diffs from Bob's Burgers seasons. Note the edit summaries complain about the mod DVD cover and both the IP and Leviathan are changing to the same hex color.

• Season 3 - Leviathan 1 2 vs. IP [55] [56] [57] [58] [59]. Before the IP, back in 2016, Leviathan (then Shannon) did the same thing as well as January 2017 [60]
• Season 4 - Leviathan 1, 2 and vs. IP [61], [62], [63], [64], [65]. Note​ that Leviathan (then Shannon) did this before the IP in January 2017 [66]

See this February 2017 discussion on their talk page by EdJohnston regarding socking and the block/unblock requests in the following sections.

The same thing can be seen on Bob's Burgers (season 2) and Bob's Burgers (season 5). Given the block of the IP, the apparent quasi fresh start with name change, the socking evidence, and the continuation of a months old edit war, I'm requesting a block. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a mistake

I keep getting reported for my disruptive editing on Bob's Burgers again. First off, there was a mistake with the later seasons I was trying to correct and then somebody try to complain and didn't listen nor see my summary. I feel I am being disrespected and hurt by this. Sseasons 2, 3, 4 and 5 were released as manufacture on demand titles but there are a few people who still believe they are the real DVD covers. Well they better think again before the even think about uploading something. Look at a season of a cartoon show on wiki. They put out a DVD cover of a certain season if there's a physical release confirmed by its studio followed by press release. If not, then either a promotional poster, digital cover art or none are inserted. Here's my proof.

http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Bobs-Burgers-Season-2/18417 http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Bobs-Burgers-Season-3/19677 http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Bobs-Burgers-Season-4/20940 http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Bobs-Burgers-Season-5/22470

Leviathan648 (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Moved from own Ani section to here for continuity. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Anyone? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The socking issue at Bob's Burgers (season 4) and other pages was previously discussed at the talk page of User:S hannon434. The indef block was appealed, but two different admins declined to lift it. So I'm going ahead now with an indef block of User:Leviathan648. This user has never posted to the talk page of any of the Bob's Burgers articles to get consensus for their preferred color scheme. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Admonished by ArbCom, continues more of same anyways

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

Summary: Prior admonishment by ArbCom for personal attacks [67]. Continues more of same, after warning by admin [68].

Two admins recommended this recent behavior by DHeyward (talk · contribs) be dealt with in a venue separate from AE. Admin Masem [69] and admin Thryduulf who said: "The personal attacks by DHeyward do merit action being taken".

Bringing here to ANI for admin action:

Admonished by ArbCom for personal attacks

• 03:39, 4 June 2016 - Ruling by the Arbitration Committee is: "DHeyward is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks."

Diffs of recent personal attacks

1. 00:53, 4 June 2017 - edit summary: "And you're being idiotic"
2. 00:58, 4 June 2017 - edit summary: "oh fuck off you busybody numbskull"
3. 01:00, 4 June 2017 - this time visible on talk page during previously constructive discussion immediately above on page: "there are a number of busybody numbskills"
4. 01:42, 4 June 2017 - Violation of guide.decor, casting aspersions, in this AE request itself. "Sagecandor is being a busybody"

Continues personal attacks after warning by admin to stop

1. 01:08, 4 June 2017 - Warned by admin Thryduulf. "DHeyward: I don't care what your motivations are, your edit summaries on the talk page and above are personal attacks. If you persist you will be blocked. Thryduulf"
2. 01:14, 4 June 2017 - After that warning, continued the personal attacks with: "I refer all busybody numbskulls to ANI. They are used to them and there is much fucking off on that page."

---

Thanks to admins for looking into this ! Sagecandor (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. If I didn't at this point consider myself too involved to personally take action I would likely have already blocked for 24 hours. DHeyward's previous blocks do not appear to have been related to personal attacks. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• I've blocked for the Twinkle default 31 hours for personal attacks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Request: Due to the ArbCom case, can the block please be logged at the Enforcement log ? Sagecandor (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Logged it at at the Enforcement log. Sagecandor (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the log, the Boing! said Zebedee specifically said the block should not be logged. ~ GB fan 14:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Directly relevant to ArbCom sanction. I hope others in the future somehow are able to easily find this history out, and know how to mention it at AE if necessary, without having difficulty finding the history, as I did. Sagecandor (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I have also unarchived this. You shouldn't close a discussion that you are involved in. The way to get it added is to discuss it and if the consensus is to add then either Boing will add or someone else uninvolved will. ~ GB fan 15:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay that sounds alright to me ! Sagecandor (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I am troubled by User:Sagecandor's behavior here. Looking into the history, Sagecandor drops an edit warring template onto DHeyward's talk page. Look for yourself, but I didn't see any edit warring that merited a template to a regular (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DHeyward). Next, Sagecandor drops the DS alert onto DHeyward's talk page for American Politics (note the article both users were editing was the recent London terror attack). Such templates are disruptive, and exactly the reason why we ask people not to template the regulars WP:DTTR. DHeyward was well within his rights to ask Sagecandor to fuck off his talk page for this.

