Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. 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

Justlettersandnumbers

User:Justlettersandnumbers, nicknamed "JLAN" has been engaged for months in an ongoing harassment of several editors across WikiProject Equine and repeated tendentious editing on articles related to horses, donkeys, Tyrol, Italy, Spanish and Italian animal breeds, and non-SI measurement. Full disclosure: This editor also harasses and annoys me, but I just hit back, this is NOT about me. This ANI is filed specifically because of JLAN's consistent harassment of User:Dana boomer because every time she attempts to bring an article to GA or FA, most recently Large Black (pig). Montanabw^(talk) 21:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC) See the diffs below:

• Talk:Large_Black_(pig)#Facts.3F Dana nominates the article on Feb. 7, JLAN immediately jumps in with criticism. see [1]
• [[2]] Azteca horse is nominated by Dana for GA and granted GA status January 3, JLAN immediately jumps in adding OR, UNDUE and other harassing and tendentious edits. I requested article lockdown, consensus was to remove all but a few of JLAN's edits. see also [3]
• [4] Attacks Andalusian horse when it is to be TFA
• [5] Demands Percheron GA reassessment, after Dana brings Percheron to GA, rejected
• [6] Attacks Lusitano GA article, also Dana lead editor on GA push
• [7] and [8] Initial appearance is to attack Thoroughbred on its Main page appearence day, team getting it there includes Dana.

There's a lot more than this, but I'll keep the focus on wikistalking Dana boomer. Montanabw^(talk) 21:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A quick examination at the problem reveals it is likely far too complex for ANI. For example, I discovered that Montanabw is the top editor to JLAN's talk page, with double the edits of the user himself. Lengthy posts. I also discovered User:Klvankampen, who is an expert on horses, who left the project in September after three edits to Andalusian horse and several lengthy exchanges on his own talk page. That's unfortunate; he might be just the kind of editor who could really help the project. There's a long-term dispute here involving a group of articles and editors, and the recent edit war on Large Black (pig) is only the tip of the iceberg. -- Dianna (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa. Although I thank Montanabw for filing this, since I was offline yesterday and didn't see the latest set of edits at Large Black pig, I also think it may be too complex for AN/I. I have been considering filing an RfC/U on JLAN, but haven't had the time/energy it takes to actually do so. I do feel harassed by this user, who seems to show up at livestock breed articles that I write just before/just after major events (GA nom, TFA, etc). Although he does sometimes have good comments, he also has major tendencies towards tendentious editing, OR, POV, undue weight and other problem editing. With specific regards to the Klvankampen/Andalusian incident, although I agree that they would possible have made a good editor, it would have taken a lot of work. The situation was complicated, but essentially they were on one side of an international legal battle over a breed, and were having a hard time accepting our principles of reliable sources and due weight. Unfortunately, they grew frustrated and left while we were trying to explain these issues. JLAN didn't help in this instance by initially showing up to make snarky comments about editors and articles with FA status, then completely dropping out of the discussing when it turned to actually trying to improve the article. So, basically: There are a lot more pieces to the puzzle than what Montanabw listed above, but as Diannaa said, it's probably too complicated for this venue. However, I do feel harassed and wiki-stalked by this editor. I have tried to avoid working on articles where he is the main editor - I wish he would do the same for me. Dana boomer (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Dana. The reason I point out the number of posts by Montanabw to JLAN's talk is because there have been many, many posts by her on his talk. Many of them are of the"tips for editing here" variety, which is great when someone is actually a new editor, but must be getting wearisome after he has been active here for over a year. It looks to me that the editor is being told by your wikiproject, especially Montanabw to judge by his talk page, what articles he is allowed to edit, what sources he is allowed to use, and what he is allowed to say. I know I would become extremely frustrated and snarky if I was treated this way, especially if I was only really interested in editing one group of articles. It's likely that JLAN is showing up on articles in a pointy way in order to show you that he can, indeed, edit wherever and whenever he wants to. However, there's no reason why normal editing cannot continue during a GA review. That's not the problem. The problem is that Montanabw came in at 21.11 on the 11th and reverted all JLAN's edits, and all of the reviewer's, too. This is a very agressive thing for her to have done, and again is done in a pointy way, intended not for article imporvement, but to send a message to JLAN about what he is allowed and not allowed to do. To say that JLAN is following you around is a simplistic way to put things; I think the main problem here is that you share an interest in a topic area and disagree on what content should be in the articles and so on. It's a content dispute that has snowballed. It's difficult to edit cooperatively with someone you are constantly disagreeing with, but asking him to avoid the topic areas that he is interested in is unlikely to be acceptable if that's primarily where he wants to edit.

The Klvankampen account is a separate but related issue. The account pointed out that some of the information in the Anadalusian article was out of date by eight years. This is a featured article, and needs to be protected from bad editing, but if the material is actually out of date like he says, then the article is no longer the best Wikipedia has to offer. I realise it's a lot of trouble to nuture along a potential new editor (especially one who may have a conflict of interest) but it might be worth it if he has access to sources that you don't have in your possession. Reading through the posts to both editors - Klvankampen and JLAN - I get the impression that your wikiproject has some rules for the articles (what is a pony, how do we describe the height of a horse, etc) that were made some time ago, and that you are not very flexible about editors who are editing differently. I can understand your frustration but at this time in our history when long-term editors are leaving at a shocking rate we really have to figure out how to get along with people. I have to go do the payroll now and will be gone for some time. --Dianna (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(initial response to montanabw; reply to Dianna to follow)

I too thank montanabw for putting this here. This is just the latest in an endless succession of accusations from an editor who has harassed, maligned and insulted me more or less continuously since I began editing regularly here early last year. I welcome the opportunity to request some scrutiny of her behaviour, and of my response to it.

I don't know where it's best to start, but will begin with the list of my "attacks" above.

• Large Black (pig): as I recall, I came to this article for the first time on 6 February after looking at the watchlist of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, edited the status, changed the engvar etc.; that added it to my watchlist. I believe dana asked for the review the following day, and made some edits to the article. I did also, and made some comments on the talk page. Until reading her comments above I had thought we were working together, though not particularly amicably, to improve the article. User:MathewTownsend also made several edits. Nine of his and six of mine were reverted en masse by montanabw, who also made a request on the GA Review page, edit comment "Please review the un-trashed version". I'm told I was wrong to enquire if her mass reversion was vandalism, so I apologise for that.
• Azteca horse: yes, I believe I was drawn to this article by the GA review. Finding a substantial US bias in the article, I tried to add some material about the breed in Mexico, and made a number of suggestions for improvement on the talkpage. Montanabw requested article protection, and when it came off reverted the article to more or less its previous state. There was no consensus. On the advice of another editor, I walked away.
• Saw that Andalusian horse was to be on the front page, looked at it. Usual story, strong US-POV bias. Tried to make some changes, some directly, some by suggestion on the talkpage; montanabw comes blundering in with a mass revert, immediately undone by dana. I walked away. Result: the article went on the front page with the height measurements all screwed up and the marginal "registries" of Australia and the USA given priority over the national stud book of Spain; story on the talkpage for anyone who can be bothered to read it.
• Percheron. A while ago some of our colleagues from fr.wikpedia suggested working together on an article, and this one was suggested. As I happen to be fluent in French, I thought I might be able to make some contribution. Made some edits, reverted by montanabw, edit-warring ensued which I at the time thought was a criterion for de-listing as GA. I was wrong.
• Lusitano. Er, no, no attack. I opposed the merger there of the Alter Real, on the basis that myriad sources treat it as a separate breed. Withdrew opposition in the light of manfred bodner's expert opinion (another expert editor driven away by discourteous treatment, but more of that anon).
• I corrected an error in the main page article, and apparently earned the undying enmity of at least one editor. The error was finally corrected with the help of User:Ealdgyth here. At that time I knew no Wikipedia editor by name.

To sum up, I believe there is substance in two of the seven allegations: I was drawn to Azteca horse by the GA review, and to Andalusian by its appearance on the front page. I was not drawn to either of them, or to any other article, by the fact that dana boomer had previously contributed to it; indeed, I tend to avoid those articles (Haflinger, for example). I believe her to be essentially a good-faith editor, hampered by an inflated or even non-neutral view of the importance of all things American, an excessively proprietorial attitude to articles she has worked on, a lack of common courtesy and a rather poor prose style. I regard it as unfortunate that we share a common interest in rare breeds. Even if our relationship has been less than cordial, I believe (or believed until reading her comments above) that we could work together if it were not for the persistent interference of montanabw. I apologise unconditionally to dana for any impression I may at any time have given of stalking her; I've not done so, and am surprised she feels that I have. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Parts 2 and 3 to follow when I've had some food. Meanwhile, quick practical question (I've not been here before): am I supposed to notify anyone I've mentioned by name, such as User:Manfred Bodner, or does that apply only to those who are the subject of some complaint? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be best to err on the side of caution and notify anyone you have mentioned by name. --Dianna (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Diannaa, I have chosen to make this a narrow ANI to simply request that JLAN quit stalking Dana's work. Yes, I have my own issues with JLAN, as do several other editors, I initially attempted to mentor him when he first came on board here, and explain that people need to be less tendentious, but to no avail. He has been absolutely mean as a snake to me, sarcastic, bullying, tendentious and has made a number of petty templating threats at me. But this is not about me, it is about JLAN's treatment of Dana, who does not deserve this. I was willing to view some of the tension as spillover from his issues with me until he attacked Large Black (pig) which I had never edited, it was Dana's effort, not mine at all. Thus, Please consider the following: Montanabw^(talk) 21:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Look at what JLAN just said about Dana!! That she is "...hampered by an inflated or even non-neutral view of the importance of all things American, an excessively proprietorial attitude to articles she has worked on, a lack of common courtesy and a rather poor prose style." This is a self-confession of JLAN's problem and why I filed this ANI: to say Dana has no courtesy? What could be further from the truth!!! This is an extraordinarily courteous editor and one of WIkipedia's admins, who had [one of the most successful RFA's I've ever seen --120 support, ZERO oppose, 4 neutral. Poor prose? Dana is the lead editor for multiple FA articles, reviewed by separate people, if she had "poor prose" it would have been picked up a dozen times by now. And as far as her view of "all things American," I need only point you to the extraordinarily balanced (and in UK English, to boot) Horses in World War I, which she carefully shepherded over a period of months to FA and TFA, working with dozens of involved editors, many with strong POV. JLAN should be blocked on the spot for what he just said!!
• The issue at WPEQ over measuring horses in hands was thrashed to death. JLAN continued to argue against consensus for weeks and even months after the issue was settled (and the consensus was to always provide a three-way template showing hands, US inches and metric measurements so all could understand). here he has a basic discussion of the topic, which led to work on improving the template for converting hands into other measurements. Not content, JLAN brings an RFC which he also loses.
• JLAN is lying through his teeth that he avoids the Haflinger articles. See his attempt to split that article, one of his first runs at pure tendentiousness, also a GA: Haflinger fight and New round of attacks on Haflinger article plus an unrelated-to-Dana obsession with renaming things related to Tyrol: Talk:Municipalities_of_South_Tyrol, notably [9], [10] and several more, some moved some not, but if you review his contribs history circa nov 20 2011, there is a pattern
• [11] JLAN making sarcastic remarks to Klvankampen about other editors, who though well-intentioned, had a strong POV on one side of a legal issue. There is controversy, and breeders have a POV as much as anyone. WP must be neutral. There was some material that did have to be updated, and it was. The article went TFA and has been stable for quite some time now.
• The Luistano issue was another example of JLAN beating a dead horse (pardon the pun) when consensus and the weight of research went against him. He likes to make stubs and content forks, claiming many animals of varying bloodlines are a "breed" whether it's a "breed" or not. See North American donkey -- which he created and was written as a breed article where there is no such "breed." (I haven't had the time to even deal with that little disaster)
• JLAN's work on Azteca horse had little to do with strengthening Mexican information on the article, he made one set of useful comments, which were adopted. the lockdown and debate was over his insistence on also adding a detailed chart that was of undue weight. Consensus went against him. See discussion here and see what he wanted to add versus how the article looks today: diffs

