Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Moving towards possible solutions: should Rusf10 be limited on New Jersey AfDs?
Line 466: Line 466:
:Please provide [[WP:DIFF|diffs]]. [[User:A lad insane|<span style="color:#2E2EFF">-A la</span><span style="color:#000000">d </span><span style="color:#CD0000">insane</span>]] [[User talk:A lad insane|<small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)</small>]] 19:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
:Please provide [[WP:DIFF|diffs]]. [[User:A lad insane|<span style="color:#2E2EFF">-A la</span><span style="color:#000000">d </span><span style="color:#CD0000">insane</span>]] [[User talk:A lad insane|<small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)</small>]] 19:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
{{archive bottom}}

== Revisions from User:Microsoft-Support should be deleted ==

Although [[User:Microsoft-Support]] is indefinitely blocked, the [[Special:Contributions/Microsoft-Support|revisions]] by them should be [[WP:REVDEL]] because they are currently being abused by [[Technical support scam|tech support scammers]] feigning as actual Microsoft support personnel as evidenced in [https://clips.twitch.tv/DarkStupidZebraStinkyCheese this clip] of a call from the [[Scambaiting|scambaiter]] Kitboga - [[User:Lyoko is Cool|Lyoko is Cool]] ([[User talk:Lyoko is Cool|talk]]) 04:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:14, 12 March 2018

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

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

    Start a new discussion

    Issue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico requires attention.

    There has been significant debate now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico regarding a matter of procedure, as far as I can tell the issue is as follows:

    • Rusf10 created a bundled AfD containing a number of non-notable local-level politicians. So far, no one has persisted in recommending any of them are kept of their own merits. However several editors (Enos733 and Djflem) insist that one of the articles should not be in the bundle as it is for a county executive, and not a freeholder. I gather that the county executive is of a higher rank. I believe all the politicians are from the same area. The article in question is Thomas A. DeGise.
    • There has been much debate, which I am heavily involved in, about whether there is any point having a new separate AfD just for Thomas A. DeGise given the likelihood that it would be deleted, the difficulty of debundling the article, and the fact three people (Myself, SportingFlyer, Bearcat) have already !voted to delete all the articles in the bundle, specifically including this one. I have stated that this fact prevents it's removal by WP:WDAFD, I believe this is accurate.
    • I am under the impression that Rusf10 has been cleaning up numerous articles about politicians in a specific area of the USA, and has encountered problems with two prior bundled AfD's, here and here, the latter is still open. These seem to have some bearing on the current matter, and for that reason I am including Alansohn in my notifications about this report. I apologise if there are other involved people which I missed.
    • Save perhaps this personal attack comment, the entire affair has been quite civil, I am only bringing this here to get a resolution by an adminstrator, not to get any editor told off as such.

    It would be very useful if an administrator could decide what to do about the Thomas A. DeGise article and if applicable, the AfD as a whole. Since otherwise I fear the entire thing will become a trainwreck. It would seem at this point to be unwise for any non-admin to try and "fix" the issue using WP:IAR, which has been suggested as another option. Thanks. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      • The simplest solution would be to separate the article for DeGise out of this Afd. There is broad consensus that a county executive directly elected by the voters to oversee and administer a county of 670,000 people (more than any congressman) should be treated differently from a "mere" county legislator, known in New Jersey as a "freeholder". As Prince of Thieves ably points out, Rusf10 has made other problematic bulk nominations where the articles do not share the requisite common characteristics. Withdrawing DeGise from this bundle addresses that issue. Alansohn (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is, for the record, no consensus that a county executive is automatically more notable than a regular county freeholder — DeGise's includability still depends on exactly the same condition, being sourceable as the subject of enough coverage, and more than just purely local coverage at that, to demonstrate that he would pass WP:NPOL #2 as significantly more notable than most other people at that level of prominence. Being a county executive does not give him a free notability boost that would exempt him from having to have as much sourcing as it would take to keep any of the others, because it's not a role that Wikipedia accepts as handing automatic inclusion rights to every holder of it either. (And the comparison to mayors doesn't wash, either, because mayors aren't even accepted as all being automatically notable just because they were mayors, but still have to pass NPOL #2 as the subject of the same amount of coverage that county freeholders would have to show.)
      Unbundling him from the nomination wouldn't be unreasonable, but no Wikipedia policy requires him to be unbundled from the existing nomination — his grounds for inclusion aren't actually any different from anybody else's in the batch, and if people can show that there actually is a stronger case for including him, then "delete all except DeGise" is a perfectly valid vote option as well. But there's no reason why unbundling is required here, because at the county level of government the includability test isn't any different for executives than it is for the regular freeholders: either way, it requires quite a lot more sourcing than anybody in the batch, including DeGise, is actually showing. It doesn't matter whether they're identical roles or not — they're directly-related roles that don't have different inclusion standards from each other, so they're not different enough to require separation. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bearcat, you are correct about NPOL. The problem is that every politician at every level of government in every nation at any point in world history also falls under the standard, and your argument would support bundling every politician who has ever lived into this nomination. Even Rusf10 hasn't gotten to that point yet. No one has ever implied that all county executives are inherently notable (though there are in fact different levels of notability at different levels of government, which is why a state legislator is inherently notable and an elected dog catcher isn't). Nor has anyone stated that there is any policy that requires DeGise to be unbundled from the existing nomination. The point is that if anyone has the genuine interests of Wikipedia at heart, and isn't merely trying to load up a pile of articles into one AfD to make a point, it would be the right thing to do. How about if it minimizes disruption, might that be enough? Heck, I might well agree to delete the rest of the articles if the nominator would show the barest evidence of good faith in this matter.
        Unlike your ludicrous strawman, no one suggests that its required. Maybe it's just the right thing to do as a human. Alansohn (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The whole point of this AN/I post is to get an uninvolved administrator to decide whether to unbundle the article or not. I didn't expect a meta-debate about the relative importance of different levels of government, or commentary about a ludicrous strawman or what the right thing to do as a human is. The whole point is that no-one is required, or even procedurally allowed (without recourse to WP:IAR) to unbundle it, yet several editors want this done. So we ask an admin to deal with it. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, in the real world, which Wikipeida seeks to record, a county executive and a county freeholder are very different political offices. No amount of wiki-speak changes that.

    So BEFORE editors start citing policy for why DeGise should/should not be deleted, they should understand none of the spare suggestions at Wikipedia:BUNDLE would qualify the inclusion in the nomination. Indeed advice given is to err on the side of caution. The nominator inappropriately took one person with a different political office and bundled him it with a large group with the same political office, thus contaminating the nomination. S/he has done this before and gotten a pass. S/he has been advised on personal talk page to take more consideration before making any nominations. It has been suggested that s/he withdraw DeGise from the nomination under discussion. As as been suggested, a procedural KEEP to withdraw DeGise from the bundle would be appropriate and fittingly respectful of proper procedure. (Thanks, by the way, Prince of Thieves, for your efforts here) Djflem (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Nobody ever said that the offices weren't any different. But the notability and sourceability standards that a holder of either office has to pass to qualify for a Wikipedia article are identical — neither office hands its holders an automatic inclusion guarantee just for existing, but rather both offices have to clear WP:NPOL #2 on the same volume and breadth and depth of sourceability as each other. So there's no substantive difference in the issues that AFD would have to consider in the respective deliberations. The question of whether the people clear our notability and sourceability standards or not is what an AFD discussion is about, so dismissing that as wikispeak isn't useful — those things are the main issue at AFD, not side distractions from the main issue. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Response to Bearcat. Limited guidance from Wikipedia:Bundle says:

    Sometimes you will find a number of related articles, all of which you feel should be deleted together. To make it easier for those participating in the discussion, it may be helpful to bundle all of them together into a single nomination. However, for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes, before listing an entire group. Examples of when articles may be bundled into a single nomination: a) A group of articles with identical content but with slightly different titles. b) A group of hoax articles by the same editor. c)A group of spam articles by the same editor. d) A series of articles on nearly identical manufactured products. If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately. Inappropriately bundling articles can cause a confused process or "trainwreck". Or to put it more succinctly, if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, don't.

    Clearly DeGise article does not fit into any of the above examples, so we are left with "feeling" from an editor. In a flurry of mass-nominating the important detail that DeGise is distinct was missed. (The nominator went back later to cover his tracks.) And should not have been included. One can cite policies such Wikipedia:GNG or Wikipedia:POLITICIAN here as a way of avoiding the subject, but the nomination is FLAWED. If indeed policy is so important, then they should ALL be followed. Neither GNG nor POLITICIAN is more important than Wikipedia:Bundle. I'm sorry, but the argument of any editor who would suggest they were is greatly diminished by doing so and would imply that disregard for proper procedure in such a delicate area as deletion noms is acceptable. Points about the subject articles can and have be made at that discussion page. The main issue here, as outlined above, the nomination itself.Djflem (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    They are also all county level politicians from the same area. Which I gather is partly why they were bundled to begin with. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm really sick of this. The objection to bundled nominations is nothing sort of WP:WIKILAWYERING by people who oppose the nominations to begin with. There is a strong resistance to getting rid of low-quality articles about non-notable politicians in New Jersey (which at this point probably has more of these type of articles than any other state). As others have pointed out, no policy was violated by nominating these articles together. WP:BUNDLE simply states "Sometimes you will find a number of related articles, all of which you feel should be deleted together. To make it easier for those participating in the discussion, it may be helpful to bundle all of them together into a single nomination." There no guidelines there about certain types of politicians can't be nominated together. Although different county freeholder and county executive are both county-level politicians and therefore related. I also made it clear in the nomination that DeGise was county executive. There is absolutely nothing wrong procedure with this nomination.

