User:Godsy is WP:HOUNDING me again. Interaction tool show 36 content pages [1] in the last few days Godsy edited just after me and zero I've edited after him. I'm not sure how to tell exactly what percent of pages I edited that is, but it's alot. Although I have 8000+ pages on my watchlist it shows Godsy, Godsy, Godsy, Godsy, on about every other line. Godsy's past hounding and harassment in various forums was a key reason I stopped editing for months until recently. I've posted some nice and some more pointed requests on his talk page to stop the stalking but he deletes them with snarky comments and keeps stepping up his "oversight" of my edits. Surely Godsy can find some other pool of articles to work on then those in my logs. One solution might be to restrict him from editing any article I've edited within the last week. Sorry to bring this to ANi, but I've got no other way to stop his behavior which is ruining my enjoyment of editing (except to stop editing again). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 03:54, May 31, 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Am I correct in reading this as "I didn't wikihound but I'm going to wikihound more aggressively? [2] I have so much to look forward too. Legacypac (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• 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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "Jytdog is starting down the behavior path of Godsy". — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@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)[reply]

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

This post, given the wide rejection of this editor's other misunderstandings of deletion policy, could be the beginning of more trouble for Newimpartial. See his talk^[1] ANI closed with a warning and threat of a block next time ^[2] and look through current Mfd discussions [3] for editors nearly universally rejecting his spam protection ideas.In addition to the options he listed, Blanking, redirection to mainspace, and removing valid userspace pages from the userspace draft category ^[3] are good options. Legacypac (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

90% of my recent edits are content work, mostly in article space. All I am doing here is pointing to the apparent conflict between this [4] and WP:STALE, as an issue arising from an ANI about editing of articles recently moved from draft space to article space. Nothing personal, and basically an FYI for admin who may be interested in raising the policy issue. It seems clear that the stale draft guidelines were never revised in line with last year's stale drafts discussions and the consensus arriving therefrom. Newimpartial (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per my first post, I have the impression that you, Nyttend and some of the other "Stale draft cleanup" crew are not following, or are tendentously interpreting, WP:STALE. I now understand that your local consensus is reflected here [5]: thank you for drawing that to my attention. As several admins here have expressed interest in the treatment of user- and draft-space articles, especially in this case their being moved into article space, I am offering my piece of the elephant. Nothing personal directed at anybody.Newimpartial (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The tagging of a userpage by someone or a bot as "Stale Userspace Draft" [6] does not mean that only WP:STALE applies now and we should ignore WP:UP#NOT. A tiny minority of pages so tagged are legitimate efforts to draft an acceptable future article. Most are spam/promotion, fake articles, garage bands, inappropriate copies of mainspace, hoaxes, general meaningless nonsense from throw away accounts, copyvio, zero chance of notability ever and more. The pages Lugnuts is complaining about is some of the best content from that category! If the pages I'm promoting are so bad someone wants to ban me from promoting pages, than let's save everyone a lot of time and mass delete the current 30,000+ pages tagged Stale Userspace Drafts. Legacypac (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose "topic ban" for Legacypac

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

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

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

It's 30 days, not 90,[7] and my reading of the source is that it goes by page creation date, not when you move it into mainspace. (I'd be happy, on a number of levels, to be shown to be wrong about that.) —Cryptic 15:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Support per Iri. BLP is something we have to get right. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Reality Check If you are really concerned about BLPs there are 99,787 mainspace BLP articles lacking sources [[8]] 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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Comment - Support per [I agree with] Iridescent. A similar boomerang restriction was proposed last time they opened an an/i thread regarding me, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Proposal: Temporary restriction on Legacypac (a thread which includes evidence that they have made many more inappropriate page moves). They also recently introduced Glyptography into the mainspace which was deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

q.v. the same admin threatening a block in response to a policy question here.[9] Newimpartial (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• 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)[reply]

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

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

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

requested review here [10] I've requested a complete review of my move logs for the last 30 day. I'm well aware my judgement may differ from others and that I occasionally make mistakes. Cryptic even picked up a many years old copyvio I missed (embarressing!) Instead of Allowing people to continue to make unsubstantiated false allegations here, I'd prefer that an Admin take me up on this requested review. It should not take very long as there are not many moved articles involved. Legacypac (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

'Also, [11]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Fine. <stepping away from the horse>. But I will point out, contra PMC, that the only place I have mentioned any of Legacy draftspace moves in the last week is here at ANI, that I do not see a consensus that these moves have generally been ok, that I am not trolling, and that Legacy's revert of my above comment, here [12], is not in accord with ANI norms as I have seen them expressed. But I will defer to my "elders" and leave this thread alone now. Newimpartial (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