Next, Sagecandor runs off to AE, where the report is closed by User:NeilN as not under ARBPA2. Finally Sagecandor comes here and copies his AE filing, logs the ANI block to the AE page, and then tries to archive this report. This is incredibly troubling behavior.

In light of the history of this interaction, could the blocking admin User:Boing! said Zebedee please consider an unblock due to the disruptive and baiting actions by Sagecandor? "You're being idiotic" is not a personal attack but a description of someone's actions. A "Fuck off" on a talk page is not a personal attack, and "busybody numbskull" is an mild personal attack at best, and Sage's behavior I've identified here should have been taken into consideration. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Support: This is the clearest baiting, and if needed to prevent more, a possible boomerang block for Sagecandor. —JJBers 16:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• • Some interesting points raised by Mr Ernie there. I certainly think that User:Sagecandor should at least explain those templates. If they were not directly related to ongoing editing issues, they could certainly be seen as baiting. The insistence since then on trying to get it logged on AE is also rather unsavoury. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• I've reverted Sagecandor at WP:AE. Do not add personal notes to closed discussions. WP:AE is a bit different than ANI. Once an admin closes it, no one (including other admin) should modify. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I've now read this, and the adding material at WP:AE after close, logging after the blocking admin said don't, and the templates, all look like baiting to me. I would ask Boing! reconsider. It isn't a cut and dry thing, but I can see where a little rudeness on DH's part might have been a reaction to being baited. As for blocking Sagecandor, I don't know. His actions do look bad but I'm on the fence and wouldn't argue against a decision either way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
    • As it's looking like there might have been some baiting here and it's not as cut and dry as it first appeared (and as DH has agreed not to repeat such comments), I have unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Sort of drive-by comment: After looking at the diffs, I agree that Sagecandor's conduct seems questionable to the point meriting a sanction or reprimand. No opinion on an early unblock since DHeyward's behaviour was gratuitously jerkish too - maybe I am being naive but I've never seen such comments help anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I'll defer to Dennis Brown on the AE page. The AE notices to user talk pages are not warnings, but notifications only. I agree with the actions taken by Boing! said Zebedee. I did not mean for anything to come off as baiting. I stand by the assessment of Ruling by the Arbitration Committee is: "DHeyward is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks." And then the user willfully ignoring said admonishment by the Arbitration Committee. Sagecandor (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Update: Blocking admin has unblocked, and I'm quite heartened by the fact that blocking admin noted: "DH has agreed not to repeat such comments". I will choose to respectfully defer to judgement of admin Boing! said Zebedee. I apologize if anything came across as baiting. That was not the intent and I am sorry about that. Sagecandor (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• I've posted an apology to DHeyward, and I hope we can all move on from this and focus our efforts on building an encyclopedia. I'm sorry if anything came across as baiting, that was not my intent. I wish to say I'm sorry to DHeyward if that was the result and I'm quite glad he agreed not to repeat the comments. I hope we can all learn from this. Sagecandor (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: Pardon, but who is 'we'? Your apology to DH is excellent progress, but other admins and editors have also made points here that you may wish to address. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've read it and I'm sorry. We means all of us, everyone here. Thank you that you feel my apology to DH is excellent progress. Sagecandor (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Apology reverted [70], which is totally his right to do that on his user talk page. I feel badly if my actions upset DHeyward, and I regret my decisions escalated rather than deescalated the situation. I should have tried posting first to DHeyward's talk page with a written post instead of templates. I'll sure remember that for future discussions, and hopefully we can address things by talking them out together. Sagecandor (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't an Arbitration / AE issue, per the close. I read through the evidence although I didn't participate (didn't see a need) and agree it wasn't an AE issue. You bit off more than you can chew here and claiming the highest possible offense instead of just bringing it to ANI and letting us deal with it. They could have blocked at AE for incivility, btw. Not all sanctions that are dished out there are Arb sanctions. They must have felt it was borderline or they would have made a non-Arb sanction right there. We do that all the time. Mainly, you need to review your actions and know when to drop the stick. And perhaps thicken up your skin a bit. People should not tell others to fuck off, as a general rule, but that doesn't make it sanction worthy. Continuing to add to log, add to AE and other actions do seem a bit like grave dancing. Best to just report, leave it to the admin to dish out the sanctions and file the paperwork. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, Dennis Brown, you're certainly right that I bit off more than I can chew. You're correct that I should've just reported and left it to the admins to do the rest and defer to their judgment. You're totally right that I should've dropped the stick. And you're wise to tell me to try to thicken up my skin a bit, I'll try to work on that. Sagecandor (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to Boing! said Zebedee, I have been unblocked for comments I made 12 hours prior. They were intended to be sharp, but bot attacks. An edit warring template on my talk page when I didn't make a single revert. Followed by AP2 template about London attacks was a bit much. It's annoying to be templated and dragged forum to forum by an editor who apparently harbors a grudge. I am disturbed that a block, which is supposed to be preventative was applied many hours after the AE request was closed with no action and many hours after I had stopped editing. I didn't even have the opportunity to reply here. It's been over a year since the comments I made resulted in an admonishment. My comments addressed here were in edit summaries to my talk page. This is a severe case of wikihounding and I am disappointed it was successful. Sagecandor continues to try and shop this as an AE issue, noted just above, that has already been closed with no action. I feel Sagecandor is rather insincere after wikihounding me to two forums and the fact he brought my request to stay off my talk page back here is indication of a desire for self-preservation rather than contrition. ---DHeyward (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

