Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Handpolk

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  Deleted by User:DGG per WP:G7. Brustopher (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Long-term abuse/Handpolk


Does not follow the LTA guidelines. Reads more like an WP:ANI report. Filer has had, at that time, a tendency to misidentify edits as vandalism sometimes. This fails all the LTA criteria because:
 * Handpolk has not disrupted Wikipedia over a long period of time. In fact Handpolk is was a legitimate editor.
 * Handpolk did not have any socks nor was their account indeffed.
 * Because the case reads more like an ANI report, the information is useless for future repetition. TL22 (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * comment the second statement is wrong. Handpolk has been indefinitely blocked as a sock of Sockpuppet investigations/DegenFarang.  However I agree this is the wrong name for this and deletion or userfication should be OK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. Stroke the 2nd statement. --TL2</b><b style= "color:#FFA700">2</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 02:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:LTA is sufficiently long and minor cases of bad behavior should not be listed. The best procedure is WP:DENY and LTA is kept for its functional value, not as a shrine to record every disruptive editor. I don't see why it should be userfied because it would then fail WP:POLEMIC which applies even for indeffed/banned users—if there were a reason to record anything it should be at LTA. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * comment I don't mind this report being deleted. Handpolk was reported and subsquently blocked for his actions. As for "Filer has a tendency to misidentify edits as vandalism sometimes.", it should be changed/corrected to – Filer has HAD a tendency to misidentify edits as vandalism sometimes. You can look at all my recent edits and I rarely put vandalism as the reason. So all in all, go ahead and delete this not needed (anymore) report. Take care. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Noted, thanks. Will tag the nominated page with G7 as you said "go ahead and deleted this page". --<b style= "color:red">T</b><b style= "color:#FF4200">L</b><b style= "color:#FF7400">2</b><b style= "color:#FFA700">2</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 20:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.