I'll spare more diffs and examples for now. I admit, I've had it with JLAN, who has also attacked me on a regular basis. However, I am perfectly willing to fight my own battles with him, between us, but it's when he attacks another editor who has good faith and no dog in the fight that I must object. Note until I reverted the edits JLAN made without consensus, I have no stake in Large Black (pig), I had never edited the article. Montanabw^(talk) 21:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

JLAN does not require consensus to edit the black pig article or any article on this wiki; it's an encyclopedia anyone can edit. Consensus is only required once the material has been challenged. Characterising his—and the reviewer's—edits as "confusing the reviewer" and saying "Please review the un-trashed version"? What up? But please don't try to convince me what you did was ok; the person you need to be addressing here is JLAN. You two need to sort out how you are going to work together moving forward. Please drop the battleground attitude; you and your articles are not under attack. Gotta go walk the dog; will check in briefly before I have to go out for a family thing. --Dianna (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(part 2, written in text editor and posted here without reference to new blether from montanabw above; part 3 follows tomorrow)

Montanabw is the WP:OWNER of Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine. She sits on it like a dragon on a mountain of gold - except that unfortunately much of it is dross. Many of the articles contain unreferenced material, much of it tagged, some of it untouched for years. The project appears to be totally stagnant. Any edit, almost without exception, is reverted, usually by one of two editors. It doesn't matter how trivial the edit, nor how incorrect or unsustainable the view of the dragon; see the recent history and talk at Donkey or Mule for examples.

Obviously, when it's random vandalism, reverting without thought is nothing but a good thing. But when there's a new editor trying to find his way round this minefield, it may be harmful. How likely is a newbie who reads an edit summary such as this to stick around for more of the same? It's much more serious when the editor is evidently an expert, as in the matter of klvankampen already mentioned above. It's understandable that dana should feel threatened by the arrival of someone with some real knowledge of the Andalusian, but to my mind nothing excuses the reception he received here; his talkpage shows how easily an informed and expert editor can be driven away by rudeness and ineptitude. I first mentioned this topic here. The responses make interesting reading. User:Manfred bodner was a breeder of Lusitanos in Andalusia; the reception he received can be seen on the talkpage of that article; there's no welcome template on his talkpage. I see almost no prospect under the current regime for recruitment to this wikiproject of the new editors it so desperately needs, and I believe community intervention is called for. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your analysis, Justlettersandnumbers. That was exactly the impression I got when reviewing the material. I would like to strongly suggest that the current active participants in this wikiproject take this criticism as a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia and not an attack on the work that the wikiproject has achieved so far. What's next? Is there some form of dispute resolution that should be tried here? --Dianna (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Diannaa, I'm sorry, but I can't believe you're saying that I'm the one acting in bad faith here. Asking editors (such as Manfred and Klvanklampen) to provide sources, and explaining our policies of WP:OR, WP:RS, etc. is not a bad thing. Manfred at no time expressed a problem with the way that Montana and I interacted with him, and in fact we took his word as an expert on the merge issue at Lusitano. I'm not sure how JLAN gets away with claiming the project to be totally stagnant when we continue to make progress on improving articles - yes, there are lots of articles still with problems - why isn't JLAN working on any of those, instead of following me to various articles that I'm currently working on? If he was also working on sourcing and improving half a dozen other breed articles and popped by one that I was working on with some comments, I wouldn't have as big a deal. When he only seems to pop up on horse breed articles that this "stagnant" project has already taken to GA and FA with a laundry list of complaints that often include OR, content forks, tendentious editing and other issues? Yes, it gets frustrating. The Equine WP is not "stagnant". The RfC that JLAN started on horse height attracted a large number of comments...unfortunately for JLAN, consensus on many of the issues was firmly against him. The fact that consensus is often against him (see, for instance, the GAR of Percheron, the end of the Azteca talk page, etc) is not the fault of a "stagnant" project. I'm so glad you're taking JLAN's word for it that I'm an uncourteous editor with poor prose skills - it's so nice to be appreciated. You say that we shouldn't take this as "an attack on the work that the wikiproject has achieved so far." when basically everything that JLAN does is an attack on what we've achieved so far - he almost never fixes up stub/start/C class articles, instead choosing to attack articles that others have taken to higher classes. When I started editing the Equine WP had something like half a dozen GAs and no FAs. Now, we have 20 featured articles and almost 50 GAs - not bad for a small project. If that's being stagnant - producing work that has been reviewed and promoted by numerous other editors...well, apparently all of my hard work over the past four years has been in vain. I have never asked for JLAN to be topic banned - I'm not sure where you came up with that idea. My request was simply for him to stay away from me, as I attempt to do from him. Dana boomer (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Dana, you have misinterpreted so many of my comments that I hardly know where to start. Nowhere did I say that you (or anyone else) is acting in bad faith. Nowhere did I say that anyone should be topic banned. Nowhere did I remark upon your writing skills or lack thereof. What I did say, and something you need to think about very seriously, as I am a totally neutral observer who to my knowledge has never edited in conjunction with any of you, is that the material I read gave me the impression that the equine wikiproject is a closed shop that is unwelcoming to newcomers and has gotten set in its ways. I would like to point out to all three of you that you will not begin to resolve this dispute until you stop looking at the other guy's behaviour and start looking at your own. Because that's the only behaviour that you can control. --Dianna (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Dianna, I came as a newbie to WP:EQUINE in January of 2011, only two months before JLAN did, and I found them incredibly welcoming and very, very easy to get along with. Very far from being a "closed shop", they welcomed me with open arms and nursed my early footsteps along, were very patient with me, encouraged everything I was doing, and were as nice as pie. So it's not right to blame this on "the project". Pesky (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a member of WP:EQUINE, but I have had occasion to do a handful of edits and discuss things horse-related (the Morgan breed history interacts in some interesting ways with the U.S. Army in terms of remounts). I've always found the majority of folks I've encountered in that project to be both helpful and civil in their discourse. This is dealing with a breed that has some strong POV attached, yet I've never felt dismissed or marginalized because I come at the question from a different angle. Simply because one newcomer got off on the wrong foot does not automatically make a project a closed shop.Intothatdarkness (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm the GA reviewer of Large Black (pig) nominated by Dana boomer. I'd put a fair amount of work into it, when Montanabw who has never edited the article before suddenly reverted my copy editing changes and those of Justlettersandnumbers with no warning or discussion, and only the edit summary: "Revert a sudden number of edits added without consensus since GA nom that are confusing the reviewer". See article history:[12] I'm the reviewer and I'm the one that made most of the edits reverted. Montanabw needs to understand that the nominating editor to GAN does not own the article and Montanabw can't revert the article on Dana Boomer's behalf. Other editors are allowed to edit GANs. Looking at article contribution by toolserver:[13] as of now, Steven Walling (35) Dana boomer (27) and Justlettersandnumbers (21) have fairly close to the same number of edits. I am next.(9) At first I was very confused by what was happening, but now I wonder if this is an edit war and the GAN should be failed on that basis. I had thought Dana boomer and Justlettersandnumbers would continue to interact on the article talk page to review the problems, but reading the above I am not optimistic. If I'm wrong in this assessment, please let me know. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Having looked through this, I'm coming to much the same conclusions as Dianna, it looks like a complex issue, better suited to something like an RfC. I do however believe that Montanabw has stopped assuming good faith with regards to JLAN, there's been at least a couple of times that she has made mass reverts, without distinguishing good edits from bad - when combined with the language used, it's clear that Montanabw cannot see clearly there anymore. I think it would be a good idea for Montanabw to step back in dealings with JLAN, and do her best to avoid him. With regards to JLAN himself, it is clear that Dana boomer does feel harassed, and JLAN himself admits that they are not "getting along" on the talk page, though they are making progress. Combined with the comments that JLAN has made regarding Dana boomer, again, it would help if JLAN could do his best to focus elsewhere, even if only for a short period, say a month? I've already seen that JLAN has reasonably backed away from the article while the review is on, I'm sure this can work out well enough. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Apologies.

1. On the advice of an editor whose opinion I respect, I have struck through my comments on dana's editing abilities. She had given me the benefit of her opinion of my skills, and it seemed to me only courteous to return the favour. I now realise that my remarks could be construed as uncivil. I unconditionally retract them, and apologise to dana. She will, I am confident, wish similarly to retract the various discourteous comments she has directed at me above.

2. I'd like to apologise to Mathew for any part I may have had in disturbing his review of the Large Pig article. That was never my intention, but to the extent that it was the consequence of my actions, I'd like to apologise anyway.

3. I invite montanabw to apologise, immediately and fully, to him for her part in that disturbance. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm coming late to this, and have gone out of my way to avoid any kind of confrontation or article-interaction with JLAN. However, I have seen an ongoing situation here lasting for many, many months, causing distress and disruption to other editors, and a lot of IDHT. One of the reasons that other people's contributions to JLAN's talk page may outnumber his own is that he simply doesn't respond. I tried to communicate where some of the problems were, on 13th January; it's now exactly a month later, and no response whatsoever. It's incredibly hard to try to communicate constructively with someone who just doesn't communicate back or (apparently) address the issues. This situation simply can't be seen in its entirety without someone going right back through the whole lot (which, incidentally, I have done). I've been watching for a very long time, and what I;ve seen is a number of people trying really hard to get JLAN to work collegiately and "play nice", for a very long time, and gradually all losing their patience. It's a very sad situation, all told, but it's important here not to blame the editors who have tried their damnedest to work together. There's been an awful lot of JLAN taking the exact same argument from one page to another to another, failing to get consensus anywhere, and simply not giving up and starting the same thing again on another page. Nobody can be expected not to lose patience after months and months of this, no matter how much a saint they are. And few of us are saints. Pesky (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Diffs. I made some allegations above about the behaviour of montanabw that should have been supported with diffs. What follows is a selection, not an exhaustive list.

• insults [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]
• user warnings level 2, level 3, level 4

I've not supplied (but could on request) what would be a much longer list of occasions when montanabw has maligned my motives and impugned my integrity. Nor have I supplied evidence of hounding or harassment, as I think those are already sufficiently evident. What I'd very much like to know is whether this sort of behaviour is regarded as normal and acceptable in this wiki. And if, as I suspect, it is not, why User:Dana boomer, who was aware of much of it and whom I believe to be an admin, took no steps whatsoever to limit or stop it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Pesky: I did not reply to your post on my talkpage because my reply would have been in the form of an argument, and I had and have no wish to argue with you. A while ago you were here under accusation of discourtesy because you had asked another editor to behave civilly; you may recall that, in private, I offered you some support. It was, and still is, therefore quite incomprehensible to me that you would not offer your support when I made similar requests for courtesy. Why in your view is rudeness from BadgerDrink unacceptable, but rudeness from montanabw acceptable? Why did you not intervene?

I did, however, respond to your post by taking your advice. I continue to respect and value your opinion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The future of WikiProject Equine. In response to Dianna's question "What's next?", I'd like to lay out one possible scenario aimed at regeneration of the project in general, and at attracting new and expert editors in particular.