You're right, DHeyward, it was wrong of me to leave the template when you had not done 3RR. You're correct that I was wrong to template you. I don't harbor a grudge and I'm sorry I've upset you. I realize now that you tend to speak with more of a sharp tone, and I'm glad you didn't intent for anything to be attacks, thank you for saying that. Sagecandor (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Gosh, I was just saying three threads up that this topic (June 2017 London attacks) is "another great example of why creating articles on breaking news just isn't worth the drama." It hasn't even been 24 hours since this event, and already we have here a second ANI thread centered on the same article! To finish quoting myself from the earlier thread: "I propose the article be deleted and then started again from scratch in 72 hours when the wheat sources have been separated from the chaff and tempers have cooled." EEng 17:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

You're totally right, EEng, there was a lot of activity going on, and I should have taken a step back and let cooler heads prevail. Sagecandor (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: I have made a grand total of 3 edits and 1 move of that page. No edits were reverts. For that, I have been dragged to two forums and accused of numerous violations. The problem isn't the article. Forum shoppers are the problem. --DHeyward (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

My point has nothing to do with the behavior of various editors in this matter. My point is that this kind of kerfuffle happens all the time with "breaking news" and so we just shouldn't have an article at all for the first N hours of certain events, to avoid all the drama. People can look elsewhere for news in the meantime. Exactly what kinds of events, and how long to embargo them, is a big open question. (I'm not even necessarily saying this event would be of the kind that should come under such a restriction -- but it's a great example of how out-of-control things get, very quickly.) EEng 18:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• DHeyward is right. As I said, I was wrong to give DHeyward a disruption warning. DHeyward is totally correct, though he could've been more active at the talk page of the article, his edits were not close to 3RR. Sagecandor (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Suggest close. One party has been unblocked, the other is falling all over him/herself with contrition, making a boomerang highly unlikely absent evidence that the contrition is insincere or missing the point. Regarding edit warring and its warning templates, Sagecandor should read more of WP:EW, in particular the last sentence of its lead. The mistaken belief that 3RR vio is the same as edit warring is guaranteed to cause trouble later on. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Mandruss, I've read through WP:Edit warring, and also paid close attention to reading over the last sentence of the lead of that page, as you suggested. Thank you for your recommendation. You are right about the fact that 3RR vio is not the same as edit warring, and it won't cause trouble later on. Thank you for your helpful insight. Sagecandor (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Considering all of the other users talk pages Sagecandor has visited, the contrition is a planned strategic withdrawal. The premise of the difference of 3RR and edit warring is lost here. I didn't violate 3RR or 1RR or even 0RR. Nor was I involved in the edit war driven by Sagecandor and Thyrdulf and whoever else they were fighting with. The accusations templates were ridiculous on their face as was the block - the blocking admin should have been a bit more diligent. Had I been so inclined, I'd have not asked for an unblock and let it play out. It's really only a matter of time before Sagecandor is indeffed. I just hope it doesn't involve me as dealing with him is a giant time sink. Cheers. --DHeyward (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