  I was serious, can someone close this! —JJB^ers 15:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• 100% CSD acceptance rate [13] since I fixed my log, and close to perfect before that based on how all the pages I CSD in edit logs turn red. I've always followed up to ensure CSD tags were not removed by someone or if an admin declined.
• 100% success at MfD nomimations [14] recently AFAIK, and
• not much red on my page move log [15] indicating that pages I promote are rarely deleted.
• In my participation in all XfD my vote is nearly always in line with the conclusion. [16] ie 82% at MfD.
• No documented BLP violations or warnings in recent years
• My record demonstrates a strong and ever improving understanding of existing deletion policy and I actively engage in discussions to improve it.
• I don't recall ever making a substantive edit to any deletion policy page, and certainly not in the last year.
• I'm an approved Pending Changes Patroller, and was recently approved as a New Page Reviewer but held the previous version of that user right. I don't abuse these rights.
• I do a lot of useful work even if some people don't appreciate it's value WP:NOTNOTHERE says in part "A user may have an interest in creating stubs, tagging articles for cleanup, improving article compliance with the Manual of Style, or nominating articles for deletion. These are essential activities that improve the encyclopedia in indirect ways. Many "behind the scenes" processes and activities are essential to allow tens of thousands of users to edit collectively."
• My work is fully in line with the project WP:ABANDONED and long standing instructions at Category Stale userspace drafts which I had no part in drafting. [17] where I've made significant progress on a huge backlog.
• I'm at times a prolific editor so it is possible to pick out the odd mistake, but there is no pattern of incompetence as my logs prove.
• I have not been engaged in any dispute with Godsy since returning to editing 6 months ago, except for this WP:HOUNDING report. In fact I have been carefully avoiding any interaction with them including generaly skipping XfD they comment on etc. Therefore any attempt to punish me for alleged or actual behavioral issues a year or more ago is misguided.
• This proposal below amounts to a complete ban from the areas I enjoy most and goes against my established track record of work in line with existing policy and practice. Legacypac (talk)

Allegation re Pending Changes Approval

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blocked – Signedzzz is blocked four days for long-term edit warring at Boko Haram, as well as a 3RR violation on 8 January. The closure of this complaint was delayed due to discussions which took place both here and in a report above. It appeared for a while that Signedzzz was agreeing to take a break from the article, but he made this controversial edit on 10 January which removes article tags, showing that he has not stopped editing at Boko Haram. This block can be lifted if Signedzzz will accept a topic ban from Islamic extremism and Boko Haram, which will apply everywhere on Wikipedia on articles, talk pages and noticeboards. Signedzzz is already banned from editing on WP:GS/SCW per an earlier complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[18]

Result: User:Signedzzz is banned from the topic of the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant on all pages of Wikipedia including talk and noticeboards under the WP:GS/SCW community sanctions, for three months. EdJohnston (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC) [19] This expired, so he is ok to edit again as far as I can tell but note Boko Haram is an ISIL affiliate so the topic ban covered the page in question. Legacypac (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Signedzzz's allegation, seconded by Lugnuts, that I accepted copyvio is false. The UN material is in the public domain, as I fully expected. See here [20] for further explanation. Legacypac (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

section break

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

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

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

I've been thinking about this more. Your work cleaning up draft space is important and as I have said several times now it is important and I will add that I am grateful that you put so much time and energy into it. You have said several times that your stats on getting stuff deleted are very good, and I have not responded to that. They are very good. You get a lot of unuseable stuff deleted. But that isn't the problem. If you only focused on deleting stuff, there would not be all this ruckus. It is moving things to mainspace where you get into trouble. Going back and looking at the ANIs, that has been the center of all of them. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not going to offer a "vote" because I was recently in a very short and minor editing dispute with Legacypac a few days ago. But I will say that Legacypac added this unsourced negative material which I removed from a BLP a few days ago. Legacypac restored it immediately, again without a ref. When Legacypac brought it up at the talk page, they refused to accept that negative material requires an inline citation. To Legacypac, it seemed to be more important that the material be in the article than Wikipedia policy be followed. This has since been resolved.--v/r - TP 02:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. I removed his "new page patroller" bit as the bit was originally added as a "non-controversial" addition of the bit as a regular NPP, without noting that his actions as NPP were questioned at the time (in a different forum). I won't object if the bit is restored, considering his current activity. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: One-way IBAN on Godsy towards Legacypac