• Editor montanabw agrees to step aside from the project for a short period, say a year, and to abstain from editing any article or talkpage within the project during that time
• I of course agree to abstain from editing any article or talkpage within the project for the same period, or whatever other period other editors determine to be appropriate
• Expert editors who have recently drifted away from the project - Ealdgyth, Pesky, Richard, pitke, probably many others - should be invited to return to active editing
• A small group (five?) of expert long-term editors, not necessarily with any knowledge or experience of horses, should be asked to join the project as "trustees", to offer advice and guidance where needed
• Expert editors who have left the wiki should be contacted and asked if they would consider returning; I'm thinking not just of the two mentioned above, but of expert or professional editors from the past such as Countercanter; sadly I have little hope of User:KimvdLinde being persuaded to return
• The project should agree, quite independently of any decision reached wiki-wide, to an internal policy of zero-tolerance towards discourtesy

OK, I'm new here and I probably don't know what I'm talking about. I have, however, been astounded at the hostility of the reception I received here (first mentioned here), and believe that the horse project has some serious and deep-seated problems. Perhaps a plan along these lines might lead to some improvement? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I stopped editing horse-related articles quite a while ago, not because of Montanabw, but rather because the project seems to attract contentious editors (the ones I had problems with have evidently left Wikipedia). A call for civility is always in order, although I see much of Montanabw's incivility being in reaction to the incivility of other editors. Nevertheless, the solution called for by JLAN seems strongly one-sided to me: Montanabw has been a productive editor for much longer than JLAN, and having them both refrain from editing project related articles for a year seems to be to be effectively a way to censor Montanabw.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This plan looks more like some sort of coup to me than an actual plan. If an area of editing interest is specialized or requires some level of specialized competence, what good would "trustees" do if they are not required to be knowledgeable about the area of work? Whether we like it or not, there are standards outside Wiki that are considered very relevant to some areas (using hand as a measurement for horse height, for example). I've had interactions with Montanabw in some areas, and have found her to have some strong opinions (not always a bad thing), but also willing to discuss those opinions with civility and even tact. I'm also "new to Wikipedia," but have never felt attacked by her. I have, however, been somewhat disgusted by the lack of respect I've seen here for established outside conventions as they apply to some subject areas. In relation to this, every time I've seen a discussion with JLAN, his ideas have been presented as fixed, unchangeable solutions with a tone very similar to the plan above.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not a plan, this is a "Silence the opposition" move. Although it's not right to respond to baiting with incivility, sometimes the baiting and tendentiousness goes on for so long that even the most patient editor(s) can snap. And there has been a long, long history here, and it's very important to look well beyond the surface. JLAN, sorry, but I have been trying to stay uninvolved for as long as humanly possible, but your "plan" here looks altogether too much as though you are trying to "win" a war of attrition by nuking someone who's been having trouble dealing with the way you interact for a very long time. That's just not right. I suggested on your talk page, a month ago, that you try to tone down the way you deal with certain situations, and I left it at that, just pointing out that for you to do this voluntarily would be far better than for you to end up with (for example) a topic ban, or similar. I know you almost certainly don;t see it this way, but looking right through the entire history of your various interactions, the escalation always seems to start from your side, and frequently with baiting. You simply cannot try and place all the blame on Montanabw or others with carefully selected diffs; that's unjust in the extreme. It's just wrong to do that. My suggestion is that you voluntarily leave alone both the WP:Equine project, and any pages in other areas which are largely contributed-to by members of that project, and particluarly leave well alone any pages that equine-project members are bringing to GA, FA, PR, or anywhere else where your sudden intervention disrupts things. Try and focus on other areas, and be particularly aware if you are getting into similar style disagreements with editors in those other areas, and if you find that happening, just back quietly away. It really would be for the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatPeskyCommoner (talk • contribs)

Can I draw people's attention to the project talk page as it appeared in April 2011? Here's how it looked then. You want to look at the page, not just the diff. JLAN's [ earliest contributions] are here. If anyone really cares to go right through it, they'll be able to see "who started it", as it were - and not that that particularly matters - but they'll certainly be able to see for just how long this kind of thing has been going on, starting with a very new editor (at that time) confronting very well-established editors with masses of content-contribution history behind them, and getting very cross when consensus was against them. You can't judge just by what you read here on AN/I. If you're thorough, and competent, and if you really want to know, then you need to do the research homework. Adding: JLAN's talk page as at here (21 st March 2011, just under a fortnight from JLAN's first named-editor edit - see earlier) shows part of the beginning, and is worth a read. MTBW had clearly been trying to explain to a fortnight-old newbie how things worked, and got "On whose say-so?" as a response. I think that's probably just about the beginning, but you guys can see the way this started, by having a browse through the page as it was then, and then surfing the diffs around the early contributions. Pesky (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that many of JLAN's actions may have challenged the status quo and rocked some boats, but that is not necessarily always a bad thing, in my opinion. Thanks for doing this research, Pesky, but it is probably time to stop discussing behaviour and pulling diffs, and time to start working toward solutions. How can JLAN and the others begin working together? Or is it time for them to part ways for a while, and if so, how long? These might be better subjects at this point in the discussion than pulling up year-old examples of newbie behaviour. Just my opinion, for what it's worth. --Ninja Dianna (Talk) 18:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, my intention was simply to illustrate where things began to go wrong, and therefore how long this dissension has been around, so explaining why patience had run out. It's around eleven months now. I apologise if people didn't get what I was trying to express properly, I don't always manage to be understood the way I intended! My suggestions are as above, really; I can't see anything else working well at all. I'm not sure if you saw my response higher up the thread, but I was a newbie to WP:EQUINE only a few weeks before JLAN was, and they welcomed me with open arms and we all got along fine; it wasn't by any means a "closed shop" situation. And it's not really feasible to tell all the other editors in WP:EQUINE to leave the project. Pesky (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Your point is also taken that JLAN is not without his faults and has been difficult to work with. What I think everyone needs to do now is think about their own behaviour and what they can do to improve relations in the future. One big problem here on Wikipedia is that we have a lot of strong-willed opinionated people. It is a strength and a weakness! --Dianna (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

JLAN has done some really good stuff, don't get me wrong on that. It's just that rather a lot of people find him hard to work with (even the ones that managed to put up with me in my early days, despite the odd kicks in my gallop, lol!) I think it really would be best if he avoided the editors he's had problems relating with, and the articles they're working on, particularly when those articles are at "sensitive times" like GA, etc. He has a lot of talent and is very intelligent, and could probably contribute very well in other project areas, just keeping an eye out for similar types of disagreements arising and maybe backing down a little earlier when consensus is not with him. That would seem to be a quiet, calm way around the situation, without anything as formal as an official topic ban or an official interaction ban with the various editors he's found hard to work with. Pesky (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I made this very clear that this ANI is NOT about the conflict between myself and JLAN, we are both big kids who can fight things out between ourselves; we have for quite some time. This ANI is about JLAN's treatment of Dana and other editors who have crossed his path. My recommendation is neither a topic ban, an interaction ban, nor any sort of formal restrictions, but rather that JLAN finally learn the following much-needed lessons and agree to the following:

1. JLAN may not realize that when he gets "attacked" it is because he has almost inevitably attacked first, or edited against consensus, or something similar. JLAN needs to quit calling or implying that other people (particularly Americans) are stupid, biased, discourteous and so on; Ealdgyth's comment to him is on point. JLAN has few friends on wiki, Pesky may be the most willing to see him in a good light of anyone, and she has commented here. I probably am the person who disagrees with him the most, but that is simply because our paths keep crossing on the same topics. If JLAN could make his points about possible errors (as sometimes he IS correct) without insults and attacks, he would not be getting back what he dishes out.
2. JLAN needs to let things go when consensus goes against him instead of tendentiously beating a topic to death and then doing an WP:IDHT or a WP:FORUMSHOP to keep it alive even longer. Here is an example from a topic neither horse-related, nor involving me: JLAN is told:"You have been very pedantic and proved wrong when you sought to actually delete the section that you now seek to edit. I think now is the time to stop vandalising this article." or where he attacks an entire WikiProject area and is shot down and continues in the face of strong opposition to tendentiously argue to rename article with American focus Montanabw^(talk) 23:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As for other comments above:

1. Matthew, I am sorry your edits got caught in my revert of JLAN, that was not my intent and for messing up your work, I do apologize. More on this at your talk page.
2. JLAN thinks I'm mean to him. Let's look at some more diffs: JLAN calls my comments " the usual blithering twaddle, made up yesterday by someone with insufficient education to see how silly it is."; or templating me in an inappropriate manner, where he was disciplined by Ealdgyth and I just noted above he calls my comments here "without reference to new blether from montanabw above" -- a new insult.
3. WPEQ has many participants, and I most certainly have not driven them off. Curtis, Ealdgyth, Pesky, Richard, Pitke are all still active editors, I am proud to call them my friends. I am sure Kim will return soon, she usually does. I have "met" some of these people off-wiki via email and have met one in real life. Countercanter is still my email friend off-wiki, we have emailed about coat color genetics for a couple of years now; since she got done with grad school and has a full time job, she has had less time to contribute but has continued to be helpful to me behind the scenes when I've had a genetics question.
4. As for JLAN's consistent implication that I am an idiot, which, yes, "blithering twaddle" is right up there with "stupid idiot", so I am rather hurt. While he provides no evidence of what horse expertise he actually has and maybe he's an expert (I will grant he speaks several languages, which I do not) I have in fact been a horse trainer, riding instructor (as has Pesky, by the way) and I have published actual real magazine articles on equine-related topics, so yes, indeed, I happen to have expertise in this subject area. None of us are right 100% of the time, but a collaborative approach of "say, did you see this? Should we revise the article to reflect this or not?" is better than JLAN's snide comments. Montanabw^(talk) 23:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned that JLAN's examples of how mean and awful I was are out of context, let's see the results:

1. this article results in a collaborative renaming, expansion and good improvement
2. [20] JLAN is shot down by other users on his point.
3. full context of Pony discussion was a consensus against JLAN's position for the most part
4. JLAN's "third warning" (what happened to "don't template the regulars?") was a response to me attempting to engage him informally, here again asking him to avoid attacking Dana, and for interfering with Andalusian horse when it was about to be TFA.
5. I do admit to losing it once for real: JLAN's "last warning" was because I did call him a jerk in an edit summary the midst of the Azteca dispute. I admit was a too-angry response on my part. I also called him a jackass that same day, a comment which, you will note, I went back and subsequently refractored because I realized was over the top. That whole day was a rotten day, I was also being attacked at the same time by a sockpuppet who has since been blocked. As Pesky noted, sometimes people who are attacked enough do snap back. I snapped. I should not have. I apologize to the WP community for that. But this ANI is not about me, it is about JLAN and his treatment of people other than me. People who do not deserve to be bullied and who need some advocacy so that they are not run off by people like JLAN. Montanabw^(talk) 23:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a comment. I haven't been driven away, I've been busy with Finnhorse in other projects, namely assisting a full translation to French and pushing a FAC in fi.wikipedia. I do find this whole mess distasteful, but truth to be said, I've attempted to steer clear of it. I'm busy (and perhaps stressed) enough admining elsewhere. --Pitke (talk) 09:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I try to steer clear of conflict, or when I can't steer clear, try to deal with it calmly. Sadly, "steering clear of conflict" over the past several months has come to mean almost exactly the same thing as "steering clear of JLAN". Terribly sorry, JLAN, but I have been quite deliberately trying not to interact with you, for fear of being drawn into conflicts. Pesky (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

JLAN, you're more than welcome to come over to my talk page and just join in with the general natter which goes on there (but some of the natives are a bit timid, so we tread gently where we can). A question for you: who do you really enjoy working with? Could you work with them more; that would make WikiLife happier for you. Also, if you ever need a bit of help anywhere with working stuff out, I will try to do the best I can for you, but you have to be gentle with me 'coz Real Life is full of shite at the moment! (Neuropathic problems awaiting surgery; full-time carer for 83-y-o dementia sufferer, etc.) I'm not "out to get you", I'd really like to help resolve problems if I possibly can. Pesky (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• To clarify, Montanabw does not understand that to revert a GAN that a reviewer has reviewed, as she did with Large Black (pig) with the edit summary "Reverted to revision 475953360 by Dana boomer: Revert a sudden number of edits added without consensus since GA nom that are confusing the reviewer .." fundamentally disrupted the GAN review process. I'm alarmed that she thinks edits to an article that is being reviewed must be made by consensus. In any case, her edit (the revert) certainly was not done by consensus, to use her logic. Her apology to me was a lengthy post on my talk page about how bad Justlettersandnumbers is (versions of which is above and posted elsewhere on talk pages, including on my mentor's page where she intruded into a question I had asked him.) She's apologized to me on my talk page for the 9 edits I lost, as if that was the main issue. It's not. Before she reverted the article to her preferred version, she did not contact me on my talk page, nor post on the article talk page or on Talk:Large Black (pig)/GA1, all of which she could have done if she had concerns about the article or the review. Thank you, MathewTownsend (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Editors following this case might be interested in reading User talk:MathewTownsend#Passing mention at AN/I and User talk:Worm That Turned#your adoptee wants advice and User talk:Worm That Turned#JLAN. -- Dianna (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

More questions. (I'm sorry, this is probably very boring for others, but it is important to me).