DHeyward is right that he did't violate 3RR or 1RR or even 0RR, that was definitely a mistake on my part. DHeyward is totally correct that the templates were wrong of me to place on his user talk page. I'm sorry I've upset DHeyward. DHeyward is correct that this has taken up a lot of time and I'm sorry for that. I certainly hope not to be indeffed. I wish to express good faith to DHeyward, that in the future, we might work together amicably. I'll certainly do my part. Sagecandor (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The proof is in the pudding. Please strike all your false accusations above. You were adamant that I receive a AE sanction. Strike all your false accusations above. --DHeyward (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I hope we can communicate better in the future. Sagecandor (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

All your contrition is trite when you leave the accusations you admit were wrong. Strike your accusations or withdraw your insincere apologies. It's obvious that it's false if you will not retract your false accusations. It's the window to your true character. --DHeyward (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

At the moment, I'm focused on research for writing new articles. I'm going to avoid these types of interactions if at all possible for a good while. I've learned a lot from this situation and I appreciate greatly all those who commented in this thread and took their time to give me advice. I thank you all very much. Sagecandor (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

New Userpage Patrol discovery

[71] I don't want to ping the user by mentioning them directly but could an Admin check their user page/3rd edit out at link? Pretty unusual for a brand new editor to know about sock puppetry already. Legacypac (talk) 04:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac, whatever your suspicions, I can't see that there is anything actionable here, and if there was the user would have to be notified about any discussion here. I think we have to AGF unless/until the editor becomes problematic Jimfbleak - talk to me? 04:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

ya, just pointing it out at this point. Maybe someone will recognize a pattern from articles he touches. Legacypac (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• It looks like the "I'm not a sock" user page is probably in response to the accusation of being a sock on the user talk page, left there by 112.198.73.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who seems to have thrown around quite a few sock suspicions recently. With so little activity by this named user, and not a direct match to the previous dispute on the article, the socking accusation seems a bit premature or excessively speculative. 112.198.*.* (looks like it's an IP-hopper) probably should try to be a bit less combative and a bit more cautious with accusations of socking. Murph9000 (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  Should we remove the suspected sock tag on the new user's talk page? It seems to be lacking any solid evidence, and does not appear to have been followed up with anything over at SPI. Murph9000 (talk) 05:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

rough way to start editing! I just welcomed him nicely. Removing the tag would be nice for another editor to do, show welcome to someone that appears to want to be productive. Legacypac (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Jennysusan90

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

---

Jennysusan90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, but rather to promote a website. See edits such as this, this and this. User talk:Jennysusan90 now has a long list of warnings about promotional and copyvio article creations. This is just wasting other editors' time. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Fixed. Editor blocked, domain reported to meta for blacklisting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

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

IP adding category Category:Opposition to Donald Trump to articles

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

---

72.132.30.75 (talk · contribs) has added this to several articles today. I've removed one but can someone to a reality check about the others before I carry on? The criteria for the category is "Articles relating to political opposition to Donald Trump." which is very vague. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Not an administrative issue, but definitely a category ripe for WP:CfD as we don't have Category:Opposition to Barack Obama, Category:Opposition to George W. Bush, or Category:Opposition to Bill Clinton. All of whom had substantial political opposition. —Farix (t | c) 13:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Various editors have removed the obvious unmerited additions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Good. I was thinking that in some cases it was a BLP issue but I guess I agree not warranting any Admin action. Doug Weller talk 14:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Seeking help!

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)

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 Oppose: 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)

• 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 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)

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 [72][73] (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. [74] 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.[75] 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.[76] 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)

Continued harassment from IP user

I am a dynamic IP user whose IP address changes constantly for some reason. These are three of the IP addresses that I have used for the past few days 121.214.44.226 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 121.219.136.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and currently 58.164.100.14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). 112.198.73.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) continues to insist that I am a sockpuppet of a blocked user called AkoAyMayLobo (talk · contribs). I have proven them wrong and given them evidence as to why they are wrong. I posted this on their talk page proving them wrong, yet they continue to harass me. Xdeluna (talk · contribs) also confirmed that my story was true. I can't go to a single page on Wikipedia without seeing their sockpuppet templates on my talk page. Could someone please help me solve this problem. @There'sNoTime: I remember you told me that if I had any problems I could come and ask you for help. I am the same user as 101.160.50.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), you helped me solve this issue in July 2016, thank you. (58.164.100.14 (talk) 03:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC))