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

• Support, as nominator. This harassment and hounding has been going on for over a year, and Godsy has been warned numerous times. He is also now trying to use a policy talk page to subvert/avert sanctions on his behavior: [22]. It's time to put a stop to all of this extensive targeted harassment, which has lasted well over a year. Softlavender (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I was hoping Godsy's old RfA and the 24-hour block would discourage him from any further hounding. Instead, Godsy has engaged in forum shopping for consent to carry on as before. Now is not the time to keep calm and carry on; now is the time for Godsy to reevaluate their behavior and leave Legacypac alone.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Power-enwiki, you've been active on Wikipedia for one month. Why are you even posting here? You know nothing about the history, and nothing about Wikipedia policies and sanctions. I realize you came to ANI when you posted a thread on the Greg Gianforte article a few days ago [23], but you really shouldn't be opining on other threads. See the top of this noticeboard: "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." No offence, but as a vastly inexperienced editor (one month, 1,400 edits), you should not be opining here; it just muddies the waters. Softlavender (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you look at Godsy's actual edits [24] you could rightly call them "one user's bizzarre insistence to perform a maintenance task of low priority, poorly". Deleting spaces and the like in pages that are almost surely going to be deleted at MfD in less than a week is exactly that. Edits made to random articles minutes or hours after me is no coincidence. It only serves to tell me he is watching me after I've told him to leave me alone. If Godsy was truly concerned with how bad my editing is one woild expect him to make substantial edits to fix it not trivial meaningless ones. Legacypac (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with Conditions There are clearly serious issues with Legacypac's behaviour and attitude, all of which are part of the reason Godsy is following their contributions and why allegations of WP:HOUNDING have been made. The problems that Legacypac is creating, the issues with their behaviour, their disruption and fairly blatant disregard of the WP:BLP policy are all issues which have been raised previously, and which unfortunately did not attract sufficient community attention (contrary to the claims by Beyond My Ken and SmokeyJoe, Legacypac has been made aware about moving poor quality drafts previously and has continued this, so we are past the formal 'please don't do that again' stage - see [25] and [26]) which is why I proposed a topic ban which will allow Legacypac to continue moving good quality material out of userspace and into the main encyclopedia eventually, but which will prevent unsourced and unverifiable content being moved there with little or no oversight. Godsy has clearly got himself into a position where he's slightly too obsessed with Legacypac's behaviour (though that's perhaps unsurprising, as the community didn't want to deal with it the last time it was brought to ANI) and he now needs to disengage. If the proposed topic ban against Legacypac is successful, there should be no reason at all for Godsy to be reviewing Legacypac's page moves and contributions, as the AFC route will present Legacypac's page moves to the AFC reviewers. It's probably still sensible to keep Godsy away from Legacypac in general, but I can only support such an IBAN if there's simultaneous attempts at resolving the underlying problem of Legacypac's editing issues, particularly when they demonstrate such ignorance of the BLP policy and display a 'someone else will fix it' and 'other stuff exists, so what' attitude. Nick (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Strong oppose Disclosure: I've had a fair amount of unpleasant dealings with Legacypac (I ended my interaction with him at the RfC I created as a proper measure), but I'll try to be objective here. Godsy is constructive and this IBAN goes further than just infringe on his editing abilities. Softlavender (not just them) has again and again found Legacypac to be in the right and Godsy in the wrong, even when that is not the case (refer to the numbers of cases beforehand), so I find it really underhanded that an established editor would use this opportunity to establish their unjust cause. I think Tavix, Swarm and SmokeyJoe have stated why this proposal does not deserve to be implemented and that is pretty clear, I just gave some added backstory in case anyone thinks this proposal is neutral or intends to actually make a "constructive" change rather than a blatant invalidation of an editor. --QEDK (愛) 18:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Godsy cleaning up, as best as they are able, the relentless dreck Legacypac keeps digging up from draft space should be commended. There is no inhibiting another editors "work" when that work amounts to putting crap into WP, leaving it to new page patrollers, all in the hope it's going to get deleted anyway. Capeo (talk) 06:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. As I've mentioned in other discussions, it's accepted and supported practice to follow another editor when their edit history raises significant concerns. However this can rise to hounding if it goes to far, especially with a long term editor and if the actions of the follower are sometimes not supported by the community. I'm not certain that this case hasn't crossed the threshold, but I don't think it's clear enough to support action in light of the fact there may be a significant change if the above topic ban is implemented. Nil Einne (talk) 06:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as long as this does not lead to edit wars. There is nothing wrong in one editor following another's edits, especially if they have a history of problematic editing. I have done this on many occasions. Wikihounding is something entirely different - WH's purpose is not to improve the project but to intimidate the hounded editor. I do not believe this is the case here. — kashmiri ^TALK 12:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Clearing up bad/sloppy edits by one user should not equate to an i-ban. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Godsy should have realised by now that his behaviour, even if it is within WP guidelines, is causing friction. There's no need for him to stay on Legacypac's tail, there are plenty of other editors who can do that, and I frankly don't understand why he didn't step away earlier and defuse the entire situation. Now it has escalated, there's been a block, there's talk of ArbCom, etc. However, I do find an IBAN a bit Draconian, hence my weak support, and I prefer to see a friendlier solution. Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be one. Should one come up, I'd happily strike my !vote. Yintan  09:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, generally per Lugnuts. I might have more to say about Legacy's edits, but that would be appropriate for another section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 22:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, as it would rather obviously be shooting the messenger. VQuakr (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As the above discussion makes clear, Godsy has brought to light problems that would otherwise have stayed problems. That is not the sort of activity that we should be punishing or preventing. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the presses?

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

This has been through boatloads of community discussion:

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

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

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

On the bigger issue:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

response to Jytdog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal - TBANs for both from draft/userspaces and NPP

Move to close

I think the consensus is pretty much divided on whether the users involved are constructive or not and as of now, there's nothing that we've been able to resolve. Following observations as to why there is nothing left other than to close this huge thread which is composed of mostly rants.

• There's no consensus for an one-way IBAN.
• Two-way IBANs would perhaps hinder their work in the same field (which they mostly do). And quite some people didn't agree with the idea too.
• Topic bans were a no-no.

