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. 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 quited WP because of the intractable governance system in which experts are not liked and style warriors can impose their will at the wiki at large. Combined with the total lack of quality control (you never know what is right or wrong at an individual page), and the elevation of that to the gospel makes it a less than interesting past-time for me. The troubles at WP:EQUINE have not been part of my decision. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC) PS. I have no pronblems with MontanaBW in case anybody is wondering.

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)

(1)Actually your analogy isn't really reasonable, more accurate would be using battered woman defense as a reason for diminished responsibility. I'm not defending Montanabw's actions, but you're not blameless here. (2) I do not see anything wrong with that. Dana reverted with a reasonable edit summary. She was under no oblicaton to welcome the editor. (3)Moving forward sounds like a good idea. Let's look at the next section. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:21, 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)

Worm's three suggestions to me work for me, whether JLAN agrees or not. I would like to add to his list that JLAN not edit any article if Dana boomer is the person who has nominated it for GA or FA, but bring any concerns to talk only. As for me,wWith the caveat that I fear that even editing and discussing content is sometimes perceived as an attack by me upon JLAN, I can take a shot at doing these things. 1) I will avoid attributing motive to JLAN, I will not give him advice, and I will not post on his talk page unless he invites me to do so or I must post a mandatory notice. 2) I will "back off" from JLAN if he also agrees to back off from me, within reason, given that our interests inevitably overlap. I will volunteer to let him have the donkey/equus asinus articles all to his little self, save where they encompass both horses and donkeys. It's where he is at now anyway, and my frustration did lead me to make a too-obvious insult related to the topic which I should not have made. I don't have the time to do counter-research anyway. I will also avoid pigs and chickens, where he has also worked. Let the community address him there, I'm out. I cannot agree to avoid him in horse articles, it's where 90% of my work is; however, should he appear, I will evaluate his edits for what they are worth, without attributing motive. If I believe there is a need to revert any edits by JLAN where third parties have also been involved, I will be careful to not undo their work and shall comment on each change on a case by case basis. 3) As for WP:OWN, I am fully aware that I do not "own" any article; I get accused of this a lot, though, so it's probably my tone, even if not my motive. I believe this occurs because people fail to understand that their edits are subject to the same scrutiny as mine and don't realize that exercising quality control is not "ownership." But, I'll watch the snark and try to be less impatient (I cannot guarantee perfection, after doing 40 kiddie vandal reverts equivalent to "Joey has a penis like a horse" I do get a bit hasty and impatient...). Let me publicly state that I enjoy a good, respectful discussion and I believe difference of opinion can ALWAYS be discussed; I could provide dozens of diffs where after a good discussion, my own views have changed, often markedly. (I hesitate to do so, though, for fear I will be giving JLAN a new round of articles to attack -- however, my understanding of how the dominant white gene works is one example that I think JLAN has already looked at, and Countercanter did most of the research on that article anyway, so probably no risk to mention that one here.) So if that works for Worm, I invite JLAN to also agree to Worm's suggestions. Montanabw^(talk) 17:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

There does not seem to be a logged notification for POVbrigand . Somebody should also request HJMitchell to log his official notification to Gregory Goble on the arbcom page, Mathsci (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought I did the notification here: [28]. Maybe there is something about the procedures I am missing since I have never been involved in Arbitration. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Continued image copyright violations

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

---

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.

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

Blind bot tagging

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.

This boiled over in another thread further down the page and Kumioko is now blocked for (at least) 31 hours. Further discussion should take place down there to avoid confusion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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)

Your above comment comes across as "I've been forced to halt the task, so screw it, someone else will clean up the mess eventually. Maybe I'll help if I feel like it." Is that what you meant? —David Levy 17:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No not exactly but I can't stop typing replies in discussions long enough to do any research to fix the problem. Everyone just wants to assume bad faith rather than just identify the problem and let me fix it. I already admitted the bot tagged some articles incorrectly and was more than happy and willing to admit that and fix them but some editors like Mark and Sarek just kept sharpening the stick and poking me with it. --Kumioko (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Who's assuming bad faith? Has someone accused you of deliberately mistagging articles? —David Levy 17:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering why this appeared on my watchlist. (American Dog was the original working title of a film released as Bolt.) American Tail was tagged too. Does the WikiProject's scope include all motion pictures produced/set in the United States?
Wait, I see that American Werewolf in London was tagged, and that was filmed (and the story takes place) in the United Kingdom. Does the WikiProject's scope include all motion pictures produced by American studios? All motion pictures with American characters?
I didn't look beyond the bot's most recent edits, incidentally. —David Levy 17:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

