Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Miss Grand International articles[edit]

Nuked and blocked by Materialscientist 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi. Could an admin please check whether Miss Grand International (MGI) and related articles by User:Burhanul Aminudin (including Miss Grand International 2016, Miss Grand International (MGI) 2015, Miss Grand International (MGI) 2014 and Miss Grand International (MGI) 2013) are G4 violations? (Latest discussion here.) The creator removed a CSD tag I placed, and I'm not sure they're all identical re-creations. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The Miss Grand organization has been pushing their contest on Wikipedia for years with numerous pages and intricate unsourced detail. Please nuke it. Legacypac (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Amichael121190[edit]

Indef blocked by Ponyo. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Amichael121190 first came to my attention in February of this year due to the user placing a number of non-free images on his userpage, in violation of WP:NFCC #9. After multiple warnings ([1], [2], [3]), he finally ceased this behavior.

Today, I discovered a large number of copyright violations on his userpage. The material came from a variety of news stories he apparently found of interest. I began removing these (example), and subsequently contacted him on his talk page regarding this issue as well as two other issues (using Wikipedia as a host, and copying material from Wikipedia articles onto his userpage without proper attribution). That message was here. Within that message, I also encouraged him to use a free blog hosting service, such as weebly.com, if he wanted to continue doing this sort of work. Despite my message, he introduced copyrighted content onto his userpage again with this edit. I then placed another warning message on his user talk page with a large STOP sign [4].

Two minutes after this, he deleted the message from his user talk page (which is fine), indicating he had seen the message. After this, he reintroduced copyrighted content with this edit, which directly copies material from this cbsnews.com source.

I removed this content [5], and gave him another warning message, this time a clearly labeled FINAL WARNING message with another big stop sign [6]. 4 minutes later, he removed the notice and replaced it with the same copyrighted content from the cbsnews.com source [7], as well as placing the same material onto his userpage yet again [8].

At this point, he is willfully violating our Wikipedia:Copyright violations policy, and WP:NOTHOST and WP:COPYWITHIN guidelines, all of which he has been pointed to and ignored. I was hopeful he would follow the warnings I gave him, as he was finally able to do so with the WP:NFCC violations from February. This hope was not fulfilled. I am sensitive to the various conditions from which he asserts to suffer. Regardless, this does not permit him to edit in the way that he has. I have tried on multiple occasions to communicate with him without success. He refuses to respond to any warnings and continues his copyright violations and guideline violations.

>99.5% of his nearly 1000 edits are to his userpage and user talk page. The 5 edits he has made elsewhere have been reverted or trivial [9]. I believe he is not here to contribute to the project.

Since all of his problematic edits are to his userpage and user talk page, I am requesting he be blocked from editing with a suspension of his ability to edit his user and user talk pages. Further, his userpage should be deleted as violating WP:NOTHOST, along with a large number of copyright violations sustaining in the edit history. The same applies to his talk page. Failure to suspend his userspace editing privileges will very likely result in his continued abuse of our copyright policies, as he has already demonstrated.

User:Amichael121190 has been notified of this discussion [10]. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Subsequent to his being notified of this discussion, he deleted the notification and then vandalized the header of WP:AN/I with this edit. Then he deleted another editor's comments here with this edit, then posted this, indicating he was going to do as he pleased. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
*cough cough* TimothyJosephWood 19:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I concur. They'll never be a productive member of the encyclopaedia and nor do they wish to be. Canterbury Tail talk 19:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I've blocked the account and deleted their user page. Although it's not standard to delete a user talk page, the amount of inappropriate and personal information (if true) on the page warranted it being deleted as opposed to just blanked. If anyone disagrees they can restore the page but please ensure that the massive amount of inappropriate content is rev-deleted. I've left talk page access for now, but it should be pulled if their is any further disruption/shenanigans.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Upon further review of the deleted content, it definitely should not be restored even if rev-deleted. I've adjusted my comment above accordingly.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, it's been restored and revdel'd :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

32.218.41.31[edit]

According to this diff the IP has apparently stopped their disruption. Keep watching. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

32.218.41.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Could someone pls have a look at the contribution of this IP and block them if approppriate? After they reverted my contribution as "moronic" and "vandalism", they decided to turn to teach me English by explaining that moronic is not the same as moron. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Notification reverted with yet one more personal attack in the edit summary: [11].--Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
He seems to have a point. This is a very poorly formed report considering you are an administrator. From what you have linked there are no personal attacks and you've failed to provide any indication of where this arose. Considering the subject matter of his recent contributions (Wisconsin), this appears to be a prolific editor of place articles who edits from a dynamic IP in the 32.218 range. John from Idegon (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I would say that calling someone an ignoramus is a personal attack, as well as referring to that same person's talkpage message as moronic would fall into this same category. You seem to be familiar with this editor - is this the norm for how they communicate with others on this project? SQLQuery me! 19:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
There's also referring to specific editors as clueless. SQLQuery me! 19:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
On my talk page, I explained them that they (i) created two almost identical articles; (ii) by doing so and copying large amounts of text without attribution, they violated copyright, but their only response was to call me a vandal.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
There are several edit summaries with personal attacks, and they are not difficult to find as the contribution of this IP is no more than 20 edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note: I assume it's the same editor as 32.218.43.141‎ (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who's the reason that Trader Joe's is now semi-protected. --Calton | Talk 12:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

user:Tnguyen4321's personal attacks[edit]

user:Tnguyen4321 user keep denouncing me as conducting vandalism while I'm only conducting regular, legitimate editing on Battle of Ia Drang. He indiscriminately repeats about this, even in an RfC of which content have nothing to do with the topic of vandalism at all.[12] In fact, I doubt that some of his own editing may constitute vandalism or at least disruptive editing. Please take note. Dino nam (talk) 17:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

No "personal attacks" here. I only denounce deletions of relevant sourced data as act of vandalism, nothing else [13]. Furthermore, these are repeated multiple deletion of relevant sourced data as act of vandalism done surreptitiously [14]. Let me refer to WIKI: "Assume good faith (such as that the user is simply unaware of the policies and guidelines), but only if plausible. Circumstances may warrant no assumption of good faith, or indicate bad faith; respond accordingly."Tnguyen4321 (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

This is another evidence of his personal attack, as he failed to assume good faith according to WP:AGF. WP:VANDAL has no definition as "deletions of relevant sourced data"; without any evidence and perception of the concept, user:Tnguyen4321 had the responsibility of refraining from such denounciation. Dino nam (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Sneaky vandalism cannot be considered done in good faith [15] and [16].Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Those edits don't look like vandalism to me. Please consult WP:Vandalism to learn the difference between vandalism and a good faith attempt to improve an article. fish&karate 14:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I did. Not only vandalism but specifically "sneaky vandalism" in terms of wiki terminology. The issue in question pertained to :"Plausible, subtle changes not supported by sources or by text elsewhere in the article, particularly without an edit summary, may suggest vandalism". By the way, we are disputing about "personal attacks" here not vandalism which I am about to submit to the proper noticeboard/vandalism if Dino nam continued deleleting sourced info.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
@Tnguyen4321: First, this is only a sign to identify vandalism (as the section of WP:VANDAL suggests), not the def of vandalism itself. Second, none of my editing at all have come without edit summary since the dispute began, so even this sign doesn't apply. Ironically, it is you yourself who have done many editing without summary (e.g. [17], [18], [19], or [20]).
I beg to differ: you covered up your deletions while doing other editing that you indicated in the summary. Those are sneaky vandalism.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@Tnguyen4321: First, unfortunately (for you), WP:VANDAL doesn't have such a definition. Second, I didn't do anything to cover up anything; all my editing has edit summaries or further explanation in the talk page. Dino nam (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Wiki:Types of Vandalism:Sneaky vandalism:hiding editing (such as by making two bad edits and only reverting one) In the case of the 7 deletions, you hid your editing/7 deletions while reverting my editing. In the summary you only stated: "I didn't say the whole section. Wait until consensus reached" without mentionning the 7 deletions. You used the same subterfuge in the other case by deleting all the data I had added since 9 April.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@Tnguyen4321: You've totally misunderstood the concept. "Making two bad edits and only reverting one" means refusing to remove enough bad editing; for instance you vandalize the page twice but only revert one of that editing. It's not the same thing as reverting multiple of your editing (or disruptive editing I should call) to the last good version. Dino nam (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I did not paraphrase the (such as by making two bad edits and only reverting one), which is an example of sneak vandalism.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@Tnguyen4321: OK nobody could see what your basis and reasoning is then. Dino nam (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Nobody?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
p/s: I must remind that a report of avoidant vandalism is waiting for you with your kind of behavior. Dino nam (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Deletion of article tag? Violation of copyright tag?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@Fish and karate: user:Tnguyen4321 continue with his baseless denounciation. He restored his invalid warnings once more on my talk page.[21] Sounds like we gonna need some stronger measures to stop this. Dino nam (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Dino nam has been warned at least twice posted on his talk page. It appears there is no effect. He deleted the two warnings [22] Tnguyen4321 (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Warning icon Please do something to stop him. user:Tnguyen4321 has continued his personal attacks 5 more times on my talk page here[23], [24], [25], [26], and [27]. He hasn't got any sign of stopping. Dino nam (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Ink Master disruptive editing[edit]

