Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EEng (talk | contribs) at 17:49, 4 June 2017 (→Admonished by ArbCom, continues more of same anyways: +). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Proposed Block on Newimpartial

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

    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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 (TALKCONT) 19:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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]
    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 element 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    agreed. Newimpartial (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing goog at all? EEng 08:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Newimpartial (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    That massive talkpage needs to be cleared for starters. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    Ivanvector, why in the world would you block yourself? EEng 20:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Where is all this "her" coming from? He has a big "this user is male" userbox. ‑ Iridescent 20:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Ealdgyth was referring to herself above and not Neddy. See this.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    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.

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @Let99: Please review Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    You seem to not understand what actually happened. Let99 (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Bennv3771, I've removed the comment. Let99 (talk) 01:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • (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)[reply]

    Proposal

    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)[reply]

    (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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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 (TALKCONT) 04:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • (@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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • '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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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 (TALKCONT) 22:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    This is a concerning statement. We delete unsourced BLPs, Legacy. Swarm ♠ 17:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    well you continue to post false statements here. Legacypac (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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[1] ANI closed with a warning and threat of a block next time [2] 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 [3] are good options. Legacypac (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Newimpartial
    2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive955#Newimpartial
    3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Stale_userspace_drafts

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    The above editor is a clueless newbie who recently had a dispute with Legacypac. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    q.v. the same admin threatening a block in response to a policy question here.[36] Newimpartial (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Support as per the previous comments. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. ~ Rob13Talk 21:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    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

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

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

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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 (TALKCONT) 04:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. ~ Rob13Talk 04:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. ~ Rob13Talk 07:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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 (TALKCONT) 04:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
      • (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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Proposal - TBANs for both from draft/userspaces and NPP

    withdrawn. 2 independent, strong opposes, no support. Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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 (TALKCONT) 19:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as draconian and not properly targeted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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

    Sultan Aji Muhammad Sulaiman Airport

    (non-admin closure) Discussion of this content dispute on the relevant talk page has begun, no need for an admin here. ~ KN2731 {talk} 13:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User: Mazta2012 has removed the airport's logo from the article, claiming that it is not official. This is not true because the logo was directly uploaded from the airport's official website, therefore it is official. I have asked the user to explain himself but it seems he refused to answer. Can the admin help me in this issue? Thanks. CWJakarta (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This appears to be a content dispute. There's no doubt that image appears on the website, but it's not clear to me that this makes it anything other than the logo for the website. I see you've started a discussion on the article's talk page. I suggest discussing it there. This really doesn't need an admin at this time. --Yamla (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Tenebrae

    This isn't going anywhere, no policy violation has taken place, and if anything, the filing of the complaint has drawn more attention than Tenebrae ever showed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I would like to have this user blocked from my account.

    I first interacted with this user when editing the 'Ginnifer Goodwin' page when adding her latest project. The user aggressively claimed that it was simply to promote my 'client' and her 'project' and accused me of taking advantage of Wikipedia's editing access to promote a person that I had no personal or professional ties with, especially considering that I am under 18. (Please keep in mind, I am new to wikipedia and the original explanation was not clear by any means to me) I even tried to rephrase the edit to make it 'less promotional'. But this user and another both came against me and even when one relaxed, they reversed their opinion and insisted that I was wrong because this user had said so. A few days later, I noticed that this user had edited every single page I had contributed to and insisted they were incorrect & later accused me of using gossip sources, when the only possibly uncredible source was matching that of another editors on the page of a corresponding person. They literally went through my whole contribution list and kept track of all my online movements. As a minor and a new user, I felt uncomfortable, defenseless, confused, and uneasy. The day after I noticed this, told this person on their talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tenebrae#hello.2C) to leave me alone and that they were making me uncomfortable because of their imposing, impolite, and unwelcoming nature and their tracking/stalking of every single contribution and page I had accessed on wikipedia. It seemed like the person was trying to start a conflict or drive me off of the website. I felt like any sort of edit I made would always be watched, tracked, and blamed on by this user and this user would continue to pay special attention to me and target me. As I am a minor, I don't really have the means to defend myself against a fully grown, experienced editor that demands seniority from others. They say I am threatening them, I am merely making them aware of my discomfort and since I know this user is a volatile & frequent contributor, I am not asking them to be removed or anything like that. I am simply asking that this person no longer has access to any of my account information for my own comfort and solace. Thank you. If you have any questions let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosemaries19 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is my "volatile" talk-page response to this user's initial post on my talk page today [52]:

    There is no way of knowing who anyone is on Wikipedia, and your threatening insinuation that you purportedly are a minor and that I am "stalking" a minor appears to be on the verge of a legal threat, a policy under which you can be sanctioned. My edits were strictly to correct gross violations of WP:BLP, WP:TABLOID, WP:GOSSIP and other inappropriate edits that were not "within reason and accuracy". As for your WP:PROMOTIONAL edits, more than one editor reverted them. Wikipedia welcomes all contributors and asks that they adhere to the policies and guidelines encapsulated at the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia.

    Both I and User:Ebyabe here reverted this editor's fannish, promotional edit (as 172.250.87.105) at Ginnifer Goodwin. Moreover, Rosemaries19 added anonymously sourced dating gossip here, and fan-magaziney bridal-party details attributed to the non-WP:RS Daily Mail here, both of which I reverted. Yet a third editor reverted her here. I don't think the issue is me when at least three editors are reverting this person's non-constructive editing.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    hi there. the response is taken out of context. i posted on your wall my request for privacy & did not mention or request any specific edits. as for the ones you brought up, i sourced the same gossip that was on matt smith's before she removed it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matt_Smith_(actor)&oldid=782343735) which I did not add. I merely saw the section and reflected it on the corresponding actress's page using the same source they listed. As for the Pippa Middleton edit, that was on her page before I touched it as of here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pippa_Middleton&oldid=782601042) i merely rearranged the already there information and replaced the world 'fiancee' with 'husband' (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pippa_Middleton&oldid=783061259). i have not contributed anything that hasn't already been there for those sources. The last edit I made was here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ginnifer_Goodwin&oldid=782961000) which is not in any way promotional and simply listed an upcoming stage project. it was completely factual. as for victoria, i merely added in a source. all of these edits were based off of/added because of content that was already there. edits that, if incorrect, this user did not notice until i contributed to their pages, which is no fault of mine. did not change any of the content. however, these edits were not of my concern. my only concern is that this user has been tracking my movements and as a user who is a minor and a human being it makes me uncomfortable and i do not wish for my profile to be visible to this user any longer. Thank you. (Also: you are the only one of these editors to specifically sift through and keep track of my movements)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosemaries19 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosemaries19: Things don't work at Wikipedia the way do at social media websites. You don't have a "wall" and you don't have a "profile". Nor is your claim that you're a minor relevant to anything here. If you're uncomfortable being a minor and editing Wikipedia, first, you shouldn't have said you were a minor; no one would have known otherwise. Second, it's your choice to edit Wikipedia. If you're concerned about it, it's easy: don't edit here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't get special considerations because you are a minor. If anything, it's likely to get you more scrutiny because of a perceived lack of maturity. If Wikipedia is making you uncomfortable, don't edit. --Tarage (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also you have a very mistaken belief that you have rights here. You do not. This is a private website. --Tarage (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some thoughts. 1. Rosemaries19 has made a total of 19 edits as of the moment of me writing this. Side-note; Cool coincidence. 8 of those edits are about Tenebra; 4 on Tenebrae's talk page and 4 at AN/I. To say that Tenebrae is sift[ing] restlestlessy and intentionally through almost every edit that Rosemaries19 has made is really like saying that Tenebrae did a five minute scan of the editors contributions to see what they were up to and whether or not action, guidance or nothing would be necessary. Stalking of a minor is a ridiculous overstatement of the facts. Rosemary, you have not made hundreds of edits that would take days to comb through. 2. It is impossible, completely impossible, to ban anybody from tracking your edits. I don't need to be logged in to see every single edit you make. Stalking falls under harrassment and if somebody is found to be stalking another editor to harass them there will be consequences, but, a) what you're requesting is infeasible and b) unreasonable because, per point 1, this is not stalking. 3. Wikipedia dropped the "that anyone can edit" slogan years ago. Every editor, from IP to bureaucrat has editing privileges not editing rights. These priviliges can be revoked at the drop of a dime. So not everyone can edit and anybody that does is doing so with the risk that they will lose it. 4. You do not have a right to privacy with regards to your account. Anything you do with the account can and will be seen by hundreds of people. If as a minor you are not comfortable with this, then this site isn't suitable for you. 5. Please sign your comments by either clicking on the link next to "Sign your posts on talk pages:" or by manually typing in four tildes (~) before clicking "Save changes". Click on "show preview" to double check that you have done so. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as an aside, Mr rnddude, it does actually say on the front page "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It does Boing, but the behavior doesn't match the claims. Even if it did, we aren't school marms. This complaint is unfounded and dubious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but I'm just pointing out that the claim that "Wikipedia dropped the "that anyone can edit" slogan years ago" is false. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mr rnddude sums it up pretty well. You've made a handful of edits. No one would know you are a minor if you didn't make such a big deal of it. That makes me suspicious to start with, as me thinks you protest too much. You seem to have found ANI pretty quick for a newbie as well. Rather than be suspicious about Tenebrae's activity, I'm more suspicious of yours. As they say, on the internet, no one knows you are a dog. I'm certainly not going to take any action against Tenebrae. By coming here in front of thousands of editors who view this page regularly, you have guaranteed that many editors will be watching you now. We call that the Streisand effect. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:NLT