    As for @Alansohn: who feels the need to chime in here. Why doesn't someone ask him as author of most of these articles, why are they copied and pasted from biographies on the official county website? Isn't that a WP:COPYVIO? Could that be why he might agree to delete some of the articles? (although I must point out that the DeGise article itself is copy and pasted) Furthermore, as he is now trying to act as Mr. Civility, he just leveled an extreme WP:PERSONALATTACK on me in another AfD, see [1]. He has been uncivil in the past, but calling me "truly fucked up" and "fundamentally fucked up" goes way too far and IMO he should be blocked.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The archived version of the county executive page for DeGise linked at the bottom of current article (and the current live version) has a copyright notice. I'm not sure if there is any copyright exclusion for something like this, but Earwig's copyvio detector comparing our article to the current page says 43.5% confidence, and looking at what is highlighted it's extremely obvious that a lot of text was flat copied with minimal changes. The first version of the page from October 2005 is a direct copy from the website (compared to Aug 2005 version). Ravensfire (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Alansohn loves to play the victim, but the fact is he opposes and attacks me for any nomination that involves New Jersey (whether or not he created the article). He clearly exhibits WP:OWNERSHIP behavior over all New Jersey related articles and its not just me, look at the numerous content disputes in his edit history and you will see he always insists on his versions of pages. Just look above, he references Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evelyn Adams (lottery winner), did he write that article? No. In fact, he didn't even edit it until after it was nominated. But, its New Jersey related, so according to him my participation there must have something to do with him. (ie. it's one of "his articles") As I showed in a previous ANI [2] which was basically ignored, he was suggesting that I be banned after I had made only a few nominations. I didn't even know who the hell he was at that point. He routinely opposes nominations just because I made them. For example, here he blasts me for not considering a merge/redirect target and then goes on to propose a completely inappropriate target (its like he didn't even read before posting his response): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Black Sr.. Or how about the fact that created the composite biography article County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey in direct response to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Levinson? Alansohn has been extremely uncivil since Day 1, yet he wants to play the victim now. And for the allegation of stalking, from an edit like this [3], it is quite clear he actually "stalks" my editing history, as I explain here:[4]. And let's not forget Alansohn was actually the origin of the false allegation of WP:OUTING made by Unscintillating: [5]--Rusf10 (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rusf10's first interaction ever with me was to dig through my edit history, determine my hometown and decide that I have a conflict of interest on that basis because someone lived in the same place I do at one point. While Rusf10 has perhaps skirted on the edge of WP:OUTING -- I had the content he dug through removed from my history -- the stalking and harassment continue from day one, and sadly Rusf10 doesn't deny or apologize for the stalking. As do the arguments of bad faith; there was no WP:COI at Bill Zanker and the preposterous argument that County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey was created in bad faith is complete and total bullshit; it was created to address concerns raised by Rusf10.
      Please get this guy off my back, which has not stopped since December with the Bill Zanker threat. Alansohn (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually I find this worrying, even the information posted directly above was sufficient for me to obtain Alansohn's contact details and job position (which I won't state here). Needless to say he is clearly well positioned to be very knowledgeable about these articles, whether he created them or not. And no, there isn't any obvious COI, being a member of a different public body close by to the one being edited is hardly a COI, or even vaguely close to one. And writing about the mayor of a nearby town is also not a COI. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's all reliably sourced publicly available information that anyone could have easily found, on or off of wikipedia. I simply updated information in an article that was out of date (something alansohn routinely does for every other town in NJ). You can't use your real name as your username and then claim you have some expectation of privacy, so I don't know why we're even talking about that. Three times Alansohn accused me of outing him [6] [7] & [8]. Alansohn is actually wrong about our first interaction, its actually this: [9] A suggestion that I be topic-banned. Immediately after he posted: [10], he alleged [11] that I have a "complete lack of understanding of WP:BEFORE" and was suggesting that I been topic-banned just because he didn't like the nomination. A nomination that actually resulted in "no consensus", so obviously not everyone else though there was a problem with the nomination. That's right from day 1, Alansohn assumed bad faith and attacked me and now he's here whining that I am harassing him. It is Alansohn's MO to attack me or insist on an extreme "nothing can be deleted" interpretation of WP:AFD, rather than actually provide other policy-based arguments why an article should be kept.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know who you are, I don't care who you are, I respect your privacy -- I don't even know if you're male or female -- and I have not followed you around from article to article to undermine your efforts to contribute to Wikipedia, I wouldn't even know what articles to follow you around to.
      On the other hand, it bizarrely means a lot to you that you know who I am (you made the effort to rummage deep into my edit history and claim that makes me in violation of WP:COI), to systematically delete articles related to my place of residence for politicians and rabbis (?!?!?!), to correct edits to articles you've never touched before (merely because I did), to "fix" content about me and to systematically rummage through articles I've created and target them for deletion, even treating efforts to address your concerns as being in bad faith. This is the very definition of WP:Harassment and you refuse to acknowledge that you've persisted for three months with this abuse, despite persistent pleas to just stop. Per WP:HARASS, "Wikipedia must never be misused to harass anyone, whether or not the subject of the harassment is an editor here. Edits constituting harassment will be reverted, deleted, or suppressed, as appropriate, and editors who engage in harassment are subject to blocking.", but that's not what I'm looking for, I just want this systematic harassment to stop and to be able to edit without worrying that Rusf10 is looking over my shoulder.
      Just acknowledge the stalking, say you're sorry, promise you'll stop, learn your lesson and we can both move on. If you can't or won't, maybe a block is appropriate after all, which would be the saddest way to resolve this matter. Alansohn (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I refuse to apologize when 1. I did nothing wrong and 2. to a person accusing me of WP:Harassment who has called me incompetent, "truly fucked up" and "fundamentally fucked up", among other things. If you are accusing me of harassment, what the hell do you call your statements? You vigorously attack me (from the beginning), use profanity, and now you're the victim? Do you really think anyone here is that stupid? Rather than me apologize, maybe we can start with an uninvolved admin giving you a final warning about using expletives to describe other editors and you can start following WP:CIVILITY--Rusf10 (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    There have been an astonishing amount of controversy regarding New Jersey related topics recently at AfD; both Unscintillating and Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) were heavily involved before sanctions. Perhaps ARBCOM needs to examine the issue, as this thread is going nowhere. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment My position is, and perhaps a discussion should start in a larger or different forum, that there should be more clarity on when an editor can WP:Bundle multiple nominations at AfD. In this particular case, I see a difference in scope and duties of a county executive (who has executive authority) than other subjects that have only legislative authority (this is a distinction made in the level of presumption given to strong mayors compared with councilmembers). With many of the bundled nominations I see, there is often one article that should not have been part of the bundle because there is a different circumstance - the bundled nomination of Terry Cady includes a state legislator (which was mentioned in the article at the time of the nomination. The nomination of Thomas Lynch included the information that Lynch Joseph Irwin served as a state legislator in the article at time of deletion. Since the suggestions at WP:BUNDLE state "any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately," I suggested a procedural keep for DeGise. (Note, I recognize that I would probably argue for deletion of DeGise, but the merits of evaluating his notability is distinct from the other freeholders. That said, in this case WP:IAR can apply in this circumstance.) --Enos733 (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I, for one, would support the suggestion both at this AfD and in general. Bundling requires more than saying that the articles share a common characteristic, it requires making sure that they don't have features that make them sufficiently different from one another. Alansohn (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just split out the county exec into a separate nom and skip the rest of the drama. Looking at the discussion it seems to divide into "delete all" and a procedural split off of the exec. So just do that. There is way too much fussing over an obvious solution that doesn't prevent anyone from responding as they evidently want to respond in the discussions. Oh, and a round of trout for belaboring this. Mangoe (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As previously stated, a county executive, who has executive authority and elected at-large, is very distinct from other subjects, Freeholders, who have legislative authority and are elected by district. Inclusion in a bundled nomination is ill-conceived. It should be split:Procedural KEEP/WP:IAR?
    Despite warnings in Wikipedia:Bundle to be very cautious in doing so, nominator has caused problems before with bundled nominations. One hopes that s/he will be realize that they can cause confusion, and unless a clear-cut case of an example given in the policy, refrain altogether from making them. As suggested by User:Enos733, Wikipedia:Bundle could be made clearer as to avoid depending on "feelings" of nominators, which can be untrustworthy.) As observed by power~enwiki (π, ν) there has an "astonishing amount of controversy" regarding state-related topics recently. I would support the idea that ARBCOM needs to examine the issue.Djflem (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's irrelevant whether the roles of county executive vs. county freeholder are different in actual on the ground fact — because the Wikipedia inclusion tests for county executive vs. county freeholder are not any different from each other: either way, it's "sourceable to enough media coverage to satisfy NPOL #2". There is nothing about DeGise that AFD needs to evaluate any differently than anybody else in the bundle, no Wikipedia inclusion standard that makes DeGise any more "inherently" notable than anybody else in the bundle, and on and so forth. Is there a difference in what they do? Yes. Is there any difference in what we have to do about and with that difference? No, there isn't — a county executive is not any more "inherently" notable than a county freeholder is, but still has to pass exactly the same "sourceable to nationalized coverage that marks him out as significantly more notable than most other people at his level" test as any of the freeholders do. So arguing to "they have to be separated because they do different things" is an abstraction: they don't have to be separated, because the differences in their roles does not create any difference in the relevant includability standards. It would simply be a waste of time that wouldn't produce a different result, so the principle of WP:SNOW applies — there's no value in reversing a prior action just to put an article through another process that will still produce the same result anyway. Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bearcat: You're putting the cart before the horse. As I said on the nom page: While it is convenient to use or ignore policy when it suits a preferred outcome it can be taken as a form of Wikipedia:Gaming the system. Active or tactic complicicy for the abuse of the policies, guidelines, procedures to which editors (to the best of their knowledge) adhere and upon which they rely is damaging to Wikipedia. A sense of propriety should prevail and not suffer for the sake of expediency.

    Limited guidance from Wikipedia:Bundle says: Sometimes you will find a number of related articles, all of which you feel should be deleted together. To make it easier for those participating in the discussion, it may be helpful to bundle all of them together into a single nomination. However, for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes, before listing an entire group. Examples of when articles may be bundled into a single nomination: a) A group of articles with identical content but with slightly different titles. b) A group of hoax articles by the same editor. c)A group of spam articles by the same editor. d) A series of articles on nearly identical manufactured products. If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately. Inappropriately bundling articles can cause a confused process or "trainwreck". Or to put it more succinctly, if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, don't.

    Clearly DeGise article does not fit into any of the above examples, so we are left with "feeling" from an editor. In a flurry of mass-nominating the important detail that DeGise is distinct was missed. (The nominator went back later to cover his tracks.) And should not have been included. One can cite policies such Wikipedia:GNG or Wikipedia:POLITICIAN here as a way of avoiding the subject, but the nomination is FLAWED. If indeed policy is so important, then they should ALL be followed. Neither GNG nor POLITICIAN is more important than Wikipedia:Bundle. I'm sorry, but the argument of any editor who would suggest they were is greatly diminished by doing so and would imply that disregard for proper procedure in such a delicate area as deletion noms is acceptable. So, indeed it does make very much of a difference that the two political positions are not he same. The outcome of the nom does not justify the means by which it is made. The main issue here, as outlined above, the nomination itself. Yes, there is a great value in doing things properly on Wikipedia.Djflem (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry, but you're 100% wrong here. There is absolutely no violation of WP:Bundle. The examples you cite are simply examples, nothing more. They do not cover every possible use of WP:BUNDLE. What the articles I nominated have in common is the following: 1. They are all articles about county-level politicians and therefore WP:POLITICIAN applies to all 2. They are all poorly sourced 3. The vast majority (including DeGise) are likely CopyVios. And please elaborate on "went back later to cover his tracks", I do not understand at all. I added the additional article shortly after the nomination was made as per WP:BUNDLE. What are you trying to say?--Rusf10 (talk) 09:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is: why did YOU find it necessary to amend the nomination and make a specific point clarifying the distinction that DeGise is the county executive and not a freeholder, as are on the others?Djflem (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That was not an amendment to the nomination, that was part of the original nomination. And why would you oppose me giving an explanation? (as I did there) If you actually arguing for clarity, then that provides it. However, it seems like you're just trying to wikilawyer this.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for adding to the the original nomination the clarification that DeGise is a county executive and not a county freeholders, as are the others on the list.Djflem (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It really is quite wikilawyery to argue that since this situation isn't specifically covered by any of the examples named in BUNDLE, it's therefore an inherently invalid BUNDLE — the definition of the words "example" and "limited guidance" are that the list is not an exhaustive compilation of all the situations where it applies, but that there can be many other similar examples that have not been specifically named. There's simply no reason why DeGise is an inherently invalid bundling with the other people he's been bundled with — his job title may be different than the others, but the inclusion and sourcing standards that his job title has to meet to get him included in Wikipedia are not any different. It is not irrelevant or "avoiding the subject" to point out that the inclusion rules for "county executive" are the same as the inclusion standards for "county freeholder" — it goes directly to the heart of the matter, because the heart of the matter is whether DeGise can be bundled or not. But again, just because BUNDLE doesn't list an example that corresponds directly to that situation doesn't mean that BUNDLE is inapplicable, because BUNDLE is listing a few representative examples of where it applies and not every situation where it applies. Now, BUNDLE would certainly be violated if somebody tried to sneak Donald Trump into an AFD batch of non-notable county councillors in the hope that people just voted "delete all" without noticing that he was hidden in the batch — but batching a bunch of county councillors together is not a BUNDLE violation just because they don't all have the same job title, because they do all have the same notability standard that has to be passed to qualify for an article. The notability standards are not an irrelevant distraction from the matter at hand — they're the crux of whether the matter at hand is a policy violation or not. And it's simply not, because the notability standard that DeGise has to pass is not any different from the notability standard that anybody else in the batch has to pass. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll strike the mischaracterization,since this situation isn't specifically covered by any of the examples named in BUNDLE, it's therefore an inherently invalid. BUNDLE, for you. A nomination is not a deletion. You can keep repeating that the criteria for bundled nomination is the same as the criteria for deletion, but that won't make it true. You can repeating that all county political offices are the same, but that won't make it true. You can repeating it doesn't make a difference, but that won't make it true.Djflem (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Without intending to comment on the merits of the bundling, personally I would have suggested that the disputed nomination was just procedually closed. I don't see how the fact that a few people have !voted for delete all affects things. Their !vote to delete the other articles is not affected by the removal of this one article per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Their !vote to delete this one article is affected, but there's a fair chance it's just going to be closed as a no-consensus for that article anyway. So why continue to waste time on it? A new nomination can be opened for that one article, and they, and everyone else who has already participated in the bundled AFD can be invited. Nil Einne (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Time for an IBAN?

    NO CONSENSUS
    There does not appear to be a strong enough consensus to enact and IBAN at this time.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Let me play Solomon here and offer the following solution to this festering problem. It is clear that Alansohn and Rusf10 cannot play well together, and this entire thread is evident of a long-standing fued between them which has been festering for quite a while. It's becoming disruptive. Let me propose the following solution which should prevent this from being a future time sink:

    • User:Alansohn and User:Rusf10 are hereby banned from interacting with each other anywhere on Wikipedia. Along with the standard prohibitions on commenting on each other, contacting each other through user talk pages, the ping function, commenting in the same discussions, etc. this is also to include editing articles which have been created by or substantially edited by the other party, and nominating such articles for deletion (including CSD, PROD, or AFD).