I recommend creating an account to avoid issues where you're confused with other editors, false sockpuppet allegations, etc. If anonymity is your concern, you're better off with an account because your IP address is hidden. It takes about ten seconds to register and requires no personal information. —Guanaco 03:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this thread, though it looks like this sort of matter has arisen before.Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I have never been in contact with them until a few days ago. I noticed that they post a lot of sockpuppet templates on many user's pages, I am not a sockpuppet though. (58.164.100.14 (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC))

Vanamonde93 may have the right idea.

• User_talk:NeilN#I.27m_sorely_tempted...
• User_talk:Vanjagenije#Disruptive_editing
• User_talk:Materialscientist#Unruly_IP_editor

Be a lot easier if you all registered accounts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: If you look at my edit history you will see that I make constructive edits, I should not be held accountable for the actions initially started by 112.198.73.9 (talk · contribs) when they said this to me on Sunday. Of course if one is accused of something that they know is not true, they would defend themselves. I began ignoring their messages if you looked at my edit history you would see this, however the constant templates and accusations against me has led me to come back into the argument. I do not want this to continue that is why I came here to cease the harassment. If you were accused of something that you know is not true, would you not do the same? (58.164.100.14 (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC))

Also I did not start any of those discussions that you listed above, this is the only proper discussion I have actually started in regards to this issue. (58.164.100.14 (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC))

@NeilN: Given that the OP here seems to be making some effort to edit constructively, whereas IP112's only edits are related to highlighting the OP's edits, I've issued IP112 a final warning to drop the matter. Ks0stm asked them to do more or less that after their last SPI post, but they have not done so. If these continue warring against each other, we can block them both. Vanamonde (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Support this final warning of 112.198.73.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and endorse a block if they continue their harassment of the OP. I feel like all of 58.164.100.14's edits would be constructive if they didn't have to deal with the harassment, so I would not recommend blocking them.

@58.164.100.14: I really do recommend you create an account, primarily for three reasons: First, it allows both yourself and other users to keep better track of your contributions, rather than having them spread across IPs which could be shared by multiple users. Second, it would allow you to set user preferences, have a watchlist, use gadgets like Twinkle and navigation popups, and have custom user scripts, like I have at User:Ks0stm/vector.js. Finally, it would allow you to receive Echo notifications. In the end, do you have to create an account? No. But creating an account provides many more benefits beyond just those I listed. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Thank you for your efforts. @Ks0stm: thank you for the suggestion and the message, I will definitely think about it. Also my IP address changed again, still the same user though. (120.144.166.4 (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC))

Reliably sourced content being removed constantly

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

---

I added Daniel Craig to the List of atheists in film, radio, television and theater last year and since then 5 users (Irish Leprechaun, RalphMachiato, Marty Hilton, IrishScribbler and DrKatz999) have removed him and given absolutely subjective excuses that include "Craig was not talking about himself in that interview", "The translation is poor", "The article is badly written, so its accuracy is highly questionable", "The source is badly written and makes no sense", "This is no more than a throwaway statement to avoid the topic of religious beliefs. There is no documented proof this interview even took place" and "Such claim is most likely throwaway remark to avoid going off topic".

The only problem is that the text that I have used as source is an interview published by DIE ZEIT, a respected German newspaper that meets all criteria to be considered a reliable source, and in that article Daniel Craig states unequivocally "Ich bin Atheist", leaving no doubt as to his (dis)belief.

It seems serious to me that several different users could not accept a reliable source, questioned its writing/translation, made subjective assumptions as to what Craig's intentions were when answering the question made to him and even doubted that the interview actually happened. I really see no reason for so much suspicion. I do not discard the possibility that some of them may be puppets for the same person and I ask someone with a higher authority than me to check this out and instruct me and the other users as to how to solve this issue.