(1) Civility: Pesky writes above "Although it's not right to respond to baiting with incivility, sometimes the baiting and tendentiousness goes on for so long that even the most patient editor(s) can snap." That's certainly a change of tune for her, who previously (I had understood) regarded civility as being unconditional. It certainly isn't how things work in the real world: "Yes m'lud, it's perfectly true that my client chopped his wife into little bits with an axe and buried them in the garden, but she'd asked him to do the washing-up again and he just snapped. "Ah, yes, quite right, quite right, case dismissed". Here in Wikipedia, is that really what WP:Civil says? More specifically, I personally have been relentlessly baited by montanabw for many months; is it therefore in order for me to "snap", and start insulting her? I don't think so. What do others say?

(2) New editors: is this really the best way to welcome a new editor? Ignorance in itself is no crime; but wouldn't it have been preferable to conduct this simple search first? The top hit is the registry of the breed, founded in 2000. There's no welcome template on the IP's talkpage. Has dana paid any attention at all to Dianna's comments above?

(3) Moving forward: I'm more interested in moving forward from here than in going over past history. Pesky's suggestion appears to be that I should acknowledge the ownership rights of montanabw over the whole horse project and of dana over the articles she has got a star for, and piss off elsewhere. Is there community consensus for that suggestion? Is that advice that I should take? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

JLAN - for what it's worth I didn't perceive Pesky's post to be saying "put up with the status quo or piss off". On the contrary, it seemed like an olive branch to me and was couched in friendly terms. Could you see it as a compromise offer and move towards it in some way, instead of reacting against it and away from it? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Some suggestions

Ok, I've spent much of the day looking into this. I'm not keen on AN/I, but since I'm addressing everyone, I might as well post this here. There's clearly a clash and it's escalated to the point that it's causing significant issues. As Dianna explained above, this isn't a problem that is going to be "fixed" in one go at a board like AN/I. I hoped to have a chat with the editors in question and see if sending them back to their corners would help, but it looks like we've gone beyond that point. I do think that an RfC/U might be the best way forward, though I hate the process - it should get some more eyes on the issues. I understand that editors are unwilling to start an RfC/U as it can be a time sink, however I get the impression that there's a time sink currently.
In lieu of the RfC/U though I thought share some thoughts.

• Every editor involved freely admits that every other editor makes positive contributions.
• JLAN is an enthusiastic editor, who's opinions are often at odds with other members of WikiProject Equine. Whilst this can be a good thing, there does appear to a certain amount of not accepting consensus and arguing for too long afterwards. What's more, his comments have started to tend towards ad hominem arguments, for example suggesting that editors with a number of featured articles (and therefore reviewed by many editors) cannot write without bias. Taking an interest in a non equine article seems to be what ignited this mess. Much of JLAN's problematic work appears to be focussed on criticising/improving current articles, especially those at or around milestones.
• Montanabw's patience with JLAN appears to have run out a while ago. She's taken some inappropriate actions based upon her opinion of JLAN, such as mass reverting of his (and other editors) good edits, apparently without evaluating the quality of those edits. JLAN also has suggested that Montanabw is acting in an WP:OWN-like manner with regards to equine articles, and I can certainly see that point of view.
• As far as I've seen, User:Dana boomer has acted in an exemplary manner - with an exceptional amount of patience. Once I've finished here, I intend to give her a barnstar.

That's the major points as I see them. Please do feel free to contradict me if I'm wrong, I'm sure I can dig up diffs for all of what I've said. So, from that, I have some recommendations:

• For JLAN
  1. Do not use ad hominem arguments - implying that groups are unable to write neutrally, or that users are unintelligent etc.
  2. Focus on working together with editors, rather than criticising and changing their work. Remember, they're trying to improve the encyclopedia too. If you keep causing issues, you're likely to rub the wrong person up the wrong way, and end up blocked indefinitely. I've seen it before.
  3. If you have a larger scoped issue than in one article, then use WP:RfC.
  4. Be careful with how you are making other editors feel. I'm not saying you are harassing Dana boomer, but she has made it clear that she feels bothered by you. Take that on board and try working in areas away from her for a while. In fact, if you have non-equine interests, perhaps now would be a good time to work on them. Taking a short term break from equine is only going to improve relations longer term. Try building more articles that other people are not actively working on perhaps?
• For Montanabw
  1. As with JLAN, do not use ad hominem arguments. Attributing motives to JLAN such as him being mean, attacking editors or that he is a jackass or pain in the ass simply doesn't help anything or anyone.
  2. Back off, away from JLAN. I know you are trying to help, but mass reverts, constant suggestions about how he can and can't edit etc. are only serving to build up resentment. If you have an issue with JLAN, come to me, or any other neutral editor.
  3. Be careful with WP:OWN. Remember, no one owns anything on WP, and anyone can edit. I'm not saying you actually believe you or WikiProject Equine own articles, but the perception matters, and some of your behaviour does look like ownership or creating a walled garden.

I'm pretty sure that if you both keep to those suggestions, we won't need any formal sanctions and things should get better. If you're not happy, you know where to find WP:RfC/U - because I doubt you'll find a better solution at AN/I. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose a formal WP:IBAN is out of the question because their interests overlap too much. Sadly, this is one of those cases that is likely to end up at Arbitration unless both sides learn how to deescalate... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Unless something changes, this isn't going to end well. Worm^TT · (talk)

Per the proposed decision in the recent ArbCom case on Civility Enforcement, admins aren't likely to issue an indef to either side, so besides the good advice from WormTT, I'm not sure what else admins can do here. Noting that this now the 1st ANI thread, I suggest closure to help the parties disengage. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Stavgard

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

---

Stavgard (talk · contribs) is going crazy creating huge, unsourced, unformatted, block-of-text articles. I've asked them to please stop and source and format, but they are continuing. I'm worried that these huge blocks of text are copyright violations, but I can't find them in English language texts. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have deleted a couple as duplicates of existing topics; the rest will have to be sent to AFD. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I took one look at his most recent "effort" (regarding Gotland) and my eyes started to bleed. I'm in favor of applying G1... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

There's Gutagård as well.This edit also contains a URL to a website which has his username in it, likely original research I would say. The website appears to be Russian in origin so I have left Россия является вашим родным языком? on the user's webpage, which is (I think) the right way to ask if Russian is his first language. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Bushranger, you're such a tender soul. You must have led a sheltered life here. Be glad that our Scandinavian archaeoastronomist hasn't discovered the Old Testament link yet (which begs to be added to Tachash). I see that all of them have pretty much been dealt with: good work, all. If author starts recreating and/or undoing the redirects, I guess we need to revisit this? Drmies (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been rather sheltered, yes. ;) And now he's made Astronomical calendars in Gotland. And isn't answering on his talk page. At all. Methinks a block per WP:IDHT might be in order soon... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Still isn't responding on talk page, but on the other hand hasn't made any new edits for over 24 hours. We may need to just watch and wait...Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Started again this morning with this among other edits. I have blocked for 12 hours and left a message on his talk page to try and get a response. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Now responding on talk page - discussing what constitutes a reliable source etc. Will leave this open for a few hours until we see where this goes. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Issues at Cold Fusion (moved from AN to ANI)

The Cold Fusion article is under sanctions. There appear to be a lot of aggressive single purpose accounts at Cold Fusion that are becoming increasingly outright hostile (including a claim that I am libeling a journal):

Some Diffs:

1. [21]

2. [22]

3. [23]

Other bad faith actions from POVBrigand: [24] The talk pages of this article and Energy Catalyzer also contain many other examples. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the second diff is a legal threat aimed at IRWolfie and me. There always has been a major sock problem on Cold Fusion related articles, no doubt fueled by a thirst for money and fame. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that discretionary sanctions are in force on this article, so it might be better to make a request at WP:AE if there is a problem with an individual editor. Mathsci (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be a collection of individuals or possibly some form of sock puppetry amongst the single purpose accounts but it is getting outright hostile and deliberately uncooperative (such as arguing that a journal that has 1 day of review before acceptance for some papers can be reliable). IRWolfie- (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes. There has been a lot of buzz on the internet about these two topics in the last few months, and it has attracted a few new editors. Unfortunately, many suffer of WP:RECENTISM, they see some new low-quality source, and they immediately claim that the field has suddenly been vindicated, the whole article has to be rewritten, and all old high-quality sources dumped as historic footnotes.

SPA might be more aggressive in the last days because a group of sources were rejected in the last weeks. If this continues, there should be an AE report and a few topic bans. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

POVbrigands arguments on WP:RSN appear to be based on attacking other editors: The sentiment portrayed by some editors here in this talk against "Current Science", based on overestimation of one's own capabilities on judging a poorly understood artifact and possibly a general ignorance of a science community outside of Europe/USA, is pathetic.. [25]. What is your next defense, that India is a country you don't like ? [26]. I will make a section on AE and link it to this page. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have filled a notice with AE: [27]. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that several editors, including POVbrigand, Gregory Goble, and Selery should be notified that the Cold fusion article is under general sanctions, and the notifications logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley (I think that is the right place to log them). Would some uninvolved administrator do the honors? Cardamon (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I see that Gregory Goble was notified, but I don't see that this was logged anywhere. I see that Selery is currently indef'd due to an unrelated issue, but I suppose it is possible that he'll be allowed back some time. Was POVbrigand ever notified? So I am asking that users Selery and POVbrigand be notified, and that all three notifications be logged. Cardamon (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

see POVbrigands talk page were he was notified. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Need a Rangeblock on a Proxy

Dealing with an entire range of IPs that has been continously vandalizing for some time now (about a year). Everything in the same range as 69.178.192.194 needs to be blocked (I am not great with ID'ing ranges, forgive me). The IP is licensed to Daktel.com and geolocates to Carrington, North Dakota. We have blocked this range before and tagged several of the talk pages as proxies. See 1, 2 and this history for more beginning with 69.178. There has been far too much time devoted to stopping the all-vandalism edits by this range (more than likely just one person). Requesting a rangeblock on the entire range for the standard 5 years since this is a proxy. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there would be a lot of collateral if blocking 69.178.0.0/16. WilliamH (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