    What does everyone think of this? --Jayron32 00:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong support - Whether or not Rusf10 is truly attempting to edit in good faith or is actually engaged in malicious stalking and harassment, it doesn't matter, because obviously no editor should have to feel that they're being harassed on-wiki, and I think there's enough of a pattern to justify Alan's feeling that way. We cannot allow a perceived stalker-victim dynamic to fester and repeatedly boil over like this—intended or not. This is not productive, and this is not healthy. Rusf10's work nominating these articles for deletion is not that important to the project. A firm IBAN is sorely needed and neither user should be objecting at this point. Swarm ♠ 03:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support I've been participating in a number of AfD discussions and the level of vitriol on these discussions is absolutely out of control. I'd like to believe the AfDs were brought in good faith but we're at a point where this cannot continue. This is a good answer. SportingFlyer (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment this might be necessary, but I can only support this if a TBAN on Rusf10 proposing deletion of New Jersey-related articles is also implemented. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly Oppose'- Such a ban would only validate Alansohn's uncivil behavior and would end up being a defacto ban on me editing any New Jersey related article (since he has edited pretty much all of them). I really do not see this having any negative impact on Alansohn at all (actually I think this is exactly what he wants), but it would punish me. Anyone who thinks Alansohn is a victim should review his edit history. I think the worst I've done is called him a clown and told said that he has a reading comprehension problem. Yes, I admit that was uncivil, but extremely tame compared to profanity and accusations of bad faith that he has directed at me since our first interaction.. He believes he has WP:OWNERSHIP over all New Jersey related articles (because he has edited virtually all of them) and this ban would only reinforce that. A vote of support here is a vote of support for uncivil behavior--Rusf10 (talk) 07:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      This directly addresses his uncivil behavior because now he is no longer able to be uncivil towards you at all, since he is banned from interacting with you. --Jayron32 12:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jayron32:That may be your intention here, but that's not what this actually does. It in effect bans me from editing a large number of articles. Alansohn has edited virtually all articles related to New Jersey including any article about a person who has ever lived in New Jersey (even if only for a small portion of their life) He considers it "his area" of the encyclopedia and does not want other interfering with the article being the way he wants them. As you see from our first interaction, he wanted me banned at once because I dared to nominate one of "his articles" (meaning ones related to New Jersey, not just necessarily ones he edits). Actually, he never even edited the Henry Vaccaro article (which is usually not the case with NJ articles) either before or after the nomination, yet came out of nowhere to attack me. You can call this an IBAN, but the way it is worded is in effect a topic ban of me editing New Jersey articles. Alansohn has on other occasions accused other editor of harassing him. Either you have to believe there is some conspiracy to harass Alansohn or this is simply how he operates in order to get his way. That is he claims WP:OWNERSHIP of article and then attacks anyone who doesn't go along with what he wants. When is called out on his behavior, he then pretends that he has been victimized. But its always the same, it is his aggressive behavior that caused the problem to begin with. Alansohn's behavior is very similar in this ANI and others there also noted his WP:OWNERSHIP behavior [12] The result of that ANI was an mutually-agreed to IBAN that was less broad that what is being proposed here. I am not going to agree to something that would ban me indefinitely from editing a huge category of articles. Please look at these previous ANIs and you will see a clear pattern of his behavior, everything he has accused me of he has accused someone else of before: [13] [14] [15] [16] And there are even more than that, but I can't list everyone of them here. Given his pattern of behavior, I ask you to please reconsider your proposal.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose- overkill and excessively one-sided. This would benefit Alansohn exclusively, yet he's been as guilty or more of incivility as Rusf10. All that's necessary is a ban on either editor commenting on or replying to each other in AfDs. The reality is that most of these articles are junk; Rusf10 is improving the encyclopedia by nominating them for deletion and that work should not be impeded. The claims of "stalking" are not really credible. Alansohn has edited so many New Jersey related articles that it's actually impossible to edit anywhere in that area without getting his attention. Well, he does not own New Jersey and if you want to ban Rusf10 from editing New Jersey articles you should suggest that instead of dressing it up as an IBAN. What does need to stop is comments like "monumentally fucked up" and smiilar, from both sides. Reyk YO! 08:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but that sounds excessively one-sided benefit for Rusf10, which would coincidentally also serve your POV about NJ-related articles.Djflem (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? How is a two-way IBAN "excessively one-sided"? The only way a two-way IBAN could be construed as one-sided would be when one user is trying to interact and the other isn't. And that should never be a dynamic that's going on unless a user actually needs to be monitored. This interaction is not necessary, period. Swarm ♠ 10:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's one sided in that it effectively bans Rusf10 from any edits in an entire topic area, while imposing no real restrictions on Alansohn (who IMO is responsible for about 70% of the incivility). I believe I said exactly this in my original comment. Was I somehow unclear? Reyk YO! 10:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Rusf10 has also edited widely in the topic area in question, which would mean this proposal would also ban Alansohn from a reasonable number of articles in the "politics of New Jersey" subject area. (And it seems, a number of Pennsylvania related articles). Prince of Thieves (talk) 11:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I follow; the ban does not single out any one topic area, nor does it single out the behavior of either user for particular attention. I can't find a single thing I wrote above which your supposed objection even mentions. It's a simple, bilateral interaction ban designed to keep two feuding users from taking up anymore of our time. --Jayron32 11:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Would this would benefit Rusf10 by allowing him make delete noms, the area of contention, but curtail Alansohn's opportunity to respond? That seems one-sided & unfair. Are we discussing an IBAN or TBAN?Djflem (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither user able to nominate for deletion any articles which the other has created or substantially edited, and the same in reverse. It would also prevent either user from seeking out the other's nominations to comment on specifically. This was already explicit in the language of the ban. Can you explain how the verbage in the proposal makes that unclear? Maybe we can make that more explicit, but I am not sure how... Any ideas? --Jayron32 11:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying. (rarely involved this sort thing) Djflem (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how I can make this any clearer, but here goes. Alansohn has edited a huge number, perhaps most, of the articles on New Jersey. Banning Rusf10 from editing any article Alansohn has previously edited would effectively ban Rusf10 from editing anything to do with New Jersey. This doesn't seem like it should be hard to understand. I really don't know where the breakdown in comprehension is occurring, or how I can say it more simply. Reyk YO! 12:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but that's true of any interaction ban. That's the point of them; it prevents each user from editing those articles which the other works on. Alansohn is also banned from editing whatever articles and topic areas that Rusf10 works in, because the ban is fully bilateral. Your note that Rusf10 is banned from working on articles that Alansohn has is true, but I don't see how that is relevent, because that's how interaction bans usually work; we've done this sort of thing hundreds of times at Wikipedia, and I don't see why there is an objection that this somehow is unbalanced, since it effects both people equally. Alansohn also cannot edit in Rusf10's particular areas of expertise. To only raise objection in one direction seems odd. --Jayron32 13:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment this might severe, but necessary. Consider a temporary TBAN on Rusf10 proposing deletion of New Jersey-related articles to slow this down and let it cool off? Rusf10's has indicated an intention to deplete Wikipedia of NJ-related articles not to his liking. He has on more than one occasion "jumped" on newly-created articles (literally within hours) and brought to AFD before allowing time/opportunity for those who actually contribute content to develop them, thus stifling imput, and raising questions about good faith. He has made several mass noms which have been flawed, leading to confusion at AfD. Whatever the outcome here, I would suggest s/he heed the advice given at Wikipedia:bundle, and make a self-imposed ban and refrain from making them. I would also remind Rusf10 to refrain from making comments along the lines: "what you should know", "you don't like", "because you think". (They are uninformed, unsolicited, uninteresting, and useless opinions which have no place on Wikipedia). I'm curious to see if there will a sudden spike in AFDs for those NJ-related topics of my interest/where I have been a contributor.Djflem (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • support Seems to me...well lets not rake over old fires, just that I have seen this kind of thing before and it never gets sorted.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support A less drastic option could be to simply ban Rusf10 from bundling articles at AfD, since this was the primary issue those concerned were fighting over to begin with. Nominating each article separately would still eventually deal with them all. However it has clearly reached the point where Alansohn and Rusf10 have irrevocable differences, which would only continue if they edit the same articles. Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment support ban on bundled nominations. As can be seen from recent history Rusf10's use of bundling at (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Cemetery, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas J. Lynch Jr., & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico) has created confusion and caused contention, which clearly could have avoided. He appears to be adamant in not accepting the invitation/suggestion here to use Wikipedia:IAR to settle the matter (which all involved parties would understand). That is disconcerting. Either he himself or another non-involved party person would be the appropriate person to do it. One hopes he or someone else will step up to the plate and do it.Djflem (talk) 11:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me set this straight here. No one, including yourself has proven that I violated any policy including WP:BUNDLE. You keep citing guidelines that do not exist. There are no specific instructions on which pages can be bundled together. And it's really ironic you telling me to follow WP:IAR now which is the vaguest of all policies. And by the way in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Cemetery, you opposed the nomination because it was bundled and demanded that I unbundle it. [17] I did exactly what you asked. I withdrew the nomination and closed the discussion (because no one else had voted delete). Then when I renominated it separately you opposed it because I renominated it [18] Then you actually had the nerve to tell me that you didn't ask me to unbundle the nominations [19]. My point here, is what you did was just bad-faith WP:WIKILAWYERING--Rusf10 (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's the thing. I don't see Alan or anyone else claiming that he owns anything New Jersey related. Nor do I see Alan claim he can ignore GNG. In fact, nor do I see any credible behavioral complaints against Alan whatsoever. By all appearances, Alan is a good faith editor in good standing who feels like he's being harassed. He himself acknowledges that some of his early article creations can justifiably be deleted. However nowhere do I see anyone claim that Rusf10 is the only editor capable of assessing such articles. The utter toxicity of their interactions seems enough to convince me that anyone other than Rusf10 would be better suited to perform such a task. However Rusf10, for some bizarre reason, positively refuses to bow out voluntarily. So I ask, what's your alternative solution? Why is this so important, that Rusf must be allowed to continue what a user feels is hounding? The results have been mixed, at best. Clearly many of these interactions are not supported by consensus. So why should we force Alan to continue to interact with Rusf, while he feels he's being harassed? Why should we allow that to continue? I'm honestly asking. Give me one good reason. Just one! Please! Just one! Swarm ♠ 06:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I know your response was directed at Calton, but I feel compelled to respond here because because you have grossly mischaracterized alansohn's behavior. Please look at previous ANIs (some of which I linked to above) involving AlanSohn (and not involving me) and you'll see his pattern of uncivil behavior and other editors have described described his behavior as WP:OWN. He attacked me first, so I do not understand why you are defending his behavior. I can't believe you are supporting a ban on the basis of how someone feels, rather than actual facts. And Alansohn is not backing down, I removed a clear personal attack he made about me, leaving the portion of his comments that were actually relevant to the discussion [20]. And what does he do? He restores the comments saying that they were "improperly deleted in a previous edit", see [21]. Then he arrogantly acts as if he cleaned up the personal attack by changing the word "fucked" to "f-ed", like that really makes a difference. If he was acting in good faith, why did he restore the comments?--Rusf10 (talk) 07:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see Alan or anyone else claiming that he owns anything New Jersey related.
    And neither did I.
    Nor do I see Alan claim he can ignore GNG.
    Weirdly, I didn't say that either. Objecting to things I didn't say is quite a peculiar counter-argument.
    I'm going by the things he DOES and HAS DONE; you know, observed behavior. And I'm going to go with the things I've observed rather than the things you haven't. --Calton | Talk 10:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional Support I've been trying to find some way to end Rusf10's harassment during the unfortunate three months following this edit, where Rusf10 tracks down personal data and makes an explicit threat to start deleting articles related to me, and then starts going ahead with the attacks. Articles for mayors from the place where I live have been targeted for deletion and articles for rabbis (?!?!?!) from my place of residence have been targeted, in what appears to be some sort of demented revenge, based solely on the fact that they live where I do. Rusf10 has stalked me to articles I've edited (see here), the article about where I live (here), articles I've tried to rescue from deletion (here) and now is stalking articles that I've created (as in this AfD, which includes several articles I created a dozen years ago). Sure, I've made my share of typos and created some truly bad articles in my first months on Wikipedia some 13 years ago, but I do not need Rusf10 hovering over my every action; there are thousands upon thousands of knowledgeable editors without an axe to grind and trying to get some bizarre pound of flesh from me.
      Despite repeated warnings about WP:HARASS and repeated pleas to apologize and back off, we just get more of the same. I have no interest in who Rusf10 is, no interest in following this person around in retaliation, no interest in nominating articles Rusf10 has created to get some revenge and I have no interest in engaging my stalker-in-chief, even in some of the most recent bad faith nominations.
      My goal here is to find a way to work with this editor, which should start with a good faith effort by Rusf10 to recognize that AfD is being used as a tool of harassment and to head from there to a meaningful change in actions. But as Rusf10 is entirely unapologetic (see here at this ANI discussion) and refuses to back off some of Wikipedia's most blatant pattern of harassment, I see no alternative but an IBAN. I just want this guy off my back once and for all. Alansohn (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    More lies, you are not a victim, you have been very aggressive in attacking me. I am not going to repeat everything I said above about your behavior. However, let me respond to a few of the allegations. 1.see here Seriously, you are complaining because I corrected an obvious typo you made? Talk about being petty. 2. As I said above, you do not WP:OWN all NJ-related articles. Your attitude towards [here] only proves that point. 3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico contains some very poor quality articles. Notability concerns aside, they are WP:COPYVIOs, that is a serious problem. I could have just tagged them as copyvios, but if I did you would just remove the tag, so I thought the AfD was necessary. And furthermore they are clearly share similar characteristics with other articles I have proposed deleting that have absolutely nothing to do with you. And I have repeatedly warned you above civility at AfD, starting with the first time you suggested that I be topic-banned. It is astounding that you demand an apology from me, but don't even show the slightest semblance of guilt here, even going as far to repeatedly restore a personal attack [22] because you think it is justified. But WP:PERSONALATTACKs are never justified.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose banning a good faith editor from making a case for deletion on BLP articles, which is what this would amount to. The coverage of non-notable people has BLP implications even if they are public figures in that it raises their profile and could lead to unintentional invasions of privacy, etc. We should not prevent that via an IBAN. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Two quick things 1) No one is stopping Rusf10 from making comments on BLPs at AFD discussions in general, or from nominating them. 2) No one is stopping other editors from doing this work either. It's just on the specific interaction between these two users. Have you looked just at the few times they've interacted in this thread alone? The nature of their interaction at Wikipedia is disruptive, not about their work outside that interaction. The proposal makes no mention of their doing any necessary work outside of avoiding each other. Please reconsider, since your objections don't actually seem to have any basis in the proposal itself; if the proposal had made those statements, I think your objection would be quite relevent, but you seem to bring up entirely unrelated things that this ban would not stop either user from doing, nor would it stop any other user at Wikipedia doing. Can you honestly find the interaction between these two users a net gain for Wikipedia? Please see just below and just above at how well they are working together. --Jayron32 20:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Saying others will do it when others don't isn't very helpful, IMO. The "well it must not be important then" excuse that usually comes up after that isn't very convincing either: there are plenty of users who do very important work in obscure areas where if they left the work wouldn't get done. The wiki doesn't die because of it, but it would be a negative. To your questions: from a cursory review of some of these AfDs, it appears they were good and even the ones that closed as keep were good faith. While an IBAN might not explicitly cover deletion nominations or !voting in AfDs, what would happen is that the !votes or noms would continue, someone would get mad, it would be brought to ANI again as an IBAN violation, someone would say it wasn't, someone else would say it should be, another person would say it wasn't but it was gaming so lets make the IBAN stricter, and we'd have a new sanction on our hands even stricter than this, which would not help. IBANs in anything involving deletion tend not to work well, so my oppose stands. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose w/ caveat The simple act of nominating non-notable articles is not harassment. It may be seen as such by the editor who is creating all of those non-notable articles but the problem lays in the creation of inappropriate content, not in its removal. I could support a TBAN on bundling the AfD's -I do not think bundling is appropriate for any but the most egregiously inappropriate groups of articles. If bundling is shown to be appropriate for articles created by Alansohn (If there has been mass creation of articles that clearly do not meet inclusion criteria) then I would support a TBAN preventing them from further article creation until their existing articles have been cleaned up. Jbh Talk 15:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As often the case, the problem comes when an editor is targeting another editor. Even if many of these edits are legitimate, it's recognised that targeting another editor is often a problem. This doesn't mean it's never acceptable to target another editor, I'm sure many of us do it when we come across a vandal, troll, someone who posts copyvios or shows other behaviour of concern. But nor is it always acceptable especially when the editor targeted is in relatively good standing. Personally, if there was a very high success rate I would consider targeting in a case like this acceptable. But I mean very high, perhaps 85% of higher. I have no idea if this is being met here. And of course, even if the nominations are acceptable, it doesn't mean the commentary is. It's all very well to do good work by finding problem articles and nominating them for deletion. But if you can't resist insulting someone involved, perhaps the creator, in the process this is likely to be a problem. Even if the this person gives as good as they get, this doesn't make the nominators comments acceptable. If anything, it's evidence in support for the need for an iban. It would be unfortunate if the editors good work at nominating problem articles is restricted because of such a thing, but as with many things ultimately some people just aren't suited to work in certain areas because they help create too many problems. Note that I am not saying there is any targeting going on. I've seen it suggested above that it's simply a result of how many articles Alansohn edits in the area. I really have no idea. Partly why I've neither supported or opposed the proposal. I'm simply pointing out that it can be a problem is there is more to it than nominating non notable articles. I.E. You can just look at the situation and say well Rusf10 nominated a bunch of non-notable articles, so that means all they did was okay. From what I can tell, most people supporting the iban are suggesting one or more of these wider problems exist. Nil Einne (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - This prevents Rus from cleaning up the scores of poor content Alan has introduced to the encyclopedia. From my understanding, the AFDs themselves are not disruptive but the commentary is. Simply restrict the two editors from replying to each others' comments more than once. I would also advice Rus to not be in such a rush to nominate content, even though it is well-meaning. Perhaps expand or create content so Alan is not under the impression you are out to "get him" for poor content.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support No one should be stalked and outed as punishment for opposing someone at an AFD. No one should be given a punitive audit for opposing someone at AFD. Most of the people holding local politician positions should have been bundled into a single list rather than deleted as individual articles, and Rus never considers this as an option. --RAN (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They really shouldn't be, its a violation of WP:AOHA. The community has already rejected these allegations.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Deletion TBAN proposal for Rusf10