They would have fallen under |UScinema= had I been allowed to finish. --Kumioko (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Was it infeasible to simply tag them that way in the first place? (Forgive my ignorance of the bot's capabilities.) —David Levy 17:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Possible legal threat

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

---

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[29], 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[30], [31] and [32], David Dukediff,[33], and [34], and Edgar Steele[35]. A few of the contribs with the article titles are problematic as a general trend:Richard Girnt Butler, Archibald Roberts, Mike Nifong[36], Approach-avoidance conflict[37], Hajo Herrmann[38], The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Ernst Zündel[39], Talk:Herbert Hoover[40], Nick Griffin, Harold Cruse[41], Louis Farrakhan[42], Naomi Wolf [43], and Sylvia Stolz[44]. 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[45]? 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 [46]. 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)

If you want to alter policy, feel free to take it up on the policy page. ANI is for stuff needing immediate attention of an admin, or looking into an admin's actions. And if you're wanting to talk with just one person, taking it up at their talk is preferable. Is there anything else admins need to do here? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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)

Yes, I suggest Jayjg strike his comment above regarding Honorsteem being a banned editor, unless more information comes to light. Kansan (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Honorsteem wrote "Administrators can contact me through email if they want to know my old user credentials." (20:26, 14 February 2012). Obvious suggestion is for an uninvolved admin or CU to email him/her. I didn't check directly into the talkpage/usertalk issue but from context here, absent confirmation of problems with the user history, Rich Farmbrough's comments/suggestions sound sensible to me. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 05:35, 16 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)

Nice block. Thanks for the prompt action when he added another. Disavian (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

After looking through things, I'd strongly suggest upping the block to indef until the user gives indication he clearly understands Wikipedia's copyright policy. He has exhibited WP:OWN type behavior and (as mentioned) has described the expression of copyright concerns as trolling. I don't think a 48-hour sit-down is going to get the point across. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:03, 16 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)

It looks like at least one of the accounts has now been blocked. Unfortunately I'm not sure what else we can do if most articles are created by new accounts and we have no idea where they're coming from. Sadly we have seen poor content work from educational institutions but it could equally be one individual running multiple accounts. Are the article subjects themselves notable? EyeSerene^talk 17:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned, this is not the only such case. I;'ve seen similar from other geographic regions, or on other topics. We need some better way of handling them. The ideal solution is some way to convince the originators that they need to do things properly with good referencing, and give them the needed help for that. But usually the people doing this do not respond to messages, and I can't imagine blocking just to get someones attention when they 've done nothing actually block-worthy. 71.125.252.218 (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If necessary we do issue blocks to get attention - remember a block is not a punishment but a technical means to prevent disruption to Wikipedia, which persistent creation of large numbers of poorly formatted stubs most certainly is. However blocking may be ineffective if the stubs are mostly being created by new accounts each time. We'd be closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

As I see it the range of possible responses are to:

• block the accounts anyway, and keep at it until someone starts listening to concerns and talking to us; or
• delete the articles, and keep at it with new ones until someone starts listening to concerns and talking to us (may be problematic if the subjects are notable though); or
• try to make the best of a bad situation by tagging and/or cleaning up the articles; or
• see if we can write an edit filter to catch the creations (not my area of expertise); or
• some combination of the above.

I'm open to suggestions :) EyeSerene^talk 12:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Tnxman307 has blocked 21 editors as "Abusing multiple accounts". The problem is that almost all of these stubs are created by new (?) editors who arrive, create one or two very markup-heavy article in this format on one day, and don't edit again. Will be interesting to see if it continues now. Of course I don't see them all, only the ones I happen to stub-sort (and if the editor(s) listened when I point out that they don't need {{stub}} as well as {{Korea-bio-stub}}, then I wouldn't see any of them.) They are getting past New Page Patrol without so much as a {{cleanup}} tag, despite linked dates and mangled English.