    Some views on the content of this post on my talkpage would be appreciated. Cheers, Number 57 21:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I've given them a warning about the legal threat. The rest is a content dispute. I advise Continentaleurope to bring their concerns to the article talk page instead of reverting further. clpo13(talk) 21:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, the Labour party opened a number of libels against those who made claims. They did not mention Wiki per se. So do not worry. I am trying to avoid similar faith. I should have been more clear in my words, as re-reading what I wrote sounds incorrect. Just to clarify, the LP opened libels against Blogger Caruana Galizia and the Nationalist Party....(happens every time for every political dispute) and I wish to avoid similar agenda...specifically when non-registered editors are using wiki to put their agenda. Kindly read some articles of Maltese media, available online to understand my concern.Continentaleurope (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter, what you said violated our policy on legal threats. Not because you made a legal threat (you aren't in authority to do so on their behalf) but you are using the threat of a potential lawsuit to chill discussion and manipulate the actions of another. Let the Foundation worry about legal stuff. You need to back the hell up. All we need to worry about is editing and ensuring articles are sourced and accurate. If legal decides something needs to change, they will inform us. Your attempt is presumptuous and a violation of policy. Don't make that mistake again. And yes, the rest is a content dispute. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a Legal Threat As per WP:No Legal Threats:A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. All he says is the "Labout party is considering opening a libel against wikipemedia foundation." This is not him saying personally that he will sue you (or WP) for libel (which is what a legal threat is). Talking about if something is a libel is not a violation of any of the rules and discussing if other people have said it is defamitory is part of that discussion. In fact as per WP:LIBEL: It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. If he believes it is defamatory, it is his duty to raise that point and try to have it removed. This isn't about "chill discussion and manipulate the actions of another," it's about protecting WP from a potential loss of money from a libel suit (which is why we have these policies). It's not just up to the legal staff at the foundation, but up to all editors to follow WP policy in protecting it from libels suits. I ask that the warnings or threats against Continentaleurope for his actions (or any future similar actions) be withdrawn. -Obsidi (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • An obvious violation of NLT - The purpose was to create a chilling effect, therefore it's a violation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It qualifies. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Recent behavior by Atlantic306