I was updating and expanding the pages as I was getting ready to create a List of Ink Master episode pages until Realitytvshow starts fussing and moaning about it. This user said my edits suck, that's why he/she keeps reverting them. Tried to warn that person not engage in an edit war multiple times but didn't listen and even threaten to block me. I am hurt by what this user said to me. First off, they don't suck and I was just making the season pages more appropriate just like several reality shows who had this progress table format. Could you please prevent this user from threatening me again. Unicornaholic243 (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I have added the necessary notification to the respondent's talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

YOU ARE THE ONE DOING THESE UNNECESSARY EDITS NOW STOP. YOU ARE THE ONE CAUSING THE EDIT WAR NOT ME. YOU ARE RUINING THE PAGES NOW STOP IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realitytvshow (talkcontribs) 19:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

No you're causing me a big headache with your usual edit wars. Yet you refuse to accept the warning your receiving. Unicornaholic243 (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

─────────────────────────It seems to me that all the "Ink Master (season X)" articles should be fully protected for a while (one editor is confirmed, so semi-protection won;t work) until these two editors can stop edit warring and yelling at each other and start talking. The other possibility is to block both of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I just don't see the reason to block me when they are the person vandalizing the pages and i'm getting in trouble for it. They are ruining the pages do you not see that. There's a reason that it hasn't changed because it's perfectly fine. If I get blocked it's complete bull. First off the color and the contestant(s) should be separate like every other tv show. Second of all they are referred to their whole name throughout the season, so that shouldn't change. So don't sit their and blame it all on me when it's their fault.

I'm inclined to block all parties: "it's all their fault" isn't a justification for edit-warring. Your choice, everybody stop right now or expect to be blocked for obvious edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand why there just can't be an agreement to one edit. If they would just stop their edits we'll all be good.

Then take it to the talkpage and find a consensus. Right now everybody's well past 3RR and are subject to summary blocking for edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I do not deserve to be blocked. Look, I was getting ready to polish the season pages for an upcoming list of article until Realitytvshow started to complain and thats when shit starts to hit the fan. This is a prime example of why that user deserves to be blocked because of its usual disruptive editing with others and not only that, this user refuses to accept the warnings he/she is receiving. Still can't forgive the fact he/she disrespected me. I'm not looking for trouble, I just wanted to help out. That's all. Unicornaholic243 (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Since neither user exhibits any interest in working this out, both are blocked. Realitytvshow was previously blocked for two weeks for edit-warring, so I made it a month this time. Since both parties seem to be equally stubborn, the same term was applied to Unicornaholic243. Looking at IPs now. Acroterion (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I concur that both parties have been edit warring and blocks are justified. I also agree that Realitytvshow's past record might justify a longer block. But a 1 month block for an editor with a grand total of 92 edits and who has not been blocked before might be maybe just a teeny bit harsh. That said, I'm not going to unilaterally modify any blocks. Just thinking out loud... -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I've blocked the IP as evasion during an edit war by Realitytvmaster, who's done this before and got blocked for it for two weeks. I set the blocks to be symmetrical since both parties were at fault in the edit war and I don't wish to hand an advantage to one side, but I agree that a month for a first time is long. I'm open to reducing their block, but I'd fully protect the subject articles since they'll be autoconfirmed shortly. Acroterion (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
That's a good point. I think the easiest way is to offer a conditional reduction in the block. Offer to cut it to 72hrs conditional on their agreeing to a voluntary topic ban until Realitytvmaster's block expires. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Maybe that and set ECP on the articles for a month to make it easier to stay on the straight and narrow. The Wrong Version is, of course, protected with the blocking in any case.Acroterion (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
On a side note, I'm not thrilled by Realitytvmaster's less than civil, if not downright BITEY manner of communicating with a new editor and I really do think that there are unequal degrees of blame here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
That became apparent the more I looked at the situation and their history.. I've left a note on Unicornfanatic's talkpage. I do want them to understand that neither of them has presented a model for other editors to emulate, but I think in any case 72 hours and some extended protection would take care of things. I do want them to understand that they should construe their topic ban broadly and not transfer to other articles on the series. Acroterion (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I just need to chime in here that realitytvshow is a previously banned editor who uses logs out to do sockpuppetry. He or she constantly gets in edit wars then claims and yells they have done nothing wrong and it's all the other person or people. ink Master is not the only page with issues from this user. Same User was previously banned as user Starbucks6789 and other user name for similar issues. Sdfakjdfjklklasdf (talk) 06:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

If you compare this, this, and this, they're all pretty much the same. I'll indefinitely block Realitytvshow (talk · contribs). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Can you please protect Real World: Ex-Plosion and The Challenge XXX: Dirty 30 so he/she doesn't edit them with up accounts? 2601:602:9A01:6F70:80D7:6D22:213C:68F (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
User SEEMS to now be editing from user up of 192.173.194.218. made edits to something they've gotten in edit wars about again. Can I get protective locks for The Challenge: Battle of the Exes II and The Challenge: Rivals? That IP is located in a city in Wisconsin close to city of other ip he once used (that should be blocked although defunct) of 68.190.153.14. he is the only editor who thinks the contestants should not be marked as DQ despite a disqualified graphic literally popping up on the screen. Many reverted his edits over months but they eventually gave up. Now that he is locked I went to change it and low and behold within hours he couldn't resist changing them back. Sdfakjdfjklklasdf (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Global accounts / COI[edit]

I have been following a case of edits by a professional, paid editor on English Wikipedia and would like to raise some observations for broader discussion. The core of the discussion lies in the different approaches to username policies and paid editing between different language Wikipedia projects. In this particular case, user CommHa has been registered with German Wikipedia. Following their username policy, the company "Communication Harmonists" has registered the shared use account "CommHa" through a process of identification. The user page on German Wikipedia states this is a marketing and communication firm working on behalf of a promoter of exhibitions and that the shared use/company name account has been verified with the German Wiki support team. They are actively editing their primary client Nuremberg expo and, presumably, exhibitors at Nuremberg expo, such as de:RKW-Gruppe. Where English Wiki articles exist for exhibitors, they are editing or requesting edits in a similar modus operandi to German Wiki, such as here. I hope this makes sense. My immediate thought is that the rules of English Wikipedia prevail in this edition and should disallow the username and a personal username should be used in addition to following proper COI disclosure policy and request of edits through related processes. However, there may be views that usernames and processes can be "inherited" in a kind of "home wiki" rule. I am keen for thoughts. Many thanks. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 06:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