 Unlikely IP is an open proxy Also for what it's worth it doesn't look like an open proxy to me. This looks like a normal, dynamic IP-hopping vandal. Normally this sort of thing isn't rangeblocked unless it's causing severe disruption, whereas your links look more like run-of-the-mill (albeit subtle) vandalism. It probably makes more sense to request to have Template:Glendive TV semi-protected for a few months at WP:RFPP, but even that is probably excessive given that the vandalism is less than once-a-month.... Sailsbystars (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not just the Glendive TV Template that is being hit by this editor. This is on-going across many pages. Several admins have put small rangeblocks in place that have worked, but not completely. This user keeps coming back, I think we have to deal with a little collateral damage to stop this editor. It isn't like those editors can't get a sign-in account. I think a year's worth of whack-a-mole is enough. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say, but I agree with NeutralHomer. This editor goes back to the sockfarm Hypocritepedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) back a year and a half ago continuing to persist on articles and continuing attacks against "liberals" (and attacks against liberal political figure pages) for reverting their vandalism, mainly on Upper Midwest media and city articles. I know of no good contribs from the DakTel IP's at all in the last year as I've followed this one constantly under their Zimmbotkiller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) guise and other false accounts (see the sock page). A rangeblock is the only way to go to get this "Zimmer" character to finally be exhausted out of their efforts to damage the encyclopedia. Nate • (chatter) 05:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• 69.178.192.194, which is the same IP I am currently having problems with and on the same range, just requested me a new password. This IP and range is nothing but trouble and there needs to be a block put in place ASAP. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

What a coincidence (he says not shocked at all as he rolls his eyes), I just got the same lovely 'password reset' message from the Wiki password server from the same IP. This by the way, is what this vandal calls "hacking". Seriously though, nothing good comes out of this range pool. Nate • (chatter) 10:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked that IP - if they're pulling stunts like that something absolutely needs to be done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I don't think a block of the IP will stop them sending password requests. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• The range is too busy and too big to be blockable. With a /16, we're talking tens of thousands of IP addresses that would be blocked/ But have a look through this—there are quite a few constructive edits coming from this range in addition to your guy and what looks like a distinct petty vandal. Blocking the range would be a bit like using a bazooka to kill a fly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The first couple edits on that Toolserver link (the ones to Common cold), they were vandalism. The television station ones are universally vandalism. I would love to actually see one non-vandalism edit from that range, but I doubt I will. Since DakTel.com only has the potential to serve about 25,000 (who may or may not have computers), we aren't talking about alot of collateral damage (like say blocking Verizon or something). While there would be some, it wouldn't be a large number. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    • [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33] all appear constructive, and the oldest of them is a week old. That's already too much collateral damage—I wouldn't block that range for more than a day, and even then it would have to be for serious abuse, not just regular vandalism. Semi-protection is probably a better option. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
      • This has been ongoing for almost two years. It would be alot of pages to semi-protect...and it would have to be indef protection, cause this guy isn't going to stop. He has two blocked and locked accounts to his name, plus all the IP socks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
        • The clear solution is Sign In To Edit...but WMF has made it abundantly clear where they stand on that, consensus be hanged. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks, canvassing, editwar by IP sock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No admin action forthcoming and the edit war is now stale. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Moved from WP:AN3:

Chagai-I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Pokhran-II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
PNS Ghazi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 122.161.31.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Other IP: 122.161.78.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [34]
• 2nd revert: [35]
• 3rd revert: [36]
• 4th revert: [37]
• 5th revert: [38]
• 6th revert: [39]
• 7th revert: [40]
• 8th revert: [41]

Warned [42]

Attempt to discuss content returned with more and blatant personal attacks [43] + warned before on user talk.

Comments: User hoping IP to add content over multiple articles, has already been specified as a sock by another experienced user on the first IP.[44]. The IP has further made canvassing attempts [45] [46] containing personal attacks [47] [48] vandalism accusations in edit summaries. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

User notified. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• I see nothing that meets the definition of WP:CANVASS, nor do I see anything that meets WP:NPA. The WP:TE across a couple of articles, yes ... but ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism & propaganda accusations, labeling me with "the most infamous user on wiki" & "edit-war-mongering nature", calling me a 'troll'... certainly personal attacks. "plz visit that page" is direct canvassing with the section header as article title. This is unambiguous. Although I have some suspicion that this might be a sock of a user whose words the IP is using, but for now I'll keep it to this. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

How does asking a single editor to visit a page meet the definition of canvassing? Canvassing is the wide-range posting to editors who may be sympathetic to a specific point of view. Asking one editor is not canvassing. The other comments may be worthy of WP:WQA, but do not appear as NPA worth any blocks. Look, when I declined your 3RR notification, I suggested you re-think and take this to appropriate noticeboards, expecting you to provide focus and proper "evidence". You decided not to. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't mean asking editors on their talk pages to get involved in content dispute is right. I've provided diffs above for evidence. This incident is not in a vacuum, there's been a lot of hounding recently. DS here was recently blocked for following my edits, I'm surprised that he followed them here again. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Asking one editor who already has a history related topics to provide input is not considered canvassing. Stop suggesting that it is. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll remember that one then... but this was certainly not asking for input. These were rude remarks, and certainly deliberate. I'm sorry, but if such issues go unactioned, this kind of activity will surely be encouraged. This has been happening over and over. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If that user is me then, sorry, but I have no history at all in the subject area; nor can I recall any past involvement with the protagonists - very weird, but not canvassing. - Sitush (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Atleast we have some contradictions to Bwilkins's statements then who seems to be prejudiced. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't you dare refer to me as "prejudiced", using any attempting possible meaning of the word. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't remove my comments again. You should know better than that. You reaction to the report was just that. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If I have removed any of your comments, it was clearly not intentional - as you can see from my edit-summaries, they pretty much all say "ec" for edit-conflict. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The diff bomb above are all on different articles, this was rightly rejected at the edit warring board and should be rejected here. Especially as the IP is correct. Which I have pointed out to TG here. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute discussion. It is obvious that these are multiple articles (which I already mentioned in my report). You don't need to get involved in this report as you got involved from my contribution history (for which you were blocked two-three days ago). Let the administrators handle this issue. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI and AN3 are on my watchlists, I have often commented on AN£ reports. I have not looked in your contributions history and I would thank you not to make assumptions and present them as facts again. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - for reasons that I cannot fathom, this dispute hit my talk page a few hours ago, here. I have no idea why it did so but there is a bit of name-calling going on. - Sitush (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly why I made this report since BWilkins said it did not fall in editwar category. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Reboot

Ok TopGun, now that you know this is not edit-warring, not canvassing, and we have some minor non-blockable incivility, plus due to the nature of dynamic IP's, this does not even appear to meet a violation of WP:SOCK, what exactly are you trying to achieve here, and can you please providing supporting documentation related to it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If that kind of incivility is considered minor, in short suggesting that it is unblockable and the IP can continue to do that. This is what I was talking about. A previous report of exact same nature with the user using the same words. anyway... if you do not consider such remarks as personal attacks, I guess if I use such terms in return you'll be fine with such? --lTopGunl (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No, what you should do is rise above it. We are not a school playground. - Sitush (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

And that was a rhetorical question. These attacks are persistent, and by different socks. I've provided my evidence. If no action is to be taken this should be closed instead. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

TopGun, I think you provided a link to a situation that proves my point, and Sitush's above. You have provided two acts of purported violations of NPA, and state that they occur in edit-summaries. For example:

• "you are no saint in this world, your blocks your vanalism , your edit wars made you one of the most infamous user on wiki" (from here

Where's the blockable WP:NPA? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I've provided diffs and quotes (and this is not the sole quote.. it is the least incivil of those). --lTopGunl (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so this one:

* "What that source dont has knowledge about Yield, look into the books and the works. You have been blocked over a dozen times for this same vandalism and pro-pakistani propaganda and you will be banned again if you try to enter another edit war. Give a suitable reason , i am not interested in entering into an edit war. If you have any suitable reason to remove the content then mention it otherwise leave your edit-war-mongering nature" (here).

... and the NPA is where? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I quoted before and I'll quote again, "Vandalism & propaganda accusations, labeling me with "the most infamous user on wiki" & "edit-war-mongering nature", calling me a "troll""... these are personal attacks. Many of these are just mentioned in the above quote you added. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

They are uncivil but not on the scale of the attacks that I frequently get, for example (various sexual acts involving my mother and dogs, etc). The latter are over the line; your examples are not, IMO. - Sitush (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but ""the most infamous user on wiki" is a clear WP:NPA violation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Why's that? Infamy is both positive and negative in its connotations (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, "most infamous user" is obviously not meant as a compliment, but as a personal attack it falls well short of blockable. Personally, I'd take it as a kind of inverted compliment, and stick the diff on my user page if anybody said it about me. I've looked at all the diffs provided and there's nothing here that's actionable by an admin. You need to grow a thicker skin, I'm afraid, if "attacks" like these are distressing you. The IP editor is obviously inexperienced, with English as very much a second language; nobody is going to regard these remarks as remotely damaging to your reputation; you'd be best off rising above them and ignoring them as Sitush has already suggested. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Pssst ... we said the same thing to TopGun last time he brought something like this here ... he chooses not to listen (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It can be both positive and negative, true - it depends on the context. I agree it's not blockworthy but it would, IMHO, bring forth a "mind WP:CIVIL" note to the writer of the comment, at the very least, if I stumbled across it in my browsing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)>

Exactly ... certainly not ANI material (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 02:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"Famous" occasionally does double duty as either negative or positive (although it's far more commonly positive), but even after consulting OED, I can't remember ever seeing "infamous" used in a positive sense. No comment on the claims of personal attacks. Nyttend (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Often used sarcastically ... "Ohhh, the infamous Nyttend, is it?" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 02:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

(add: "...the infamous Mr. Bond" is a phrase used in at least one 007 movie) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Why don't the admins do a 24 hour page protection on the pages in question?--MONGO 15:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

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

New editor being bitten?

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

---

Resolved

 – Accounts were being used for spam. Blocks supported.

Rich Farmbrough, 00:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC).

Editor's accounts:

• Haroldpolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Untioencolonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cloudreviewer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Blocking admins:

• Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jpgordon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm trying to reconcile the behavior of these accounts with the blocks that were handed out. I agree with jpgordon's initial block, even though the user was only ever given one single warning: a level 2 spam template, which Haroldpolo did blank. This was followed up with an indef block. Nothing too out of the ordinary here, though perhaps a few more warnings would have been appropriate.

Then the editor started to evade the block, which resulted in a sockpuppetry block. I'm rather baffled by the rationale for these blocks, since the user did not engage in sockpuppetry from what I can see, only block evasion. Sockpuppetry is evidence of bad faith; block evasion can be, but can also be the result of someone who just doesn't understand what happened and wants to try again.

While the editor does not seem very familiar with our policies, this reaction has seemed all around incredibly harsh and bitey. One warning, and then three blocks. I'd feel pretty confused and frustrated with the whole experience too.