    Recently, I've received uncivil messages by Atlantic306 the newest case being here at my talk page after I made changes to articles they also edited, W. Roy McCutcheon and J. Bradley Creed because they were unconvincing for WP:PROF, but since I'm highly active in professors and education articles, there's no foreseeable basis that I was intentionally singling this user out at all. This also accompanies past similar messages by them relating to my own autopatrolled articles here, here, here, here, my subsequent response of disapproval here, immediate continuation as before followed by my subsequent request to stop, which returned with this. There's also an instance from July with quote I noticed this when pages I'd marked as reviewed were quickly Afd", but there was no basis of I rapidly singled them out either, since I'm active in several article examinations. I've never sent this user messages or had any deep interaction with them at all actually, so I'm not confident any attempts at their talk page will resolve it and, because the community is entitled to know about such uncivil cases, I've opened a case. SwisterTwister talk 22:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

        • Well I was just going to sleep but in response I thought I was quite polite and was honouring what I thought was an unofficial interaction ban with ST. while he has been stalking my contributions and has made no effort to communicate with me at all, on one day he quickly AFD four articles id been working on that day and recently he has been prodding or redirecting articles Ive recently been working on. I don't mind people following my contributions but he seems to only want to antagonise me perhaps so I will react and end up here. Of the two professor articles they are the only two articles he redirected on those days which I believed he picked out as Id recently edited them.Regarding the autopatrolled status I didn't realise he was autopatrolled at that time (that was the day he AFD 4 articles Id recently been working on ) and I was just responding because I thought his articles needed to be reviewed and when he asked me to stop I did and I dont think Ive been uncivil to him just straightforward.Atlantic306 (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is absolutely nothing uncivil or wrong with Atlantic306's edit at ST's Talk page, saying "Please don't stalk my edits", which is ST's leading complaint here. In fact, that is civil, it is telling ST that the editor is getting the perception that ST is stalking them, and then maybe ST should consider trying to avoid that perception. ST points out that they do so much generally negative stuff like opening AFDs that the editor could be mistaken in perceiving that ST is hounding them specifically, which is a fair point, although sad. Opening an ANI case--which can cause the target editor to get blocked or banned and certainly is imposing stress-- is not how to proceed. If you realize someone is perceiving you as harassing them, back the hell off! Otherwise, at least with respect to this matter you're wasting everyone's time here and costing more than your contributions are worth. --doncram 23:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC) [amended doncram 23:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)][reply]
    Also, ST's negative judgment that "I've never sent this user messages or had any deep interaction with them at all actually, so I'm not confident any attempts at their talk page will resolve it" indicates that ST has not attempted any normal discussion. Like an AFD nomination not meeting wp:BEFORE criteria, this ANI is highly premature. The other editor opened a user Talk page discussion, and ST has just ignored it, not deigning to reply at all there! Also ST is citing July 2016 interaction which is pretty old. Personally, I advise ST to withdraw their complaint here and for User:Atlantic306 not to sweat it, and not to reply further unless this really seems to go out of control (which ANI debates do tend to do). --doncram 23:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I opened this because of the ongoing concern in the claims of being accused of singling a user out, without substantiated evidence, there's no other solution there and thus ANI is used to resolve it. I would not have seen a positive outcome opening a user talk thread if the sole (and as the past messages, show) result was leading to the same claims. "Realize someone is perceiving you as harassing them, back the hell off" is not a policy-approved solution and will not fix anything, especially the accusations still exist. There is no positive outcome in having to limit articles I work with, especially if I am skilled at analyzing their notability (something I've explained for any signs of following, happening) in simply abandoning the subjects. Opening a thread with personal attacks is never a waste of time, if it's important the community know. Accusations following 2 mere articles is serious. SwisterTwister talk 17:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    (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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]