As far as I'm aware, we're out of options atm and maybe we can get back to this as and when Legacypac feels like making a thread about someone (which is quite soon). --QEDK (愛) 20:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom will likely be the next stop, as it deals with editor behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anything which helps them sleep at night. --QEDK (愛) 20:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your conclusions but agree that an uninvolved admin should come by and close this. I feel like there's a consensus to topic ban Legacypac, but I'll leave that up to the closer. AniMate 16:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm neither un-involved nor an admin, but it seems obvious this should be closed. Both editors have had a magnifying glass on them for 2 weeks due to this mega-thread, that should be enough. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I haven't read through all of this, but I would suggest that this thread be closed with only a warning to all parties, and with the recommendation of the community that any further drama involving these editors should be taken up by ArbCom. (ArbCom gets to decide what cases to take, but the close should include that it is the opinion of the community that any further conduct issues involving these editors go to ArbCom, which can wade through the tons of details in a way that the community cannot.) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AniMate is incorrect. Unsubstantiated allegations and a bunch of !votes by editors who have not researched or justified their opinion is insufficient. The reasoned posts by experienced editors in the same areas I work in are quite clearly against any topic ban. Legacypac (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AniMate is correct. Legacypac is not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Close this please. I think there is plenty of consensus to close this issue with no further action. We have far worse issues with other patrollers to resolve, no patroler is perfect, even I'm not, so let's not keep messing Legacypac around otherwise we'll lose his services for good and then probably along with others. The foundation is already complaining that we are being too strict with our reviewers and demanding too much of them and using it as an excuse for not updating the curation software - and we don't want to lose the Foundation's cooperation as well. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support closure: None of the proposals above can be said to have reached consensus, and the discussion seems to have reached a point where it's not progressing. Kudpung, as usual, makes some highly salient points in favor of closure, as well. I have no doubt that we'll see an ArbCom request at some point, though I'm hopeful the parties can resolve their differences of opinion in a less adversarial context. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep open. Someone needs to read WP:DEADHORSE and WP:GAMING. See below. --Calton | Talk 14:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Just take it to arbitration. You've both got enough defenders/apologists/enablers (take your pick of label) that nothing's going to get consensus here, and - with almost half of ANI is taken up by your squabbling - the dispute itself is objectively disruptive regardless of whether the underlying actions are. —Cryptic 03:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A new opinion after the latest kerfuffle: Ban Legacypac for 24 hours for canvassing, and Godsy for a week for WP:HOUNDING. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again...

(Moved from below. Someone needs a read of WP:DEADHORSE. --Calton | Talk 14:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been busy doing other things when my Watchlist fills with Godsy edits. I SO hate to bring this for Admin attention, but...

In the last 24 hours:

• He's followed me to (and edited) at least 43 pages I MfD'd or Promoted or discussions I started. [27] Note 100% blue in my column.
• Involving over 80% of his last +/- 100 edits [28]
• Including editing my MfD vote or comments [29] and [30] and
• making trivial edits on pages that will be deleted shortly [31] [32] [33] [34] and more that you can see in contributions
• When questioned by User:Calton about these trivial edits he refactored Calton's section header [35]
• After a run through my MfDs, From 20:53, 16 June 2017 to 21:28, 16 June 2017 he made 18 consecutive edits to 14 mainspace pages I've promoted during AfC work. He's only touched 3 other mainspace pages today as of this post. [36]
• I'm respecting his demand to stay off his talkpage and see no need to notify as he watches ANi closely.

No edit today could be justified as "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles" (quoting WP:HOUND) I especially don't see the need to tidy up MfD'd pages or touch my comments. This activity has caused me more distress. Reviewing the activity and typing up this report gives me zero pleasure - it's a big pain in the behind. I'm completely happy to have my edits scrutinized by any reasonable editor but this is over the top harassment to make a WP:POINT.

I'd also ask that no other editor make any more allegations against me in this thread and that admins delete any such posts as off topic. I'm looking for a solution, not an extended debate. Legacypac (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been pinged, and this seems to have answered my question on Godsy's talk page. I'm reminded of a bratty little brother, sitting in the back seat of the family car and ordered to not touch his sister again, holding his finger an inch away from his sister and saying, "I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. Not touching you. Still not touching you. Not touching you..." --Calton | Talk 11:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These edits are all technically acceptable, but that doesn't mean that they're not also a disturbing pattern of behaviour, especially the refactoring of others' talk page comments. Godsy, go and find something else to do for awhile that does not involve Legacypac in any way. I'm sick of seeing this constantly pop up here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Pinging Godsy to make sure that they are aware of this discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

This should be merged with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it? as it is directly related. I've already justified my edits at miscellany for deletion, see here. AN/I notices are exempt from WP:NOBAN and still required. WP:TPOC states "Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels, ..." (emphasis added by me). I commonly fix indentation levels at deletion venues; it doesn't change the substance of comments. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 14:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't understand is why you feel the need to fix minor formatting errors specifically in the comments of someone who has expressed discomfort with you doing so. Why can't you just look at the bad formatting, see that it belongs to Legacypac, cringe internally, and move on? Either someone else will correct it or nothing bad will happen because who cares it's an indentation error on MfD of all places. The fact that you insist on continuing to do something after someone has asked you to not do that exact thing, and then fall back on "well the rules say I can so I have to be allowed to" is disingenuous rules-lawyering. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of disingenuous rule-lawyering, PMC, this recent edit to my personal talk page [37] is hilariously POINTEY, given the discussion here. By Legacyfac, no less. Newimpartial (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know about that. If we assume that Godsy's position is correct and indentation mistakes are a problem of such staggering importance that it would be inexplicable not to correct them immediately regardless of who made them and where, then I'm afraid I can't see how Legacypac is in the wrong here. On the other hand, if you accept the slightly-more-rational proposition that indentation errors are not actually a huge deal in the grand scheme of things and we can probably hold off fixing every one we see especially when they belong to people we are involved in disputes with, then I can absolutely agree that Legacypac's edit was a dick move. But it can't be both, now, can it? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow you. Isn't the whole POINT of WP:POINT that when an editor makes edits that editor does not believe in (in this case, formatting errors on other editors' talk pages), in order to dramatize the principle another editor appears to be following, is POINTey and not really OK? If Legacy feels such OWNership of their own talk page that they feel free to edit the subject headings placed there by other editors (which they do), why would they come to mine in order to indent? Smells like irony.