Have just spotted that a couple, at least, of these editors have a log record saying "Account created automatically" - see Special:Log/Lagnaqar, Special:Log/Jddbc. What does that signify? Is it a clue as to where they are coming from? PamD 14:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Poking around I see that Lagnaqar has uploaded a number of images to Commons where they also have an account. Although I'm just guessing, I strongly suspect the "Account created automatically" tag is because the original account was not created on en-WP and WP:SUL was then used to create unified accounts across all WMF projects. Unfortunately I don't think that gets us any nearer to solving the stub issue though. Perhaps the best thing, now there's been a cull, is as you suggest to wait and see if there's further disruption. EyeSerene^talk 18:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

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). You're responding to questions about the tagging operation, and about these edits in particular, with rage and anger, and that's not helping your cause. Please settle down, have a cup of tea, and discuss the matter. If I know it's not going to continue to be a problem, perhaps we can find a solution. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't helpful, either. See Wikipedia:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want to block me for trying to follow the rules then I guess thats your right. Personally, this all came about because I am getting frustrated by other users beging allowed to repeatedly violate policy and no one seems willing to do anything about it. If reverting another users edits, that improve the article isn't vandalism then I guess I don't know what is. --Kumioko (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

And that right there is precisely the problem. There's a big ol' long discussion at the Village Pump on this very topic - whether the tags are duplicative, what has been (or should be) done if they are, and how WP:US can work with other wikiprojects to ensure that in-scope articles are noted as such without stepping on each other's toes. You know that this discussion is ongoing, because you are a participant in it. It's unclear what the consensus is regarding the rules, so what I see is that you interpreted them one way and reverted as vandalism an editor who disagreed. The step after that first revert would've been to post "I think this should be tagged as WP:US because X". Then you discuss it. You don't repeatedly revert, and you don't declare the project dead because a discussion may not have gone your way. You might consider discussing the issue with other projects and editors, maybe finding a path forward. Drama helps your cause and your project not at all. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Since it isn't a matter of 3RR or vandalism I went ahead andn reverted Markvs88 reversion of my edits again. I am sure he will revert that and we can go back and forth. I was really hoping that we could resolve this issue either here or in the village pump but it seems not. It seems the community would rather have editors showing ownership over articles, violations of policy, constant harrassment of other editors who are just trying to tag articles for their project (who should be able to tag articlesin their scope) rather than have actual constructive edits and cooperation. Its really a shame what is happening these days. Since the discussions are going on Mark should leave the articles tagged in their current state until the discussion is over. I have attempted to discuss is with Mark who refuses to listen insisting that any article tagged as Connecticut is out of WPUS's scope. --Kumioko (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

As that was a declaration of intent to continue edit warring, I've asked the people at WP:EWN to take a look at this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)

Actually, Sarek, it goes much farther: WPUS has "borged" other Wikiprojects as defunct ((ie:WikiProject Massachusetts, with no disucssion (that I could find) at all other than a notice on that talk page. This means that those projects cannot be restored without a LOT of work to seperate them from WPUS. This started after he proposed all state projects be under a common WPUS banner, and there have been other debates on the subject with other editors such as user:racepackcet and myself, which are in the archives of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States. As a note to Kumioko, I *always* leave valid Wikiproject tags on articles, and he full well knows that. That he thinks that things like List of colonial governors of Florida is a WPUS issue is the problem. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sarek, Ultra, this is ridiculous. Is a block imminent here? I am going to revert the edits referred to in the first complaint as disruptive and overly extending the scope of these projects. Kumioko, your restraint will be appreciated; lack thereof will be blockable. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Too late. See below. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if anyone has noticed, but there appears to be a similar ANI thread above (#Blind_bot_tagging) regarding the same two users and same "incident" in question; but with different admins/users participating in that discussion, as oppose to the admins/users commenting on this current thread. Thought I'd best point it out in case it had been missed or overlooked. Wesley☀Mouse 18:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked Kumioko 31 Hours for Edit-Warring. Despite being told that their edits were disruptive and constituted Edit Warring, they went ahead and reverted 3 different articles again. They also posted here their intent to continue such reverts. I'm open to a review of the block, and I know some would've blocked longer - on that point, I defer to consensus. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I also blocked User:Kumi-Taskbot as a result of this edit, and have so notified Kumioko. Not sure how deeply we plan to delve into the bot issue here, despite the thread noted by Wesley Mouse. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support block (although longer) "you're being disruptive, and you're edit-warring" does not mean "ok, I'll go off and do it some more" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support block (and consider extending). Kumioko obviously had no intention of ceasing the edit war. The remark "If reverting another users edits, that improve the article isn't vandalism then I guess I don't know what is." is quite telling, as it indicates unwillingness to even consider the possibility that an opposing viewpoint (Markvs88's belief that the tags don't improve the articles) is defensible. Oddly, Kumioko complained that "everyone just wants to assume bad faith", which is precisely what he's doing by deeming edits with which he disagrees "vandalism". —David Levy 18:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support block blind reversion of users edits, regardless of quality, is something that's so bad I've heard people complaining about it off-wiki. Edits that just don't improve the article (in your view) aren't vandalism. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support block - almost did it myself when I saw this a little earlier -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support and since he has now used his bot to get around his block I would either extend his block or make it indef as abusing multiple accounts. -DJSasso (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  Bots belonging to blocked editors should also be blocked ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  Seems a bit over the top... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  Which is why I suggested the less over the top method of lengthening the block. -DJSasso (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  True :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  NOT a good general rule --SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support block and regretfully propose extension - the continued assumptions of bad faith, combined with edit-warring, declarations to continue edit-warring, block evasion using a bot account, and the overall "I know what is right and you are all wrong" attitude lead me to no other conclusion. I've been somewhat involved at WT:BIRDS trying to discuss things with Kumioko; I thought I might have been getting somewhere but apparently he decided he wasn't going to listen after all. (For those not following the discussion there, his response to his bot willy-nilly tagging bird articles starting with "American foo" with WPUS banners, and then the project pointing out a large number of said taggings weren't appropriate, was to willy-nilly AWB away all the tags on "American foo" bird articles - including completely approprately tagged organization articles and categories - and start tossing around accusations of WP:OWN.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Indef blockClearly this user is no good for the community and never did a useful thing in 7 years and 300+ thousands edits (according to their userpage). WPUS is a huge project with lots of articles and few active members. This one user tried and failed to do it all themselves. Just ban them, (which seems to be what the user is suggesting on their talk page) and disband the project. Thats what everyone wants, quite pussyfooting around the issue and just man up and do what needs to be done. --71.163.243.232 (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