    DENIED
    There is consensus that a TBAN is inappropriate at this time.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    While there may be a "walled garden"-style set of articles about non-notable people from New Jersey, Rusf10's approach to the problem is tendentious and disruptive, and his comments show no sign that he appreciates that his actions are part of the problem. I propose an indef topic ban on deletion nominations on Rusf10 (AfD, PROD, and CSD), appealable after 6 months.

    • Support as nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose- First of all, look at the extreme amount of wikilawyering involved with these AfDs. Whatever happened to editors just saying I think this should be deleted or I think this should be kept and here's why? The editors who want to keep these articles don't want to make valid arguments why the articles should be kept, rather they keep inventing new rules about why the nomination is procedurally wrong. Just look at the Clinton Cemetry nomination discussed above and you'll see what happens when I actually tried to address DJflem's concern, by doing what he asked. Did he drop the procedural objection after I renominated the article alone? No, he didn't, instead he began to argue that the article was kept (because I withdrew) and since it was kept it could not be renominated. These are bad faith objections. Rather then argueing why the article is notable, people would rather wikilawyer their way into gettign the article kept.
      Second, this proposal is a reward for Alansohn's unacceptable behavior. As I have outlined above, this is exactly what he wanted from day 1. Alansohn is generally opposed to deleting almost everything (with a few exceptions). If you're going to punish me and reward Alansohn, you might as well just crown him the king of Wikipedia (a position that he already thinks he has). I promise you he will do the exact same thing to the next person who wants to get some type of community input (because that's really what AfD is, I don't unilaterally delete the article) on New Jersey related topics. Believe it or not I actually had some articles that I created taken to AfD in the past, see [23]. Did I attack the person who nominated it? No. I just defended the article with reasons why I though it should be kept. I actually was annoyed with the person who nominated before the AfD because he was just trying to get rid of it without a discussion, but the AfD itself did not bother me and it really shouldn't bother anyone else if they really believe it is a good article. Because if I'm wrong and I had been wrong with some of my nomination, the community is supposed to come to the right decision.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope. But maybe the walled garden should be addressed by dealing with the behavior of the King of New Jersey instead of blocking someone standing in his way. --Calton | Talk 05:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support in addition to the above. Swarm ♠ 06:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose- The IBAN above is already too much. And since nobody has mentioned issues with Rusf10's behaviour outside of the New Jersey AfDs it's clear that banning him from all XfD processes is overreach, and purely punitive. Reyk YO! 07:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose No evidence of problems outside of direct interactions with Alansohn. --Jayron32 14:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose There is no consensus that the bundled nominations were improper by any but the most pedantic of standards. We do not require that editors have nuanced understanding of how American counties organize their elected officials. What I do find abusive is the attempt to use, by Wikipedia's notability standards, a meaningless distinction between titles of county level elected officials to sanction an editor one disagrees with. Jbh Talk 15:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or maybe something less drastic such as the below. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support My calculation last month was the about 85% of his PRODs were removed, and less than 25% of his AFDs were deleted. He definitely is targeting articles by User:Alansohn and I was disturbed that he outed Alansohn after an argument at AFD. He has made no attempts to improve articles, or create articles, and only deletes articles. When he nominates for deletion, he always says that he looked and found no references, but I can't see how he has time to look when his next nomination is a few minutes later. It took me 4 hours of research to fill in an article that it took him 30 seconds to PROD, then when PROD was denied, take to AFD. No one can possibly do the extensive research needed when 10 deletions are bundled together. Minimally if someone took 15 minutes to research each person in the list, that would take 2.5 hours to look at 10 people. When we have 10 people with the same job, such as mayor, the rule has always been to combine the small biographies into a single list, and he has never considered that option. When mayors or county executives were combined, his knee jerk response was then to nominate that new list for deletion. --RAN (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was disturbed that he outed Alansohn... He did no such thing. That you feel the need to make stuff up doesn't help your case.

    --Calton | Talk 03:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I get it, RAN wants retribution because I pointed out that he violated his arbitration ban. I don't know where he got these figures though. According to the AfD tool, over 60% of the articles I nominated get deleted. The statistic on Prods possibly could be right, but that only because RAN and one other user mass deporded the articles (and almost always without explanation). Most of the deproded articles ended up getting deleted at AfD anyway.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. No outing has happened. And it's worth remembering that the last inclusionist wikilawyer with a history of incompetent, trollish commentary at AfDs, and who made the same dishonest accusations of outing, ended up being the one indef banned from XfD. Reyk YO! 08:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just an idea
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Proposal to indefinitely topic ban Rusf10 from bundling articles at AfD or nominating for deletion more than 10 articles per day by any method (CSD, AFD, PROD, etc). Additionally Rusf10 may not nominate for deletion any article created by Alansohn, but may comment on any AfD nominated by another. The ban may be appealed after six months.

    N.B this was really meant to be a possible softening of the proposal by power~enwiki rather than a new proposal all on it's own, please no-one vote on it, I am not an admin, this was just an idea. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I see no need for this. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose ( Same as above but it bears repeating.) There is no consensus that the bundled nominations were improper by any but the most pedantic of standards. We do not require that editors have nuanced understanding of how American counties organize their elected officials. What I do find abusive is the attempt to use, by Wikipedia's notability standards, a meaningless distinction between titles of county level elected officials to sanction an editor one disagrees with. Jbh Talk 15:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I have sometimes joined a discussion about Rusf10's overly hasty and ill-informed AfD nominations regarding New Jersey and other topics, and have found him to be dismissive and aggressive towards fellow editors. Moreover, his aggressive nominations for deletion, quite often without evidence of WP:BEFORE or of any particular familiarity with a topic, is disruptive. I know that he has been advised to slow down, to consider tagging pages for notability or sourcing, and to run proper BEFORE checks. But his AfD nominations and style during discussions continue to be disruptive and I can see that a temporary TBAN is warranted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Refusal by Alansohn to remove personal attack

    In the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey discussion I removed a clear personal attack he made about me, leaving the portion of his comments that were actually relevant to the discussion [24]. And what does he do? He restores the comments saying that they were "improperly deleted in a previous edit", see [25]. Then he arrogantly acts as if he cleaned up the personal attack by changing the word "fucked" to "f-ed", like that really makes a difference. For the second time, he has restored the personal attack [26], commenting "restore comments; for someone who uses AfD as the preferred method of personal attack and harassment, should we just delete all of your AfDs and solve the problem? It's time to address these issues, not delete them". He is insistent that his personal attack is justified and both times he has removed unrelated comments made by myself and an other editor for no apparent reason. Since I don't want to engage in an edit war, can someone else please straighten this out.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Even more incivility by Alansohn

    At another AfD for an article I nominated for deletion, Alansohn has launched a personal attack at another editor who voted delete. User:Johnpacklambert pointed out (IMO correctly) that because of the number of county freeholder articles Alansohn has created that he must believe holding the position makes someone notable. Alansohn responded by calling him "an editor who sits on his ass all day long voting delete" and accused him of "destructive deletionism" (the same thing he has accused me and countless others of in the past) [27] I bring this up to show that Alansohn's behavior towards other individuals that he disagrees with is exactly the same as towards me. When he sees a deletion discussion isn't going his way, he gets mad and starts attacking people. When is an admin going to step up to the plate and deal with Alansohn's behavior?--Rusf10 (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Rusf10 has edited this thread dozens of times, trying to WP:BLUDGEON his way through to avoid his pattern of harassment. To provide the context of the tag team work of Rusf10 and Johnpacklambertis this vote, where JPL opines "The extremly subject-specific reviews in minor coin collecting publications do not add up to a pass of the general notability guidelines. Beyond this, Alansohn is being misleading in putting forth this arguement. A review of Alansohn's activities shows he has assumed that merely being elected as a county freeholder in any county in New Jersey, but evidently not to equivalent positions in any other state, makes someone notable on its own. That is why he created this and so many other articles on non-notable people, and so his arguments about Ganz role as a writer amount to a smoke screen to avoid facing the real issue, that this article was created on the assumption that Ganz was notable as a politician and Ganz clearly is not notable as a politician." Surely Rusf10 is OK with this. Alansohn (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So now you're accusing me of collusion with JPL? And yes, as I said above, I am okay with his post because he makes a valid point. It is that you assume that all county level politicians from New Jersey are notable. I strongly believe that you did not create the article because of Ganz's books (which have no been proven to be notable anyway). Notice that he attacked your argument but didn't call you any names. In contrast, you statement was a clear personal attack which is why another user (not me) removed it from the page [28]. But now I'm sure you're going to accuse me of colluding with that person too.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Dealing with chronic WP:HARASS by Rusf10

    The reason that we're here in the first place is that Rusf10 has been systematically stalking my edits for more than three months because of my vote at an AfD, responding "I think what is making you upset here is a conflict of interest WP:COI. I have now noticed that both you and the subject of the article live in the same town. And to be honest with you, the article List of people from Teaneck, New Jersey should not exist and neither should about half the articles on that list. Believe it or not, every mayor of Teaneck does not qualify for an article." (see here). Following up on that threat, Rusf10 began a series of AfDs directly targeted at that threat:

    With the overwhelming majority of articles kept, one would have hoped that Rusf10 would have walked away, but has persistently refused, following up with more provocations, stalking and harassment:

    By definition "Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing." No editor should be forced to endure this deliberate pattern of stalking and harassment. Rusf10 is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but rather has focused on abusing process to exact some sick form of revenge for my vote three months ago. What is needed to make this stop once and for all? Alansohn (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    How many times are you going to copy and paste the same exact thing???? This is an exact copy and paste of what you said already above. Do you have any idea how obnoxious the copy and pasting of the same long post over and over again is? I already responded to this exact post above, so I'm not going to do it again. --Rusf10 (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Come to think of it, isn't copying and pasting the same thing over and over again WP:BLUDGEON? Every thing Alansohn accuses me of doing is exactly what he does.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that your pattern of harassment is the topic of conversation, you've stalked me to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Governorship of Phil Murphy (this edit), less than a half-hour after I've edited the article. Certainly not a sign of trying to de-escalate. I understand that you're angry; you've been trying to exact your revenge, to get your pound of flesh or put in ax in my skull for the past three months since I edited the Bill Zanker AfD. The problem is that this is exactly the pattern of abuse that WP:HARASS describes: "Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing." And it's had its intended effect to make editing as unpleasant as possible.
    This was your 37th edit to this ANI thread; no one else is even close. I hadn't edited in this discussion for about a week. Why not step back and allow other editors to take a look and see what they make of what I clearly see as intended as stalking without a 38th, 39th, 40th edit (or more) on your part to further WP:BLUDGEON your way through. Maybe you could try to walk away for 48 hours, or maybe just 24, and I'll do the same. Take the time to edit an article, add a source or perhaps do some copyediting. Maybe even create a brand new article. It's amazing what can be done when you try to build an encyclopedia. Alansohn (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alansohn:First, please post the definition of harassment here 10 or 15 more times (the bold text really helps too), and you want to talk about WP:BLUDGEONing? Here we have another example of you making things up. You accuse me of following you to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Governorship of Phil Murphy something I actually came across in the delsort. Notice I didn't mention you at all in my vote there [29], so I fail to understand how that constitutes harassment. Or is it that you consider the suggestion of deleting (or in this case I suggested a merge) anything New Jersey-related to be harassment since you WP:OWN the topic? Now let me ask you a question, how did you end up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edwin L. Crawford (2nd nomination) [30]? It is not an article you had any involvement in nor is it an article about New Jersey. Could you be stalking me? Seriously Alan, are you stalking me? Because that looks like a more credible claim right now than the one you're making. And then again, maybe you're not. Do I care? No. Did you know that accusing others of harassment without proof is also considered harassment? (see WP:AOHA) So I am going to ask you to immediately stop with the allegations of stalking. I willing to step away from this discussion, but not if you continue to make false statements about me or continue with the personal attacks. And by the way I don't know where you came up with your math, by my count this is the 19th time I commented in this discussion, which is almost half of your number (what are you counting minor edits such as spelling corrections or something?)--Rusf10 (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Close- we already had two ban discussions based on the same identical evidence, and these failed to gain consensus. It's unlikely to be any different this time round. Asking the same thing over and over again in hopes of finally getting the answer you want ca be considered disruptive. I suggest closing this before the conversation gets any nastier. Reyk YO! 13:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • ARBCOM - this is going nowhere, and I feel the continued disruption at AfD is unacceptable. I've filed for arbitration. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any reason we couldn't just ban Rusf10 from nominating articles created by Alansohn for AFD? Nobody seems to have proposed this as a standalone option. Gatoclass (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Propose Close my checking with the editor interaction tool suggests there is a stronger case that Alansohn is following Rusf10 around in 2018. I've worked out a plan with Rusf10 that should sort out this mess. Rusf10 will no longer personally nominate Alansohn's creations or pages he is a major contributor to. That will eliminate the alleged harrassment of Alansohn. I've also advised Rusf10 to ignore Alansohn's posts and move on. If he does that, the heat will go way down. Legacypac (talk) 09:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Legacypac, your client is creating problems for your efforts here. Following my edit to the article for Westfield Garden State Plaza, your client Rusf10 stalked me to a talk page discussion about the edit (here) directly related to my edit. There are millions of Wikipedia articles, yet Rusf10 consistently ends up stalking me time after time to the same articles I've edited, this latest incident taking place the day after you making the case that he's backing off. Just get this guy off my goddamn back once and for all. If he refused to do it and you can't get him to stop with the stalking, maybe the community can deal with this persistent harassment. Alansohn (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Alansohn attacking my efforts to defuse a situation you are at likely at least 1/2 responsible for by calling another editor my "client" [31] is at least really rude and borders on a personal attack. Legacypac (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Legacypac, you're trying to help and I appreciate that. It's Rusf10 who is the problem here. After promising to back off, he jumps right into a discussion related to my edit; there's something fundamentally wrong with someone who simply cannot stop stalking me and my edits. If he can't solve his own problems and take your advice, let the community deal with his harassment. Just get him off my back. That's all I've ever asked for. Alansohn (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeated claims another editor is stalking someone deserves a closer look. Since Feb 1 [32] Alansohn edited 10 pages first that Rusf10 later edited. Rusf10 edited 29 pages first that Alansohn later edited - about 3 times more potential stalking by Alansohn. Taking just the month of March [33] we find Rusf10 at 6 pages first and Alansohn only at one page first. Admittedly raw numbers are not the only story, but it's a great start to sanity check a stalking claim. Legacypac (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the pattern I listed from December, where Rusf10 nominated a dozen articles for deletion related to the place I live; as he nominated the articles for deletion and I voted to keep, am I stalking him? Let's look at February's edits, which include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey, where Rusf10 nominated an article I created minutes after it was created. He created the AfD of an article I created, but if I respond I'm stalking him?
    If you want some good-old-fashioned stalking, there's always this group of edits at Paramus Park, deleting content I created.
    Where's the article that Rusf10 created that I voted to delete? Where's the article that Rusf10 has edited where I've reverted an edit or jumped in on a discussion? Where's the restraint Rusf10 has shown, when one of a grand total of three edits made all day today is this one, stalking me to a discussion about an edit I made yesterday.
    I'd love to avoid dealing with Rusf10, but it takes two to *NOT* tango. Alansohn (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Nominating a bunch of very similar pages of questionable notability is not stalking. This [34] (which Alansohn cites as stalking) looks like a very good edit. No article needs a list of bus routes with detailed descriptions of them any more than it needs a list of every road and highway to the subject. Legacypac (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Nominating a bunch of very similar pages of questionable notability is not stalking. Nominating a bunch of very similar pages of questionable notability is not stalking because I edited them, created them or have a connection to the place is the very definition of harassment
      Was the Paramus Park a good edit? maybe. Did he follow me to the article? Absolutely! The same way Rusf10 nominated articles related to my place of residence, you'll argue that they should have been deleted. Are you seriously arguing that stalking is OK, as long as you believe that the edit was OK?!?!?!
      For maximally malicious stalking at its worst, there's this edit. This is an article Rusf10 never edited before, where the only purpose was some demented desire to show that he knows who I am, where I live and what I do. That's some fucked-up, stalker style shit.
      Just get this guy off my goddamn back. If you can't control him, let the community deal with his bullshit. Alansohn (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alansohn:- When does the personal attacks and profanity stop? You obviously do NOT want to solve this problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=825659216] was a good edit to an article that I have edited several times before and is on my watchlist. It's not YOUR article. Try, just try to read WP:OWNERSHIP and understand that you behavior is unacceptable.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at this edit and explain that this is not rather fucked up stalking. The intention was clear; you know who I am, you know where I live and you're going to continue to fuck with me no matter how I try to respond. Explain away this bullshit move. Get off my goddamn back. Alansohn (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please calm down. Everyone knows your name (your choice of username) and anyone paying a little attention knows where you are from generally. Legacypac (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is obvious horrible wp:HARASSMENT. Calming down is not appropriate. Alansohn is quite clearly, obviously a victim of permanent-ban-worthy behavior on part of Rusf10. --Doncram (talk) 05:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Earlier I estimated that Alansohn was responsible for about 70% of the personal attacks in this dispute, which still seems to be true. Now it seems he's also responsible for three quarters of the "following the other guy around" behaviour as well, as shown by Legacypac's interaction analyses. Let me be clear: Alansohn is following Rusf10 around three times as often as the converse, while simultaneously wailing "why can't you leave me aloooonnnnnneeeeee?!??" This is not actually believable. Reyk YO! 11:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Moving towards possible solutions

    Legacypac and Reyk: Considering that ArbCom is likely to turn down the arbitration request on the grounds that the community is still handling this issue, and considering that both editors appear to have legitimate grievances about the other, suggesting that this thread be closed seems to me to be an unwarranted choice. Rather, I think someone needs to craft a solution, or a pair of solutions, which will resolve the problems presented here, and which the community can agree to. That's a bit more difficult then usual considering the number of proposals that have already been floated and turned down, but I don't think it's impossible. Perhaps more consideration needs to be given to more precisely tailoring solutions which restrict the behaviors complained of, but which don't otherwise unnecessarily hinder either editor from going about their normal editing. I can't say that I've looked into the specifics of the problems very closely, but I suspect that if there is to be a resolution, it's not likely to be either a symmetrical one or a unilateral one. I also think that it will be very difficult to achieve that goal if both editors continue to snipe at each other in this thread. Perhaps they could agree to a mutual across-the-board cease-fire while the community puts itself to trying to come up with a resolution? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. I'd not looked very deeply into the issue either before I put out a partial solution that would address the claim Rusf10 is targeting Alansohn created pages while not protecting the pages from scrutiny. I've now run the editor interaction tool a few different ways and each date range suggests any stalking is actually coming more from Alansohn, though he is making the most noise about alleged stalking. Crying "stalking" based on someone maybe following him to a single Article in March to make a talk page comment on a publicized RFC seems to be a pretty weak case. Legacypac (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would probably be best to stay away from words such as "stalking" and "harassing", just to keep the temperature down enough to allow some unemotional attention to be given to the problem bu uninvolved parties. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Legacypac:Thank you! I almost posted something that probably would not have helped the situation (because how infuriating Alansohn's latest comment is above) but when the edit conflict message came up, I read what you wrote and reconsidered. As you're probably already aware Alansohn purposefully misrepresented our discussion on my talk page in his ArbComm statement. I feel like I am making a good faith effort here, but Alansohn refuses to even admit the slightest responsibility. Without him admitting that he is part of the problem, I don't see this getting resolved without the community imposing some type of ban or block on him (which by his response above should be justified). I encourage you, @Beyond My Ken:, and others to review this carefully before making a proposal. What also needs to be considered is Alansohn's past behavior. This is nothing new and its not just me. Alansohn's block log Doing a search of ANI for Alansohn comes up with 163 hits, I don't have time to look at them all, but here's a few. Some relevant ANI you may want to look at: Claims of stalking and harassment by Alansohn Previous Arbcom on Alansohn's civility [[edit-warring and calling another editor a dick Another discussion about his ownership behavior of New Jersey And there's so much more. Given this has been going on for years and Alansohn's behavior has not changed, he's making the exact same accusations about me that he has made about others in the past. He tries to use the alleged harassment by others as an excuse (and distraction) from his own poor behavior, which to my knowledge he never acknowledged.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Rusf10: I think it would be a good idea if both you and Alansohn were to forbear from further commenting in this thread until such time as there are proposals to comment on. You have both had more than sufficient space to present your case, both above, and in the arbitration request. It would be best if you restrained yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Rightly or wrongly Alansohn has not been blocked since 2009 so that is not a strong argument. BMK and I have many hits in ANi too so that's not a strong argument either. Not posting anymore is a great idea. Many are aware of Alansohn's general mode of operation. Legacypac (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The fundamental question is: should Rusf10 be limited in any way from nominating New Jersey-related articles at AfD? Without a clear consensus on that point, I don't believe a solution can be found. Behavioral remedies (a limit of one comment per AfD; a prohibition on accusations outside of WP:AN/ARBCOM pages) may help, but Alansohn is unlikely to be satisfied without there being a limit, and Rusf10 is unlikely to be satisfied with there being a limit. This makes a "compromise" solution that both parties will be happy with basically impossible. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Donald Trung's emoji signatures