For the record, when people with a history of threatening me on my talk page, go ahead to change the indentation on my talk page, I do think it is a "dick move", as you say. But my appreciation of irony (and POINT) is the prevailing reaction, rather than WIKIlegalism. Newimpartial (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: I intentionally did not indent my comment in the case being referred to above because it was not intended as a reply to Legacypac, but a fresh note to Newimpartial. I don't believe any of the lack of indentation or indentation errors by Legacypac were intentional (or I wouldn't have fixed them), but rather they were due to their haste and lack of attention to detail (i.e. the manner in which they usually contribute). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 18:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: I noticed who made this error because it is so unusual. I would not have been able to state who was involved with the format problem in the other discussion before this an/i subsection because it occurs so commonly. See here for another recent example. I do not understand why anyone would find indentation improvements disagreeable. It improves the accessibility of our website (see MOS:LISTGAP) and makes discussions easier to read in general. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Legacypac has made it fairly clear why he finds your edits to his comments disagreeable, but it really doesn't matter. Whatever his reasons, however stupid you may or may not find them, the fact of the matter is that he has asked you numerous times to not touch his comments. The bare minimum of human courtesy in such a case, even if you can't possibly understand his reasons (which I find somewhat hard to believe), is to refrain from doing something that someone has asked you not to do. Just...don't touch the comments. Close your eyes, bite your lip if you must, and scroll two inches down the page. MfD will not be rendered unreadable because Legacypac has managed to substitute a ^ for a *.

Whatever the outcome of the rest of the issues between you two, I think as an adult you can probably handle not twiddling with Legacypac's comments. At a bare minimum, I don't think that's a remotely unreasonable thing for him to ask. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: I've always been reasonable, so I somewhat agree with your comment above. I usually fix such errors without much thought, so it would require me to check who has made them. If the errors are once in a blue moon, that is one thing. However, if an individual starts making indentation errors in every other discussion etc., that does become disruptive. Also, I have a problem with being told by them that such edits are generally inappropriate when the "Fixing format errors" bullet point of WP:TPOC clearly allows such actions and such fixes are widely accepted by the community in general (I don't think you have done that, but by others have). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing by OP. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The canvass actually began with [38]. It wasn't an impulse canvass lol. Newimpartial (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I lurk AN & ANI, and have been specifically keeping an eye on this thread (which I commented in above). I would have seen it and commented again regardless of Legacypac reaching out to me. You'll note that I made a point of telling him on his talk page that I would not act in an admin capacity due to my previous participation in the thread and my heavy participation at MfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing improper on you, but they were still canvassing. Newimpartial (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the exchange on Godsy's user-talk page that dragged me over here, including the stuff Godsy conveniently left out, hidden below. The last comment is referring to Godsy altering my section header. --Calton | Talk 23:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Calton: WP:TPOC states "Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc." It especially appropriate for me to alter section headers on my own talk page. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

also says "To avoid disputes, it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial." But that has not been followed. Legacypac (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Traditionally Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit." WP:UP#OWN. Your point might be reasonable if it was not my own talk page. @Legacypac: Furthermore, put your money where your mouth is: Did you discuss this section header change on your own talk page with Jytdog? I don't think so. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My editing of pages listed at and discussions at miscellany for deletion is unrelated to any involvement Legacypac may have with them. For a recent example, see Draft:Kurt Aust/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kurt Aust, which they have had no involvement with. See my patrol log more generally (I patrol all unpatrolled miscellany for deletion discussions and unpatrolled pages listed there). Of the current discussions (~130) at miscellany for deletion, approximately 50% of them were started by Legacypac, and they've participated in probably 65%+ of them. One could not actively participate there and avoid them. Skimming those same discussions, it appears that Calton and Legacypac have agreed in every discussion they've both participated in, though to be fair I don't think either of them have expressed a view other than delete (bar a nuke !vote by Calton). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the occasional pointless edit to a page someone else nominated for deletion appears only as deliberate cover for your stalking behavior against me. Legacypac (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False speculation. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with replying to every MfD. But Godsy making pointless edits like this on MfDs he isn't commenting on is obviously inappropriate behavior in the context of this long discussion. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of all that is holy...