  Based on the contribs of this IP I am pretty sure it is Kumioko evading his block again. -DJSasso (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

  Concur - I've struck through the comment above. I'd also note that apparently Kumioko - ironically considering his comments regarding other WPs - believes he WP:OWNs WPUS and it won't survive without him. One of these days I'll get around to writing WP:THEWIKIDOESNOTNEEDYOU... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

  Yep. Blocked by MuZemike. —David Levy 02:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support block: but no extension for an editor with an unblemished record and incredible service to WPUS. Something like this has been building for a long time: Kumioko has been under intense pressure to keep the momentum going at WPUS while simultaneously dealing woth those who oppose his leadership and vision. He has resurrected a dead project and created a mega-project, almost single-handedly that is the envy of every wikiproject coordinator at wikipedia. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Unfortunatly his leadership and vision appear to have been somewhat...strained by the pressure, apparently, judging by the accusations and overreactions. However, it's entirely possible a WikiBreak (enforced or otherwise) might help. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about this unblemished record either. I remember much bogus ANI drama and dead-horse flagellation surrounding Kumioko's misuse of AWB a while back[47] so this seems like more of the same. I don't understand the purpose of those banners anyway. It used to be that if an article talkpage tab was a bluelink, that meant there was actually some discussion there, so if you clicked it you'd find out something relating to the article's past or ongoing development. If it was a redlink you knew there was no point to clicking it. Now the tabs are mostly bluelinks but when you click them you too often just see those damn banners that tell you nothing. Maybe there's been some past discussion about that, so I don't claim to know what is or isn't established practice, but I find the banners pretty annoying and IMHO it would be better if project tagging were done with hidden categories. Certainly I would urge withdrawal of the bot approval for this particular tagging operation. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
    • It's very long-established practice, and in most cases the banners themselves add the hidden categories. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment See past ANI here (June 2011), another conflict over same issue between Kumioko and Markvs88 under subheading "Requesting help with a disagreement". Deja vu all over again. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 06:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The original issue

Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't seem to have been addressed whether or not Markvs88 should be blocked for 3RR. I'm not stating my position regarding this, just pointing out that it may not have been addressed yet.--Rockfang (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

On what page? None of the three examples cited in the original complaint are 3RR violations. 46.208.215.98 (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I defer to consensus, but I chose not to block Markvs88 because he stopped reverting once the ANI discussion got under way. Had he reverted again despite being warned against it (from someone not a party to the dispute), I would have blocked him as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 00:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverting another person's edits (except special circumstances like BLP) counts under 3RR. A bot is not a person, so in general, reverting a bot should not count. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

