Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive958

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

Noticeboard archives


Bible verse spamming by[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), (now blocked 3 months) added quite a few edit summaries such as All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent... These were done during often-disruptive edits to sex-related articles. Would it be possible to have the bible verse spamming REVDEL per DENY? Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Not only articles related to sex/sexuality/genitals, but also to articles about various religions - and they have been doing it since February. I agree that it is quite disruptive and it should be removed from the article histories. --bonadea contributions talk 06:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the edit summaries from some of their articles (ones I imagine would cause distress from those edit summaries). I realise in some of my revdel reasons I linked to the incorrect ANI thread, so I'll leave a note on my talk page just in case anyone notices -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 09:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed ban for My Royal Young[edit]

Closing this, as LTA report already exists. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 16:01, 30 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.

Fellow Wikipedians, It is with pleasure to announce that I am proposing a ban for My Royal Young (talk · contribs), as he is nothing more than a cross-wiki socking troll who's main intention isn't to contribute well to Wikipedia, but to destroy it to smithereens. Ever since his indefinite block, he's been doing nothing but restorting to Sockpuppetry, adding massive vandalism texts, persistent addition of unsourced content and nothing more than pure troll-business. In my opinion, this is nothing more than a problematic editor and it's disappointing that such a disruptive editor was never banned in the first place. Hence I believe the community needs to step up and collectively say "you're done here" through establishing consensus for a full ban on him, and stop him from being such a troll and shouting (talk) 05:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

And you are ... who exactly? And your proof is ... what exactly? The user is indef blocked. We don't "ban" users unless they meet WP:BMB and there is a community or ArbCom consensus. Softlavender (talk) 05:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@Softlavender: Well MRY edits are bad he keep adding Blobbb texts here and I think a ban can impose against My Royal Young for now (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
There already exists Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/My Royal Young, so he is de facto banned. I don't think there is any need to waste the community's time by formalizing the wording with a survey. If you are aware of any additional sockpuppets, then please file at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/My Royal Young. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:25, 30 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.

Proposed indefinite block for Disneylandlover2006[edit]

Indefinitely blocked following the CU results. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:02, 30 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.

I will going to impose an indefinite block for Disneylandlover2006 and I should ask the SPI clerk or CU for a indef block for a real sockmaster Disneylandlover2006 for this sock pinging NinjaRobotPirate or a Clerk to implement an indefinite block for socking with DobleKaraNumber1Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Disneyworldlover2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Please ask Gab to await an admin action at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Disneylandlover2006 for now (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

After I blocked Disneylandlover2006 for disruption, two sock puppets continued the same disruption. It's kind of typical behavior from younger editors who don't understand how Wikipedia works. I was kind of hoping that going easy might encourage better behavior. If people think I'm going too easy on a disruptive editor, I could indefinitely block. Or someone else could. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate and GeneralizationsAreBad: I think an indefinite block is possible to do it and wait for GeneralizationsAreBad to await an administrator action for now. (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm surprised to see Disneylandlover2006 back, as they received what was practically a slap on the wrist for sockpuppetry. My question is, however, has Disneylandlover2006 communicated about the block at all, or shown any comprehension about why sockpuppetry's inappropriate? DARTHBOTTO talkcont 23:10, 29 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.[edit]

Blocked for three days. Favonian (talk) 11:26, 30 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.

Could someone please block (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? It's another sock puppet of Qais13 (talk · contribs). Thanks. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:57, 30 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.

Edit war on Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge article[edit]

(Non-admin closure) As stated below, ANI is the wrong venue for content disputes; take any concerns to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and/or WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard instead. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:06, 1 July 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 there! The comment below was placed below on June 25 to the help desk by; however, as this is an edit war, I have reposted the query below for admin follow-up. Thanks! Daylen (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Original message I have voiced my concerns on the Talk page of this article - but an edit war is on! User talk:Esemgee is an editor who will not accept the various details - published in respected books (recent and historic) and in many verifiable citations - concerning the Lupton family, who feature on this page. Any suggestions? This warring has been going on for some time. See above "verifiability" query too please. Cheers (talk) 3:52 am, 25 June 2017

I've reverted User:Softlavender's close; it seems to me pointless bureaucracy to redirect someone to another noticeboard. Yes, technically ANEW might have been the best place for this, but since it's here, let's deal with it here.
@ You're going to have to help us out a bit more here. I've looked back through some of User:Esemgee's edits to that page and I'm not seeing anything terribly objectionable. Have I just not looked far enough? The most likely thing I can see is removed refs to the Daily Mail. You may not like it, but the established consensus is that the DM is not a usable source, especially not for BLP's. I may happen to think consensus is just a bit mental on this point, but that's the consensus and until it changes, that's the way it rolls. If there's something specific you'd like us to look at, please post some diffs back here. GoldenRing (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
GoldenRing, ANI does not deal with WP:CONTENTDISPUTES, nor is it a help desk, which is why we point them to the correct venue(s) when content disputes or edit wars are posted here (otherwise, every content dispute or edit war will end up here). Nor can IPs be pinged, nor does the IP even know this discussion is being carried on here. I am going to repeat my close here, as the person who opened this thread (Daylen) appears to lack understanding of how things work:

Daylen, ANI is not the correct venue for content disputes and edit wars. Please report edit-warring at WP:ANEW after WP:WARNing the user on their talkpage. Please utilize the talkpage of the article, and institute any dispute resolution practices desired, for content disputes. Please direct any interested editors to the WP:TEAHOUSE for further assistance if they need it. Softlavender (talk) 02:51, 29 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. vandalizing talk pages[edit]

IP blocked, nothing else to do here. (non-admin closure)MRD2014 19:53, 1 July 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.

IP The comments are pretty disgusting, probably not much to do about it but it is two talk pages that I have seen in the last 15 minutes of so (two comments on mine and two on StevenJ81‎—just a heads up. If it persists semi page protection would be nice just so I don't have to keep deleting them by hand. Seraphim System (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked by User:NinjaRobotPirate. Home Lander (talk) 01:27, 30 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.

New editor/sock redirecting/blanking dozens of articles without consensus or AFD[edit]

User blocked as a probable sock. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 15:02, 30 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.

Resolved: More socks put back in the drawer. Dennis Brown - 14:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Timothy S1 (talk · contribs) is a new editor with less than 300 edits, and he is redirecting or blanking dozens of articles without consensus, rationale, AfD or WP:MERGEPROP. Can someone please help me revert all of these actions, and can an admin take action if he does not stop? Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 04:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

There was an editor, 118 alex, who was recently just blocked, as in literally this week, for some shenanigans on similar articles. Looks a bit ducky to me. Blackmane (talk) 04:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, there is a definite possibility that this is the same editor (118 alex), who by the way had already created several now-blocked sockpuppets that included the name "alex". Someone on the previous ANI thread about "alex" mentioned that the same socking user was interfering in the articles Timothy S1 is now blanking/redirecting, so that's another confirmation that this is probably a sock. The main thing is stopping him now though; whether that's a CU block or a DE block. Softlavender (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
The fact that he is now attacking Davey2010 (the target of 118 alex's repeated racist rants) is further strong proof that this is the same user: [1]. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I have given him a final warning: [2]; an admin will have to take it from here. We also need a mass reversion. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Gonna go ahead and indef, as well as mass rollback. What a mess. ♠PMC(talk) 04:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Weirdly some of his edits are not terrible, some are removing stuff like teacher lists from schools. So I'm going to leave those and comb through the rest. ♠PMC(talk) 04:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks PMC! Softlavender (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Ooookay I think I got the majority of the obviously sketchy edits, mainly the huge content removals and the redirecting. If there's anything I missed that should be gotten, let me know, otherwise I think that's it. ♠PMC(talk) 05:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks PMC. There is some sort of odd new message on User talk:Davey2010 that bears looking at, though it could be bogus/trolling/IP-socking. Softlavender (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

─────────────────No idea. He also left it for NinjaRobotPirate, who says he'll keep an eye on the email access. I think that's about all we can do for now. It's weird but not threatening or anything... ♠PMC(talk) 05:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I assume either me or Davey2010 will be getting some email presents. Who knows. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Well I'll be damned!, I thought it was weird they were redirecting everything but thought they were just a random Singapore person who wanted everything saved & didnt think anything of it, To be honest I thought they were a sock of the other Timothy person .... Can't remember the username but they edited singapore articles too...., Well they certainly fooled me that's for sure!. –Davey2010Talk 13:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Forgot to say but thanks Softlavender & Premeditated Chaos for reporting and blocking!, No doubt they'll be back tho.... Ah well thanks both, –Davey2010Talk 13:02, 30 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.