I've been gone for a couple weeks, check in, and this thing is still going on? With a new report at the bottom of this page no less? Where are the admins? There's multiple proposals above being ignored that need some kind of closure. Do it. Or close this whole thing as no consensus and punt it to arbcom but do something. Capeo (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here here. I have no desire to continue this discussion and no "dispute" over any content. My complaints were clearly articulated and documented. A 24 hour block was issued but Godsy learned nothing from it. So far no Admin has been willing to act again, which is their right. I'll deal with or ignore any further hounding or other harassment as I see fit. I have more interesting things to do than responded to childish games. I'm genuinely sorry I reached out to any Admins for their opinion first and for coming back to ANi. Obviously there is no teeth to the harrassment or BLP policy when it comes to fellow editors. I'll govern myself accordingly. Legacypac (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Idk, get some sleep, guys. I don't think there's much of a point reiterating or saying anything. This will end up at ArbCom and that is that. I recommend people to just ignore this thread but given that it occupies half of ANI, I don't think that's possible. G'day. --QEDK (愛) 20:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or just indef them both and we can get on with our lives 207.38.154.23 (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Says the guy with 11 edits in 10 months here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A close is due. For the record: A hasty inappropriate block was issued due to Legacypac's false claims of harassment, a notion that is further reinforced by no administrator being willing to act again, as well as the community not concurring with them that my reasonable behavior constitutes harassment. In regard to Legacypac's admission to and apology for canvassing, I hope that they do not choose to repeat such behavior in the future. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• M.Shoaib Anwar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked the user for 24 hours—in part, to get their attention. El_C 21:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Now blocked indef by User:SpacemanSpiff. EdJohnston (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user is constantly edit warring with me whenever I contribute something to article page CeCe Peniston discography. In my edits, I try to make it easier for readers to understand an abbreviation "DCS" by changing to "Dan." or "Dance" since it doesn't affect any of the chart perimeters. Also, a confusing edit that says the song "Keep Givin' Me Your Love" peaked at number 1 on the Hot 100, which is false information. However the song went to number 1 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100, so I tried to change the number 1 to number 101 or simply just have " — " there under that column. All of those edits were reverted by User:Asileb. After a series of reverts by this user, I left a message on their talk page and have yet to receive a reply but they continue to show ownership of content behavior by not letting anyone else contribute to the article. I also opened up a discussion about the other issues on the page, but I know if I were to edit, it would just be reverted the mentioned user. In closing, I want to be clear that I'm not hoping this user to be blocked or banned, but to let someone else contribute to the article too. Horizonlove (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Horizonlove, you can keep telling yourself what ever makes you happy, the history of your desperate actions speak for itself. End of the story. Asileb (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Asileb: This shouldn't be news to you. I've saying this since the first edit and the summary that said "False info. And I replaced the chart initials to make it easier for readers." Yes, the history does speak for itself because 3 days later (to date), you still haven't replied the message I left on your talk page. In a reverted edit and edit summary by you, you said "The legend is clear as said, whether you like or not. And once you post a message, you wait for a reply first", which also displays WP:OWN. No user is bound to have to consult with you before they can edit the page, I just left you a message so we could talk it out. Horizonlove (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well both of you are into territory where you could potentially be blocked for edit warring, and both of you have barely used the talk page, if at all. This is typically the order things go in, and if you're not going in that order, you're typically wrong: Edits → reverts → talk → RfC/other WP:DR → sometimes "lower tier" notice boards like WP:BLPN, WP:RSN and WP:ORN → nuclear noticeboards like WP:ANEW and WP:ANI. It seems you've both basically skipped the talk part altogether, opened an RfC with no discussion, and before a single person could comment, opened an ANI thread. If this wasn't already here, and I'd come across the article, I'd have been tempted to report you both to WP:ANEW, or just take the page to WP:RFPP as a content dispute. TimothyJosephWood 21:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood: Actually I'm not in the territory of being blocked as per Wikipedia:Edit warring, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." I do not fall under the violation as I have only reverted a total of 4 times throughout a period of 3 days, but never 3 or more within a 24-hour period. I have opened up a discussion on the article's talk page whereas I talked about the issues and requested that another user comments. Also as stated above, I have also opened up a discussion on the user's talk page. Horizonlove (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring does not equal 3RR, and plenty of editors have been blocked for slow moving edit wards that don't cross 3RR. You opened an RfC. You should have opened a run-of-the-mill discussion prior to that, and you should have waited for the RfC to conclude, or at least get some feedback before coming here. TimothyJosephWood 21:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood: It was made clear to me Asileb saw the message I left him on his talk page. And my edits weren't just a plain-out "edit war" if that's what you're calling it, I was removing false information from the page. That was consistent throughout the time I edit the page and I talked about it on talk pages and in the edit summaries of my edits. Those edits were however reverted by the user. Horizonlove (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"False information" or some variant thereof, is the rationale given by probably 65% of editors who get blocked for edit warring. There are very few instances where "fixing the article now" is really that important, and those are exceptions to edit warring, like copyright violations and violations of our biographies of living persons standards. Other than that, if you're right, and it's controversial, then get consensus to back up how right you are. Most articles go through spurts of intense editing and then lay dormant for months or years without any substantial changes. So if it takes a few extra days to establish a firm consensus, it's not gonna kill anyone. TimothyJosephWood 21:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very respectfully, regarding how many users may use that as an excuse is a little irrelevant especially when it proven to be true. I wouldn't call the need to remove it from the page