You could always explain this wiki's username policy to them, and ask that if they are editing here they do so under a different name (and perhaps direct them to the rename request page). Otherwise, unless they start routinely editing here, I don't think it's worth worrying about. It's not an obviously promotional name in English. Just my 2c of course. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
It's hard to see a 'home wiki' rule working; that would just encourage editors to claim whatever wiki had the most favourable policy as their home wiki. GoldenRing (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
This is another case where ENWP's naming rules are out of date and not best practice. As a COI identification issue, we *want* people using SUL who have a declared COI on another wiki to use the same username here, it makes them far easier to track. If we insist on our local policy superseding SUL, its just cutting our nose off. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I agree with GR here. We don't want to put ourselves in a situation where the Choctaw Wikipedia, with all of its six articles and less edits than your average en.wiki user ([28]) becomes the Eastern District of Texas for registering user names because they happen to have the most lax policies, or none at all. Individual projects are kingdoms unto their own, and it has to be that way because one project cannot be expected to respect a consensus they cannot take part in.
Whether the username is obviously promotional to a unilingual English speaker is not really an issue, since we know it is in fact promotional, does in fact imply shared use, and well... basically every username in a non-Latin alphabet is not obviously promotional by the same standard, regardless of how promotional it actually is, so the idea doesn't make any sense if applied consistently.
They've not edited much, but what they have done is create an obviously promotional article including COPYVIO, and that combined with the username is plenty for a block in any other circumstance. They are promotional, they have been active, they are active on de.wiki, and there's plenty of reason to expect them to return to en.wiki and continue to engage in conduct that violates our long standing policies. TimothyJosephWood 12:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
To that point, one might think that the creation of the RKW Group article may have been dipping the toes in creating articles on en wiki to see what happens next. Then of course, it could just be a lack of awareness that rules in different language wikis are different. I like the idea of looking at the various editions as being their own kingdoms or states. En wiki, en wiki rules. I do see the point though of fragmentation if people use too many different log ins - which in itself may contradict the (universal?) wiki rule regarding multiple persona/sockpuppetry. Unless there is a nuance in the rules that I am not aware of, the strictly correct course of action would be an edit block on en wiki on the basis of their promotional and shared nature (and quite obvious activity in that spirit). Alternatively, a softer approach would be to raise awareness of the issue, offer them to create personalised accounts if they intend to edit en wiki, which they will then use with full COI disclosure in line with WP:PAID. Once the conversation has been had, block the current user. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 20:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • This is an interesting discussion. The clash between USERNAME policies is ... difficult, but is really not our problem. It is something for the user to get worked out, I think. The account should be softblocked per CORPNAME. Also, people need to be notified of discussions here. I have done that. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks for leaving a notice regarding their username. I've also left a more personal note. If they don't get back in a day or so, I'd say a softblock is the next step. GoldenRing (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Repeated disruptive edits by User:Fydcinnz[edit]

Fydcinnz (talk · contribs) Has made a number of pointless edits (see their edit history) and then self-reverted despite multiple warnings including this explicit one a few days ago. User has resumed this behavior with this edit (note the misleading edit summary) followed by this revert (also with a misleading edit summary). User has displayed a continual pattern of disruptive edits (along with occasional worthwhile edits) in the 3.5 months they have used this login (their early edits appear to be that of an experienced editor). Edits are almost exclusively within the scope of Category:Longevity which would place them under the scope of Discretionary Sanctions for this topic, unfortunately no DS notice has been posted on User's talk page (my bad) hence this notice. Most users are no doubt aware of the plague of IPs whose sole purpose is to disrupt Wiki by making minor pointless edits and then self-reverting. This user's editing may have a different intention but is disruptive nevertheless and they have chosen to ignore all attempts to make them desist. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I added the DS notice to the user's talk page. Their habit of adding a single character then immediately reverting themselves does seem odd. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm inclined to indef as NOTHERE - this smells a lot like determined ECP-gaming to me. Anyone else think differently? GoldenRing (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, I've given them a final warning. The contributions list is certainly strange, with the additions and self-reverts. But usually, when it's about gaining Extended Confirmed Protection rights, there's a lot more of it — edit, revert, edit, revert, fifteen times in as many minutes. We saw a case of that recently. This could still be some sort of... I don't know... but something else. It would certainly take while to get ECP, at the rate they're going. Let's see if they heed my warning. Bishonen | talk 10:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC).
  • There was a case- possibly the same one mentioned above- where X was blocked for attempting to reach ECP like that; they even acknowledged where they had gone wrong, with a parting shot of 'I'll have to remember to do it a lot slower next time,' or some such. And there we have it, if desired, awareness of obviousity. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 10:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

user:Tnguyen4321's disruptive editing[edit]

As an RfC is taking its course with Battle of Ia Drang, user:Tnguyen4321 has done multiple disruptive editing on the article, particularly:

I've told him to stop these and further read the regulations, but it has been replied by even more disruptive editing. As this kind of behavior has prolonged for days, and ruptured the article remarkably, I request for some strong measures to stop him from doing this (e.g. a 24-hour block). Because of his relentlessness and intentiousness, I assume that some of these can be even considered vandalism (e.g the multiple removals of tag can constitute avoidant vandalism, or the deletion of large part of the section before consensus can arguably be blanking vandalism); however I'm waiting for other opinions to reach a conclusion on that. Dino nam (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

☑YHere is my response to his complain: @Tnguyen4321: Stop moving the info around from the section. You're not allowed to do that until consensus reached. Dino nam (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Based on what regulation am I not allowed to do that? The template states: Please help improve this section by clarifying or removing superfluous information and nothing forbid me to add sourced data to the article [User:Tnguyen4321|Tnguyen4321]] (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Furthermore you fault this section for containing "repetition of what has already been mentioned in other section".Tnguyen4321 (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Didn't you tell me this: All right then the info should appear in the "Aftermath" section rather than an independent section like this. Dino nam (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC) ?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

May I further point out that I have been providing tons of sourced data without challenged from other editors since April 9 until Dino nam cause disruption starting 08:24, 30 May 2017‎ Dino nam (talk | contribs)‎ . . (83,061 bytes) (-12,381)‎.(See revision history)Tnguyen4321 (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Please note that I have warned Dino nam for disruptive editing twice and he vandalized his talk page twice by deleting three times those warnings [45] [46] [47].Tnguyen4321 (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Warning icon Please respond quickly with some measures. Looks like user:Tnguyen4321 is trying to drag me into edit warring. As there have already been too much reverts and unreverts, I've reverted his disruptive editing for the last time in the day. Dino nam (talk) 03:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment this appears to be the only main-space page either author has contributed to this month. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Both blocked 48 hours for edit warring, and given advice on what we expect from them when the block expires. If they continue edit warring then I recommend a significantly longer block and a topic ban -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 10:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Steve Scalise article[edit]

Resolved

I've checked the history of Steve Scalise and there aren't many admins. We need more eyes on that article now...he and others were shot this morning in an attempted assassination.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

...Do we... really need a blow-by-blow on ANI? TimothyJosephWood 14:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
We could always just replace ANI with listen to Wikipedia. It may be a substantial improvement. It goes surprisingly well with Bach. GoldenRing (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Listen to Wikipedia? I expected more screaming and cat-herding noises.. -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 15:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Isn't this stuff is under post-1932 American politics discretionary sanctions? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I was wondering the same, but I'm hesitant to put that notice up just yet because 1. The editors are actually doing a good job of policing themselves. 2. It is rapidly changing and 1RR might actually get confusing because information is changing rapidly. There are a few admin (including me) on the talk page that are mopping up but not participating in the decisions or editing. In a week (or if it gets ugly now) I would agree, but think delaying is best under WP:IAR. It is chaotic, but everyone is getting along well. In short, the reader is best serve if we wait a week. Dennis Brown - 20:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

User:M.Shoaib Anwar appears hellbent on promoting himself[edit]

Indef blocked by SpacemanSpiff. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

M.Shoaib Anwar has a history of contributions and deleted contributions that seem solely aimed at promoting his own software and game development business. This user appears to be a young person from Pakistan, so there might be an issue of comprehension of the many warnings he has received. As this user has made no attempts to discuss the warnings he has received, I believe a temporary block might be in order to better catch his attention and perhaps prevent further improper page creations and requests. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked the user for 24 hours—in part, to get their attention. El_C 21:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
That did not help, unfortunately, since after they block expired they immediately created Draft:M.Shoaib Anwar and continued fiddling with their user page (which should maybe be deleted as CSDU5). No attempt to address their warnings or change their behaviour. --bonadea contributions talk 05:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Now blocked indef by User:SpacemanSpiff. EdJohnston (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ongoing promotion and vandalism at Help talk:Userspace draft[edit]