Globally blocked for three months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:48, 2 July 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.

Here are some of the IPs below but the /16 range is high traffic LTA, a continuation of this.

Favonian seems to have some experience with this IP range. Should we range block it? It does seem troublesome. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:04, 29 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 "Muck" vs. user "Nephiliskos" and "Dr.Lantis"[edit]

Users blocked as socks. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 15:06, 30 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.

Resolved: Socks put back in the drawer. Dennis Brown - 14:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Muck (talk · contribs) stalks and threatens user "Nephiliskos" at this page. Please note that user "Muck" has already stalked and mobbed user "Nephiliskos" in German Wikipedia until besaid user left there. Please also take note of Muck's general behavior: instead of greeting the owner of reported page ("Heagy1") properly and offering help, he yells at diligent autors and now even threatens them. Regards;--Dr.Lantis (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC) Emandation: Now user "Muck" insults "Nephiliskos" and insinuates use of sock puppets. "Muck" had already been warned in other Wikipedias not to do that.

As I already explained and you can see it under User talk:Heagy1#About Narmer tt was never at all my interest to stalk and threaten user "Nephiliskos" in the english wikipedia. My words there: "I have the right with my international accout Muck (the only account i have in the in the whole Wikipedia!) to work at this place Here. The initial reason was to confirm the seriousness of the new user Heagy1 in the Article "Narmer" in the german Wikipedia as well as in the english WP, and nothing else."
But it ist the second time, that @Nephiliskos / Dr.Lantis - (a sockpuppet of Nephiliskos here in the english Wikipedia) try to manipulate a diskussion in the english Wikipedia (see here), this time after he had deleted my contribution under User talk:Heagy1#About Narmer which I had restored already by warnig him to repeat deleting my contribution there. -- Muck (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Frisk lies, Muck. Your insinuations are unproven. And where exactly am I "manipulating" a discussion? All I do is asking you to leave others alone and you? You start such an emberrassing affront in a discussion where you weren't even mentioned. Instead of properly greeting "Heagy1" first and offering help you start an ad personam affront against "Nephiliskos".--Dr.Lantis (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
""Muck" had already been warned in other Wikipedias not to do that." - In the german Wikipedia I never claimed that user Nephiliskos uses his accout Dr.Lantis in the same timeperiod as sockpuppet in the German Wikipedia, but I claimed there, that he already did this in the english WP. In the german WP I was only told that I have not the right to claim the use of a sockpuppet, when a second account from the same person was not used at the same time, specially to manipulate a discussion. But her in the english WP the facts are different, because the accounts of Nephiliskos / Dr.Lantis are accounts from the same person and used to manipulate a discussen, now alredy for a second time! It is no problem in WP to find out if Nephiliskos uses the account Dr.Lantis in the shown cases simultaneously and therefore as a sockpuppet and with this behavior try to manipulate a discussion. -- Muck (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Muck, this report is all about your behaviour. You were asked not to stalk or bugg "Nephiliskos". But you do. You intervene in a discussion where your name was never dropped. You make on diligent authors out of the blue. And in other Wikis you snitch on newbies. You behavoiur is disgusting and a nuisance for this project.--Dr.Lantis (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

  • What a lovely cross-wiki melodrama, but de-wiki is not my bailiwick. Nephiliskos and Dr.Lantis are  Confirmed. I've blocked and tagged Dr.Lantis, and blocked Nephiliskos for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 30 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.

The user at[edit]

IP is blocked for a month. WP:AIV might be better for this kind of report next time. —Guanaco 09:08, 1 July 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.

The editor using this IP address started to vandalize in May, on the article Dennis Kelly, as seen on their talk page. Since that incident, they have been blocked three times, and will probably continue to vandalize after they are unblocked. It's clear they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and maybe they should be given an indefinite block? Branchofpine (talk) 07:56, 1 July 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.

Various iP vandalise the article Kingdom of France since a few months[edit]

Panam2014, please make the request yourself, for semi-protection, at WP:RFPP. UPDATE: User has filed a request at RFPP. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 13:01, 1 July 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 In Kingdom of France, a same person behind various ip vandalize the article since a few months. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Enough is enough. Could you warning him and apply a protection for the page (autoconfirmed) ?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Panam2014 (talkcontribs) 10:50 1 July 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.

Welcoming bot users[edit]

...ANI is not the appropriate forum for finding a wiki-dom. TimothyJosephWood 11:44, 1 July 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.

Hey, I'd like to report myself for a prior incident of welcoming a bot account. The incident occurred at 05:50, 30 June 2017 and I did so with Template:Cookie as it was listed on Wikipedia:Welcome committee#Welcome templates. I did so as a joke (giving a computer an Internet cookie) but I know this is not the place for jokes and accept full responsibility for my actions.-🐦Do☭torWho42 () 08:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, well, if you're really intent on being punished, go copyedit On the Job (2013 film) so it can pass a GA. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:22, 1 July 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.

Zee money's article creations[edit]