Thanks. Clausgroi (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Clausgroi see DRN. ANI is not the place for content disputes.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest they check out WP:Dispute resolution instead. I don't see that this necessarily should go to the noticeboard. For starters, it doesn't look like it's been discussed at the article talk page at all which tends to be the most basic step in dispute resolution and required before posting on DRN. Further, if the dispute is over whether or not something is a reliable source, WP:RS/N is probably the best bet. Or maybe WP:BLP/N is the dispute arises mostly because it's a WP:BLP case. Nil Einne (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

That said, all of the editors removing this content are SPAs with remarkably similar edit summaries and (usually) zero other contributions, so an argument can be made that Clausgroi's next stop should actually be WP:SPI, regardless of the merits of the content or its removal. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Squeamish Ossifrage, you are surely right. Your DR has already been "procedurally closed", Clausgroi, and I've opened an SPI. There may be a problem in that several of the probable socks are already stale — they've been used so little — but we'll see. Thank you very much for reporting, Clausgroi. Bishonen | talk 00:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC).

• Update: A checkuser has blocked the two live ones, DrKatz999 and IrishScribbler, and I have blocked the rest per WP:DUCK. Clausgroi, please let me know if you should see more of them pop up and I'll semi the page. Bishonen | talk 08:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC).

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

PerfectlyIrrational

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[77] 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 & [78]
• 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: [79], [80], [81]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support block Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

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.[82] 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)

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)

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)

User:Gravuritas

Gravuritas (talk · contribs) was asked not to call other editors "twerps" in 2013[83] and 2016[84]. He's continuing to do so[85]. 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)

Image being removed

Hi, the user BilCat is removing a picture that i did from the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astra_(missile) First he removed it by telling that its doctored image. When i pointed out that the image in question is a derivative image created using two open source photos from Wikimedia commons. Its a derivate work that i created and have attributed it to the people who took the photos. What i am trying to do is to provide a better artistic image to the current one..so that it looks good..but it has been removed repeatedly. I have tried to restore it. Please take a look at it. Thank you.Longrangerinthesky (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• This is not an admin issue, we don't decide content. You need to go to the talk page of the article and start a discussion, allowing the people that edit that article to decide by consensus. Continuing to revert back and forth is edit warring and can get you both blocked. So don't. Just go talk and reach consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• Only to comment on the image issue: you are taking a sky bg photo, and a photo of the missile attached to a stationary plane, and creating an image to make it look like it is in flight. That is a WP:SYNTH issue and the removal of the image is completely acceptable, as you are giving the impression that that is a real photo of the missile in flight -- with perfect clarity of the markings on the missile. We do not allow that type of imagery here. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I didn't actually check out the image until you said that, but you are absolutely correct. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• OP blocked 48 hours for edit warring and disruptive editing, continuing after they posted here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Sjsiwkwoswkwosmosmk's vandalism

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

---

Sjsiwkwoswkwosmosmk has been vandalising. I have spent the last ten minuets making sure he does no more. see his contributions for more info. The garmine ^(talk) 13:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked the user as a vandal-only account. In the future you can head to AIV to report these instances, which is the place for them. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• I have spent the last ten minuets making sure he does no more.: If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your encyclopedia. EEng 13:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Blocking abusive editor

User Ayush259 is trying some kind of smear campaign against me. He called me names on my talk page which I ignored. However his subsequent edits have also been to abuse me on his talk page and his user page. He claims to be related to a don (), and even added stupid information on the don's page. All this just because I reverted one vandalism edit by him.Jupitus Smart 16:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a kid, though I'm not completely sure. Though I would just block for WP:NOTHERE. — JJBers 16:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, just got blocked. — JJBers 16:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeffed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank You. He doesn't seem like a kid, considering he stays in a paying guest accomodation per his own admission in the edit I reverted. Jupitus Smart 16:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Islamic Political Science Mafia

This user is blocked on the basis of an unacceptable username which he or she has refused to change. Apparently this editor has left the building, so to speak. However, I just wanted to note that the editor in question responded to polite comments and instructions in a threatening manner (and not in a legally threatening manner, I must hasten to add). See here for such comments as "the Islamic Political Science Mafia, you will not be able to count on our protection" and "please stop disrespecting me as Wikipedia is not (yet)a warzone". I believe that possible further review/action may be warranted. Quis separabit? 17:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I saw they were softblocked for a username violation, checking their edits this was clearly a user who was WP:NOTHERE (and I HIGHLY doubt this was an organization). I've changed the block to a hardblock RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I was reading over contribs and about to do the same block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Islamic Political Science Mafia is block evading, using 79.76.95.187. See their messages on my Talk. Yintan  18:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that IP was just blocked for block evasion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm utterly sure you're too fast for me. Thanks. Yintan  18:15, 6 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 [86] [87] [88] [89], shouting and accusing established editors of vandalism [90] [91] [92] [93] 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)