I'm asking for comment from other administrators and editors on this matter because I don't feel comfortable unilaterally unblocking any accounts in this case. However, I do think that this editor needs a gentler introduction to editing. --Chris (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to agree with these blocks. I see nothing but spam from all three accounts. If they want to make any edits other than inserting that single website into a bunch of articles, an unblock request could be considered, but right now I see no evidence they're interested in doing anything other than spam. 28bytes (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Look a bit deeper at the timing. User:Haroldpolo -- owner of hostingtecnews.com -- first started inserting links to his website on January 20. He was warned on February 10 that the edits were unacceptable; he blanked the warning and inserted another similar link. He was never blocked specifically for spamming, though. In the meantime, he'd created User:Untioencolonia, which spammed three articles and that was all. Then on Feb 13, he created User:Cloudreviewer, which started the same spamming when noticed by User:Ohnoitsjamie, who surmised that this was all one person. There was never any block evasion, as there was never any block until all three were blocked. I verified that the three accounts were identical with checkuser and changed the existing block on Cloudreviewer to reflect my findings. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess I must've been pretty tired last night to miss the full timeline. Thanks for the clarification. This does make more sense to me now. --Chris (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Good block in all cases. All accounts blocked here were created solely for the purpose of spamming an external link; the latest contributions attempted a fig leaf content addition but it was still the same external link being inserted spammily. (And, to address a question of the OP - block evasion is simply a form of sockpuppetry when boiled down to its essence, it is multiple accounts being used by a single user to circumvent Wikipedia policy.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Reversion of RM closure

Resolved

 – No action needed here. Rich Farmbrough, 00:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC).

Mike Cline (talk · contribs) closed a move request but was reverted by an involved editor Eraserhead1 (talk · contribs) on the grounds that the close was only 5 days after a relisting (explanation and further discussion). Eraserhead1 has refused requests to undo his revert, and Mike Cline has now given up. Please confirm this is not the way things should be done around here. (I am also involved, having commented on the RM.) Kanguole 13:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice to know which rules and/or social norms I have broken by wanting the reopened move discussion to run for seven days. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to want whatever you, um, want. What I object to is your attempt to force an admin to redo their work to conform to your personal preferences. WP:RM is fraught enough without this innovation. Kanguole 16:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I'm involved to the extent of participating early, but haven't contributed or watched it since. A premature close seems like a rare type of situation where immediate action is required. Was there something wrong or inappropriate with the revert itself (for example, if the admin closed it appropriately per SNOW, the revert would obviously be disruption)? If not, what's the issue? Isn't this a no harm, no foul situation? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Kanguole, the policy on whether moves can be closed early after re-listing appears to be ambiguous and thus on a policy basis my action seems a reasonable interpretation. The only possible behavioural issue raised is that I may have unintentionally caused the closing admin to lose face, which I have already apologised for.

If you can't explain to me what I've actually done wrong I have no idea why we are having this discussion, and really you shouldn't be raising this without some element of obvious wrongdoing.

You could also say that I've managed to upset Mike and I am sorry about that. However unless I have done something wrong, either by breaking a rule, or behaving in a way that's socially unacceptable I don't see why that is worth discussing here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Mike Cline

This incident started when I closed an RM on Feb 11 that had been open since Jan 17, ~27 days. Within 90 minutes of the close, Eraserhead reverted my close without discussion with me. I engaged him on his talk page without success. Late on Feb 12, I sought advice from a fellow admin which is restated below: Advice sought on RM situation- I thought I’d ask your advice on this situation. On January 17, this RM was initiated. I watched the discussion everyday. On Feb 6, I relisted the discussion with this comment essentially saying it’s been a stalemate so far and unlikely to result in anything but a no consensus decision unless one side or the other made significant movement. On Feb 7, an involved editor opened this tread Closing the move discussion that began discussing how the RM should be closed. On Feb 8, another thread entitled 218.250.159.25 was opened that began impuning the motivations of various IP editors who contributed to the RM discussion. I considered all of these threads as connected—RM, closing the move and the IP discussion. The direction of the discussion was clear, there was no consensus developing and bad behavior on the part of some was making the discussion personal. On Feb 11, I closed the discussion as no consensus. [49]. Within 90 minutes, an involved editor (not an admin), reverted my close claiming that I had not let it run for 7 days after relisting. This was done without discussion or even asking me about it. I engaged the involved editor here on their talk page [50], but as of now there has been no movement on his part and I doubt there will be. I don’t think reverting my close without asking me about it is in any way acceptable behavior. However, I am not going to enter into a revert war about this as there is zero upside to that. Additionally, I am not going to close this RM again (I actually think the involved editor thinks I am). My question to you is this. Apart from my close only 5 days after relisting, which may or may not have been a tactical error (there was significant indication that other editors wanted this RM closed), does this behavior on the part of an involved editor in an RM discussion warrant discussion at ANI? Any advice will be appreciated. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Based on the sage advice I recieved, I chose not to pursue this and to recuse myself from closing this RM. On Feb 14, once the RM hit the backlog, I relisted it again because there had been some additional discussion ongoing and maybe a consensus was possible. In my relisting comment, I indicated that I would not further involve myself in the close of this RM. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It is good practice to at least notify when reverting things like that. Generally it should not be a big deal, generally things can wait for the person who acted to self-revert, and generally no one should be annoyed, upset or think they have "lost face", although we all understand that having a carefully thought out action reverted can be annoying. All that said I see no need for admin action here, so I am marking this as resolved. Rich Farmbrough, 00:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC).

For the record I did make a notification. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Frustrated

Resolved

 – User warned, admin-o-sphere on alert. Rich Farmbrough, 00:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC).

After a lot of work I put in maintaining Belgrade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is still a WP:FA, I must say I'm really frustrated by apparently underage kids, like Filipdr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who never read the talk page, never leave an edit summary, and remove the material from the talk page that does not support their view [51]. Finally, he provides a reference on his own talk page [52] only after a dozen appeals...[53][] Naturally, he goes on to push his favorite changes by means of revert-warring [54]. Then, after I put his own reference to the article, just to settle the matter [55], he [56] reverts it, because my edit also removed his favorite picture (600px-high collage disputed on the talk page long time ago). That revert, of course, also reverts some minor vandalism inserted in the meantime.

I'm sure he means well, but he's a prototypical example of Randy in Boise. Since I really don't have the nerve to guide him by the hand and explain the importance of citing, consensus, edit warring, manual of style, I'll bow to anyone's else handling of the situation. That of course includes my own behavior. While I may seem to wp:own the article, I'd just like to have it conform to high FA standards, but I don't feel like babysitting. This is, unfortunately, an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. No such user (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Question: What Immediate Administrative Action are you requesting? If you are seeking to have the page protected against random edits WP:RFPP is the venue. If it's to raise concern about an editor WP:WQA or WP:RFC/U are the venue. All editors are encouraged to help explain policies to editors and to guide editors into productive editing. Hasteur (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The chap's talkpage history is full of deleted warnings for edit warring. I've left a final warning, if he reverts again, he faces being blocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've tried to impress the need for consensus on them. No such user, I'm sure you'll keep an eye on it and will let someone (Elen, myself, or the rest of the world) know anything exciting is happening. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Continued image copyright violations

Resolved

 – Importance of observing copyright standards stressed. No further action at this time Rich Farmbrough, 01:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC).

Traditionalydivine (talk · contribs) continues to reupload the same two images of Gopal Krishan, which were first deleted in June 2011, now for the fourth time. The last time they were deleted after a discussion on January 31. I'd appreciate help in getting the user to understand that image licensing is a serious matter and that we can't continue to monitor Gopal Krishan for copyvio reuploads. Thank you and best regards Hekerui (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have left a welcome and a message stressing the importance of copyright. The article itself is a mess, and possibly non-notable. If the user continues to upload the files we will have to block, otherwise no further admin action required.

vandalism by wiki13

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Wiki13 has acknowledged his error; nothing for admins to do at this time. 28bytes (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

---

a usernames wiki13 keeps deleting my question on the reference science desk with no explanation or justification will administrator please tell him to stop and take action against him --208.86.2.205 (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Odd that half of this IP's postings are to ANI. That it is from a hosting provider explains it as a proxy. Toddst1 (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the OP is also 208.86.2.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which has more edits in mainspace. In any event, it appears that Wiki13 (talk · contribs) has been reverting the OP's question on the basis of vandalism, but it looks like a legitimate reference desk question. Singularity42 (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wiki13 has also just deleted the message I left him on his talk page and attempt to cover up what he's done--208.86.2.205 (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be resolved. Wiki13 reverted his initial reverts at the Reference Desk, and acknowledged his error in an edit summary on his talk page. This is not a "cover up". I do not believe further admin action is required. Singularity42 (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wiki13 deleted my question about a half dozen times in a row that is not a mistake that's a deliberate action — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.86.2.205 (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Wiki13 is using Igloo, so this might constitute a misuse of that tool. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

(After some edit conflicts): I'm not misusing Igloo. It's just sometimes difficult to something is vandalism or not, since English is not my motherlanguage (see also my user page). Also, i don't understand all the policies here on the English Wikipedia. I admit that i made a mistake but that's human being. --Wiki13 (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This appears to be a one-off error, partly caused by not taking into account the IP's edit was to a Reference Desk. A random selection of Wiki13's use of Igloo demonstrates that it is not being misused. If Wiki13 is more careful in the future, especially with regards to Reference Desk questions, I don't see the need for admin action. Singularity42 (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If you struggle to understand English, and if you do not understand the policies of the English Wikipedia, it would be wise in cases of doubt not to accuse other users of vandalism. It might also be wise to steer clear of tools such as Igloo until you are more familiar with the language and with the policies. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that editors are allowed to remove warnings from their own talk-pages. It is an acknowledgment of having read it and little else, regardless of whether they or others think it is actually hiding anything. See WP:BLANKING. DMacks (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wiki13 broke the rules and there has to be a punishment for that. I think a 24 hour block would be appropriate and would help him to follow the rules next time. I'm also concerned that someone who says that they don't understand the rules on Wikipedia is allowed to use the igloo tool and is reverting other people's edits.--208.86.2.203 (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocks are used to prevent, not punish. GiantSnowman 17:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Igloo is a public tool anyone can use. He has already apologized for the mistake, let it drop. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

@IP: I said: I don't understand all the policies here on the English Wikipedia. With this i mean, i know much of the policies here, but not all of them. --Wiki13 (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocks are also used to punish if someone vandalizes an article there has to be a punishment for that. And like I said you reverted my edits a half a dozen times that is not a mistake he did it on purpose and if he has so little understanding of the policies on wikipedia he shouldn't be editing at all. He also broke the 3rr rule. There is no way my edit could have been misconstrued as anything other than a legitimate edit.--208.86.2.203 (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.86.2.203 (talk)

"Blocks are used to prevent disruption, not to punish" is the policy. Don't make this into a WP:BOOMERANG complaint about someone not knowing policy. We only block article-vandals if they are involved in ongoing vandalism--to prevent continuation--not if they noticeably stopped by the time anyone noticed. DMacks (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that if he did this he will not do similar actions in the future--208.86.2.206 (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC) will

That's a shame. Per the comments he made here and advice he received from others, it remains to be seen whether he has learned. DMacks (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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

User Beetstra removing referenced content

Moved to Talk:Granada Reports Nobody Ent 20:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Blind bot tagging