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

    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. ([53]) 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. ([54])

    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)[reply]

    Yngwie Malmsteen

    An editor is making changes to this article claiming that they are at the request of "the management". I know this could be a hoax but I feel an admin should look at it as I don't think the subject of an article has the right to remove sourced material, if that is what is happenng. Please advise. Britmax (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait. You haven't even warned them at all or let them know about this ANI thread. You should have either used Template:Uw-coi or left a note regarding conflict of interest. You need to notify the user of this thread.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Berean Hunter: Sorry I totally missed that @Santasebastian: was not notified, I placed {{connected contributor}} on the article talk and welcomed them with a COI notice. - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Notified  Done - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? I don't go running to teacher every five minutes, so I didn't know the drill and wanted to avoid this guy doing too much work that would then have to be undone. I will try harder next time. Thanks, everyone. Britmax (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Britmax: No worries, thanx for bringing this up :) - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Remove email access

    Can someone remove email access from indef blocked User:Bing aguilar. They sent me this email

    Hi.. recieved your email.. the amount in the receipt is for me? Thank you.. pls reply have a nice day

    I never sent them any receipt (and since they sent it via the mediawiki email user function, they couldn't know if I did anyway). I did edit the receipt article and talk page, but this was long after they were blocked so I don't see any way for any confusion to arise there. In fact, their edit history and names makes me think this could be some sort of advance fee fraud attempt although I suspect more likely it's just lame trolling. Either way clearly they aren't using email for the intended purpose. P.S. While I'm normally very fussy about notification myself, in this case I don't see any point notifying them, so haven't do so. Nil Einne (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. --Yamla (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Nil Einne (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    47.150.249.19

    Vandalism-only anon IP 47.150.249.19 has been making all-caps WP:BLP vios at biographical article pages, baselessly accusing subjects of being gay, having had abortions, or being Satanists. Admin User:General Ization has already admonished him at length at User talk:47.150.249.19, but the IP is persisting today. As BLP applies to talk pages as well as article pages, these are seriously violative edits, and this IP clearly is not here to responsibly help construct an encyclopedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    His first one here, I think, speaks for itself. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Border Town ‖ 17:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Nintenchris5963 making threats

    Just had this threat posted on my talk page by Nintenchris5963. Clearly WP:NOTHERE and WP:POVPUSHing as they clearly stated that they are "sick of boys as main protagonists". —Farix (t | c) 18:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Absolutely unacceptable threat, indef blocked. And I've reverted and rev-deleted the threat. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User making hundreds of nonsense edits on own drafts to become "extended confirmed"

    Riley Cohen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Riley Cohen has made hundreds of nonsense edits on two own nonsense drafts today (drafts containing only a name, see page histories: #1, #2), obviously in order to become "extended confirmed" as fast as possible, with their sights set on some specific article (which since their previous edits include quite a few unconstructive edits on BLPs might be some sensitive stuff). So could someone please yank their "extended confirmed" rights ASAP? And possibly also give them a stern warning. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JJBers

    C'mon, really? There's no misconduct here. PROD applied, PROD removed, as is how things work around here. If y'all legitimately still want to debate the merits of inclusion of this article, take it to AfD; otherwise, leave it be and go do something productive. Please? Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 02:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    JJBers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    JJBers Public (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (alternate account)

    With this edit JJBers proposed the deletion of Gifford, Idaho. The motivation for this was because Gifford was used as a random example in this discussion. At that discussion, User:Ɱ became upset by the example in which Gifford was used, and wrote:

    Nice example, linking an article I should AfD right now for barely any sources, barely any worthwhile content, and nothing really unique to the place at all. It's not even legally recognized, without even Census data, its own post office, fire company, or really anything else that makes a row of houses something distinct or independent... Let's AfD Gifford, this is ridiculous to have an article on what looks like only maybe five tiny farms in the dead middle of nowhere.