User:Joefromrandb

I recently had a dispute with Joefromrandb at the David Duke article. He removed the description of Duke as a "Holocaust denier" from the lead of the article, and continued to remove it, despite being reverted by myself and Grayfell. Eventually Joefromrandb was persuaded to revert himself at the Duke article, and matters seemed to be resolved, but unfortunately, Joefromrandb chose to direct some uncivil abuse at me on Talk:David Duke. He made this comment, which I removed, as talk pages are for discussing how to improve articles, not for nonsense and random abuse and uncivil comments directed at other users. I warned Joefromrandb for his disruptive editing, but to no avail, as witness this, this, and this. I have continued to remove his uncivil abuse as it is pure vandalism and has nothing to do with improving or discussing the article. I propose that Joefromrandb be blocked if he refuses to accept that Talk:David Duke is for discussing the associated article and not for directing abuse, uncivil comments, and general nonsense at other editors. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I won't bother restoring it at the talk page yet again. I'll just say it here: fuck off. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I really don't care what you say here, within reason. You do need to accept, however, that the David Duke talk page is for discussing the article, not for directing random abuse and nonsense at other editors. I would not have removed your comment for incivility if it had some (any) relevance to improving the article; but a comment that is simply about abusing me and has nothing to do with improving the article is pure vandalism. A block (or appropriate warning from an admin) would be a suitable response. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You wouldn't know the first thing about improving an article if it bit you on the ass. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

There are many things I could say in response to that, but I'll content myself with noting that by engaging in disruptive editing by continuing to abuse me here, instead of recognizing that you made a serious mistake, you are strengthening the case for a block. FreeKnowledgeCreator(talk) 06:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

OK. Good luck with that. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Your latest edit to Talk:David Duke is this, which came complete with the edit summary, "I'm removing this puerile threat; if it's restored, my response of "fuck off" will accompany it". First, the comment by me you which removed was not a "threat". I did not "threaten" you with anything, Joefromrandb. I noted that I would report you for edit warring at the article if you did not self-revert, which was an appropriate response to your extremely disruptive edit warring, which involved persistently removing the well-cited statement that Duke is a Holocaust denier. Second, no, talk pages are not for directing random abuse with no relevance to improving an article (eg, "fuck off") at other editors. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Joefromrandb doesn't seem to understand why this behavior would cause tension. Utterly bizarre. Grayfell (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Just to note, in no way was I "persuaded" to revert myself. I reverted myself upon finding verification of Duke actually making such statements. It had nothing at all to do with any juvenile threats of being "reported". Joefromrandb (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  My note that I would report you for edit warring was not a threat. It was an appropriate response to the persistent disruptive editing that you were engaged in. Removing random nonsense like "fuck off" with no relevance to an improving an article is appropriate, but your edit here is not. You do not get to remove a comment that actually has relevance to improving an article because the editor who made it refuses to accept your "fuck off" vandalism of the talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes, I do. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
    • No, you do not. WP:TALK does not give "tit for tat" as an acceptable reason for removing a talk page comment. Editors concerned with the David Duke article have a legitimate interest in knowing that you were informed that you would be reported for edit warring if you persisted in such behavior. Stop editing disruptively. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
• This editor (Joefromrandb) needs a nap. An admin could enhance the prospects for that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • That is not a meaningful comment unless you make it unambiguously clear who you are referring to. If by any chance you were referring to me, I'm going to stand by my position that Joefromrandb does not have the right to remove a comment informing him that he would be reported for edit warring if he kept it up. That comment is a relevant part of talk page discussion, and anyone concerned with the article has a legitimate interest in knowing that Joefromrandb was so informed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
    • apologies -- clarified -- perhaps remove this post and yours immediately above to avoid cluttering the discussion? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Better to leave it for the record, I think. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
• So no actual admins watching this thread then? Because I cannot see how Joe's comments do not fall under personal attacks either here or at the article. Likewise even a brief look at their contribution history shows they have a habit of incivility. Its also clear that very little has changed since their RFC/U in 2013. ANI/AN archives show reports of incivility and edit-warring since then - and in line with their current behaviour. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't myself describe "fuck off" as a personal attack, though it is uncivil and disruptive. It amounts to vandalism of the talk page, since it doesn't in any way form part of a good faith effort to improve the article. The edits made by Joefromrandb subsequent to that comment suggest it is simply part of a large disruptive pattern. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
    • "You wouldn't know the first thing about improving an article if it bit you on the ass." is a completely unambiguous personal attack. (Which was the one that I was actually referring to) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that comment may be a personal attack, but as personal attacks go, it's trivial. I don't care about it. It's the overall disruption that concerns me. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

User engaged in spamming

Vahid alpha (talk · contribs) appears to be engaged in spamming.