An SPA editor keeps vandalizing Help talk:Userspace draft (by deleting the previous content, and replacing it with promotion for his/her business). The editor has been blocked, but continues his/her disruptive editing using socks. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I have semi-protected for some hours. Lectonar (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I've added {{Article creation editnotice}} as well. – Train2104 (t • c) 13:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Mik3bm[edit]

Mik3bm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly adding unsourced and promotional material and a good article symbol (when it hasn't been through the review process) to Budi Margono, and has now removed an AfD template from the article twice, despite being warned against this. See here. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that the external link at User:Mik3bm suggests that this user has a conflict of interest. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The article (Budi Margono) looks like an A7 to me... regardless, I've given the user a final warning, and will block if they continue. @Cordless Larry: is there anything further you'd like like admin action on? -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 08:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, There'sNoTime. The reason I didn't nominate for speedy deletion is that Mik3bm's revision contained claims to significance, such as "Widely considered the visionary American Asian Indonesian and the wealthiest wisdom knowledge technology in modern history...". I'm happy with a final warning for now, although I suspect it might not do the job. Let's see. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The user is now engaging on their talk page, so hopefully this issue is resolved. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I spoke too soon, it seems. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think stating a person is "widely considered the visionary American Asian Indonesian and the wealthiest wisdom knowledge technology [sic]" is a credible claim of significance, so I would say A7 applies. Bishonen | talk 10:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC). Of course I understand it's partly a language problem, but even so. Bishonen | talk 10:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC).
I've blocked the account indefinitely. I'll leave a follow-up in a moment, on the user's talk page. --Yamla (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, the account doesn't seem to be blocked, Yamla. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The problem was, I hadn't had my morning coffee yet. As I am now sufficiently caffeinated, I was able to find and hit the 'block' button. --Yamla (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
It's the thought that counts? Face-tongue.svg -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 11:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I recognise that problem myself, Yamla! Thanks for dealing with this. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Civility on Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)[edit]

This article is having civilty issues, and is having issues with a failure to assume good faith. The tone of discussions is degrading and spiraling into little more than is some cases whole discussions titled as a critiquing a single user. Can this page please be looked at as it is becoming poisonous for me to continue trying to participate in discussions as I am having wild and unfounded personal attacks made against me. this discussion here and other discussions which are on the verge of devolving, as a result of ad homenins made by Arcadius Romanus here and El cid, el campeador here, along with this unnecessary incident. Sport and politics (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Neither of those are ad homs. Not only that, you failed to notify both users AND this looks to be a retaliatory report for the two of them reporting you to the edit warring notice board.
I suggest you withdraw this before you get hit by an indigenous Australian weapon. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I singled you out because it was you alone who deleted half of the article's content. There was no consensus and not even discussion about removing all of the terror incidents. By no way did I create a poisonous atmosphere. I even stated that you started with valid criticism. But it is simply a fact that you removed most of the incidents without discussing them first. You posted a list of 16 questionable entries but removed later almost all entries. --Arcadius Romanus (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I simply want this to all calm down and to be able to edit without being personally shouted at on a discussion page, stating WP:boomerang here is simply a scare tactic, I am frustrated by users going about making wasteful and inappropriate referrals to noticeboards, and not participating in civil discussions, I am simply editing in good faith and I am being made to feel like other users can get away with playing the system, and going ad homenin.

For what it is worth how is stating I have a 'Personal vendetta' and making a bare commenting accusing me of POV pushing not an ad hominem.

If you are un aware of what an ad hominem is, an ad hominem is an attack on the motives or character of the user, and not on the content of what is being said. All I simply want is to be able to edit without being personally attacked. It my be sounding like I am being sensitive here, but that is a load of nonsense, here It cannot be that a user makes wild attack, and then another user makes wild attacks, nd when I say can we get some input here to put a stop to this. I am told to go away or I will be in trouble. This feels very exclusionary. I am not asking for individuals to be blocked or banned, I am simply asking for individuals to calm down, and it seems that outside input is needed here. I find it very upsetting and very off putting that I am simply being told to get lost by 74.70.146.1. Sport and politics (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

On an aside I was unaware I was required to inform them of this discussion, I assumed the fact that it would appear on their alerts was enough, but as I have now been informed of this I shall make the notification. I simply missed that part of the top of the page as I was too focused on this part of the screen, anyway that has now been resolved. Thank you for pointing that unintentional omission on my part out. Sport and politics (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I dealt with the edit warring report, and opted to fully protect the article and asked those involved to talk it out. I'm starting to get to the point of not being able to see the forest for the trees, as obviously the topic area is one which always causes emotive "discussions" and frankly I'm no longer sure who if anyone is to "blame". @Sport and politics: I appreciate you feel put down by all of this, and understand the point of your report here is to try to get some help resolving the dispute - have you had a look at our dispute resolution pages? I don't want you to feel like you're being redirected away from your report here, but AN/I tends to cause escalation of an content dispute style issue (and then blocks) rather than a meaningful discussion. -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 10:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Prolific long term editor not reading talk page or dealing with issues[edit]

Somewhat similar to this recent report, User:Carolineneil is a recently returned useful article creator and editor in the topic area of chemistry and statistics, the latter especially being a topic area where we need more editors. My concern however is her articles are invariably overly technical and lacking context such that two years ago she was reported on ANI as her articles looked like they were being "robocreated". Despite the attempts of numerous editors (and the ANI) asking that she add ledes to her articles, less jargon and meaningful titles, it appears that she has not responded to feedback either on her talk page or rejected drafts (of which there are many)- in fact it appears that she rarely if ever returns to declined drafts so any feedback given is useless, with many deleted under G13. This is a shame as her articles are very useful and doing these simple things to her articles before submitting would allow them to be accepted as AfC reviewers are unlikely to be experts in statistics so it is hard for us to add ledes etc. ourselves. However the articles do fill in useful caps in Wikipedia's coverage and it would be a massive shame to lose such a useful editor, but given she has never edited in the User talk or talk space, I hope that this will attract her attention. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging User:Primefac, User:Joe Decker and User:Robert McClenon all of whom have left advice to this editor.
User:Jcc - What are you requesting here at WP:ANI? ANI is an administrative noticeboard. Do you want her blocked or topic-banned? Neither seems appropriate. It is true that she is ignoring advice, and that doesn't do her or the encyclopedia any good, but is there anything that we can do that won't make things worse? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: To attract her attention. If this doesn't attract her attention the only time that's wasted is mine. If it does then it saves the time of many AfC reviewers: the important thing to note here if that if it was one or two drafts this wouldn't be an issue, but per the last ANI discussion, it's the volume of drafts with good content that are getting rejected, so if this attracts her attention then that's good. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) @Jcc: WP:G13 mate, I think? Just FYI, etc. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 18:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks- was just dealing with a copyvio draft on AfC and got them confused. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Np; let me know when my 'Pedant of the month' award arrives ;) — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 18:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Why are we whispering? EEng 18:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I would recommend against blocking to get her attention. El_C 19:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Wait, why would we block an editor who is doing nothing to violate Wikipedia policies, and is positively contributing to the encyclopedia. Sure, her articles need clean-up, but that is just an argument against giving her autopatrolled. I think that what we should do is to have her explain terms or use less jargon at the AfC stage, which is where she creates a lot of drafts. Maybe have articles that are especially jargon laden should be denied until they are improved. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
@RileyBugz: I didn't mention the word 'block' once in my opening statement. "Have her explain terms"? That's a comment that has been left 14 times (and probably more on G13 deleted AfC drafts). "Have articles that are especially jargon laden should be denied until they are improved"? That's been done 11 times. Because she doesn't read her talk page she doesn't return to improve denied drafts- I shan't count the number of deleted drafts but one look at the talk page will tell you. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh, sorry about the misunderstanding. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
What would you see admins do?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: I've responded to Robert who asked a similar question above and I guess that the purpose of this post is to get her attention. It's the logical next step- comments have been made on her drafts, that's been ignored, comments have been made on her talk page, that's been ignored so the next step is a post on ANI. You'll note that on her talk page I put the notification under a please read and a summary of what she needs to address to stop her articles getting rejected. The ideal situation would be that this would attract her attention, AfC reviewers stop wasting time leaving the same comment over and over and good content doesn't get rejected. If this doesn't attract her attention the only time that's wasted here is mine. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
User:Carolineneil and anyone else - I will note that I tried to review three of your drafts. I neither accepted nor declined them. They were and are seriously underlinked, so that I would have had difficulty assessing them in context. It appears that you have not been responding to comments by various reviewers. Your drafts have considerable useful content but need work, and some of us (reviewers and editors) feel that we aren't able to provide the work as well as you can. If you don't respond to the comments and improve your drafts, they will eventually be deleted. Please either respond to the comments or engage in discussion with the reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The absolute lack of communication is- worrying to say the least. I mean: prolificity and length-of-tenure not withstanding, communication is vital in any community, and particularly one based on discussion and mutual consensus. The stats show no talk page edits in three years! This is slightly bizarre. We do usually block to gain an editor's attention; whilst this isn't the usual 'type of editor,' I don't see it is that much different. The fact that other editors' time is being taken up- and effectively wasted- is disruptive, however harsh that sounds. As someone once said, editors' time is one of our most precious resources, and those who expend it should not be made to feel they are simply wasting it. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 13:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I left a note and linked them to WP:Communication is required. Dennis Brown - 15:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Carolineneil should be trouted for using the Wikipedia:Article for creation process, instead of publishing directly as any other registered user. Since nobody has pretended that the covered topics were not notable, one can only conclude that this user is publishing stubs about notable topics. If someone pretends that something is missing, or poorly wikified, the said someone can do the work by himself. Who knows, may be User:Carolineneil would be more open to cooperate with cooperative co-authors, rather than to listen the templating people. Pldx1 (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually that is not the case. Looking at their user page, the vast majority of templates are auto-generated by various software (AfC / Dab /G13). Nearly all of those that are not, are personal- (non-template)- messages (e,g., 'Three suggestions', 'Hello', half of 'ANI Notice' and 'Please read'. All 'handwritten' in copper plate, with a live body behind a keyboard, just for their personal consumption. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 15:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Update on User:Carolineneil[edit]