Many of Zee money's article creations have issues. For example, Zhang Bu (Xin dynasty) does not have many links or sources in it; Liu Yong (Xin dynasty) does not have many sources; and Vasily Flug and Pyotr Lomnovsky have maintenance tags at the top. I thus propose that the user has its autopatrolled right removed. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Agree with GeoffreyT2000. Zee money has a habit of creating a large number of unsourced stubs. Quite a few users, including myself, have warned him many times before, to little lasting effect. And I've fixed (and completely rewritten) several of them (such as Zhang Qinqiu, Hu Di, and Qian Zhuangfei), which probably took more effort than starting from nil. His recent creations seem even worse than before, as they are rough machine translations which make no sense. For example, the lead of Zhang Bu (Xin dynasty) says: "The character is Kumon. Chinese is a person from the evil County of Xuzhou. My brother is Zhang Hiroshi". And Pang Meng is the same. I believe the user's autopatrolled right should be removed, and they should be forbidden from creating new articles without adequate sources. -Zanhe (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree, this is an experienced editor we're talking about here. Yes, the Zhang Bu article is a mess, yes it looks like he did a machine translation from Chinese to English., however, other articles he started, like Maxim Stepanov look great. I don't think his autopatroller status has anything to do with that , but perhaps a note on his page might be in order.
 К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 18:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Agree with GeoffreyT2000. I think we need some sort of punishment consequences so that Zee money does more than the minimum on his articles - that is, actually taking the time to find references for his articles, and that the improvements in article creation that he temporarily makes after being warned actually last. By the way, the Maxim Stepanov page was unreferenced at the beginning, too. I've had similar experiences to Zanhe in dealing with this user, as I've fixed some of his articles, like Pyotr Pumpur and 4th Cavalry Corps (Soviet Union). Kges1901 (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
We don't do punishment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
We don't, but we also don't give auto-patrolled to editors who are making articles that clearly need attention from reviewers, and being "prolific" is not in and of itself isn't qualifying. Pinging @Schwede66: for their input. TimothyJosephWood 20:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Before we do anything else about autopatrolled, KrakatoaKatie should be given a chance to comment. Schwede66 20:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I see I granted the user right 18 months ago, but honestly, I don't remember it. If Schwede feels it needs to be removed, I have no objection. Katietalk 22:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: The version of Maxim Stepanov written by Zee money is completely unsourced (see this). It was Kges1901 who fixed it and made it great. I just found another article Liu Yong (Xin dynasty) which is a machine-translated mess. An experienced editor like Zee money should have learned how to create properly referenced articles by now, especially after receiving so much advice and guidance from other editors over the years. -Zanhe (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Zanhe Kges1901 added in a reference, the rest of the article was fine (yes I know we need references) point is, this article wasn't a mess, the chinese articles are. Once again, this isn't anything to do with his autopatroller rights. Still Opposed
 К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 21:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@KoshVorlon: According to WP:Autopatrolled: "This permission is granted only to accounts that have extensively demonstrated their knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". After numerous gentle reminders from other users, Zee money has not demonstrated the ability to follow WP:Verifiability, one of the core content policies. -Zanhe (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
As far as autopatrolled goes, it's not a "behavioral issue" per se; it's not a "punishment" at all. It's a procedural issue of whether these articles get some proper maintenance and integration into the project that will allow them to stand alone in the meantime, be connected to interested editors in the long run, and offer a feedback channel to the editor themselves to help them make better new articles in the future. It is, at its heart, a way to make sure we make better articles and we make better editors. There's no prejudice toward whether the right can be granted again in the future, but right now it doesn't seem like it's helping either the project or the person. TimothyJosephWood 22:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm aware of that, however, since the problem wasn't anything to do with his autopatroller status, removing it would be punative and that's also not right. Yes, the articles mentioned at the top of this report are junk, so a short block may be in order, this would prevent further junk articles, but take away the autopatrolled status , that does nothing to stop the problem.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 22:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I... don't think you understand the purpose of autopatrolled. TimothyJosephWood 23:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Also note that autopatrolled is according to the WP guideline for "prolific creators of clean articles", but the unreferenced stubs that Zee Money is creating half the time are not "clean" articles. If the autopatrolled right was taken away the articles would have to go through the new page patrol review process, where they could at least be filtered.Kges1901 (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but there is no argument that starts as "these articles are junk, but they should not be patrolled" that makes any sense whatsoever. I appreciate that Kosh is trying to play the devil's advocate here, but the right needs to be removed, and it needs to be removed basically now, and it would make everyone sleep better at night if Katie were the one to do it. Too easy, close thread, go back to editing. TimothyJosephWood 23:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── After investigating further, I agree that at least the last few articles created are nonsensical and would require huge cleanup at least and deletion at worst. Accordingly, I have removed the autopatrolled user right. Katietalk 00:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Too easy, close thread, go back to editing. TimothyJosephWood 01:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, and I believe Zee money should also be banned from creating new articles without reliable sources. -Zanhe (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Nope. That's what WP:NPP is for. If you feel that strongly about it, you're welcome to join us. We can use all the help we can get. TimothyJosephWood 01:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood: I've patrolled thousands of new pages myself, and that's how I got to know about Zee money's creations. It's perfectly understandable for new editors to make mistakes, but not for an experienced user who refuses to follow the WP:V policy year after year, after numerous editors have tried to point him to the right way (see User talk:Zee money). -Zanhe (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Zee money creates many articles with dubious notability. He has created 2009 articles.Some articles have notability. Lack of sources is a major problem. Marvellous Spider-Man 12:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Well, when an editor has made 2,009 articles, of which nine have been deleted, that's a pretty strong argument against curtailing their article creation. Then again, about half of that has been done since they were granted autopatrolled, so that may skew the numbers a bit.
I think it would resolve a lot of the problem here if Zee money would... acknowledge that this thread exists. Their conspicuous absence here, combined with a less than stellar history of being responsive on their talk page gives me more pause than anything. Machine translation is right out, and needs to stop. But in a lot of the situations, it looks like the biggest problem is that they're just not bringing over the foreign language sources when they translate into English. The most painless thing to do here would simply be for them to just agree to bring sources over in articles that they translate. TimothyJosephWood 12:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Notability is not the problem, but verifiability is. Almost all articles Zee money created are notable, but he just don't bother to add sources, after repeated prodding over the years. And the situation is only getting worse, now that the user is resorting to machine translation to create new articles. -Zanhe (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually Timothyjosephwood, I"m looking at what will stop the problem. As I said, I'm familiar with the autopatrolled right.
The problem here - Zee money is creating junk articles
The solution being requested - Remove his autopatrolled rights

The problem with that - Per Autopatroller The autopatrolled right will not help you create articles. , so removing his autopatroller right does nothing to stop him from creating new junky articles. It's not a solution, merely a punative strike, if you want him to stop creating junk articles, you could
a.) block him for a determined length of time
b.) place a discretionary sanction on him from creating new articles or
c.) block indef
Any of these things address the problem, removing autopatroller right doesn't. The only thing autopatroller right does is mark an article that he's created as "patrolled" and push it to the new articles pages. Sorry, this is a bad move all the way in that it doesn't solve the problem.
 К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 14:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Indef? Sure. I guess you could indef, or I guess you could... I dunno... maybe give them a barnstar or something. I've gone through about 50 of their articles at this point, and... well... I haven't started any AfDs today if that's any indication. In fact they're basically auto-notable because they either blow WP:SOLDIER out of the water, or they're divisional level military units. They pretty much all need tagging for cleanup and stub sorting, which is exactly the kinds of things NPP can do, and is why they shouldn't have autopatrolled.
The recent machine translation articles are right out, and rightfully should probably be deleted if they can't be stubified. There's solid long standing consensus that machine translation is worse than nothing. But if large unsourced machine translations are a persistent pattern then I've not gotten there yet, because what I'm seeing are pretty much legitimate stubs on clearly notable topics that rightfully should be created and linked to their more developed counterparts on non-English projects for translation. 14th Landwehr Division (German Empire), which is what I happen to currently have open in another tab isn't a "junk article"; it's a stub, and if you took it to AfD you'd probably get laughed out of town.
NPP will see any new articles created and address them as needed. But if you want to indef someone because around 0.0044 percent of the articles they've created deserve to be deleted, then you need to get the hell away from drama boards and go build an encyclopedia somewhere. (Indef.. christ almighty.. the user has almost as many articles created as you have mainspace edits...) TimothyJosephWood 15:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Chiming in here in support of Timothyjosephwood's position. Autopatrolled is not a reward or a hat to be collected; many experienced and respected editors don't reach the necessary number of newly created articles, or attract an admin's attention for doing so ... until they pass RfA, it's one of the rights bundled into adminship. It's intended to reduce the work at NPP. (I've been told some NPPers still check my new articles anyway, because I'm so eclectic. And I don't mind because I could always slip and make a mistake on one that needs fixing.) Zee money has been creating articles that need checking; I'm particularly concerned by the mention of machine translations, which need to be reported at PNT as soon as possible before some poor reader tries to consult them (and which impose particularly lengthy clean-up tasks on the community). But the reason we have NPP is that new articles can have all kinds of problems. Apparently that goes for Zee money's work, too, so it shouldn't be automatically marked as not needing checking. @KoshVorlon: It's not a matter of punishment, and it's also not a matter of stopping him. It's a matter of whether the articles need checking, like the vast majority of new articles. However in any case, KrakatoaKatie did go ahead and remove autopatrolled. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
speaking for PNT we do not have any spare capacity and do have a huge backlog, made worse by a diversion of resources to the recent CTX kerfluffle. And Chinese isn't among our strengths. I think we may have a couple of regulars who are zh-1 or zh-2. That's it. So it's not a good problem for us. Withough getting into what I think of the machine translation policy I'll just say that having taken a really deep dive in some bad machine translations I am of the opinion that at least half the problem could be eliminated by better scrutiny of a handful of problem editors. Removing autopatrolled privileges would seem to be a good start in this case. Please keep some eyes out for any future problematic contributions. Zh-->En does not seem to be something that machine translation understands very well yet, at all. Elinruby (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Indef would be gross overkill. As mentioned above, I believe Zee money should be given a formal warning not to create more articles without adequate sources, and not rely on machine translation when creating new articles. -Zanhe (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Blacklist request[edit]