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

user:Kumioko has a bot, User talk:Kumi-Taskbot, which is blindly tagging anything and everything with the word America (and derivations) for the Wikiproject United States, including unquestionably out of scope, such as Americano FC (a Brazilian football team). This is disruptive and must stop. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The relevant talk discussion between Kumioko and Marks88. Also note that Marks88 makes the claim in the same talk page that WikiProject Connecticut can remove any WikiProject Banners from talk pages as they seem fit. Kumioko opened a discussion on this at the Village pump. Bgwhite (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There's also a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval, since this was an approved task, for some odd reason. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Marked as NOTHERE. This belongs at WT:BRfA (for discussion about the specific approval) or the village pump (for discussion about the scope of WikiProjects in general). I've asked Kumioko to stop the bot until this is resolved, so it's not an urgent issue. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Madman has shut down the BRFA discussion, claiming it isn't about the approval of the bot to tag everything starting with "America" or "United States" as being part of WPUS.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not, seeing as that's not what the parameters were either in the request or in the approval. Thanks, — madman 01:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, check out item 1 under discussion here. --Kumioko (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The parameters were "tag everything in these three lists". Really not my fault that you didn't think to ask him how those lists were generated -- especially since he explicitly stated during the discussion that one of the lists was "articles Starting with United States", right after Josh caught him tagging Talk:United States of China.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Bgwhite, please note that is not what I said: I said that there is no rule against removing Wikiproject tags from a page. Which there is not. I also pointed out that I was being surgical and only removing the more ridiculous tags. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Well the issue is closed and the bot is stopped. No more bot, no more issue and I have no more time to spend talking about these stupid petty complaints. --Kumioko (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Not listening to legitimate complaints because some are petty isn't a very good thing to do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have already admitted that some were valid and was working on identifying them to be fixed. The vast majority of the complaints were just nonsense though. I have about 150, Mark and Sarek would want me to revert them all which is just plain stupid. Since the bots dead though, there's no point in worrying about it. They'll wash out eventually. Maybe I'll fix some manually. --Kumioko (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible legal threat

Resolved

 – Indef blocked NLT Nobody Ent 23:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This started with an editor, Trojancowboy (talk · contribs) insisting that Jamie Kelso couldn't be a white supremacist because there is no such thing, and using the word libellous. I provided a reliable source for that description (I was going to go to BLPN to discuss how it should be used, but this has priority). I asked him to make it clear that he intended no legal action. His reply was that he has 'no immediate plans for a lawsuit (this is at Talk:Jamie Kelso, not his talk page. I repeated my request saying 'no immediate plans' isn't good enough, and adding that he needs to say he doesn't intend to encourage others to sue. His response is "I will notify Jamie Kelso by some means and you can discuss it with him. This is not my biography. I am trying to keep Wikipedia from getting sued. I recommend the restoral of the dubious tag. It is not to be frivolously removed over a serious matter like this." Since I'm involved in this article and in another (2011 Spokane bombing attempt) where there's another attempt to remove the phrase 'white supremacist' (even to the extent of changing it to white nationalist in sourced text despite the source saying whtie supremacist' I'm obviously not going to use my tools. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no legal threat here because Trojancowboy is not Jamie Kelso and therefore would have no standing to file a lawsuit on Kelso's behalf. It is an interesting question whether it is against policy to state on-wiki that if content isn't changed, an editor will encourage someone else to sue, but I don't think that falls with WP:NLT as usually understood. In addition, merely observing that article content about someone might be libelous is not always a legal threat, although as stated in the policy, it will often be better to use other words to express this concept.

I have no view on whether the term "white separatist" or "white supremecist" should be used, or whether one is better in some contexts and another in others (that could very possibly be the case). However, comments by Trojancowboy such as "no organization that I know of wants to rule over other races. They merely want to be rid of them" are deeply troublesome. I recommend that someone take a closer look at the overall acceptability of Trojancowboy's edits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The user stated during their 3rd unblock request that they usually edit science articles[57], but a further look at their contribs shows that when they are not editing articles about science or Iceland, they are editing articles on Nazis, Neonazis, holocaust deniers and white supremacists, with the occassional Jewish or African American thrown in (generally unflattering info or naming them as Jewish, but usually cited). As with this case the user has at other times objected to white supremacist being labeled as such, as well as whitewashing other aspects of their reputations: 2011 Spokane bombing attempt[58], [59] and [60], David Dukediff,[61], and [62], and Edgar Steele[63]. A few of the contribs with the article titles are problematic as a general trend:Richard Girnt Butler, Archibald Roberts, Mike Nifong[64], Approach-avoidance conflict[65], Hajo Herrmann[66], The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Ernst Zündel[67], Talk:Herbert Hoover[68], Nick Griffin, Harold Cruse[69], Louis Farrakhan[70], Naomi Wolf [71], and Sylvia Stolz[72]. Heiro 07:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

NLT does state as a rationale that legal threats create "bad feelings and a lack of trust amongst the community, damaging our ability to proceed quickly and efficiently with an assumption of mutual good faith." One might consider a threat to encourage others to take legal action as evidence of hostility toward the project and disruption in general, so blocks may result in that hypothetical case. --Chris (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether he has legal standing or not is irrelevant. NLT is to prevent the chilling effect of threatening legal action against another editor. In this case, it's vague enough I'm not sure NLT applies, but the editor making such comments could use a stern talking to about WP:V. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• The intention is perfectly clear. We have an editor who has been campaigning to keep certain content out of an article. That editor mentions a possible legal threat from a specified person, and states that he has the intention of bringing the issue to the intention of that person. No person of normal intelligence who has read the editor's comments impartially can fail to see that the intention is to imply that he intends to take steps to bring about legal action, with the intention of intimidating other Wikipedia editors into not opposing the attempts of that editor to exclude the relevant content from the article. (A "chilling" effect.) The fact that the editor has taken steps to avoid actually threatening to take direct legal action himself is irrelevant: he has clearly sought to imply the intention of bringing about legal action by proxy. The editor's actions are unambiguously covered by the spirit of Wikipedia:No legal threats. That policy also refers to "comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats", under which category this certainly falls. The editor was informed of this discussion and was invited "to make it clear there that you are not intending to take any legal action or encourage others to do so". The editor has edited since then, so it is reasonable to assume he has seen that advice, but after substantially more than an hour has not responded. If this were a misunderstanding about the intentions of someone who did not intend to "take any legal action or encourage others to do so" then he would have had ample opportunity to clarify the situation, quite apart from the fact that the editors comments make it difficult to contemplate such an interpretation anyway. A "no legal threats" block is fully justified, and I shall impose one. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Just borrow a theme from meta-wiki and block for "intimidating behavior". The closest policy that I can think of here covering that is WP:DE. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Good block. WP:NLT doesn't say No Valid Legal Threats, it says No Legal Threats, and encouraging somebody else to sue over the content of an article (or, IMHO, even "saying they will point somebody to an article in the anticipation they will want to sue over it") is an unambigious legal threat. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Implied legal threat in a NLTs unblock request[73]? Heiro 22:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yo dawg, I put a legal threat in your legal threat? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems like an explicit legal threat to me. This is the first time I've seen a legal threat within an unblock request... Probably the easiest way I know of to remain blocked.--WaltCip (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I've seen them before, and it just reinforces the impression of total lack of clue. But then, the POV pushing that originally drew the attention of myself and several other editors had already revealed that.Heiro 22:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Having once been unfairly indef'd as a newby for merely observing that an edit might be libelous (withough in the least saying that I intended to do anything about it in the real world), I have to observe here that the same kind of still seems to be doing on, despite the warnings about assuming this about newbies in WP:NLT. Worse, the policy is ambiguous. WP:NLT states explicitly that Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified. Okay, but it's very coy on whose reponsibility it is to carry that removal out. Certainly subjects who feel personally libeled in a BLP are invited to "contact the information team at info-enwikimedia.org," but what about everybody else reading and editing the article? Are they supposed to wait for the subject to do that? WP's BLP policy clearly makes this EVERY editor's responsiblity to delele defamation first (WP:BRD) and argue later. But now the problem: if you (as an editor not the subject of the BLP) delete what you think is a libelous statement in a BLP, what do you put as a reason, on the TALK page, and in your defending edit summary? "Removed due to troublesome assertion about a living subject?" maybe? If you say anything about defamation, you are implying that the editor who made the edit you're removing has put in a defamatory statement. So that's an indirect accusation of defamation (defamation doesn't happen all by itself without a person who added the defamatory content). If EVEN this kind of indirect implication thing is held to violate WP:NLT, then all discussion of whether or not an edit is, or is not, defamatory, would need to be held in SECRET, offline. Is that what we're down to, here on this encyclopedia with BLPs that anybody can edit? Seems kind of stupid to me. SBHarris 23:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Go look at the diffs for that page, the talk page and the users edit summaries a little closer, paying attention to the time stamps. Although I don't doubt your account of your own experience, this users experience is quite different. Heiro 23:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

(Why would this discussion be "closed?" As though followup discussion is prohibited...) Sbharris, what happened to you is indeed unfortunate. NLT states: "For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended." My suggestion regarding an appropriate edit summary would be something like "removing possible defamation (this is not a legal threat)." The word "possible" along with an explicit declaration to make yourself clear should prevent any misunderstanding. It sounds a bit silly, but it removes all ambiguity.

Now, having said that, NLT also states: "Rather than blocking immediately, administrators should seek to clarify the user's meaning and make sure that a mere misunderstanding is not involved." In cases of ambiguity, admins should not be issuing indef blocks. If your experience involved ambiguous comments and you were blocked with no discussion, I would place the error squarely on the shoulders of the blocking admin. --Chris (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The blocked user here did not remove any material, they just placed a "dubious-discuss" tag on information they personally disagreed with, without providing citations on the discussion page. Another user and myself both added citations to the disputed information and removed the tag. The user then replaced the tag and began making accusation of libel and promises to tell the subject of the article so they could pursue legal action, still without providing citations or any other material at the talk page. They were asked to retract or clarify their statements concerning their accusation of libel, both on the article talk and at their user talk. They did not, so the other user, an involved admin, brought the mater here for neutral input on the matter. They were subsequently blocked per NLT by an uninvolved admin. In three separate unblock requests now, they refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, but they have kind of backed away from the NLT with their last one [74]. Heiro 01:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not indicating that this block was inappropriate; I was responding to Sbharris' comment only, in particular about the edit summary issue. --Chris (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Chris, discussions like this usually get closed when there's nothing else for admins to do. If you dispute the decision, that's fine, but we don't generally keep talking just to talk. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

NOTFORUM does not apply to discussions about Wikipedia policies and their potential impact, it is about discussing the subjects of articles with no effort to improve the encyclopedia. --Chris (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Deleting (references to) moved comments on Talk:Daniel Pipes

Please review the removal of (references to) his comments by User:Jayjg here and here.

Jayjg and me were discussing on my personal Talk-page an addition I did at the Daniel Pipes page. But after a while, I came to the conclusion that we would not be able to find a resolution, so I moved the whole thread to the Talk page of Daniel Pipes in order to attract comments of other editors (note that Jayjg was canvassing to do the same). Subsequently, Jayjg removed his comments altogether as he wrote "my comments were meant for a user talk page, not an article talk page. I did not give consent to have them moved to an entirely different context.". Fair enough, so I replaced the paragraphs where used to be his comments with diff links to those comments - for other editors to be able to still follow the thread.
Next he also removed those diff links. So after that I put diff links to his original edits at my talk page, which, you guess, he also removed.
He wrote on his talk page that I create the false impression he commented on the Talk page of Daniel Pipes page, but the section is clearly headed "Moved discussion".
I consider his removal of the diff links to his comments, as a modification of my comments.
Please advice. -- Honorsteem (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Honorsteem feels it's appropriate to move my template warnings to an article talk page, or even my user page discussion with him there, but I made it clear to him that I

1. made the comments in the context of a user page discussion, which have different rules governing them than article talk pages,
2. did not authorize him to add comments to that article talk page with my signature, giving the impression that I had made those comments there, and
3. did not want him then adding comments indicating that I had "deleted" the comments, thus giving the impression that I first made the comments on the article talk page, and then later retracted them.