The author in question just submitted three sandbox subpages via AFC. Two of them were pages that she had already previously submitted, Draft:Intramolecular Aldol Reaction and Draft:Chiral controller strategies: Carreira chiral titanium catalyst. The latter had been declined, and she hasn't responded (because she never responds). The former was accepted, and was then merged into Aldol Reaction, so that her work has added value, but only with additional effort by other editors who collaborate. I have nominated the two duplicate sandbox drafts for Miscellany for deletion. I moved Draft:Generation of Carbocationic Synthons to draft space, where it is waiting for review. It needs a more detailed review. It also needs to have links added to related articles. As I have noted, none of her drafts have links to other articles, which makes it harder to assess whether they add useful new content. I don't recommend a block, but she is a strange case. She is in effect not here to add to the encyclopedia, but is doing no harm and a little good with her articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

From what I can see she normally produces her articles in two edits with a gap in between. It might be a bit unorthodox but leaving a comment on the next draft she makes after her first edit might compel her to read it? jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Comment - I recommend that this thread be closed without administrative action, since she isn't actually doing any net harm, but with one more caution to the editor that it really really really would be a good idea for her occasionally to respond to comments. I think that comments about her submissions should go to WT:WikiProject Chemistry so that other editors can respond to them and improve them. Some of them are potential articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

New Update[edit]

It now appears that the author submits sandbox drafts to AFC even after the same draft has already been accepted into article space. On the one hand, I don't have a clinical degree or clinical license, and am not qualified to make a diagnosis. On the other hand, I do have a degree in computer science, and I can say that this authordoesn't appearappears to be trying to pass the Turing test. (This author isn't passing the Turing test.) Either she is a human, but isn't trying to pretend to be either a human or a bot, or it is a bot, and isn't trying to act like a human. At this point, I recommend a block, in order to get the author to make an unblock request. Yes, this is a case of Ignore All Rules about blocks, but this is weird. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it?[edit]

The consensus is to indefinitely topic ban Legacypac from moving "any type of draft content into the mainspace". This would be broadly interpreted as moving articles that were created by anyone, including themselves, from Draft:, User: or any other space, to main space. Legacypac is restricted to using WP:AFC for their own articles. Per standard terms, this ban may be appealed in 6 months and every 6 months thereafter that it is not successful. There is no consensus to impliment an interaction ban. That said, Godsy is strongly advised to consider the advice given him in this discussion and on his talk page. Dennis Brown - 21:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Godsy is WP:HOUNDING me again. Interaction tool show 36 content pages [48] 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 (talkcontribs) 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)
  • Just looking at this as someone who is not familiar with the history between you, Godsy's edits are improving the articles. One way you might handle this is to examine the edits that he's making and try not to duplicate any patterns of mistakes that you see. For example, I see at least a couple of times where he has made categories visible hours after you moved a draft. If you slow down your editing just a bit and unhide the categories yourself next time, that would be one less reason why any editor would have to come behind you and clean up. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • (@Godsy) You're ignoring what comes before and after the statement you quote above:

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

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

    Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree this is continued wikihounding, and I suggest a one-way interaction ban on Godsy relating to Legacypac. This has been going on long enough, and Godsy has been warned numerous times. Softlavender (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Per BMK's quote from WP:HOUNDING above, I have a suspicion that Legacypac's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. I support a one-way interaction ban to avoid Godsy raising similar suspicions again and again. Johnuniq (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I've given Godsy a 24-hour block; one-way interaction bans are rarely useful, and a two-way ban would be inappropriate for Legacypac. The bit paraphrased from WP:HOUND is for editors whose work actively needs to be cleaned up, e.g. the same person's consistently mis-tagging pages for speedy deletion, adding copyright infringements, just simply writing in poor English, etc. What we have here is nothing of the sort: it's simply finding anything, even minor spacing errors or missing punctuation, and you'll note that many of the edits are made to content that Legacypac did not create or modify. In other words, there's absolutely no reason to go after Legacypac's contributions, because Godsy's not modifying any of Legacypac's actions. All he's doing is making clear statements of "I'm watching you and following you wherever you go", a sense reinforced by the fact that a bunch of these are new creations that Godsy can't possibly have found any other way. Nyttend (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • 'One-way bans are rarely useful' - the exception I have found is where one editor is clearly and unambiguously stalking another. From looking at the above editing history where, as far as I can see, there is no other explanation than stalking for Godsy to show up, I would say this qualifies as umabiguous. So I would support a one-way ban on this occasion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • And in most of those cases, the stalking is significant enough that we need to block, not merely Iban. Bans are awkward to keep track of, especially one-way interaction bans, and easily gamed, including by third parties; if he decides to stop stalking, the ban will be a pain with no benefit, e.g. punishment not prevention. Either Godsy will stop stalking after the block expires (so why saddle him with a ban?), or he'll keep it up, and a longer block will follow. Nyttend (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Am I correct in reading this as "I didn't wikihound but I'm going to wikihound more aggressively? [49] I have so much to look forward too. Legacypac (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I read it the opposite way. "I'm in the right, but I'm willing to stop fixing all Legacypac's mistakes until the arbitration case is done". Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
He plans to research my edits and start an Arb case. That sounds like even worse hounding, not a promise to stop. Legacypac (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Use of proper community processes to address problems, particularly ones where there's a significant chance of a boomerang (ARBCOM and ANI), should really be considered exempt from the definition of hounding. Of course, if the use of those processes becomes abusive to the processes themselves, access to those processes might be restricted (though I generally oppose such restrictions there is precedent for them). One of the primary goals of anti-wikihounding policy is to keep editors from following each other around to other articles, and having their personalized dispute impacting articlespace. Another primary goal, of course, is to prevent the loss of useful editors through harassment. But there has to be a safety valve for such policy, either where it's misapplied or where the person being protected has also engaged in bad acts. Allowing ARBCOM and, perhaps to a lesser extent, ANI to handle these complaints strikes me as a far better answer than the alternative. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Looking at two of these articles (Ya cai and Pacific Premier Bancorp), I feel User:Legacypac should do more janitorial work when moving articles out of user space. Most of Godsy's edits appear to be non-controversial things like fixing categories and/or templates, while the articles themselves are "barely notable at best". Glyptography is egregiously bad as a new article. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I actually agree with this. While I'm absolutely sympathetic to the fact that perceived stalking is not welcomed behavior, Godsy's case that there was actually a valid reason to review this user's page moves doesn't seem entirely unreasonable, and I wouldn't go so far as to consider this 'unambiguous stalking'. I will also point out that this is part of a long term dispute that appears to be in need of arbitration proceedings. Oppose any one-sided sanctions. He should obviously leave Legacy alone from now until arbcom proceedings begin, but this dispute should be addressed via dispute resolution rather than a rushed censure of one party. Swarm 05:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Swarm you rightly make the point it is a long term issue - one where Godsy drove me away for months with his harassment and cherrypicking words from a certain RFC he helped engineer to give himself ammunition against me. I've warned him multiple times nut he persists.
You miss that any page I send to mainspace goes through NPP where there are hundreds of editors that specialize in cleanup and further checks. I've found that they do great work and I appreciate them. Further I watch and revisit promoted pages to further improve them. Godsy's hounding is not required to protect the project, and I feel you are implying I'm some sort of vandal that is hurting Wikipedia and needs to have every edit scrutinized.
Pacific Premier Bancorp is a $6 Billion NASDAQ listed bank so its a strange example of "barely notable at best". Legacypac (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not implying anything about you nor am I justifying Godsy's behavior, nor am I disagreeing with the validity of the block. I'm just agreeing with the obvious fact that Godsy's edits are actually helpful, and pointing out that there's an underlying dispute between two established editors and an IBAN would unfairly constitute a summary judgment of bad faith against one of them and indefinitely prevent DR proceedings. DR processes up to arbitration are the way to go about handling this and if undertaken in good faith then there's nothing wrong with that. Of course, there's no more room for this "feuding" behavior. Swarm 07:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me the feuding is all coming from Godsy despite numerous warnings, and needs to stop. This bad-faith hounding cannot and should not be painted as a positive thing. If Godsy had been in good faith he would have simply noted to Legacypac on his talk page how to be more careful with his draft moves (or whatever), or brought up his concerns neutrally in some neutral quarter. Instead, he has engaged in bad-faith feuding and hounding for over a year, and has been asked to desist numerous times. In my opinion the community as a whole is beyond assuming good faith at this point. We can see blatant stalking and harassment when it continues over more than a year despite warnings, and even an RfA which failed because of this harassment. Softlavender (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I offered Godsy a conditional acceptance of their unblock request in exchange for, essentially, a show of good faith. Their offer was an RfC as to whether WP:HARASSMENT actually applies to this situation. If validating their own behavior in a dispute stands out to them as the most important aspect worth devoting resources to, I see no reason to try to aid them further in seeking DR. Swarm 07:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm puzzled that an editor with a clean block log has been blocked without a single warning or chance to desist. I'm also puzzled by the statement that "one-way interaction bans are rarely useful", when there was already a clear consensus for the one-way, and they have generally worked in this sort of situation. All of that said, I'd like to forewarn Godsy: If you file an ArbCom case request, in my opinion one (or both) of two things are going to occur: (1) It will be thrown out due to lack of exhausting other forms of dispute resolution (other than your personal vendetta against Legacypac, neutral forms of dispute resolution have not been exhausted) or as a content dispute which belongs elsewhere; and/or (2) you will be hit with a boomerang, which may actually be harsher than a one-way IBan. You've already had your RfA fail because of this nonsense. One would have thought you could take a hint then, but you didn't. I hope you'll take a hint now. Softlavender (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • There is nothing wrong with reviewing Legacypac's edits, Legacypac's CSD tags, and Legacypac's page moves. Editors have public contribution histories for good reason. Legacypac has returned to very active editing, and some of what he does has somewhat dramatic. I find Godsy's alarm understandable. Few others review Legacypac's actions, and it is entirely possible that his actions may include bad actions. Bad actions may come about because: (1) Legacypac does things quickly; and/or (2) when cleaning out large amounts of crap, it is normal to have your judgement on borderline things desensitised.
I think Legacypac should stop objecting to scrutiny. If Godsy is "hounding", better evidence needs to be presented. Legacypac should welcome critical review of his valued cleaning efforts. It is my experience that Legacypac responds perfectly well to polite conversation.
I think there is no case for bans, no case for admonishment, but both editors would be well advised to keep teir interactions (1) polite; (2) collegiate, (3) professional; and (4) product focused. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I've been rather reserved here, but remaining so will allow a boisterous accusation of harassment and a hasty block for it (which I maintain was inappropriate) to remain partly unchallenged. Wikipedia:Harassment states: "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." and vaguely alludes to "overriding reason(s)" (WP:HOUND) – this clearly applies to the interactions referenced in this case; "It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly." (WP:AOHA) – This thread, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Godsy Disruption & GAMING the System, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Godsy/sandbox, etc. may show the accuser engaging in that; "Incidents of wikihounding generally receive a warning. If wikihounding persists after a warning, escalating blocks are often used, beginning with 24 hours." Wikipedia:Harassment#Blocking for harassment – I was never warned, except for complaints by the accuser. If an administrator had warned me and stated that I would be blocked the next time the behavior they believed to be inappropriate occurred, I would have ceased and sought relief from the community.; "However, there is an endemic problem on Wikipedia of giving 'harassment' a much broader and inaccurate meaning which encompasses, in some cases, merely editing the same page as another user." and "Neither is tracking a user's contributions for policy violations; the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight. Editors do not own their edits, or any other article content, and any other editor has a right to track their editing patterns, and, if necessary, to revert their edits. Unwarranted resistance to such efforts may be a sign of ownership behavior and lead to sanctions." (WP:HA#NOT) - again, this clearly applies here. No diffs have been provided that show me being tendentiousness, disruptive, making personal attacks, or being uncivil (as one user once said regarding my behavior during this situation "Godsy was quite civil in all of the dispute that I've read. At worst he sounded frustrated, but he certainly wasn't rude.") because I haven't done any of those things. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

BLP concerns[edit]

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

  • Naomi Schiff moved from draft to live here as the article "Appears notable". Well, either it is notable, or it is not. Now the article at this stage has no refs. So that's an unref'd BLP moved into the mainspace. Do they meet WP:N? Well, there's nothing to WP:V that at the point of move.
  • Lena Gorelik moved here with the rationale of "Stale draft meets a red link on page where she won a major prize". The ref in the article failed verification, which was tagged by an editor with the next edit. Again, at the point of move a WP:BLP failing WP:V.

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

There is nothing controversial about the author or race car driver and they both easily meet WP:N. If you are so concerned you could have added more refs in the time it took you to post at ANi and making unfounded broad attacks. The each had at least 1 source so were not Speedy deletable under BLP .Legacypac (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:CIR. You should be taking a lot more care in what you're doing. If you can't see what the issues of moving an unref'd BLP into the mainspace, then you should not be doing it. Thankfully this issue you have created has now been brought to the attention of the community. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:AGF and not making false allegations are also important. These were not referenced BLPs, and I did Verify so kindly retract. Many editors put unreferenced BLPs in mainspace every day and I don't see you attacking them at ANi. Further, BLP policy is manly concerned with negative content, not author wrote a book and won an award stuff. Legacypac (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
This is a concerning statement. We delete unsourced BLPs, Legacy. Swarm 17:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
The pages had sources , they just could have used better/more inline references for uncontroversial content. I've already added some additional inline references, as is my normal practice to review and improve these pages soon after unearthing them. Legacypac (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
They did not have sources when YOU moved them. You just left them. They've only been sourced after this issue was brought to your attention. The WP:BURDEN is with you, and you alone, to source any draft BEFORE you move it back to the mainspace. Pretty poor work. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Lugnuts that's inaccurate. As far as I know every BLP had at least one source and I've added more within several days. Retract your personal attack or back it up. I did not write these pages I handled them, so there is not much more burden on me then Godsy or a New Page Patroller to make them perfect. Further we've established Godsy has been stalking my edits on nearly every page I touch but he was not tagging the alleged serious deficiencies, he was adding periods and cutting out extra spaces. Anyway you show up and throw mud at me every chance you get and no amount of facts will dissuade your ugliness.
The diffs are in the opening lines of this section, above. I'm retracting nothing, as you clearly moved unsourced BLP articles. Those are the facts. You clearly don't understand the serious nature of this. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
well you continue to post false statements here. Legacypac (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
You have a bad case of WP:IDHT. Show me what statments are false, and I'll show you how wrong you are. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: As I mentioned below in response to Iridescent I wonder if this confusion arises due to different interpretations of 'unsourced'. Both the examples cited lacked working inline references at the time they were moved, but did have a single working external link to an official page. An official page isn't enough to support a BLP, but it does make it ineligble for BLPprod assuming it supports some statement in the article (AFAIK anyway) which it probably did. Also I keep mentioning working since I'm pretty sure the reason why Lena Gorelik failed verification is because the link is dead which doesn't necessarily make a difference compared to the reference just didn't say what was claimed, but probably will to some. Nil Einne (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