urgent or high-priority, if that were the case, we wouldn't have been 3 days ago. But I definitely wouldn't want it constantly sitting on that page while readers are believing something that isn't true. One of the two things I removed from the article was under Singles, the song "Keep Givin' Me Your Love" did not peak at #1 on the Hot 100 as they claim. Anyway, the proof is here on this link as there is no mention of the song on the page. Furthermore, I read the link] given it said "the song was #1 on Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles", and there is still no mention of the song in that article link. But let's assume in good faith if that "references" said that "the song was #1 on Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles", wouldn't be more appropriate to change the "1" → "101" or just put a " — " under that column? Again respectfully, I've waited 3 days "to establish a firm consensus", so how much longer are we going to wait while false information sits on the page? Horizonlove (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no deadlines. You WILL wait for consensus. If you have a problem with that, Wikipedia is not for you. --Tarage (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Horizonlove: There is no false information, it is obvious and you were told so a number of times. The article has a clear legend whether you ignoring it on purpose or else. Simple as that. Asileb (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to the edit-warring, but based on the article, Asileb's edits are deliberately misleading. Being number 1 on "Bubbling Under" should be considered as #101 on the "Hot 100" column. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Being right is not an excuse to edit war, plain and simple. This page gets viewed by an average of 23 people a day and a good chunk/most of that is probably you two. Get over it, and go to the talk page. TimothyJosephWood 22:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarage: Calm down, I never said it had deadline. Also respectfully, please read the entire discussion as this has partly about meeting a consensus. Part of this about allowing someone else to edit the page and not display ownership of the page. The page CeCe Peniston discography is just an example of how this user asserted ownership of it by constantly reverting it back to the misleading content after I have removed the false information. @Power~enwiki: I agree. And that is one of things I tried to change it to until I realized that the song wasn't even #101 on that chart too. So that was another false statement on the page. @Timothyjosephwood: Respectfully, I can't speak who about the 23 people who read the page on average as I do not know who they are specifically. If I help make up that 23 average, that's fine. I just happened to come across the page and notice the problem whereas I then tried to correct it. And that lead to a series of reverts. Horizonlove (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: Nope, you are not right. The Hot 100 chart includes 100 positions, not 101 positions or more. And that would be the "false information" in Horizonlove's vocabulary. Asileb (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion that should have been had on the article's talk page. Use it.TimothyJosephWood 23:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Asileb: The "Bubbling Under Hot 100" has often considered an extension of the "Hot 100". So many Wikipedia users will often add 100 to the value of the chart position. For example, if a song charted #34 on the "Bubbling Under Hot 100", some users will put #134 on under Hot 100 chart column. Other of course will just put a dash ( — ) there with a foot-note that says something similar to "'Song title' did not enter the Billboard Hot 100, but peaked at number ## on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart." Originally I was not opposed to having any of those suggestions on the page, as I tried to add that there myself and it was reverted repeatedly. But where it currently stands suggest misleading info, especially because there is no source that says it charted on either of those charts. Now if Asileb can WP:PROVEIT, then I'll stop calling misleading or false. Horizonlove (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...seriously... Post this on the talk page, and if needed, use WP:DR. If you do all that and the other party is still unwilling to discuss, then come here. TimothyJosephWood 23:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Medieval jobs needs to be restored. WP:NACD states "If an administrator has deleted a page (including by speedy deletion) but neglected to close the discussion, anyone may close the discussion provided that the administrator's name and deletion summary are included in the closing rationale–." and "Closures may only be reopened by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning, or by consensus at deletion review." My close was clearly appropriate and lacking controversy. I commonly close discussions there under similar circumstances, e.g. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Amcskillet and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Abuse of dominant position (Competition Law). Legacypac is neither uninvolved or an administrator (their revert). Warning them not to revert others' closures in the future may also be due. Courtesy ping to Spinningspark who deleted the page. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely any other editor is welcome to close any of my MfDs, just not my personal WP:HOUND. Legacypac (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sometimes you get what you ask for. Newimpartial (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes you get what you ask for. Which means...? --Calton | Talk 04:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy said that "absolutely any other editor is welcome to close any of my MfDs", so I closed the MfD in question as Godsy had also asked. And yet, for some reason, Legacy withdrew his welcome and reverted again. Is this edit warring? Newimpartial (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You did not close the MfD you restored Godsy's out of order close. See below - his close violated WP:NACD Legacypac (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I restored it, nobody had indicated that it was out of order. You had only referred to hounding. Newimpartial (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By "commonly", it appears to mean "once a week" -- at least until recently. The timing, I'm sure, is a coincidence. But I think Wikipedia will survive you missing your weekly task. --Calton | Talk 04:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By my estimate, I've closed about 150 deletion discussions this year, which averages to about one per day. When the work becomes available (i.e. a page listed at a deletion venue gets speedily deleted; that type of close constitutes the majority of my closures) is irregular. I've probably personally closed at the least the majority (i.e. over 50%) of miscellany for deletion discussions where a page listed there is speedily deleted during the discussion this year. Other editors sometimes close them before I notice or get to them or I may choose not to close one for various reasons. Every contributor is replaceable, but there was nothing wrong with my closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Medieval jobs, hence the reversion of it was improper and there is no need to double the work by making someone else close it. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improper closing of an MfD by Godsy