Could an administrator please blacklist the images File:Jenni Blaze 385.jpg, File:Fellation Tracy and Rick-1.jpg, File:Sex 5.jpg, and File:Sex 6.jpg which were used for vandalism by an IP, and have no business being used anywhere other than already used locations. Home Lander (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

  • The place to ask is on the blacklist talk page, where admin that are familiar with listing with exceptions are found. Dennis Brown - 01:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Will do, have done it here before, seemed to take longer over there. Home Lander (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Looks like a few requests over there (including one simple typing error) actually are still pending from earlier in the month if someone could address them. Home Lander (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
There doesn't really seem like there's much point over an IP with a handful of edits, unless these images are being used in particular in longish term abuse. There are so many dicks on commons that there are separate categories for low quality images of dicks and regular images of dicks. TimothyJosephWood 02:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac[edit]

A two-way IBAN is imposed between User:Godsy and User:Legacypac, subject to the standard exceptions. Additionally, each one may !vote once on an XFD started by the other, or both may !vote on a third-party XFD, but neither may comment or otherwise respond to the other's !vote. This ban shall be indefinite, and may be appealed at WP:AN by either party after 12 months. — xaosflux Talk 04:08, 1 July 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.

Following the latest bout of nonsense stemming from an unnecessary almost-edit-war at this MFD page, I am proposing an IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. For some reason they cannot seem to get along. As seen in the above links as well as random sniping at various discussions and this ANI thread, there is some sort of beef between them and they simply cannot agree on anything.

I know the above ANI closed as no consensus for an IBAN, but given the most recent activities I believe it's necessary to avoid pointless infighting on both sides. SmokeyJoe apparently has more/better diffs available to illustrate the issue, hence the ping and slightly-less-than-stellar diffs (my apologies).

I propose the following:

Legacypac and Godsy are hereby prohibited from interacting with each other, broadly construed, with the usual exceptions. In addition, each one may !vote once on an XFD started by the other user, or both may !vote on a third-party XFD, but neither may comment or otherwise respond to the other's !vote (either by proxy or by inference).
Old proposal, which some feel is too specific and could lead to loopholes
Legacypac and Godsy are hereby prohibited from:
  1. Posting on each other's talk pages
  2. Pinging each other or otherwise commenting about the other on a talk page.
  3. Undoing any contribution made by the other to any page
  4. Initiating a complaint thread about the other at WP:AN or any of its subpages
  5. Holding any direct correspondence on an XFD page. In other words, each one may !vote once on an XFD started by the other user, or both may !vote on a third-party XFD, but neither may comment or otherwise respond to the other's !vote (either by proxy or by inference).

As a note regarding point #5 the additional exemption - this is because I noticed that both spend a fair amount of time in the XFD spaces, and completely prohibiting interaction on an XFD page could be more disruptive than useful.

Also, it should be a fairly obvious request, but I expect Godsy and Legacy to keep their interactions to a minimum in this thread to avoid needless back-and-forth, barring gross misbehaviour. Primefac (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Other relevant diffs as they pop up[edit]


  • Support as proposer. Primefac (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. None of the above prevents either from working with drafts or productively contributing to MfD discussion. These two editors have quite oblique perspectives and approaches, but both are valuable to draft page management. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
    I agree to positive sentiment towards both editors separately, and this is not in anyway about "punishment".
    I would add a ban for either to close, or perform any administrative function, on any MfD initiated by the other. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support not as any sort of punishment, but to stop the fighting. Pretty much every year, there's been a "fight of the season" of some sort where a pair of editors, or more, get all riled up about something and then it's blow by blow on ANI for weeks if not months on end. Usually over some petty thing. This is analogous to bystanders stepping in to stop two people fighting on the streets. The bystanders aren't there to punish anyone, just trying to stop the fighting. Blackmane (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I have positive sentiment towards these editors separately, but this bickering has gone on long enough. The basic outline here is sound; I suspect there might be minor changes requested and support any changes that Godsy, Legacypac, and Primefac agree on. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes please. Guys, contrary to both your beliefs, you're not each others' worst enemies; you're your own. This is in both of your best interests. —Cryptic 03:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I do my best to stay away from the ANI dramahz, and also generally stay out of draft space unless it involves copyvios or building articles on 17th century things before moving them to mainspace, but even I've noticed the constant back and forth going on between these editors. Its a mini-feud (maybe a full feud). Support this topic ban to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support a two-way ban, immediately if not sooner. Also strongly support adding a restriction that prohibits them both from editing each other's comments for any reason, indentation issues or not. I also propose modifying restriction 3 from simple prohibition on reversion to some kind of restriction that fully prohibits both of them from editing the any article the other one last edited, or less strictly, prohibiting cosmetic edits to articles the other one last edited, if either of those is feasible. Commenting at XfDs or other discussions would be exempt obviously, I'm talking about going to an article and making a little tweak just so it shows up. Those little "I-see-you" edits were a major cause of the last ANI blowup and I don't see this dispute burning out unless something gets done about that. Edited to add: I also support SmokeyJoe's proposal for no closing of the other's XfDs. PMC(talk) 04:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
There is no need to stipulate that; that is an obvious part of any WP:IBAN. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Struck some parts of my comment in favor of Cryptic's "broadly construed" wording way below. Being specific does invite gaming; "broadly construed" is much better. ♠PMC(talk) 04:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Who cares which one is correct—what is needed is for the posturing and disruption to stop. If there really is a problem with Legacypac's work, someone other than Godsy will notice. Just stop, indefinitely, subject to the usual appeals. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - With apologies to both editors, it seems to me that things have gotten to the point where this is the only reasonable solution. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: Even then, it probably won't end, but at least the B.S. comes with consequences. ----Dr.Margi 04:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: with the proposed prohibitions implemented, I dont see any loss to either of the editors. With the restrictions, they should move on. That will certainly further improve their editing, and it will also put an end to such feuds, and conserve time of other editors. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Net benefit. -FASTILY 05:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Involved Editor Comment in Support I just became aware of this thread 2 minutes ago. I've stated my concerns with Godsy's behavior in the last ANi and will not repeat myself. Since then he has wholesale rejected that he has harassed me or that the Block he received was justified. (many diffs available, start on his talk page). I perceived the community and Admins were unwilling to protect me from someone who has made it a personal mission to make my time on Wikipedia miserable for over a year. Given complaining about Godsy behavior brought no resolution, I decided to deal with his activity well within the bounds of what he defined as acceptable behavior. To the extent that has has offended anyone, I apologize. I should be a bigger person than that. I appreciate User:Primefac bringing this ANi for action and wholeheartedly endorse an IBAN. I'd like nothing better then to edit in peace and this is a path forward that accomplishes that. Legacypac (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support There seems to be an obsession on the part of both editors to meddle in each other's business. This seems like an unfortunate but needed outcome. --Tarage (talk) 06:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support No doubt one of them will go out via suicide by cop. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Godsy's inability to drop the stick has convinced me that this is necessary. The community cannot waste any more time on this. Softlavender (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Legacypac agrees, judging by his comment above, and unfortunately this appears to be the only way to stop Godsy. It's a pity it had to come to this but I can't say I'm surprised. Yintan  07:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, this dispute has wasted enough volunteer time, spreading to WP:REFUND and WP:MFD. It seems clear that these two won't stop needling each other, so someone needs to step in and put a stop to it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC).
  • Support and admonish Godsy for the canvassing that appeared on my talk page. Nick (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
    • To be fair to Godsy, I could hardly be said to be a partisan on their behalf, and they still summoned me. I think this was less a case of "canvassing" than it was wanting to get broad input, although that does seem to have backfired from what I think they were expecting. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC).
      • I agree considering that there was discussing of an iban only about a month ago, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with notifying everyone who participated with a neutral message. They probably should have said something before doing so or let someone else handle it but meh, it's not worth worrying about. Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. They're almost as bad as each other (though I see more intransigence on the part of Godsy), and this horrendous timesink needs to stop. (updated) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support much as I hate to say it, a Iban appears necessary since Godsy won't just voluntarily leave Legacypac alone. That being said, I unequivocally disagree with Legacypac about the original block Godsy received. It was hasty and improper, and I suspect that block contributed to the issue by making Godsy feel that Legacypac was trying to intimidate him into changing his editing habits. Lepricavark (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I opposed the one way iban in the recent discussion thinking the draft ban may solve things. I was seriously wrong. I initially thought this was about the Draft:Medieval jobs MFD which as I said at the time was silly on all sides but wasn't quite enough for me to change my mind especially since Godsy tends to be seen as the worse offender but their behaviour there wasn't quite that bad. But seeing this nonsense just a few days later is enough to convince me. And frankly I think I should have realised this would happen since their interaction areas and history are too wide to avoid it although I think a two way is probably better than the previous one way anyway. (Even if Godsy is more often the initiator, it does seem LegacyPac responds too much and too severely such that I'm not sure a one way would work properly. And LegacyPac to their credit does agree to the iban unlike Godsy.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Just wanted to note I support the rewording. Nil Einne (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, provided that there is some venue where they can report violations of this IBAN on each other's part. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, with Od Mishehu's proviso, and I would even go further to allow an appeal to an impartial administrator for both sides to raise concerns by the other editor. Errors in wikipedia do need to be fixes, and while I'd prefer if both editors did 100% disengage from each other, the oversight of your greatest critic can ensure that we are upholding our purpose in making the encyclopedia better. I have very few doubts Legacypac will disengage, but I would carve out this further exception to give Godsy an opportunity in which to demonstrate what they care about more: Being "right" or improving the encyclopedia. I think the next stop on the restriction train is a limited cban as their efforts have (in recent memory) been a significant net negative to the entire project. Hasteur (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I do not work in the spaces that these editors work in, and I actively avoid ANI; and yet I'm still aware that this dispute is wasting the community's time. I'd say this is overdue. Vanamonde (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I suppose we can't send them to their rooms without supper too? All joking aside, this is just a waste of time for too many editors. If two editors can't avoid causing drama about each other, then we have to step in and stop the disruption. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support broadly construed. This reimagining of Hell in the Pacific needs to stop. Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. The disruption needs to stop. —MRD2014 14:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Enough. This is taking way too much time, in way too many areas, for way too many editors. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This should have been proposed last time rather than the ill thought out one way I-ban on Godsy. Wikipedia is a big place. Find something else to do. If something egregious happens, someone else will no doubt spot it. AniMate 19:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: I supported the one-way IBAN before. Godsy needs to walk away from MfD, and draftspace more generally, because the whole purpose at this point seems to be a campaign to stop LegacyPac's efforts to address stale drafts. Unfortunately, it seems that Godsy took the failure of consensus to emerge in the one-way IBAN discussion as an affirmative authorization of his continuing war against LegacyPac. I don't think LegacyPac has done anything particularly egregious with respect to Godsy, but if it'll take a two-way IBAN to get any sort of relief, then I will support it. I agree with the sentiment above, and have no doubts that LegacyPac will obey the letter and spirit of this restriction. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Simply...enough is enough... —JJBers 16:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support For the record though, I am highly unconvinced this will work and am almost certain that this will end in tears. Godzy's form of Wikihounding is far too subtle to ever directly violate this iban, a technicality will be found. I wholeheartedly agree with SmokeyJoe's comment below- "It reminds me of the new cat that follows the old cat until the old cat goes nuts and runs away." I personally think that only an ArbCom case will solve this, but the iban is still better than nothing. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This is superior to an arbcom case, as that would be likely outcome there anyway. It seems that the bickering and stress caused to each other is worse than the original issue that brought it up. One assuming a motivation for another that is untrue and then acting/writing on that does add to productivity. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Just, stop this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - This has been going on for quite some time and it needs to stop one way or another so hopefully the IBAN will do just that. –Davey2010Talk 01:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