    Donald Trung has a history of emoji usage and has been banned from using them in certain cases as part of an unblock request by DoRD. See User talk:Donald Trung/Archive 1#February 2018 Unblock request. A few sections down from that DoRD urged them to remove emojis from their signature. Apparently they are back at it. In violation of WP:SIGIMAGE they have included images in their signature on dozens of pages. I started to remove some of them per the policy [35][36][37] and told them that they had to change their signature before I realized the extent of the problem. Considering part of their unblock involved emojis and other images and DoRD already asked them to knock it off with the images in their signatures I'm bringing this here for further community review. At the very least, Donald Trung has to go back and clean up the massive mess they have made on so many talk pages across the project. Putting unnecessary resources into showing their signatures just because they had to have images in it. --Majora (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah I'd highly recommend a sig change too, just to avoid problems... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I just removed nearly 3450 bytes from one of his signatures, and given that he has violated the unblock terms he agreed to, the block has been reinstated. I will commence cleanup in the morning unless someone gets there first. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I can help if needed. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I got them all. At least the ones outside of their own user space. That has got to that the record though. A 3,000+ byte signature. --Majora (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @DoRD: He also did some disruptive emoji on his signatures at Meta-Wiki site and get warned by multiple admins over there in the past, see this commented by Ajraddatz in previously. SA 13 Bro (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @EEng: ?? Strawberried?--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Here, I'll blow it up for your: 🍑. Anyway, you're thinking of raspberry 😝. He gets plenty of those already. EEng 05:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not familiar with what he's done in other wikis, but his edits on en-wiki seem to be concentrated in the article space, to which he's made enormous contributions. I contribute regularly to Asian history topics, and I know how much time and effort it takes to find reliable sources and write extensive articles like his. Topic ban him from non-article discussions if you have to, but please allow him to continue writing articles. -Zanhe (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That wouldn't work as a key part of being able to work on Wikipedia is the talk page: it requires collaboration with other editors. A topic ban from everywhere but article space would simply be ineffective. Since the issues with him have to deal with his communicating with other editors (the signature, his viewing block evasions as a possible positive thing, trying to start an RfC on emoji signatures, etc.) I'm confident he would find a new way to cause disruption on article talk pages. As I said above, I view this as a user who should be banned from all Wikimedia Foundation Wikis because his disruption and complaining wastes too much time (and pointless conversations like this over his antics). TonyBallioni (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I probably didn't make myself clear. I meant topic ban him from discussions not directly related to his content creations (such as unrelated AfDs, move requests, RfCs, etc). Doesn't make sense to ban him from discussing the content he's written on article talk pages (or his own talk page). -Zanhe (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    On the Dutch Wikipedia he has the habit of challenging long standing blocks for indef blocked users. Mostly without having a clue of the issue at hand. Those unblock request are, as of today, all refused. The Banner talk 17:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment editor has made a number of suggestions on his talk page and is seeking guidance. Could someone swing by and see if he can work out an unblock?--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I swear I'm not trolling, but I do feel a devil's advocate is needed here.
    • SIGIMAGE is about images; an emoji isn't an image (and anyone who thinks they're relevant to SIGIMAGE's "drain on server resources" rationale has no idea what they're talking about).
    • "new image can be uploaded in place of the one you chose" and "make it more difficult to copy text from a page" and "do not scale with the text" and "clutter up the 'file links' list" also don't apply.
    • As for "make pages more difficult to read and scan" and "potentially distracting from the actual content" and "give undue prominence to a given user's contribution": how do these not equally apply to colored text and emoticons like ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, which are widely used?
    Just to be clear, I do find over-elaborate sigs distracting. It just seems to me SIGIMAGE is a vague mess. EEng 05:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue was that his signature contained files, not unicode characters. See Majora's removal: [38]. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clearing that up. Nonetheless my points stand. EEng 06:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Donald Trung was given rope and unblocked earlier than the six months standard offer period based on conditions. He was explicitly told not to have emojis in his signature.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block – User has a cross-wiki history of toeing up to multiple lines in the sand and then wikilawyering his way around it ad nauseam. He has been given multiple chances on multiple wikis and we should just move on and ignore. Nihlus 07:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Wikipedia is not a social network (WP:NOTSOCIAL) and along with that goes all trappings of social networks, including emoji. While collaboration and a certain camaraderie is expected among editors for the sake of the encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not here to as a place to express your "special flair". I endorse any movement towards limiting signature lengths to eliminate the opportunity to do so. -- Netoholic @ 08:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse indef block, oppose unblock of any kind. Reading through the en-wiki and meta talk pages, Trung clearly doesn't understand what disruption is. WP:CIR - and not just regarding writing articles (which seem okay on first glance), but also in communicating and collaborating with others. The active discussions about possible unblocking indicates to me that his behaviour hasn't changed and is unlikely to change with any further chances. ansh666 08:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse indefinite block Normally, I'm all for extra WP:ROPE—but with the consistent and persistent disruption that this user has already been responsible for and forgiven for previously, Berean Hunter's diff takes on a new significance. Being told not to do something and then immediately doing it is the epitome of trolling. The vernacular, in fact, applies. ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 16:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • For informational purposes, User:Namlong618 and User:Lumia930uploader are two of his older accounts. He should be telling us all others that he has had. Albeit old, he did some illegitimate socking with those and they weren't included in his sockpuppet investigation.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Been patrolling DT's userpages, and I won't comment on whether he is a troll or not or how much rope is enough etc, but I do want to state that having some emoji in your signature is quite Okay and has nothing to do with "spcial networks". L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblock request

    Noting User_talk:Donald Trung#Unblock_conditions, of which I think some people commenting above may not be aware. I personally have no issue with unblocking under these conditions (one of which is that if I think he's goofing around I have the authority to unilaterally ban him without discussion), but given the number of "oppose unblock under any circumstances" comments above, I'm reluctant to unblock without at least some agreement from others.

    Given that one of the conditions to which DT has agreed is not to comment in Wikipedia space, he can't comment on this thread even if he's unblocked; could I suggest that anyone with any queries for him, conditions they feel should be added, or information/opinions they feel he should be aware of comment there, rather then (or as well as) here. ‑ Iridescent 18:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose unblock I've said it above, but putting it here to comment now that there are unblock conditions. With great respect for the work Iri and Cyber have done, the calculus I have for any unblock or unban request is do the odds of disruption outweigh the odds of good work. I think the answer here is very clearly yes, they do. Donald Trung is a user who has used up his chances long ago. He socked here and was globally locked subsequently. The stewards agreed to a global unlock, which in my view was his last chance. We agreed to unblock him here and he instantly went back to being disruptive. On meta he is now indefinitely blocked because he decided to troll the steward elections and confirmations, and he got blocked here for gaming his unblock restrictions. Even in the unblock conditions that Iri and Cyber laid out, it has been a game of back and forth with him trying to find every possible exception.
      At the end of the day it comes down to this: if we cannot trust someone to be a part of our community and take part in community governance, which is what project space is, they should not be allowed to edit, and the disruption they have caused in one area is likely to migrate to others, just in different forms. I have seen no evidence on any Wikimedia Project that any attempt to give this user a 2nd or 3rd chance has ever been repaid with anything but more wasted time. This user is a prime candidate for a global ban. Let's not let him back in. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to clarify issue with one of the conditions. @Iridescent: There is an exemption where he's allowed to participate in discussions that directly affect him.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock. His response to those conditions only solidified my opinion on the matter and led me to comment above. ansh666 19:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock His immediate request about when a repeal is possible, means - to my opinion - that he is not taking the conditions serious nor is fully accepting them. The Banner talk 20:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock There is good suspicion to believe that Donald will find a good way to cross the line with these restrictions. !dave 21:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd support this in 6 months time, but considering he fairly blatantly violated his explicit unblock restrictions, some form of block is needed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC) voted below power~enwiki (π, ν)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock per my comments on their talk page. We just tried the "unblock with conditions" a month ago, and they apparently went through the exact same thing on meta. He can have the WP:SO now. Swarm ♠ 23:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • On balance, I think I support unblocking Donald Trung, albeit weakly. I'm sympathetic towards the consensus here that Donald was already effectively on his final chance, having just recently successfully appealed a global lock on Meta Wiki, and it is therefore perfectly understandable that many editors would view giving him yet another "last chance" as an exercise in futility. Having said that, I'm still somehow convinced that the restrictions to which he's agreed would address the overarching concerns relating to his participation in Wikimedia projects. If this request were to be accepted, it would be with the understanding that any violation of the terms of his unblock would result in an immediate site ban, subject to the same appeals process as any other. These sanctions would give Donald a chance to demonstrate his value as an editor, all the while mitigating the regrettable tendency of his Wikipedia-space contributions to ferment enmity between himself and others. This request for unblock is not going to be successful and my words will have little effect on the outcome - I can accept that. As unfortunate as it is for me to admit, it may be necessary for Donald to be separated from the project for the time being. But I will continue to believe that he has great potential hidden beneath the silliness. Kurtis (talk) 07:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock per the reasons I mentioned above. Nihlus 08:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock. I agree with Kurtis. Giving this editor yet another "last chance" may be naive, but I think the unblock conditions will hopefully prevent further disruption or drama. The worst case situation is that he goes right back to his previous disruption and gets insta-blocked. He should have a mentor, though. Some people need to have rules explained to them, and some people just need to hear, "Be excellent to each other." I think Donald is one of the people who needs rules explained to him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock Same issue as on metawiki. User is playing the system. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock - most people seem to oppose unblock based on his behaviour on meta, which I'm admittedly unfamiliar with. The current block is triggered by a trivial technical issue (the use of images/templates in his signature, which he quickly changed), and that's not a solid reason from which to argue for an indef block. As I pointed out above, the user has made extensive and high-quality content contributions to English wiki (see, e.g., Qing dynasty coinage). I've been writing on Asian history topics for eight years and I know how precious regular contributors like him are. Despite his sometimes immature behaviour (which seems more annoying than malicious), he is a net positive IMO and deserves one more chance. -Zanhe (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • In case it's not obvious from my comments on his talkpage, support unblock. Per the conditions to which he's agreed, any goofing around—as defined by me, not by him—will result in an instant and permanent block, so even if he immediately becomes disruptive he's only wasting a couple of minutes of someone else's time and a couple of minutes of my own. As a number of people have alluded to, he does seem to have something useful to add, and most of the issues on en-wikipedia appear to be related to incompetence rather than malice. (I honestly don't care what he has or hasn't done at Meta; as with Commons, they tolerate crap which we'd never put up with here, and crack down on things which we'd consider trivial. Their community standards are so out of sync with ours, someone's record there has no real relevance to their status here.) ‑ Iridescent 20:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, having actually looked at his Meta block, I definitely don't consider it relevant. He was blocked for opposing all candidates in the last round of Steward elections on Meta—since it wouldn't raise an eyelid let alone an eyebrow if someone opposed every candidate in the Arbcom elections here, even back before secret ballots, I'm certainly not going to punish someone here for not being aware that the relatively obscure Meta works to a different set of rules. ‑ Iridescent 20:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course he knew how Meta works. He was plenty active there after his block here and amazingly was able to talk them out of a global lock. The reason people who have dealt with him before are fed up is because this kind of back and forth trying to find a supertailored sanction for me while complaining about how unfair the blocking/locking policy is to him is basically his MO. The back and forth with you, DoRD, and Cyber is exactly what one would expect from him. He’ll find a way to cause disruption, claim ignorance the first 30 times it’s pointed out, get blocked again, and we’ll be right back here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Wow... I mean, I recognized him as the one who opposed all Steward elections for his own individualized reasons, and I understood why people found it to be vexatious - his rationales generally didn't make much sense to anyone else. However, simply having an unpopular opinion should never be grounds for a block by itself. I'd assumed that the problems on Meta were much broader than that. Kurtis (talk) 04:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Per Iri. I wish to clarify on Point 3 that as soon as DT realises he has made an edit logged out, he go and post a message logged in on the IP's TP specifically stating that he was responsible. And if that would reveal his IRL location to us, so be it and tough for him. No "Well 3 hours later I realised I was logged out at the time, and now a week has passed and I haven't done anything yet" dumbness. I understand that detecting an unlogged out edit is pretty hard: (double checking my IP, I see I edited logged out on 2 separate occasions this month, and only now just found out about it), and trying to determine if DT knew he was logged out or purposefully IPedited is an exercise in ABF and Dowsing, but admins know his IP (from the CU) and can keep tabs on any possible duplicit activity. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock, albeit with reservations, largely per Iridescent. I do think that the user's behaviour at Meta is relevant; even though the matters might appear trivial from an enwiki perspective the way that they went through their chances quickly there hardly inspired confidence. But given that this user's disruption is primarily in the "annoying" rather than "malicious" category, and given that it's Iridescent's time that will be wasted if they start to cause problems again, why not? Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    • Support per Iridescent. COnsidering the scrutiny he will be under, he won't get far. And if he relapses, I'll be waiting. If he holds with current set of conditions, it will be a net positive.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If he again violates unblock conditions, then he will not receive another WP:SO. Given the support for a CBAN now, another SO and another said of appeals would be so far beyond the Pale, you'd need Musk's Space Tesla to get there.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Iridiscent. If he gets reblocked, we shouldn't have to rediscuss this - he'll be banned, and then there'll only be SO. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock and give him a chance to collaborate. Let's hope he will be alright and have a watch over him. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock with those conditions. I know people are talking about disruption outside of the emojis, but I've not seen any evidence presented about that that would justify keeping him blocked irrespective of the emoji issues (what happened on meta is not on enwiki). Ultimately, our guidelines for signatures are kind of a mess, and our enforcement even more a mess. There are other people's signatures in this very thread that distract just as much as an emoji (granted, not an animated emoji.. *shudder*). There are other people who use emoticons and unicode pictures in their signature which are no less distracting. If someone wants to propose disallowing them at WP:SIG, I will support. To be clear, I'd prefer signatures not use any text highlighting, not include extra information/quotes, not include non-latin characters that serve only to stylize/obfuscate, and for all of them to actually type out the user's username for crying out loud.</petpeevegriping> ... but we allow all of that, which makes it harder for me to sympathize with arguments that use of emojis is so disruptive as to merit a long block when the user is willing to agree to conditions involving a normal signature. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock He edits using IP addresses to evade his block and he was globally locked. He did appeal his lock at Meta and got his account unlocked but knowing the Meta admins are not always going to look at the English Wikipedia as some do not look at or edit the English Wikipedia or even know English . They may not be aware of the issues on the English Wikipedia so I oppose unblock for at lease 6 months and he should edit another Wikimedia wiki before I would support a unblock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.117.105 (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock the unblock terms are restrictive enough that I'm fine with a "time-served" one-week block. If he's blocked again for a similar reason in the next 6 months, I plan to oppose any "Standard Offer" unblock from that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Assistance with Ezwider (talk · contribs) will be appreciated; I've asked for a user block, to no avail, and requested rev/deletion of some copyright violations, which Diannaa helpfully answered.