WP:NACD also says "Do not close discussions in which you have offered an opinion" Tagging that page for speedy deletion is clearly an "opinion" making the MfD NAC improper. I recall your tag coming across my Watchlist, followed soon after by the NAC. Please activate User:Godsy/CSD_log for transparency. Legacypac (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"If an administrator has deleted a page (including by speedy deletion) but neglected to close the discussion, anyone may close the discussion provided that the administrator's name and deletion summary are included in the closing rationale." (emphasis added by me) WP:NACD. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why should anyone care?

It's a WP:G2, an admin considered the G2 tag and deleted it, it needed closing, it's closed, precisely who closed it seems entirely irrelevant. This seems extremely WP:POINTy and crossing the WP:BURO line. I strongly suggest that everyone should just move on from it, before something unnecessary happens. Nit picking and wikilawyering the precise wording of policies and guidelines in a situation like this serves absolutely no purpose, it does not move the project in any useful direction, and goes against all good common sense. Murph9000 (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you. I reverted an out of process close by my personal WP:HOUND who brings it to ANi. He selectively quotes policy to justify every stupid action. Another block of Godsy for hounding may stop the drama as least as long as the block lasts. Legacypac (talk) 06:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But if it isn't out of process, though, why the drama? It seems that the close was, in fact, in-process.Newimpartial (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Legacy, you're missing the point of my message. Regardless of past history, reverting an obvious close of a G2 (twice) that has been deleted by an admin seems extremely POINTy and across the BURO line. Who closed it seems entirely irrelevant. It should have been a simple close that everyone could just easily move on from, to do something productive. It seems to me that continuing to push the issue may not be in your best interests. G2 seems like a particularly silly hill to battle on, when the G2 status seems entirely undisputed. I really think you should reconsider your position, and perhaps take steps to reach a peaceful conclusion. Murph9000 (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Regardless of whether the closure was appropriate or not (it was appropriate), your reversion of the closure was unambigously inappropriate; "Closures may only be reopened by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning, or by consensus at deletion review." WP:NACD. I have never hounded anyone; your repeated false allegations along those lines have failed to convince the community above. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infact, 'Pac has helped to convince the community that he has little or no understanding about BLPs, notability and copyvios. The irony is that he's complaining about being hounded, now there's a lot more editors taking a very close look at his contributions. Careful, 'Pac, those boomerangs can hurt when they smack you in the chops. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that 'Pac thought he could remove this post. All the evidence to back up what I've said are clearly shown in the massive thread he started at the top of this page. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm loving the new nicknames 'Nuts. Perfect for you. Please read WP:NPA Legacypac (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, it's not a very bright idea to mockingly shorten someone else's name in a manner that could reasonably be considered a PA if you're going to also cite WP:NPA in the same post. And your removal of Lugnuts' post was a very foolish action. Lepricavark (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not an "attack", as it's been proven that you do not understand BLPs, notabilty or copvios. It's in that massive thread at the top if this page. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Pac is somewhat gung-ho, not up to speed with the fine text before doing things, a lot of things, mostly good things. 'Pac is keeping logs, and I like his ratio. Godsy is versed in the fine text. BLP fine text. How-to-indent fine text. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a much ado about nothing but I find fault all around. Legacypac should have just let this be. Once the page had been deleted there was zero point continuing the discussion, and zero point making a big deal over hounding or involved closure, especially since AFAICT, Legacypac doesn't dispute that it was pointless continuing with the discussion when the page had been deleted. Further they need to make clear whether they consider this Hounding, involved close violation or both. They can't say it's one then when someone does something suddenly bring up involved closure. Also when someone reverts to a closure like that, they are taking ownership of the close so NAC doesn't really apply anyway. Making a big deal over this damages any claim for hounding.

Still I'm not letting Godsy off the hook. I WP:AGF on their claim that they regularly close XfDs of this sort where the page is already deleted and that they just came across this when checking out XfDs. But did they not notice Legacypac was involved? If they say they did not then I'll AGF on that and let it be. But if they did notice Legacypac was involved it was silly to close. Yes it may be something they do all the time and they didn't come across it by following Legacypac, but considering the history of concern here, including from other parties, Godsy should stay away from Legacypac for unimportant stuff. There was no reason this was important. Yes it wastes a small amount of time for people to check it out, but people should notice the redlink and probably that the page is gone when they visit it. If they don't I don't think they should be commenting but in any case it's their own fault. So the time wasted is only in briefly looking through the XfD not in actually comments. In other words, the negative effect from leaving this open is minor and since Godsy themselves have acknowledges others regularly do this work, they could have simply left it for someone else to close rather then yet again involving themselves with Legacypac.

Finally while as I said earlier, nominally when you revert to a closure you are taking ownership of it, it would have been good if Newimpartial had made this clearer. More to the point, while Newimpartial hasn't been accused of hounding Legacypac AFAIK< they seem to be awfully involved in supporting Godsy and opposing Legacypac in recent discussions. Considering this, again it would have been far better if they simply left it for someone with less of a history. Again while this whole fuss is silly and the closure needed, there was nothing urgent so just let others deal with it rather than strongly risking aggravating the situation.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I have never been involved in "supporting Godsy". The only reason I've been on ANI at all is because Legacy and Nyttend sent me here, and the only reason I noticed Godsy is that Legacy and Nyttend accused me of being their/them of being my "proxy" - otherwise I wouldn't know who Godsy even was. But as a result of those interactions, I have had to observe Legacy's actions in order to protect myself, which has resulted in the occasional non-admin comment on my part.

I closed the AfD because 1) it needed to be closed 2) they both apparently agreed that it needed to be closed and 3) resolving the issue was one click away. I wasn't WP:INVOLVED in the discussion there in any way. Newimpartial (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably the first time I have ever seen someone get mad that an XfD they initiated was closed as speedy delete. The page had already been deleted, so Legacypac's reversion of Godsy's closure was an utterly unnecessary escalation. Godsy hasn't been IBANNed, so there is no reason why he can't close the discussion in question. This disruptive, time-wasting, wikilawyering by Legacypac verges on being a blockable offense. Lepricavark (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]