  • Strong Oppose any restriction on Godsy (myself) per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Proposal: One-way IBAN on Godsy towards Legacypac. It has not been demonstrated that I've done anything contrary to policies or guidelines and I've remained civil. Legacypac continues to make personal attacks against me (e.g. here). I started Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Legacypac reported by User:Godsy (Result: Withdrawn) because they were repeatedly substantially changing a comment I made at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Dollop. I should not be punished for their continued misbehavior. Legacypac has led campaigns against me including Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Godsy Disruption & GAMING the System and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it?. The first led to Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring where the community came down hard against their positions, the second led to them receiving a boomerang topic ban. The community has never found my actions to be inappropriate. Legacypac's false allegations have already led to me receiving a hasty bad block. This sanction would reward them for unduly disparaging me and causing disruption across Wikipedia, and allow them to avoid due scrutiny, by giving them what was basically the goal they stated in their opening post of the second an/i I mentioned which they started against me. Had that not occurred, their egregious moves of inappropriate drafts to the mainspace may not have been brought to light as they were (i.e. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Propose "topic ban" for Legacypac which passed). If they were creating the inappropriate pages instead of moving them from the userspace of others, the pattern would've probably been noticed long ago, and they'd likely have changed their behavior or be indefinitely blocked right now. That aside, this would create complex conundrums due to the nature of my contributions. Just one example: I commonly close discussions at miscellany for deletion; could I close a discussion which Legacypac started when a page has been speedily deleted?; what if they're just a participant?. It'd even be very hard to simply participate in miscellany for deletion discussions without being able to openly address the nominator's and others rationales. All those questions are problems as they've started at least ~50% of the discussions there over the past few months and participated in others. This would unduly inhibit work I enjoy when I've done nothing inappropriate, while its clearly, explicitly been shown that Legacypac has. This proposal would set a dangerous precedent if it passes: it would encourage users to start conflicts with and attempt to provoke those who they often disagree with and who have demonstrably shown their behavior to be inappropriate in the past in the hope that a two way interaction ban will be issued allowing them to continue their sometimes subtle subversions of process that may otherwise go unnoticed and perhaps just barely get away with other more noticeable inappropriate behavior because one voice whose especially familiar with the history has been drowned out. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Godsy, in my opinion you are merely proving the point (the need for the IBan) by your protestations. You have led just as many, or more, campaigns against Legacypac; in fact your interactions filled up nearly a dozen threads on ANI between mid-March and mid-May 2016. May I remind you that your RfA failed because of your vendetta against Legacypac [14]? If Legacypac does something amiss, let someone else deal with it. The sky will not fall, and Wikipedia will survive. Moreover, the community will be spared the endless drama caused by your pursuit of another user. Softlavender (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Godsy, Legacypac is correct that you should not be editing a post after it has been responded to, as you just did here: [15]. Please read WP:REDACT and follow those guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 07:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Godsy, the example you mentioned above would indeed be a "huge problem" if you were the only editor capable of closing Legacypac's deletion discussions. Or if you were the only editor capable of participating in one. However... Yintan  07:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Godsy, again, do not edit a post after it has been replied to, as you have done yet again here: [16] and here [17], unless you follow the guidelines at WP:REDACT. The best policy is to post new thoughts or new comments in a separate post at the bottom of the thread. Softlavender (talk) 08:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC); edited 08:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@Softlavender: Yes, yes, in regard to my comment here you are correct. However, I've followed the rules here to a T for a long time, and learned that doing so offers you no protection. So, on this one occasion, I'm not going to bother following the "best practice" (which is what the guideline calls it, "best" not "mandatory"). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
The mythology of your following the rules here to a T is getting really really old, and your obstinacy and self-justification is why you are accruing sanctions here. At the very least, you need to add ;edited ~~~~~ to the end of your post when you add substantively to your comments, to show the date and time you added new material. Softlavender (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Seems unnecessary, now that Legacypac is banned from moving articles into mainspace. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
    Given that their interactions appear to encompass a lot more than moving articles (eg, this would not have been prevented by Legacypac's ban from moving articles into mainspace), I'd like to understand how you think that ban can be sufficient? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about those edits which were a failed attempt to point out hypocrisy to an editor who justifies his harassment by claiming he is following policy "to a T". Legacypac (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Clearly inappropriate edits by Legacypac, regardless of Godsy's edits, but it appears the choices are
  1. Block Legacypac. (Not appropriate just for this thread, but possibly, due to the multiple inappropriate complaints being made by, and appropriate complaints about, Legacypac)
  2. Block Godsy (and at least 3 other editors, for consistency)
  3. Institute some form of IBAN.
I'm not convinced that this is the best solution. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