In the following diffs...:

• Revision 784070258 in Virtualization
• Revision 784071413 in Computer simulation
• Revision 784071706 in Stochastic process
• Revision 784072006 in Differential equation
• Revision 784073041 in Time-scale calculus
• Revision 784076209 in C++
• Revision 784078298 in Chemistry
• Revision 784078628 in Analytical chemistry
• Revision 784081125 in Economic system
• Revision 784081383 in Mechanical engineering
• Revision 784081964 in Statistical signal processing
• Revision 784091323 in Facebook
• Revision 784091702 in United States
• Revision 784091946 in Google

...one can observe the following editing traits:

• They were all done on June 6.
• A link to a low-quality PDF article hosted on icdst.org is contributed.
• The link is contributed in the guise of a source, but they don't seem to be attempts to establish verifiability for anything.
• In all but one case, the edit is marked as "minor".
• Quality of contribution is not a consideration.
• These contributions are stark deviations from this user's past editing pattern that was Iran-related.

LocalNet (my esteemed colleague) has sent him a warning, to which he didn't pay due regards.

I believe at least a ban is due.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Going by this edit to his user page, it looks rather like an attempt to promote his own website. A quick look at the website suggests that it's some sort of crawler which gobbles up content from other sites and republishes it. While the site seems to say it will do copyright takedowns, I'm not convinced that it actually makes strong efforts to respect copyright in the first place. A quick sample of the refs added did not convince me that they were good refs for the adjacent content. In Wikipedia terms, for any legitimate references, I strongly believe that it would be vastly superior to have the original location of the reference (in addition to any archive URLs). Right now, my overall opinion of this is that it's nothing more than spamming. Murph9000 (talk) 07:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

He also tried to remove this whole discussion. --Marbe166 (talk) 07:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and some WP:POINTy reverts which do not appear to be constructive, and look somewhat retaliatory.[94][95] Murph9000 (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

(internal) copyright violations?

I have my eyes on a couple of new accounts (with a slight hint of sock/meatpuppetry), who seem to do the following: create an article in draft space, do some development until a quite mature article has been formed, and then copy the content to mainspace (removing the draft templates, maybe some minor changes (spelling, grammar, but nothing big)), not waiting for review or even requesting that. The edit summaries on the mainspace creation are not indicative that the article is created elsewhere. My question is, is this a copyright violation? not disclosing edits or examples --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Not as far as I can tell. All texts on Wikipedia, including Drafts, are licensed under CC. Yintan  09:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you meant the 'all rights reserved ©' kind of copyright. My bad. Yintan  09:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

If it was a single editor in draft space who wrote/worked on the article and who copied it to main - no. If multiple editors have worked on the draft and a single editor copies it (rather than move) - it fails our rules on attribution unless there is a notice somewhere saying where it was copied from. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, referring the OP to WP:Copying within Wikipedia. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Beetstra: Yes, it's a copyright violation, as it's unlicensed without attribution (unless all substantial contributions are by a single editor, who may then be the sole copyright holder, and they copy it themselves). By "substantial contributions", I'm referring to something which crosses the threshold to generate a copyright interest, e.g. if an editor contributes near enough all of the original text and 100 other editors fix typos, formatting, and generally trivial edits; only the first editor holds a copyright interest in it. It's different to most copyright violations, as retrospective addition of attribution (e.g. histmerge, null edit summary, talk page banner, etc) can be used to resolve the violation. It could also be symptomatic of something else, like a paid editing group, or other issue worthy of a SPI case, if there are multiple instances involving the same accounts. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Murph9000 (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Abuse on the Romani Wikipedia.

Please hide the edit filter that says "F*ck Romani people" and "delete Gypsy wikipedia" and hide all of this IP's address's edits (37.35.151.194). Their edits are highly abusive, inflammatory, vulgar, harmful, illegal, racist and threatening. Their edits include promoting assassination, hacking threats, killing and murder....

This edit from 92.86.6.214 is abusive and racist too. It says "f*ck Gypsies". Hide this edit as well. Hide the edit filter. Use RevisionDelete.

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romane_manusha&action=history https://rmy.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romane_manusha&oldid=45635 https://rmy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzalutno:Contribuții/37.35.151.194