I see no reason why Honorsteem needs to move the comments to the article talk page at all. I note his user page indicates he is making a WP:Clean start, and I've received an email suggesting that he is an editor who has been twice permanently banned by the Arbitration Committee. I'm not familiar with the editor in question, but this doesn't feel like a "clean" start to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The clean start has nothing to do with this incident, it is on my user page for transparency reasons. I made a clean start too on the Dutch Wikipedia, because my original user name felt too much indentifiable to me IRL. I didn't indicate the clean start there clear enough and it was mistaken for sockpuppet abuse. I tried to argue my case there, but failed. To prevent any such confusion here, I indicated the clean start on my user page. Before all the confusion around the clean start on the Dutch Wikipedia I had no issues. As far as I can recall I have never encountered Jayjg before. Administrators can contact me through email if they want to know my old user credentials. -- Honorsteem (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether these particular comments belong on a talk page (because I haven't read them) I will point out that the license you release your edits under allows another editor to move them anywhere and for any reason so long as you are attributed. They technically do not need any authorization to do so and if the editor is soliciting editor opinion in good faith then I see nothing inappropriate about moving a conversation from a user page to a talk page (I'm sure I've done it myself at some point). This, of course, is based on the assumption that the conversation is relevant to the topic of the talk page to which its being used. I'm not sure how warning messages for a user could be relevant on an article talk page. N^oformation ^Talk 20:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Those warnings are of course not too relevant, but the thread went from those warning messages into the topic of the article page, and to avoid deciding arbitrarily where to cut, I copied the whole thread. Also, I think that is not the main concern of Jajyg -- Honorsteem (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's some suggestions:

1. Refactoring the thread slightly might be worthwhile, removing the templates and replacing them with a note.
2. Copying is probably better than moving. Leave a note on your talk page, and make it clear on the article talk page where the thread id moved from.
3. Noformation is perfectly correct, you are at liberty to do this if you think it helps.
4. Please both of you are old hands, WP:AGF, and work on resolving the issue, not arguing about the location of the discussion.

Rich Farmbrough, 01:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC).

I think there's a more fundamental issue here: User:Honorsteem is a banned editor. He's been banned twice from Dutch Wikipedia, banned twice from English Wikipedia, and is still banned on both. When I warned him about a BLP violation, he argued with me, then starting moving my posts around, then followed me to an entirely unrelated page to oppose me, then brought me here to complain about me. As far as I can tell, what I should have done, and should still do, is block this sockpuppet, and delete or strike all of his contributions, per WP:BAN. I have not yet seen any reason why I shouldn't still do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I dont have any blocks on en.wikipedia, please don't smear. Also now Jayjg removes my comments from his Talk page, I didn't know that is allowed like that? For me this discussion was closed with the copyright consideration. -- Honorsteem (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you claiming you have not twice been banned on en-wiki? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

From the department of redundancy department, Wikipedia:Clean start: "A clean start is not permitted if there are active bans, blocks or sanctions (including, but not limited to those listed here) in place against the old account." Is this the case here? And who or what would decide--a CU? Drmies (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Please block the IP 91.140.87.114 permanently

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

---

Resolved

 – Off to SPI!

The IP 91.140.87.114, is yet another IP sock of banned user Picker78. Please refer to his contributions in comparison to those of Picker78. Also note that Picker78 has a long list of attempts of avoiding his ban. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Picker78 which doesn't include some of his recent IPs. He's also been vandalizing my user page lately. Lost on Belmont (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note, you may want to report this at WP:SPI instead, which is a more focused noticeboard designed to deal with issues like this. --Jayron32 22:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I semi-protected your user page. If you don't want that, any admin will be glad to undo. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the semi, Drmies. I'll go to SPI directly. Lost on Belmont (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Improper use of Wikipedia

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

---

Kimberly camba (talk · contribs) seems to be more interested in plugging themselves and their YouTube channel/shows than in contributing to the encyclopedia. I just deleted the user page (as promotional) and Chrysoprase (TV Series) (A7, but promotional as well. Their talk page is full of warnings and notifications of all kinds--a true cornucopia of what not to do on Wikipedia. Any solutions? Drmies (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Indef block would be a solution. Nobody Ent 01:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Indef applied per WP:NOTHERE, WP:IDHT, WP:NOTPROMO and WP:COMPETENCE. That long list of warnings and not one talk page edit in their entire contribution history...oi. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Well that's that then. You fellas work quickly. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Name Change

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

---

Hello. I am changing my name from User:Dragon Rapide to just User: Rapide. Just a notification, it's not sockpuppetry. Dragon Rapide (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If you'd like you can move your old talk/user pages to the new versions and have the old pages redirect to your new account. Let us know if anyone can assist you in that. N^oformation ^Talk 00:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

See WP:RENAME -- bureaucrats will do it for you. In any event, just leave notes on your userpages. Nobody Ent 00:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC) formerly Gerardw

I like it. "Rapide" has a nice ring to it. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Not quite vandalism, perhaps a plea for help

Resolved

 – IP's original attempted addition confirmed and re-added to the article by Bilby. Swarm ^X 05:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I came across this edit following an AIV report. It doesn't look like your typical vandalism, more like a frustrated plea for help. I'm sure someone reading ANI will know what to do with it. Toddst1 (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It may be worthwhile to notify someone at the Home Office directly. Maybe User:Philippe (WMF). --Jayron32 04:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That diff is several months old and was reverted immediately (I suspect that you didn't notice that? :P). They claimed to have been a candidate in that election who declined, and repeatedly added themselves to the section.[75][76][77] Apparently Angela Beesely Starling responded to their email, but no action was ever taken regarding the article. I suppose someone can do some digging to evaluate the validity of the claim if they want, but bottom line, it's an old incident and the article looks fine. Swarm ^X 04:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. I was able to confirm that he did run, and for a time was the only Democrat candidate. There are a few sources confirming this, with a couple of articles on him personally, although he never had official Democrat Party backing. btw, there was a bit of vandalism which was attacking him added to the page about a month ago which was missed - I've removed that as well. [78] - Bilby (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Good job. Better late than never, I guess. Can only wonder what the deal was with Angela, but at least the original issue has been resolved. Swarm ^X 05:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sadly our quality queue (for BLP concerns) on OTRS is still jammed with many requests not yet answered, some going back at least that far. We just don't have enough volunteers (and for this queue, experienced volunteers). It's not easy work and a ticket can take a long time to handle, not just because they are often tricky but also that you often get responses from your original reply that have to be answered. There are about 100 tickets still in the queue. Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Dougweller, I proposed a possible solution to the quality queue quandary, but have had little feedback. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

User repeatedly adds copyrighted content

I'd like some assistance with RobertHWilson (talk · contribs) / 108.204.19.76 (talk · contribs); both I and User:LaMenta3 have tried to explain Wikipedia's image policy, but he persists in adding images from the internet to articles (generally related to Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football). Hopefully we can explain that it's not just lame and annoying, and that we're not trolling, it's the law. :) Disavian (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I also wish there was a clearer template progression when users add copyrighted content. I'm more used to traditional vandalism where there's the distinct levels and then you report it to AIV. Disavian (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

For images with false or missing licensing/source information, there is in fact the "uw-ics"1/2/3 series. Just gave him one of those. Thanks for reporting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I made this edit so it will jump out better. Doc talk 08:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out... not sure how I overlooked that one. Disavian (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Poor Korean biographical stubs which seem to come from a model or template

If a chronic, rather than acute, problem like this is not an "incident" and should be discussed elsewhere, my apologies and please move it to the right place and let me know! PamD 14:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

While stub-sorting I've been finding a series of badly-written Korean historical biographical stubs which look as if they are all from the same template or model, although from different, usually newby, editors. They all have years in dates linked; the lead sentence mangles singular and plural (eg "Yi Jae-hyun(korean:이제현, hanja:李齊賢, 1287–1367) was a politicians and early Korean Neo-Confucianism scholar and philosopher, Writer, Poets."); they tend not to use capital letters for sentence starts; they usually have both {{stub}} and {{Korea-bio-stub}}; they use non-standard section headings. I've raised it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea#Mass-produced_biographical_stubs.3F, but they continue. They started Nov 11 or earlier. I've mentioned problems to individual editors, but they continue. I don't know whether a student group has been given poor instruction and urged to edit, or what, but it's sad to see such a string of poor quality additions. Any ideas what can be done? PamD 14:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Strange page move and edits

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

---

Could someone please check out the recent edit history at what is now: Paging Grace

I am not sure if this is a case of vandalism or just an admin error. The edits took what had been a guideline page (Wikipedia:Page name), changed its title and turned the guideline into a regular article about a rock band. There was apparently a page move request regarding the title of the guideline... so it may be simply a case of unintentional crossed wires somewhere. In any case, it struck me as odd that a guideline would suddenly become an article in mainspace.

Never mind... it seems to have been corrected. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Page name doesn't look corrected to me.  ⊃°HotCrocodile...... + 14:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I am not sure what is happening... the editor has changed the title yet again... needs an admin to sort it all out. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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

3RR Violation and edit warring by Markvs88

I would like to ask for administrator action regarding an ongoing disagreement between myself and Markvs88. When I attempt to make changes to an article on this users watchlist they revert it without hesitation regardless of the edits being made. Secondly, Markvs88 has violated the 3RR rule by reverting the changes too many times and rather than continue into an edit war myself I am bringing the issue here for resolution. The following 3 articles are presented:\

• Talk:American Crossword Puzzle Tournament - 1, 2, 3
• Talk:American Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut - 1, 2
• Talk:American Cruise Lines - 1, 2, 3.

The source of this trouble is Markvs88 displaying innappropriate ownership over articles in the scope of WikiProject Connecticut and not allowing another related project, WikiProject United States, to add a banner. In some 2 cases above he also removed tags of other related States projects such as Rhode Island, New York and New York City. I have left the user multiple warnings but the users continues to revert any changes being made. --Kumioko (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems like this might be a matter for WP:AN3 rather than here. Doniago (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Or, indeed, of me being stalked by Kumioko. Or bad faith that he refuses to even discuss the issue at hand. But hey, I'm happy to discuss it anywhere. Also, I could not have reverted 3RR before Kumioko did, so I'm looking forward to hearing how this goes! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, the source of this trouble is Kumioko's bot tagging every article on Wikipedia that starts with "America" or "United States" as being in the scope of WikiProject United States. Including, of course, Americano (cocktail), Americano do Brasil, and Americans of European descent, that last being a redirect to Caucasian race.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If the bot's malfunctioning, I'd block it. But is this a case of bad input, or of the bot going off the reservation? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, bot stopped editing about a day ago. But still problematic. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Bad input. Kumioko claimed that he had removed problematic items from his lists, but it's clear he didn't review them closely enough. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The bot was doing exactly what it was supposed to do but it has been stopped, unfortunately a lot of other tasks arent getting done either but thats another matter. Sarek's comments are off topic and he is just trying to cloud the issue with bad input. I am not talking about those articles, the bot, the tagging run or anything else.I brought this here rather than get into an edit war over the actions of Markvs88. I am talking about Markvs88 violatingn 3RR and edit warring. Since Sarek mentioned the list. I tagged about 11, 000 articles of which about 150 were incorrect such as the ones he mentioned above. A very low error rate of about .825% --Kumioko (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For example, he tagged American Tourister as being in-scope. When I reverted that, he reverted me as vandalism, only later realizing that it actually was in the scope of WikiProject Rhode Island, which he took over with no actual community input in September 2011. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Stop making up numbers, please -- you have absolutely no idea how many are incorrect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

(EC) That's absolutely not vandalism, nor are the other removals linked above. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

So any user is free to remove the work of other users? Thats completely absurd. Sarek you are just confusing the issue with. I have already admitted there were some errors. I am not talking about those I am talking about the 3 specific ones above and Markvs88 conduct. --Kumioko (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You may wish to review the header on this page - all edits by all involved parties are reviewed, including those of the reporting editor. And, on the merits, I'm really trying hard to find a reason not to block you outright for disruptive editing (Edit Warring and Highlighting non-vandalism edits as Vandalism). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)