  • Both have valid-sounding complaints about the other, but I am yet to see a complaint worthy of investigation that is not solved by this direct interaction ban. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I know the current proposal already would prevent them from undoing each other's comments, and this next point would not need to be made under any normal circumstances, but:
please let them be banned from editing each other's comments on talk or discussion pages, for any reason.
Wikilawyering and badgering centered on this particular sensitive spot seems to be to be a huge part of the problem. I can find diffs if necessary, but some of them were posted in the recent AN3. Newimpartial (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Newimpartial, please make sure you're following general THREAD conventions. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I think just a 2-way ban on them editing (or reverting) each others' comments on talk or discussion pages would address a big part of this. VQuakr (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
DESiegel and I gave final warnings to Legacypac about this behavior about a year ago, nearly simultaneously and for the same edit. [18] [19] [20]. I'd have blocked had I seen any of the diffs at Primefac's "latest bout of nonsense" link in isolation, let alone together. I haven't seen Godsy doing the same, just diffs of him restoring his own comments, and would welcome evidence to the contrary. —Cryptic 03:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
It isn't exactly what you're looking for, but Legacy's latest "Godsy is hounding me" ANI included diffs of Godsy performing unwanted formatting changes on Legacy's talk page, possibly on Legacy's own comments there. Then I believe it was Legacy who then edit-warred with Godsy on subject headings in Godsy's talk page. I am too tired to look for the diffs right now, though. Newimpartial (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
It's not. Fixing formatting is permitted by WP:TPG, even if in this case it was extraordinarily stupid to do so. —Cryptic 04:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Is it permitted to fix formatting on another user's talk page, after that user has indicated that the editor concerned is not welcome to interact with said talk page? I am not sure on this point. Newimpartial (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I think it's a "letter of the law" vs. "the spirit of the law" thing. It's technically allowed as in there's no formal rule that absolutely says you can't do it, but it doesn't mean it's not "extraordinarily stupid" behavior, as Cryptic eloquently put it. ♠PMC(talk) 04:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The closure history of this MfD and the MfD's associated ANI thread merit mention and linkage. VQuakr (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks. Added to the list. Primefac (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • In the last giga-thread, I noted this diff [21] (now deleted) by Godsy as a pure-whitespace diff to a doomed page, likely only to annoy Legacypac. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm concerned about gaming the IBan. They both seem to have an interest in some of the same areas. Historically Godsy has generally been the one hounding or harassing Legacypac (in fact, this cost him his recent RfA [22]), and while I do not always agree with Legaypac, his reactiveness around Godsy is in many ways a reaction to this longterm predation. I would therefore recommend, if an IBan is implemented, that it be time-restricted to six months. It seems like that should be a long enough time for them both to attain new interests and learn to lay off of each other. But because they appear to edit in some of the same noticeboards (XfDs and so on), I think the issue ultimately needs to go to ArbCom, because at this point it is quite hard to make out who is the aggressor and who is merely reacting to pressure. Perhaps the solution is a 6-month IBan, and if that doesn't resolve things, then ArbCom. They should therefore both be on notice that if this does end up at ArbCom, they are both likely to come away with sanctions that are worse than an IBan. Softlavender (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
    I disagree. I recognise their unfortunate personality and perspective clash. Neither is well labelled as "the aggressor", they inherently antagonise the other. This iban should be indefinite. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
    Well, I would be happy to see it succeed, so we might as well try it. From what I've seen though, including two solid months of endless multiple ANI threads from mid-March to mid-May 2016, it's going to take some brain re-wiring for them to stay away from each other. Softlavender (talk) 03:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
    Softlavender when I returned to editing after 6 months away largely because of the harassment, I studiously avoided contact with the editor I'd rather forget. He cranked up the harassment. With great happiness I'll be returning to ignoring ... what user what that? I've already forgotten them. I also will not be canvassing editors. Legacypac (talk) 06:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
"Godsy's post here will be banned as it includes a direct mention of the other." What does that even mean? How can you "ban" a post? And you can't grandfather in an IBan that does not exist. Softlavender (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
The point being made is that if the interaction ban were in place, Godsy's above oppose would breach the iban because it includes gratuitous mentions of the other editor. The "case-in-point" was to say that this discussion illustrates the need for an iban. Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't know that trying to enumerate everything forbidden is a good idea; that just encourages gaming. I'd certainly consider the whole of Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring/B4 clarification, when taken in its full context, as breaching any sort of interaction ban, for example. Let's just take a page out of arbcom's book and call the ban "broadly construed". —Cryptic 04:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
    Cryptic, the main reason why I enumerated the restrictions is to provide the small exception in point #5. I suppose it could be changed to a generic "broadly construed iban except at MFD" but when you start spelling things out you keep finding exceptions that need mentioning. If there's a point above which is missing and/or needs modification to avoid gaming, I'm all ears. Maybe it should be amended to say "they are broadly ibanned, including:"? Primefac (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
    I thonk it would be best to go with "broadly construed iban except at MFD, where" followed by a rewording of #5 above. This would explicitly deal with one issue which bothers me in this proposal - if one of them violates the IBAN, the other one needs a place to report it. ANI is generally the place where this happens in normal IBAN cases, but the wording above makes it look like that would be no good here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, I agree. Enumerating the aspects of the ban just invites wikilawyering and finding situations the drafter didn't think of. "Banned from interacting with each other, broadly construed, with the usual exceptions and a special exception that they may !vote once on MfD discussions started by the other." Or words to that general effect. GoldenRing (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
    GoldenRing, I've taken your suggestion and modified the proposal accordingly. Thanks for the input (and to Od Mishehu as well). Primefac (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
    Involved User Comment. I posted the question of how to report a violation to Primefac's talk page. As drafted, there is basically no way to report or enforce against a violation as I can't mention the user anywhere. I will not be looking for a violation, and don't generally check Godsy's edits except as they pop up on my watchlist or he pings me. Sadly, I have near zero confidence the harassment will stop, so the time to consider this is now. How about this:
    Involved User Proposal 1. Perceived violations of the IBAN may be reported by posting diffs on up to three Admin's talk pages of the user's choosing (to prevent Admin shopping but allow for Admins that may be away or unable to consider the matter. An Admin may take the matter to ANi or discuss the matter with the parties. Any further dispute or the imposition of a block will be decided by three Admins - one chosen by each user and a third chosen by those two Admins. No blocks should be made without a reasonable discussion. I'd hate to see a block over an accidental or purely technical violation.
    Involved User Proposal 2. IBAN includes participation in any XfD started by the other user except for an XfD against a page started by, substantially edited by or handled (reviewed/moved) by the other user where that user is expected to explain or defend their editorial decisions. Legacypac (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
    Legacypac, we ec'd but I didn't get a warning, oddly enough. I think you'll find the updated proposal meets your concerns. Primefac (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
    Yes thank-you. Following WP:IBAN and WP:BANEX is cleaner and clearer, though I appreciate the thought that you put into drafting the first version. Too bad WP:IBAN does not explicitly prohibit WP:HOUNDING in some of the forms I've been experiencing it. Hopefully in any future case the spirit of IBAN rather then only the letter will be considered. Legacypac (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
    I was thinking on this. Yes, the perceived hounding is an issue. It reminds my of the new cat that follows the old cat until the old cat goes nuts and runs away. Godsy fills you watchlist with his name. He did it with the notifications, didn't he? Maybe: "One may not make their first edit to a page within six hours of the other editing that page, unless a third editor edits in between. This does not exclude any forum page." This will stop Godsy following legacypac and making little edits immediately in his wake. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
That does not solve it SmokeyJoe. The time between edits is not the issue. I've removed the long winded explanation. Legacypac (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
ENOUGH. This was exactly the shit that I didn't want popping up in this discussion. It doesn't matter who started it or how they're doing it or why, it's happening and it's driving everyone nuts, and we don't need to continually rehash it. Primefac (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • For the record, it should go without saying (but sadly I feel it needs to be said) that this IBAN will extend to each user's alternate accounts, if they have any. Primefac (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Although I seriously considered whether they are both Ricky, I am completely confident that both are good faith, well-intentioned contributors, just inherently abrasive to the other and with separate interests that unavoidably overlap. But just in case, WP:SOCK is very clear:

"*Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project.See precedent".

The precedent statement:

"3) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability—and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize—is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates.
Passed 8 to 0 at 12:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, I was referring to legitimate alternate accounts, of which there are two, one recently created. It's a little BEANSy and I was certainly not intending to assume bad faith, but given how deep this issue seems to go I felt that "the record" should show that there are alternate accounts out there. Primefac (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry I was trying respond to a question. I was not trying to rehash anything and I removed the long winded explanation. I don't have any alternative accounts. Legacypac (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Accept IBAN[edit]

the Community has spoken and I willingly accept the IBAN. I already commenced compelely avoiding the other party after this thread was started and this should be my last post on this thread as commenting further would violate the IBAN. Thank-you to the many editors who have expressed support for this solution. If you are in Canada or wish you were... Happy 150th! Legacypac (talk) 01:29, 1 July 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.

Odd talk page[edit]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but this is an odd use of a talk page and I don't know if it violates policy User talk:MYRON"BG"ARMSTRONG. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

MfD would be the correct forum not here. Someone already speedy nominated it for deletion. This thread can be closed. Legacypac (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I fixed some Vandalism from an anonymous contributor[edit]

Thank you - next time you can report it to WP:AIV which will probably get a quicker response. Black Kite (talk) 16:58, 2 July 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.

As seen here: --Knightofjustice123 (talk) 16:51, 2 July 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.

Wwallacee continuing unprovoked personal attacks[edit]

Wwallacee blocked for one week after refusing to drop the stick. Basalisk inspect damageberate 11:40, 2 July 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.

Summary: Over a year after I last interacted with him, Wwallacee today used the opportunity of an unprovoked attack on Apollo The Logician to label him and me as a certain highly political but loutish element in the Irish Wikipedia editing force". I asked him to withdraw the attack, but he posted to the same page without responding.
Background: In April last year, Wwallacee took exception to an innocuous edit of mine to an article he was editing, and posted to the talk pages of over twenty articles on which he was not previously involved (apparently by going through my contributions), warning them of my "political bias" and asking users to "monitor me". This discussion at ANI followed which led to him being blocked. Far from being deterred, two weeks later he opened this thread at ANI with a 4,000-word essay in which he went through a huge number of my edits on articles and talk pages that had nothing to do with him, claiming that they were disruptive. In both discussions, every one of the responses from neutral editors said that my editing was and always had been unproblematic. The failure to close that second discussion without any admonition to Wwallaccee led me to withdraw from Wikipedia for several months. Nevertheless, and despite the fact that I didn't interact in any way with him again, he continued with his attacks: this, after the second ANI discussion had been archived and I had retired (notice that comments at ANI were "attacks against me by Scolaire's supporters, whom he must have contacted outside of Wikipedia somehow"), this in November ("Scolaire's disruptive and coercive behavior"), and now the "highly political but loutish element" comment today.
Just to re-iterate, apart from a couple of edits on "his" article – which were in no way intended to provoke him – and the ensuing drama, Wwallacee and I have no history whatever. The reasoning behind this persistant campaign baffles me.
I am asking for Wwallacee to be indefinitely blocked unless or until he acknowledges that what he is doing is contrary to WP:NPA, and promises never to do it again. Scolaire (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Having reviewed the threads linked above, I really don't think Wwallacee is ever going to comprehend that his conduct needs to change. His strategy is to attempt to discredit anyone who disagrees with him, all while accusing Scolaire of doing precisely the same thing. Lepricavark (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah that was completely uncalled for and his not dropping the stick is problematic. --Tarage (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
In favor of a one-way IBAN? (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

This complaint appears to be resulting from an edit by User:Wwallacee on his own talk page. i think User:Scolaire probably needs tougher skin. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Did you look at the evidence presented in the complaint? Wwallacee has some very problematic editing habits and it is time to address them. Lepricavark (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea of the case history, but this has already been on ANI according to the complaint, and the only new edits discussed are on WWallacee's talk page. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
If you don't know about the case history, you probably shouldn't be so dismissive of Scolaire's complaint. It's not a good look for an inexperienced editor to tell an experienced editor to grow tougher skin, especially when you haven't really reviewed the matter. Lepricavark (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I can handle my own look. Do you agree or disagree with my statement that the only action Wwallacee is accused of that hasn't previously been adjudicated here is editing his own talk page? Power~enwiki (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
You didn't review the case, but you did give a far more experienced editor some condescending advice. And let's not use a strawman to distort Scolaire's complaint. It's not a simple matter of Wwallacee editing his own talk page. It's a matter of Wwallacee using his own talk page as a device for attacking another editor. Lepricavark (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
To put it even more bluntly, this board is for editors to seek assistance from admins and experienced editors, which you are obviously not. Blackmane (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I am belatedly joining this discussion, having only become aware of the complaint today.

I agree with Power~enwiki that Scolaire's complaint concerns only a reference to himself on my own talk page. Moreover, the language Scolaire objects to does not even directly concern him.

The context here is that a constructive edit by User CanK9 to the page Francis Sheehy-Skeffington had been reverted without reason by another editor named Apollo The Logician. CanK9 then wrote to me on my talk page to ask me to intervene, as I had a prior history of editing the Francis Sheehy-Skeffington page, and his own edit had altered something I myself had inserted. I looked over the page history, found I agreed with CanK9's new edit, and reinstated his change using a more diplomatic language. I replied to CanK9's message on my talk page with some reflections as to why his constructive edit had been reverted. In my reflection I wrote that Apollo the Logician's behavior "sounds like behavior typical of a certain highly political but loutish element in the Irish Wikipedia editing force. I well remember such behavior from the controversies surrounding Scolaire." This does not in any way imply that Scolaire is a "loutish element" - it merely states that during my prior controversy with Scolaire I came across such loutish elements.

To be clear, I do not regard Scolaire as a loutish element. I do however regard him as having (at least in the past) wanted to exert an authoritarian role in Irish Wikipedia pages. I have provided abundant evidence of this in a previous AN/I complaint against Scolaire.