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

This post, given the wide rejection of this editor's other misunderstandings of deletion policy, could be the beginning of more trouble for Newimpartial. See his talk[1] ANI closed with a warning and threat of a block next time [2] and look through current Mfd discussions [50] 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)
You don't mention that your request for a topic ban for me here at ANI received no votes of support and multiple "Oppose" votes. And I have not been participating in any XfD or CSD issues since the first ANI by Nyttend, except for a CfD where an admin asked for my input today. Also note that my voting record on AfD was better than on MfD :) but anyway that is all in the past. This discussion right now really isn't about me at all. I don't see how you can read my post immediately above as anything but good faith participation in the discussion of BLP draft moves - it isn't personal.Newimpartial (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
And thanks to Legacypac for their link - I now think I see the heart of the issue. The instructions on <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Stale_userspace_drafts>, which presumably reflect a local consensus, conflict openly with WP:STALE. Newimpartial (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
"Newimpartial, with your minimum experience, if you want to avoid being called to this page and risk getting blocked, I suggest that you focus on adding new content or cleaning up vandalism - you just qualify to enroll at the WP:CVUA - and leave the heavy maintenance areas to people like Legacypac and admins like DGGwho know perfectly well what they are doing with user sub pages and Drafts, user names, and spam. You probably think you have been acting in good faith, most new users do, and I think you have, but the onus is on them to read the rules. People are calling for a block here, there won't be another warning. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)" ... and yet 4 days later Newimpartial has become expert enough to come to ANi and criticize my handling of these exact issues and tell us that instructions that have not changed in years are wrong? With your recent 200+ consecutive edits of pure disruption around MfD topics WP:CIR, WP:NOTHERE WP:CLUE all apply. Legacypac (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
90% of my recent edits are content work, mostly in article space. All I am doing here is pointing to the apparent conflict between this [51] and WP:STALE, as an issue arising from an ANI about editing of articles recently moved from draft space to article space. Nothing personal, and basically an FYI for admin who may be interested in raising the policy issue. It seems clear that the stale draft guidelines were never revised in line with last year's stale drafts discussions and the consensus arriving therefrom. Newimpartial (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Um, reread your first post. Pretty clear you don't think I follow policy and that is why you posted here. Legacypac (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Per my first post, I have the impression that you, Nyttend and some of the other "Stale draft cleanup" crew are not following, or are tendentously interpreting, WP:STALE. I now understand that your local consensus is reflected here [52]: thank you for drawing that to my attention. As several admins here have expressed interest in the treatment of user- and draft-space articles, especially in this case their being moved into article space, I am offering my piece of the elephant. Nothing personal directed at anybody.Newimpartial (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
The tagging of a userpage by someone or a bot as "Stale Userspace Draft" [53] 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)

Propose "topic ban" for Legacypac[edit]

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

Interesting idea Nick. Do you trust me less than every spammer or new editor that can directly create content in mainspace?
Every new article goes into WP:NPP and is not indexed by search engines for Not Enough 90 days/until marked reviewed anyway. These have such old creation dates they go to the back of the list where they are quickly reviewed by people that work the oldest first. There was backlash from the peanut gallery of rabid inclusionists willing to protect spam that submission to AfC could be a back door to deletion, so I don't use that option much. Crazy but true. Legacypac (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
It's 30 days, not 90,[54] and my reading of the source is that it goes by page creation date, not when you move it into mainspace. (I'd be happy, on a number of levels, to be shown to be wrong about that.) —Cryptic 15:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Update here - there is considerable confusion among involved admins about 30 vs 90 days but the best evidence is it's 30 days no index currently, but 90 by default, and probably consensus and a way to make it 90 Days of no indexing. Legacypac (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I was working from memory having read all the NPP pages recently. I could be wrong on the 30/90, and I can't find where the discussion was now. User:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง should know. Does the code look for creation date of the content or the creation date of the new mainpage page? If the former, a spammer could create nonsense in no index userspace and just wait awhile to move it, circumventing the noindex on new pages. Also, noindex anywhere is not foolproof, as I found recently when I searched a user coined term and the first Google result was the supposed to be no index user draft I was evaluating. Legacypac (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, at least with regards to BLPs. Given the BLP policy is manly concerned with negative content, not author wrote a book and won an award stuff and other responses from Legacypac, it's very clear that—regardless of whether Godsy was acting appropriately or not—Legacypac has a serious misunderstanding of one of Wikipedia's most fundamental policies. ‑ Iridescent 18:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
    Escalating to support total ban from moving pages to mainspace in light of The pages had at sources(sic), they just could have better inline references for uncontroversial content. The pages in question were this (no references of any kind) and this (reference that obviously doesn't contain what it's supposed to). Either LP is intentionally lying, or is so sloppy they shouldn't be trusted to make decisions as to what is or isn't appropriate for the mainspace. ‑ Iridescent 18:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out in case people either don't check or missed it that although both lacked working inline references, both did actually have a single working external link to an official page. These weren't inline but I presume they both supported one claim made in each article. I mention this because although I still think (as mentioned in great detail below) they shouldn't have touched main space in the form they were in, it does mean they weren't AFAIK eligible for Wikipedia:BLPPROD. (I haven't been involved in BLP much in recent times, so I'm also not sure how BLPPROD treats cases when a reference is dead. Particular in this case where robots.txt meant the page wasn't archived at archive.org. Ultimately of course if the reference isn't easily recoverable then it can't support any statement made in the article.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per Iri. BLP is something we have to get right. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Reality Check If you are really concerned about BLPs there are 99,787 mainspace BLP articles lacking sources [[55]] to delete. Be sure to bring all the creators to ANi to BLP ban them all. Start with the ones created June 2006. Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • You think "We have a huge admin backlog so I'm deliberately adding to it" is helping your case? To be frank, while I haven't looked over your contribution history, just judging by your comments in this thread I wouldn't oppose your being community banned; I appreciate you're under stress, but you clearly have a spectacular attitude problem. ‑ Iridescent 18:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Don't patronize me. I don't recall interacting with you before, but you are misrepresenting my edit history which you admit to not checking. Anyone on earth can create completely unverifiable BLP content. There are almost 100,000 pages live we know about. Pushing punishment on me for not adding more refs in 4 days to content I did not create but only managed to try and improve the project is crazy when you are not seeking to punish people that created similar content last month or 10 years ago. Most of my effort goes toward deleting vandalism. Occasionally in that effort I surface something that appears to be useful. Sometimes it just needs to be merged and title turned into a redirect. A core idea of Wikipedia is its a work in process and no editor is required to make everything perfect. Legacypac (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Question for clarification how is sifting through stale userspace drafts "deleting vandalism"? Now I am even more confused than I was before. Newimpartial (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
The above editor is a clueless newbie who recently had a dispute with Legacypac. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Support per [I agree with] Iridescent. A similar boomerang restriction was proposed last time they opened an an/i thread regarding me, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Proposal: Temporary restriction on Legacypac (a thread which includes evidence that they have made many more inappropriate page moves). They also recently introduced Glyptography into the mainspace which was deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support his attitude stinks and he refuses to understand why his edits are problematic. The block of Godsy was probably a bad one. A block of Legacypac looks increasingly like a very good idea. Lepricavark (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
    FYI the admin who placed that ban on Godsy stated, in an earlier ANI targeting me, that they would have banned me if I hadn't coincidentally initiated a deletion review (which they misinterpreted as a game on my part but was nothing of the kind). That ANI however produced no support for a ban or any sanction on me as long as I take time off XfD and play well with others. That admin seems to see a ban as the tool of first resort... Newimpartial (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
q.v. the same admin threatening a block in response to a policy question here.[56] Newimpartial (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The above editor is a clueless newbie who recently had a dispute with Legacypac. Beyond My Ken (talk)
  • Not supporting or opposing this, but a comment. Legacypac has the dubious distinction of being the only user I've ever had to give three separate "stop-doing-this-immediately-or-I-will-block-you" warnings to for three completely different things. Though all of them are well in the past, one of them directly relates to the proposed remedy here. I don't watch his talkpage anymore, and don't have the heart to check if he's been misdirecting AFC comments to his talk page again since he returned to Wikipedia. I'm frankly afraid to even look, because I don't feel up to dealing with the dramahz involved. —Cryptic 22:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - WP:CIR and in light of Legacypac's comments here alone, I am not seeing a readiness to handle moving any drafts into namespace.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - At best these are questionable moves, at worst incompetent, and their responses here, especially regarding BLP policy, are cause for serious concern. I was agitated by Godsy's "I did nothing wrong" attitude, but Legacy is taking that position in response to actual problems they're introducing into the mainspace. Swarm 00:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The easy explanation is per Iri, but I had independently reached that conclusion by the time I got to Iri's position. I'm merely stunned that an experienced editor would move an unreferenced BLP into mainspace, but I'm gobsmacked that the reaction isn't contrition, it's effectively Other Stuff Exists and NPP will clean-it up. Absolutely. Unacceptable. --S Philbrick(Talk) 00:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If we're actually worried about BLP competence, then the proposal should be a topic ban from BLPs entirely. It should not be confined to moving BLPs to mainspace, and it should not include moving non-BLP articles to mainspace. As it is structured, this proposal improperly exploits the community's strong policies regarding BLPs to achieve the longstanding goal of a few editors to prevent Legacypac from moving stale drafts to mainspace. I urge those supporting to reevaluate the logic behind this proposal from an objective basis. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 01:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Seems to be a bad faith strawman. I have nothing to do with this purported "longstanding goal" of preventing Legacypac and his page moves. I merely reviewed the situation as an uninvolved administrator and the problems associated with their moves were obvious to me. Also, the problems regarding his interpretation of BLP are obvious to most of us. The claim that the proposal is twisting BLP in order to achieve a subversive goal is also ridiculous, considering the even just the examples presented by iridescent. It's poor form to oppose a proposal based entirely on an assumption of bad faith. Swarm 02:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I wasn't talking about you. Might want to strike your entire response. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • What? I never thought or claimed you were referring to me, and your suggestion that I strike my response is fallacious and bizarre. Swarm 07:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I have nothing to do with this purported "longstanding goal"... seems pretty clear to me. Unless your argument is that by your participating in this discussion somehow negates my point: It wouldn't be ANI if the threads didn't attract noise, masking the underlying problem. Your retreat to AGF as somehow negating my point is equally bizarre: Where did I assume bad faith? The individuals, such as Godsy, who have long sought Legacypac's removal from draftspace and MfD genuinely believe they are acting in the best interests of Wikipedia. I would almost rather their actions be taken in bad faith—those would be much easier to correct through blocks and bans, for it wouldn't be powered by the moral imperative and righteous indignation we've seen, time and again, in this dispute. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Kibbitz from what I have seen over the last couple of weeks, most of the moral indignation has arisen on the Legacy/Nyttend side of this dispute, for what it's worth Newimpartial (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The above editor is a clueless newbie who has had a recent dispute with Legacypac. Beyond My Ken (talk)