    First came the long skein of promotional edits, the most blatant of which were at Cathedraltown, Ontario, and are now hidden among the reversion/deletion posts. To a lesser extent, similar edits were made at the related Cathedral of the Transfiguration (Markham), for which some diffs can be provided: [39]; [40]; [41]; [42]; [43]; [44]; [45]; and , finally, my restoration of the last non-promotional version: [46]. The editor gave this erroneous and misleading description of their edits [47].

    Since being warned away from blatant promotional and plagiarized content, the latest pattern is that of continuing original research, as at [48]; [49]; [50]; [51] and [52].

    My take is that the editor's contributions are for the most part appropriate for a personal blog, memoir, or in the case of the Cathedraltown edits, press releases. But my admonitions alone are fairly futile. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I will attempt to remonstrate with them; their talk page is nothing but canned notices. Mangoe (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. The notices I left were very much in response to the unacknowledged and unrepentant volley of unsourced content with promotional intent. No secret that I think a block was long past due. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, just checking in - I see that the user in question (while certainly made edits that are unreferenced), they haven't edited since yesterday. Are there still ongoing issues or concerns that need to still be looked into? Let me know. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wingwraith

    New report filed below. Swarm ♠ 12:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    From: Portal talk:Current events/2018 March 6: "I also state for the record that you are in contravention of WP:BRD as you (not me) are supposed be initiating this discussion" How WP:ADMIN is this? Isn't the "last stable version" the one just before trouble started? ("rv useless information, WP:BRD as I am reverting your edits + take to tp", without actually then having written anything on the talk page). My basic question here: who started disrupting here (on WP, not in the UK), and so is subject to 3RR limitation first? Just trying to make sense of it here. 195.62.68.228 (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    And both sides should probably be blocked for continual edit warring and start getting along with each other if they are going to both continue editing portal pages. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you already. So we'd be right to dismiss the publication of this (victimist neocon propagandabias) item altogether? 195.62.68.228 (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not what I said at all actually, not even in the ballpark. Swarm ♠ 13:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So, if not the empty version, 'there is no stable version' means nothing? What are the other possibilities? Wakari07 (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The possibilities are you all need to start to discuss with the aim to achieve consensus using some form of WP:Dispute resolution if necessary or you all risk being blocked for edit warring or other disruptive editing. Very often, it not helpful to worry about who should initiate discussion, or who 'started disrupting' or who is 'worse' in a dispute. Concentrate instead on colloborating to improve wikipedia which means someone should just initiate discussion and everyone should stop edit warring, or doing anything else which isn't good behaviour. But if you really must know, so far since User:Wingwraith is the only one to say anything on the talk page and also doesn't seem to have needlessly brought this silly dispute to ANI, they are the one who is looking better. Incidentally, although they are named in the title of this thread, they seem to have been first notified by one of the respondents in this thread of this ANI which isn't a good look for the IP who started this discussion. (Is that you, I'm a bit confused.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    TBH no one comes out looking good when they get to 17RR [53][54] Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You may block me, doesn't change a thing. Also, I'm not asking whether I look good, I'm not asking to block anyone and I'm not forumshopping. Sorry for y'all valuable time but I asked my question (I was in a hurry on another computer, so I was that IP) only because I wanted guidance for learning how to improve my behaviour. Sorry again and bye for me. Wakari07 (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Wakari07: 8k edits over 10 years and you're asking "What are the other possibilities?" other than edit warring? Really? "You can block me, doesn't change a thing"? Thanks for letting me know. If the standard 24 hour edit warring block won't change a thing, I'll be sure to set it to indefinite instead. Swarm ♠ 15:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Wakari07 (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps both need a short block, to help them regain perspective? At least Wingwraith did post to talk.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm silent here. Wakari07 (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I dispute the suggestion that I should be blocked as you and the other contributors have noted I was the one who first tried to resolve this dispute by raising it on the tp even after my previous encounter with Wakari07 on the March 5 current events portal. Wingwraith (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Canterbury Tail - Conduct unbecoming of an administrator

    This thread has run its course. Saboteurest, please remember to assume good faith, and when people revert edits or add tags, they probably think they’re doing the right thing. If you are unhappy about an administrator action, leave a polite message about it on their talk page.Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I would like to report User:Canterbury Tail for conduct unbecoming of an administrator. After this admin incorrectly read a reference provided and reverted an edit, I pointed out their misstep and reverted the revert. Apparently this must have damaged their fragile ego. The admin then began to appear on articles which I had recently edited of which they zero edit history. This user admitted to following me on their own talk page after I warned them that I would report them if it continued. I provided numerous references for the infortmation in question. This editor then continued to troll me and began making erroneous claims, counterproductive edits/reverts, and adding unnecessary tags. Then this editor without notice, without following any procedures, and without involving a 3rd party, blocked me from editing for 1 week. I believe this editor blocked me from editing so that I could not report him for WP:FOLLOWING me which I was in the process of doing. This is not only an unjust block but a complete conflict of interest. This editor clearly lacks the judgment expected from an admin. Therefor their admin privileges should be reviewed, suspended, and/or stripped completely. Saboteurest (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    You can't get that accomplished here - this post will generate more heat than light. Go to WP:ARBCOM Legacypac (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Saboteurest (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That is spectacularly bad advice on a number of levels, including unwarranted escalation and the unclean hands of the OP. The OP's block log and the edit history of Ottawa Public Library should shed some light on why. --Calton | Talk 00:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said filing was a good idea, only that this is the wrong place to request a revokation of tools. Editor has filed a case now. Anyone is free to address it at ARBCOM where the structured format will prevent a 6 week long ANi thread. This thread should be closed. Legacypac (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said filing was a good idea... Yes, that's why you pointed them to something you don't think is a good idea.
    ...only that this is the wrong place to request a revokation [sic] of tools Which is what you should have said if that's what you meant, instead of suggesting a bad course of action. --Calton | Talk 02:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Saboteurest's complaint to Arbcom lacks any usable data, it seems unlikely to be accepted. When Saboteurest filed this report they did not provide any diffs, so here are a few, though they mostly support the boomerang. A complaint about Saboteurest was previously filed at ANI in January, which led to his being blocked for retaliatory reverts. Since then Saboteurest has been blocked twice more by different admins. Canterbury Tail warned Saboteurest here in February, supplying four diffs of what he saw as the problem, e.g. calling other editors vandals and trolls. Saboteurest removed the notice. Canterbury Tail then proceded to a one-week block, with the rationale "Disruptive editing: Personal attacks, calling editors trolls, not respecting references, retalitory edits, accusing editors of being banned editors." Saboteurest filed an unblock request but it was declined by User:Huon. The full set of block notices and unblock requests can be seen in this version of Saboteurest's talk. EdJohnston (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ouch! Then Canterbury Tail blocked them‽ That looks like a pretty bright line violation of WP:INVOLVED or am I missing something? I hope I am missing something. Jbh Talk 01:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC) Yep. Missed something. See below. Last edited: 01:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If being insulted by someone or warning someone made an admin involved, then we'd never get anything done here. As to the original edits that brought this about, it's murky at best. ansh666 01:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Its not the insults it is the common editing here; CT adds clairify tag to article Saboteurest reverts and the conflict goes on. However, digging further it looks like that was likely a retaliatory edit since this complaint on CT's talk page happened before, not after, those diffs so it seems the common article editing arose from the conflict not the other way around. In other words 'I missed something'. Jbh Talk 01:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Without looking beyond this recounting of events, it looks like a block was unsurprising. superceeded03:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)--Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, the OP took Legacypac's poor advice and has requested arbitration. One arbitrator has already declined saying: "Insufficient prior attempts at resolution. The suggestion in the ANI thread that this be brought straight to arbitration was premature. It is true that only ArbCom can desysop an administrator, but that does not mean we are the first stop when an editor disagrees with an admin action." See here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well respectfully every time someone tries to detail perceived admin abuse and suggest tool removal a bunch of people say ANi is the wrong venue and the thread gets shut down a few hours later. He's not going to get what he wants here. Legacypac (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well respectfully you should understand situations and procedures before doling out advice whihch makes things worse. --Calton | Talk 02:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Concerns about administrators are usually handled at AN, as far as I know. GoodDay (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's true that there are sometimes issues regarding administrator conduct that are so egregious they warrant ArbCom review immediately (e.g. WP:LEVEL1 and WP:LEVEL2), but speaking generally, I would expect that at least some prior attempt be made to resolve the issues without first pulling out the "I want a desysop" card. I haven't fully reviewed the circumstances here, but from what I can see, there are also credible concerns surrounding Saboteurest's conduct, such as taking an unnecessarily adversarial tone in most discussions they've been involved in. I'm inclined to say the solution is to recommend that Saboteurest reexamine their approach to dispute resolution on Wikipedia: it's not quite "us vs. them" here, but more seeing things from the other side and trying to adapt. For example, at Lansdowne Park, Saboteurest incorrectly labelled an edit as "vandalism" and another edit as a "useless tag by trouble causing troll". This is simply not how we collaborate on Wikipedia, and I suggest a bit of introspection on this would be healthy for Saboteurest. Mz7 (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree my edits and comments could have been voiced better. I have taken the time to read some of wikipedias editing policies. But my behaviour for which I have been disciplined for is not in question here. What is in question is the behaviour of an experienced admin who is clearly guilty of conflict of interest and stalking edits. This kind of behaviour should not be tolerated by any editor, especially an administrator. Saboteurest (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Thanks – it's good to see that you understand the concerns for your behavior. Regarding Canterbury Tail, I have a different impression. I understand your frustration: after disagreeing with you, Canterbury Tail seems to have appeared in many other places where you have been editing. However, given your behavior, I think it was fairly reasonable for Canterbury Tail to do a spot check of your other contributions in order to see if there were any issues there. I don't get a sense of any malicious intent there. Regarding WP:INVOLVED, I do feel that this skirts a little close to the line, but on balance, I don't think their involvement was significant enough to prevent them from taking administrator action. (Warnings, ... advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'.) Accordingly, I'm thinking this thread should be closed without any further action. In cases where you still disagree with their edits, try to understand why their edits were made. For example, if an editor adds a citation needed tag, examine whether the material is or is not supported by a citation, and if it isn't, provide one. Mz7 (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And I would go so far as to add that he was obligated to check further. When an editor comes to my attention, I certainly review quickly to see if there are other concerns. In this case, I think there were/are. Per Mz7, I agree this thread could perhaps be closed.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't know why Legacypac seems so eager for someone to get a desyssop. And I'm not convinced that Canterbury Tales block was that unreasonable. Certainly this all needs to be reviewed and thought about, and possibly Canterbury Tales may want to look within as well. Clearly Saboteurest needs to take a less aggressive approach with others. And yes Saboteurest, your behavior is in question here as it is what lead to your block.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly object to that charactorization of my response. Editor came here looking to desysop amd I pointed him at the only place that can happen. Not my fault he filed such a poor diffless case. I have no opinion of Canterbury Tales - not even sure I've encountered them before. Legacypac (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, since you didn't take the 2 minutes (or less) to look into the situation before giving the bad advice that led to the filing, I'm going to go with yes, it is your fault -- or at least you deserve blame. --Calton | Talk 03:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And, lo. It came to pass that Legacypac's prophecy came to pass.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not advise people to go to Arbcom unless confident there is a reasonable chance of a case being heard. This noticeboard cannot remove admin rights but it can, and should, consider issues arising. Perhaps others would see problems with the admin and could provide advice that the admin might consider. Or, the person raising the complaint might receive advice that their approach is not suitable and that the admin did the right thing. Either way, a community discussion is desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 08:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Content dispute for the Portal talk:Current events/2018 March 6 article