    User:JJBers, who was part of that discussion, then proposed the article for deletion.

    Gifford, Idaho, was created seven years ago by User:TheCatalyst31, and like thousands of other stub settlement articles on Wikipedia, it undoubtedly passes WP:GEOLAND.

    User JJBers' edit was completely vexatious, and a blatant example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I provided a reasonable enough argument to compel JJBers, I see no fault here. If I AfD'd, would I be disrupting to make a point? I also disagree entirely that it passes GEOLAND, as it's not legal, so it therefore would be determined on a case-by-case basis based largely on "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources", also per GEOLAND. Gifford doesn't have that. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when did having a former school and post office become notable. Secondly, we have no information if this place even populated anymore, since there is no population data. From what I could see on Google Maps, it looks more like a small development on a minor road intersection than any actual notable place. Thirdly, how is that making a point? I went by the polices, and it was easily not needing of an article. —JJBers 01:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't venture an opinion about the vexatiousness of the AfD, but since Gifford had its own newspaper from 1903-07, and since Notability is not temporary, I cannot see a rational argument why the community would not be notable. Newimpartial (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It would seem appropriate to WP:AGF that JJBers did not know about the usual practice with regard to assuming notability for the many thousands of stub settlement articles. MPS1992 (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)That newspaper is unnotable in it's own right, and doesn't also prove the notability of the town. And from what I gathered, it's most likely a ghost town. source. —JJBers 01:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The newspaper doesn't need to be notable; it just needs to have existed and been a WP:RS, and provide coverage of the place. There is nothing non-notable about formerly inhabited places for Wikipedia; perhaps JJBers is unaware of WP:NTEMP which is specifically referred to in the notability policy for places. Newimpartial (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Four years of one little local paper is honestly trash. There's more being produced by most indie bands than that. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense; any "indie band" with four years of non-stop, non-COI, independent reviews in print sources would be presumed notable. Perhaps not everyone remembers the era of print journalism as clearly as I do :) I do wonder if the above user is trolling.Newimpartial (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Expect the only source of information is a random catalog of old newspapers from the Library of Congress. That's it. —JJBers 01:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a long precedent of communities being notable as long as there's proof of their existence; see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and so on and so forth. (Not that I'd expect everyone to know that, as these articles still get taken to AfD from time to time, but they're also regularly kept with an overwhelming consensus.) The reason for this is partly that Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer per the five pillars, and therefore should include geographic features regardless, and partly that settlements are usually well-documented in print local histories in a way that other subjects aren't, and are therefore almost guaranteed to have sources if you look hard enough and in the right places.
    If you happened across this article by chance and AfD'd it, I'd assume good faith and a difference of opinion, but the circumstances here concern me a little. Gifford was used as an example in a somewhat contentious discussion that wasn't even about notability, and two people who disagreed with Magnolia677 suggested deleting it without looking into precedent or spending a whole lot of time (if any) looking for sources. That's rash judgment at best and POINTy at worst. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:76.187.251.61

    Hello I would like to know what I can do regarding this user. All the time a constant dispute arises for anything, recently I generate a war of editions in Señora Acero, currently continuing in List of Señora Acero cast members. Leaving messages on your discussion page is a waste of time, does not respond to messages, prefers to write everything in the edition summaries and fall into constant editing wars. Here you can delete messages from your discussion.--Philip J FryTalk 00:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Three months hardblocked. They have repeatedly blanked messages and blanked this ANI thread. Their saving throw was to suddenly scramble a response once they knew they were reported. I find that to be gaming the system.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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 [56]. 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)[reply]

    Disruption and old socking by Leviathan648

    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.

    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)[reply]


    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)[reply]

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

    Personal attacks/Racist edit summaries?

    Would this be the right place to ask if this edit summary can be deleted? [69] - incidentally, while I am active on Vikipedia, I have never identified myself as Muslim, but regardless a demented edit summary like this should probably be deleted? Seraphim System (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Admonished by ArbCom, continues more of same anyways

    Summary: Prior admonishment by ArbCom for personal attacks [70]. Continues more of same, after warning by admin [71].