requested review here [57] I've requested a complete review of my move logs for the last 30 day. I'm well aware my judgement may differ from others and that I occasionally make mistakes. Cryptic even picked up a many years old copyvio I missed (embarressing!) Instead of Allowing people to continue to make unsubstantiated false allegations here, I'd prefer that an Admin take me up on this requested review. It should not take very long as there are not many moved articles involved. Legacypac (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose at this time, since there has been no previous warning. I'd recommend a formal warning from an admin that continuing to move unsourced BLP articles into mainspace will result in a block, which could escalate at that time into a topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Premature. There are things to be worked out, but I see no evidence of actual damage being done. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support User is increasingly showing signs they don't understand the problems this causes in relation to BLPs with possible WP:CIR issues too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as per the previous comments. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. In the past, Legacypac was admonished by the community for moving drafts into mainspace to nominate them for AfD. This was done with the self-proclaimed goal of getting rid of non-notable drafts or drafts that are incomplete. Now, about a year later if memory serves, Legacypac is moving incomplete and potentially non-notable drafts to the mainspace with frequency and leaving them to be reviewed by new page patrollers. I don't think it takes a genius to connect the dots here. As the disruption has continued, a topic ban is appropriate. ~ Rob13Talk 21:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We need to apply at least a semblance of fairness. We are not talking vandalism or blatant disruptive editing in disregard of all rules. Sure, there have been valid concerns about Legacypac's WP:GF editing, especially that we do specifically insist on sources for BLPs. But trying to resolve such concerns by applying blanket bans usually results in more harm than gain to the project. For an established editor who edits in a poorly regulated policy areas (per above discussion on STALE), the very fact of having this debate should be enough to modify his/her behaviour; a formal warning will be more than sufficient. We are not a kindergarten here. — kashmiri TALK 12:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
New non-admin comment I would suggest that edit is pertinent to the discussion here. Newimpartial (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
'Also, [58]. Legacy continues to submit articles to AfC he does not intend to work on then delete the feedback from his talk page, and to move articles to mainspace which other editors are then required to move back, in spite of the entirety of this discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Don't forget to sign your posts, Newimpartial. And so far Legacypac is completely entitled to do what he does. If it's a smart thing to do is another question but that's up to him. Yintan  12:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry; I was having trouble with that mobile edit. Fixed. The point was that, while he is not subject to any kind of a ban, Legacypac is continuing to do the moves which the majority of those posting here agree that he should either be banned from doing or should refrain from doing. There are various ways to proceed in advance of a ban, and Legacy has clearly chosen to stick with his previous course. Newimpartial (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Newimpartial you have demonstrated beyond any doubt to be WP:CLUEless in regard to deletion policy and handling of drafts (multiple experianced editors have said this). You experiance in the area is limited to roundly rejected MfD disruption and running around the site accusing me of not knowing what I'm doing. I've never seen you nominate a page for deletion or move a draft or anything. Yesterday you posted on DES's talk you are not interested in such activity. Since you have no experiance or interest in this area I invite you to stop posting about it. Yesterday you accused me of hounding you - but your "contributions" suggest you are hounding me. Advice from people like User:BeyondMyKen should be heeded. Legacypac (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I am heeding all advice given and acting in good faith. For my reply to Legacypac'a accusations, see the new section of the ANI they filed against me, above. Newimpartial (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kashmiri above. However, I do urge Legacypac to be more careful with the BLP moves and a formal warning sounds like a good idea. Yintan  09:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Don't be confused by the baseless accusations here. Not all editors are acting in good faith. There was no BLP moves that qualified for a BLP Prod (Ie no sources) and I improved the sources before anyone did anything but tag the pages as needing better sources. Legacypac (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not confused. Yintan  19:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Has anyone with admin privileges spot-checked any of the thousand or so speedy deletions Legacypac has flagged in the last couple of days? I was just wondering. Newimpartial (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Admins don't "spot-check" my CSDs they approve nearly all of them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Legacypac/CSD_log Legacypac (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
And sometimes do so in error. Any time someone tags a thousand pages in such short order, a spot check would seem reasonable to me. :) Newimpartial (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Drop the horse. EEng

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