    Further to this, I am requesting administrative intervention for the content dispute with regards to the Carl Benjamin news item on the current events portal for 6 March 2018. What started out as a bilateral attempt to initially resolve this dispute between myself and Wakari07 on the talkpage attracted the intervention of two users (PeterTheFourth and NorthBySouthBaranof) who individually have exhibited a history of edit-warring on similar articles which involves people with a relationship (real or alleged) with the alt-right (PeterTheFourth has most recently edit warred on the Carl Benjamin article and while NorthBySouthBaranof has most recently edit warred on the Doug Wardlow article), both of whom reverted the text to Wakari07's version BEFORE either user even provided an explanation on the talkpage (let alone an explanation which addressed the substance of my OP). In the case of NorthBySouthBaranof I further note that user's incivility which s/he displayed when the user described me as a "weasel-word edit-warrior" in violation of WP:AGF and has gotten him/her into trouble before. Since the consensus that now being claimed to exist (and with which the original disputant is bandwagoning in an attempt to short-circuit the debate) is defective as the intervenors were not impartial observers to the dispute to begin with, I am appealing to an administrator to either resolve the content debate directly or (at the very least) enforce the rules which would allow for a genuine consensus for the wording of the news item to be established.Wingwraith (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Describing you as an "edit-warrior" is not a personal attack, given that you reverted material four times in 27 hours, a clear gaming of the 3-revert rule. It is merely a fact that three separate editors have reverted your edits, on the grounds that your preferred version introduces weasel words and is not an improvement of the article. Given that, it is your responsibility to initiate discussion on the talk page and gain consensus for your proposed version. If you can't, reverting everyone who opposes you is not a productive path. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I further note that the user's extraordinary history of edit-warring at Portal:Current events/2018 March 5 indicates that they have a serious problem understanding WP:3RR. I'm counting a dozen or so reverts on that page. They're lucky not to be blocked for that kind of disruption. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said that the edit-warrior tag was a personal attack, and to be clear what I said was that it was evidence that you were not debating out of good faith (which is true) and that it fits into an established pattern of the problematic way in which you engage with editors with whom you disagree. (which is also true) There is no 3RR gaming (and in any case you shouldn't act like you have the moral high ground when it comes to edit warring given your edit warring on the Doug Wardlow page) and the weasel words assertion is ludicrous, particularly in light of the fact my version of the text reproduced verbatim how the article to which the news item in cited actually described Carl Benjamin (Violence breaks out as protesters storm King’s College London event featuring controversial YouTuber). Your appeal to numbers is a deceptive representation of the facts as is your implication that you are interested in building consensus given your history through your edit warring of refusing to compromise (unlike myself) with anybody who disagrees with you which would just destroy the integrity of the whole consensus-building process. I stand by my assertion, you don't care to resolve this dispute collaboratively and the proof is in what you did: you reverted the article to Wakari07's version of the text without providing an explanation of your revert beforehand on the talkpage even though my comments made it clear that there was an ongoing debate there on this issue after which you gave a nonsensical one-liner that didn't address any of the points that I raised in my OP; a constructive editor would have discussed the dispute on the talkpage first before making any changes to the article itself as Icarosaurvus did here in moderating another content dispute myself and Wakari07. Ideally an administrator do exactly what Icarosaurvus did (or just allow Icarosaurvus him/herself to moderate the dispute), but it's obvious that you wouldn't want that since it's your MO to ensure victory at all costs by reducing everything to a numbers game and would accordingly see this ANI as a waste of time. Wingwraith (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've full-protected the page, as I already planned to do if the edit warring continued. But this isn't really the place to report content disputes. Admins don't settle content disputes. All we can do is block/protect. The onus is on you to pursue dispute resolution. Swarm ♠ 12:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we seriously need to consider a strict 1RR on Wingwraith. Probably Wakari07 too but I haven't looked into their edits so well (however it did look like most of the time Wingwraith was reverting Wakari07). If I counted right, on Portal:Current events/2018 March 5 they made 3 reverts in less than 10 minutes after about 14 in under 2h30 minutes which was after another 5 in just under 2 hours; with less than 24 hours between all (i.e. 22!) these reverts, and apparently no edits that weren't reverts. (I think some of the revers was with editing as well as reverting.) Yes this was 6 days ago, but their 4 reverts in 27 hours on the 6h March page suggests they still haven't learnt their lesson. The only saving grace is it looks like there was talking in between all these reverts but with 22 of them, that doesn't mean much. I would make this a formal proposal but probably should decide whether to include Wakari07 first. Nil Einne (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not getting a better vibe from Wakari07. I counted 7 reverts of Special:Contributions/2600:8800:FF0E:1200:C57:B925:112F:96D on Portal:Current events/2018 February 26, they managed to warn them about 3RR on their talk page and in the edit summary during these 7 reverts. That IP also managed to get into one or more reverts wars, including with another IP which they alleged is hounding or a sock and another edit war with Wakari07 on Portal:Current events/2018 January 15. And a bunch different editors at Portal:Current events/2018 January 12. (Nearly all of Wingwraith's revert wars seems to be mostly with Wakari07.) WTF is going on with the portal current event pages? I know they aren't article but still that's no excuse for this mess of revert wars, involving at least I think 3 editors. (It doesn't look like 2600 is Wingwraith. From previous ANIs, it seems they used to edit under Special:Contributions/2600:8800:FF0E:1200:F4A0:C59D:9AC4:A409 and various concerns were raised with their edits under that IP too.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have invited User talk:Knowledgekid87 to this discussion as they seem to be someone with some history with the current events portal but isn't I think particularly involved in these insane edit wars. Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The current events page is seen by some as the "News" of Wikipedia. I've gnomed there for years, now, and edit wars aren't unheard of. This does not feel like the worst I've seen; though I'd need to go back and count, I believe that honor belongs to a pair of IPs which accused all other editors of the page of being socks, and frequently collaborated. Leaving aside issues of vandalism (which also occurs, most commonly in the form of people including their birthdays), I suspect that some reasons for the problem is that the page is highly visible, often contains contentious issues, has a sense of urgency, and doesn't have a culture of hashing things out at the talk page. Icarosaurvus (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the person who protected the 5 march page, I think a 1RR restriction for both on the Portal:Current events pages would be a good idea, possibly 1RR per bulleted entry (and perhaps as a general rule there as well not limited to these two). I'm very disappointed that they don't seem to have learned anything since the last one. ansh666 17:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    To be clear I'm asking for the admins here to moderate, not settle the dispute (which would be done between by me, Wakari07 and Icarosaurvus) in order to prevent people like NorthBySouthBaranof from trying to game the system. I'm aware that this is not usually how the dispute resolution process works, but felt compelled to take the dispute here given the arguments from and editing history and conduct of that user. I see that Nil Einne is now involved in the debate on the talkpage so perhaps the admin can do that to facilitate the dispute resolution process. As for the editing restriction, I'll take this as a second strike against me in lieu of the 1RR restriction and may I also suggest an interaction ban between myself and NorthBySouthBaranof if another issue like this arises in the future. Wingwraith (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    In what respect is an interaction ban warranted, other than perhaps a one-way ban preventing you from interacting with me? You have presented no evidence that I am doing anything to "game the system," nor have you presented any evidence that I have engaged in any misconduct. To the contrary, ample evidence exists of your unwillingness to understand or comply with basic editing rules such as the WP:3RR. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel that it should be stated that I am not an administrator; I am just a user. I am a user of some academic experience, but I am a user nonetheless. Icarosaurvus (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    A bit of help with an editor's behavior

    I'm not usually one to bring people to the drama boards, but I fear there's not much else to do in this case. I came across editor Morphenniel (talk · contribs) yesterday, after noticing he/she had blanked a large amount of information from Central Kansas League with an edit summary indicating they had made zero effort to obtain the sources they believe the article needs. From there, I began looking into their edits and found a pattern of disruptive behavior and failure to follow en-wiki guidelines.

    In addition to the blanking of information at the article noted above, I'm noticing a pattern of WP:POINT violations: When Morphenniel gets into a dispute with someone, they proceed to dig through other articles edited by their "opponent" and make bad faith edits to them [55] (meaning, they're only doing it as revenge, not as an attempt to improve the article). This editor typically only edits railroad articles, but in two cases over the past few days, has blanked content from articles totally unrelated to railroads just to make a POINT with other editors.

    Their responses to polite attempts to discuss these issues on their talk page are met with blanking and comments like "get real" [56], and "unregistered editors should not edit Wikipeida" [57]. More troublingly, they are marking virtually every one of their edits as "minor", which seems to be a way to conceal them from current changes reviewers.

    They also note in edit summaries they are reverting vandalism when the edit they're reverting is not vandalism. [58]

    Now, they are engaging in a stale edit war on Central Kansas League (with me) over uncontroversial facts (as in a list of baseball teams that were a part of the league). I'm asking that someone please stop this disruption. EDIT: Yes, I did notify them of this discussion on their talk page, which they then blanked [59]. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 14:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Both of you are at WP:3RR, the talk page is empty and Morphenniel has a point: sources are required. This policy is not negated by pointing out WP:BRD (and subsequently not discussing it). I have no clue where you got the information, but it would be a Good Thing (tm) if you let the readers know whence it came. Kleuske (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Morphenniel's become rather short with IP editors over the last few days. Witness this edit, removing a cleanup tag from EMD FL9: [60]. I don't know if he needs a break or what. Mackensen (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's rather ironic, given that he's such a stickler for sourcing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Kleuske, an attempt to engage him on his own talk page was blanked and ignored, so considering his apparent lack of desire to discuss anything I'm not sure why the empty talk page excuses his behavior. I'm not asking you to take sides in a content dispute, I am pointing out a pattern of disruptive behavior. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 20:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The unsourced info was added in this edit,[61] by GigglesnortHotel (talk · contribs). That's the user who should be providing sourcing, not necessarily the one who removed it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I can source that in 2 minutes myself and will do so. When sources are needed for uncontroversial information, it's generally advisable to either tag it, look for the sources, or otherwise ask that it be sourced. Instead, he persisted in blanking it. The problem with this is that he blanked the info because Gigglesnort hotel edited one of his favorite articles (removing OR and unsourced claims), which apparently he didn't like. WP:POINT isn't a legitimate reason for blanking portions of articles. There are much more collaborative, constructive ways to address personal grievances than engaging in pettiness. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 20:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) [62], [63], [64] are most certainly not MINOR edits. That pattern is disturbing, as is their treatment of IP editors exemplified above. They're currently not conforming to policy in these areas. Both users have made 3 reverts on CKL, so there's no 3RR violation. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Morphenniel clearly has an issue with IP editors. It is very clear that he believes that IP editors should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia and has unilaterally decided to enforce his view. How do I know this? Easy: has said so unambiguously. I found this a couple of days ago while looking into something unrelated. The edit summary, "Unregistered editors should not edit Wikipedia" says all you need to know. Most of us probably started as IP editors before registering an account. Accordingly, I support an IBAN as a minimum sanction. DocFergus (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I also note that he has yet to weigh in here, despite my notification on his talk page. I guess he still doesn't feel like discussing. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 20:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ozarcusmapesae

    Sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Ozarcusmapesae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has continuously created articles without any sources, (see Geology of Wolverhampton, Xiuningpus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (moved to Draft:Xiuningpus), Heightingtonaspis, Spermatozoona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Metacryphaeus, Endomychura, and Compsognathididipidae) made unsourced edits (see [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], and [73]), and cited sources which do not verify their claims (see Peroloplites, Ichniotherium and verify check fail, WP:Articles for deletion/(?) Pinus, and Ichabodcraniosaurus). These policy violations continued after multiple attempts to educate ([74], [75], [76] [77]), and warn ([78], [79], [80]). I left them a level 4 warning on 9 March 2018, which was not heeded.

    Handling this situation has been complicated by the fact that the user has made some constructive edits, but even when adding information that is ultimately verifiable they often disregard WP:Verifiability and do not cite, despite many warnings, and they acknowledge policy as they add sources tags to articles they've just created without coming back and adding any (see Thomas and his Friends, Endomychura). While multiple users have tried to help guide them via talk pages and edit summaries, there has been no response and they continue to make disruptive changes which must often be reverted, or someone else must add sources and determine what are factual errors (see Petralcinae).

    I would have tried to resolve this elsewhere, and have tried to resolve it directly with them, but since account creation on 16 Feb 2018, the many attempts at communication with this user have failed, not replying on any talk pages (see User talk:Ozarcusmapesae (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)) even when ping'd. They only once responded ":O" to a message justifying an edit reversion, which implies they do understand how their talk page works but have not heeded the warnings there. They also replied "hoax" on an AfD they created for their own draft [81].

    Overall, I think—despite the fact that they sometimes edit constructively—their disregard for policy/guidelines, illustrated by consistent violations of WP:Verifiability, unwillingness to communicate, WP:Copyright violations, as well as other issues as evidenced by their talk page, mean this user's editing should be addressed more seriously. Thank you, ElfLady64 (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Having had some interaction with the editor in question, I endorse the summary above. There are also the cases of the "illustrations" he added, cfr. [82], [83]. In general the pattern seems to suggest some serious WP:COMPETENCE issues.--cyclopiaspeak! 17:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second the above. The editor's useful contributions are leavened with such a high proportion of doubtful material that every single one must be checked for accuracy. That is not helped by the fact that they like to work in somewhat obscure areas (e.g. trace fossils, nomina dubia) where only a very small number of editors can spot the BS without digging into the sources (me not among them). They are simply creating too much work for the occasional good bits to be worth it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:KolbertBot is malfunctioning

    This bot account has not edited in 2 weeks, and there has been no unanswered messages left on the operator's talk page. If you are seeing a general issue, please bring it up to the bot operator first. Administrator intervention is not required at this time. — xaosflux Talk 20:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.35.41.215 (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide diffs. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 19:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Revisions from User:Microsoft-Support should be deleted

    Although User:Microsoft-Support is indefinitely blocked, the revisions by them should be WP:REVDEL because they are currently being abused by tech support scammers feigning as actual Microsoft support personnel as evidenced in this clip of a call from the scambaiter Kitboga - Lyoko is Cool (talk) 04:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=830007397"