I feel that Scolaire's message to me, his opening of a new AN/I complaint against me, and his request of an indefinite block against me, constitute threat and harrassment. Rather than discuss this further here, I intend to open a counter-complaint against Scolaire on AN/I. -Wwallacee (talk) 08:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to shoot yourself in the foot just when you were about to get off scot free. Lepricavark (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
So what "loutish elements" did you come across "during your prior controversy with Scolaire"? I don't remember you mentioning them at the time. On the contrary, it seemed like everybody else on "Irish Wikipedia" was a victim of my behaviour. Scolaire (talk) 12:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

IBan Proposal[edit]

I am unarchiving this because I think ignoring the problem will not make it go away. Since the problematic behavior is one–sided, and since the community will likely not suffer if Wwallacee is deprived of the ability to continuing commenting on Scolaire, I propose a one–way interaction ban on Wwallacee. Lepricavark (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. All I'm asking is that he not periodically attack me. Scolaire (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Pinging editors who were involved in the previous ANI discussions: Wwallacee, Thewolfchild, JzG, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, OpenFuture, Serialjoepsycho, Onel5969, Edmund Patrick, Hohenloh, Blackmane, TU-nor, Tarage, Power~enwiki. --Scolaire (talk) 08:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm a bit dubious about a one way iban. They tend not to have the intended effect and my experience as a fairly regular passerby on ANI has tended to find that one way ibans escalate more than they de-escalate. I'd be more inclined towards a final warning and escalating blocks. Blackmane (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not really au fait with this dispute, but certainly we all know (or should know) that there is no excuse for personal attacks.Hohenloh + 11:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support and would add that if the iban is broken it should lead to a block of Wwallacee. It is unacceptable that the kind of harassment displayed towards Scolaire should be allowed to run unchecked, and it is deeply saddening that constructive and productive editors should be driven into retirement through fear of being attacked. --bonadea contributions talk 06:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Uni-directional interaction bans are only imposed in exceedingly rare circumstances. I don't pretend to know the details of this situation, but a single comment, a full year after any previous incidents, is not grounds for a one-way interaction ban. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Procedural oppose ArbCom didn't give me one and my case was exceptional. I don't see any evidence that a two-way ban would probably be gamed by Wwallacee, and even if this evidence were present I would still probably oppose as this actually happens quite a bit when two-way sanctions are put in place because of one-way disruption. The proper way of dealing with this, in my experience, is to place a two-way sanction initially, see if it works, and if the one causing the initial disruption continues, and does so in a manner that implies gaming of the two-way sanction (say, for example, claiming that it was put in place because of two-way disruption), then a one-way sanction can be imposed, and the two way sanction perhaps lifted (if that's what Scolaire wants). Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Two-way ban?? But I've literally never interacted with the guy except to protest when he bad-mouths me. Why would you slap a ban a ban on somebody for being attacked? Scolaire (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@Scolaire: I have to date been subject to four mutual IBANs. Of these, one was imposed by the community because my disputes with Catflap08 (talk · contribs) kept showing up on various noticeboards and people took the easy way out rather than trying to figure out who was right on the substance; the other three were all the result of me requesting a two-way sanction to protect me from harassment. If what you say (I've literally never interacted with the guy...) is true, then an IBAN could only be beneficial to you. I am not proposing you be "slapped" with any kind of ban you don't want. If you don't want a mutual IBAN, that's fine. You can't have a one-way IBAN without trying a two-way IBAN first, though. Them's the rules. I didn't write them, and (believe me) I wish as much as you do that they were different. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
My proposal may deserve the opposition it is receiving, but a two–way ban is monstrously ridiculous. We don't ban people for being the target of abuse. Preposterous. Lepricavark (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@Lepricavark: You either did not read or did not understand my comment. It's not my intention to propose any monstrous or ridiculous sanctions. If Scolaire doesn't believe the disruption is yet at the point where an IBAN is warranted, that's fine. If Scolaire thinks that an IBAN would improve his situation, that's cool too. But we don't make exceptions in unspexceptional cases, and it's difficult to believe that WW, who has made less than 700 edits in the past two years, could have done anything warranting such an extreme exception to the standard rule on IBANs. If you think WW's behaviour warrants any kind of one-way sanction (a TBAN, a block, or some such) then you should propose one of those. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I did read your comment, although I may very well have not fully understood it. It wasn't especially clear. Lepricavark (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I oppose all one-side I-Bans as being prone to being unjust and liable to inflame not calm things. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. This could all be put to bed if an admin would just put a friendly note on his talk page telling him not to do it any more. Scolaire (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I became aware of this complaint just today, and I have posted my reply to Scolaire's complaint in the section above. -Wwallacee (talk) 08:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Final warning and escalating blocks per Blackmane due in part at least to the retaliatory thread below. This suggests that Wwallacee is not making a concerted attempt at treating the community with good faith, but is unable to WP:DROPIT. If Wwallaccee voluntarilly removed themselves from Scolaire's proximity, than these sanctions would not be nececssary; but it strikes me that there has been plenty of opportunity for this to happen- and it has not. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 14:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
O Fortuna, the complaint against me here has to do with a casual mention of Scolaire on my own talk page, in a manner that was not derogatory towards him, and a year after the last interaction with him. My thread below is not a retaliatory thread, but rather an attempt to reframe this incident as an attack on me, by Scolaire, and very much in keeping with his prior pattern of intimidation of other users. It is Scolaire who should be sanctioned for his frivolous use of AN/I as a way to intimidate people. By the way, I had no prior history of any involvement with AN/I prior to my controversy with Scolaire last year, whereas Scolaire has a long history of AN/I complaints both by him and against him. -Wwallacee (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Your talk page comment was not derogatory towards him? I hope you don't seriously expect anyone to believe you. I agree that you are attempting to reframe this incident in a manner that portrays you as a victim. I can't say I'm surprised as this isn't the first time you've used that strategy. And it is hardly surprising that an editor with 21.5K edits (Scolaire) has been to ANI more often than an editor with 1.5K edits (you). Lepricavark (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Seriously? You think that saying CanK, what you describe in your note to me on my talk page sounds like behavior typical of a certain highly political but loutish element in the Irish Wikipedia editing force. I well remember such behavior from the controversies surrounding Scolaire (my emphasis) in [this] diff is not derogatory? I think I the cluebat has been misplaced. Blackmane (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I was pinged again on this topic, so I'll !vote. Wwallacee is not helping his cause and may need a formal warning; but I still don't think any IBAN is needed. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think an IBAN is needed here, just escalating blocks if Wwallacee does not stop the harassment of Scolaire - the current one-week block is a good start. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • In the light of these developments, I withdraw my proposal for a one-way Iban. Lepricavark (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Wwallacee responds with more personal attacks[edit]

Wwallacee has now opened a new ANI thread, Harassment by user Scolaire, accusing me of harassment because I complained about his continuing attacks. Some quotes from that thread:

  • Scolaire has a prior history of disruptive editing and harassment of other users
  • I ask that Scolaire be issued a non-removable warning on his talk page, to the effect that he has been cautioned against threatening, harassing, and authoritarian behavior
  • Given Scolaire's propensity to erase criticism, something like this is required so that future users are able to learn about his prior history and are empowered to question his authority (emphasis added)
  • Scolaire's behavior needs to be flagged so that others are not intimidated by it, as has been the case in the past

All of this is completely untrue. I have no history of disruption, still less harassment or intimidation; I have never in 12 years on WP been cautioned about threatening, harassing, or authoritarian behaviour; and I do not erase criticism, except to delete the blatant personal attacks on multiple talk pages for which Wwallacee was blocked in April last year. Therefore there is no need for "future users to be able to learn about my history" or be "empowered to question my authority". What authority anyway? I'm just an ordinary editor who wants to be left to edit in peace.
What is it going to take for an admin to say "You can't do this. Stop."? Scolaire (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Scolaire, you were totally left to edit in peace. It is you who initiated an attack against me for a frivolous reason. As to the statements I made about your prior history of disruptive editing, harassment of other users, and erasure of criticism, all of that is well documented here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwallacee (talkcontribs)
Documented where? In that thread where the other participants agreed that Scolaire was not guilty of wrongdoing? I don't see how that helps your case, mainly because it doesn't. Lepricavark (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: As I gave Wwallacee a final warning to drop the stick yesterday [23], but he instead chose to repeat the same accusations [24][25], I have now blocked him, for a week. Fut.Perf. 07:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Suggest close. Now that he has been unamb