    Two admins recommended this recent behavior by DHeyward (talk · contribs) be dealt with in a venue separate from AE. Admin Masem [72] 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

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Apology reverted [73], 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    Disruption at Vladimir Lenin

    I wish to request a topic ban for Gravuritas (talk · contribs) at Vladimir Lenin. A vague time tag was added to the article on 23 May. I addressed the tag today by adding the date 1916. Gravuritas removed it [74][75] despite the source being clear that the comment was made in autumn 1916. Gravuritas is therefore guilty of disruptive cite-tagging as defined by point 3 of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Examples of disruptive editing, i.e. disruptively restoring a tag and removing content that resolves the tag even though the tag request has been answered. DrKay (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (copied from Talk: Lenin)
    "The bit you have deleted three times said: "when?|in practice, not writing|date=May 2017 . (Curly brackets deleted for clarity) That seems moderately clear, that I am not just asking for a date. If I picked the wrong short term to query this then please let me know what I should have put, and I'll put that in instead. To explain further: I am not questioning that Lenin said words to this effect in 1916- I am saying that his actions for the next few years were completely contrary to this statement. I can find the necessary RS if desired, but I am having great difficulty getting any of my wording accepted here, so I would prefer that another editor finds a form of words to explain the apparent dichotomy between Lenin's words and his subsequent actions. On the face of it, using this quote is ludicrous."
    I suggest that if DrKay had read what he was deleting each time, he would have realized that I was not just asking for a more explicit time. His deletion was inappropriate- even if s/he didn't notice what precisely was being deleted the first time, my comments on the edits when I reverted should have alerted him/her. Even now, the claim is that the tag request has been answered- no, it hasn't.
    Gravuritas (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We can all visit the article and see that balancing material and extra citations are given in the preceding sentences and follow-on paragraph, which explains his practice did not match his writings. This is not a content issue. It is an issue of behavior from an editor who is determined to disrupt the article, and has been asked to tone it down already at Talk:Vladimir Lenin#Personal attacks. DrKay (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So, DrKay, are you saying that until this last post you believed this was a simple date question, as you've maintained up to now? Or are you saying that you had already noted what I was really getting at, rejected it, and dressed up that rejection as a resolution of the date issue? If the former, then why not withdraw now the issue has been explained? If the latter, why did you not address it directly via talk?
    This is not looking very nice, and given that you now want to assert that I am determined to disrupt the article, I question whether the edit of yours was originally in good faith.
    Gravuritas (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying that your explanation for removal of the date and restoration of the tag is hollow because you claim not to dispute the date and the article already explains his actions for the next few years were contrary to the 1916 statement in the next paragraph. That is why your actions can only be explained as editor disruption, since it is illogical to ask for a date, receive it, and then remove it and restore a tag asking for a date even though everyone agrees it is correct. Similarly, it is illogical to demand that balancing material demonstrating his actions do not match his writings when such balancing material is already present. DrKay (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You're saying quite a lot, but you're not saying any answers to my questions above. You brought this to ANI. Now answer my perfectly reasonable questions.
    Gravuritas (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, allow me to break this down to what really matters: DrKay makes a bold edit, Gravuritas reverts edit, repeat two more times. This is bordering on an edit war and violation of WP:3RR. Let me be clear that I have no opinion on the content, but reading WP:BRD makes it pretty clear that DrKay needs to go to the talk page and raise a discussion about his changes and get a consensus before adding it back since it is being challenged. This doesn't mean it is right or wrong, those aren't decisions we lowly admin make. One spat of over-reverting isn't enough to sanction....yet. If anyone keeps it up, it will be. So yes, this is a content dispute. Go back to the talk page and find consensus. Then if anyone edits against that consensus soon, we have grounds for sanction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=783791890"