@Ip Editors above: If I implied that I thought he violated 3RR, that was not my intention. I was just pointing out that it did not appear to have been addressed yet.--Rockfang (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw the start of this thread yesterday and was writing up something recommending a thorough WP:TROUTing for both parties before I got called away. Obviously events then overtook my intended response. However, both parties have misapplied the term "vandalism", both parties have edit warred, and both parties are experienced enough editors to have known better. Although Kumioko has now been rightly blocked for continuing to edit war, I hope that Markvs88 doesn't take that outcome as a vindication of their handling of the dispute. I see no need for a block but up until Kumioko resumed reverting, conduct was equally poor on both sides. EyeSerene^talk 10:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Vindication? No, of course not. I did what I did becuase the other party refused to talk, and has refused to do so on other occcasions. This is why I've not been replying to any of Kumioko's posts/goads (nor those of his various alts, nor allies), and why have I not done any more untagging work (as the bot has been stopped) because I don't want to escalate the issue and cause more drama.

All that I want (and I think there are not a few other editors in this camp too), is a proper discussion regarding the scope of the WPUS and it's practice of "assimilating" other wikiprojects. Every time I've tried to discuss this, the problem dies down for awhile and then resurfaces after awhile... sometimes with other editors, sometimes with me. I'm not against valid tags on articles. I do not revert blindly, and only do so when I feel it's clearly out of scope. If an admin (or someone) is interested in creating such a discussion (so it would be "neutral ground") I would be happy to discuss it there. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Such a discussion seems to be brewing a bit at WP:US's talk page, but obviously that's not exactly neutral ground. A Request for Comment might be the best bet, particularly if you're drawing comments and suggestions from many projects at once (US, the State Projects, some of the larger locality projects, US History, maybe the US-centric task force of MILHIST, etc). Consider also inviting comment from projects that have dealt with this issue in the past (I want to say WP:Computing?). Obviously, it could end up being a big discussion, but could provide a path forward. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Well that's hopeful at least, though I agree that an RfC might be better. Markvs88, I do appreciate your obvious frustration; my main concern was that by engaging in tit-for-tat reverting (to the extent of using the same edit summaries) you were escalating rather than defusing the situation. I can't think of many talk-page templates that are so disruptive that they need to be urgently removed and then edit-warred over. A better solution might have been to revert once in each case, then try to discuss the issue with Kumioko when they reverted back, then come here if that failed. It wouldn't have mattered much if an inappropriate template stayed on the article talk page for a few hours during that process and would have saved unnecessarily muddying the waters. Basically we expect editors to both be interested enough in a subject to want to edit about it, and disinterested enough not to get hot under the collar when their edits are challenged. Unsurprisingly this is a very difficult balance to maintain :) EyeSerene^talk 17:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment A bit of edit-warring is problematic, but I don't think it's a crisis and it's not what concerns me here; what I find more worrying is the blanket criticism of people who point out problems with many of kumioko's edits, often in the same edit as nonchalance or dismissiveness about actually fixing the problems. In a community-built encyclopædia, that's really corrosive, and will erode a lot of goodwill. Pointing out bad edits is part of the solution, not part of the problem; I hope kumioko will take a bit more responsibility in future. bobrayner (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism from unregistered user

78.86.217.250 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

IP 78.86.217.250 has been vandalizing V (science fiction) over and over again since late November. 18 edits in total and every one of them vandalizing the same page. Could someone please block this character? DigiFluid (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You should have notified the user. I've done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't really look liked WP:VANDALISM to me, just a newbie who doesn't edit properly. Maybe you should try talking to him a bit. There's been no real discussion on his Talk page (one warning from another editor), and no discussion on the article Talk page (the only article he's edited). Certainly doesn't look like coming here was warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, genuine vandalism should be reported at WP:AIV, not here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Re-read the edits. Every one of them is to interject that the article's content is false and incorrect without changing anything else. But I'll take Bushranger's advice. DigiFluid (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-admin closure of ARS list DRV

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

---

This deletion review was closed by User:S Marshall, who is not an admin, four-and-a-half days after it opened. He appears to argue that it was a snow closure, but of the 28 comments, not including my own, five people voted for relisting or around 18%. Of those votes one came from someone who had voted keep in the deletion discussion and another two comments were from admins. Indeed, one of the admins, made a point of noting that the first twelve votes endorsing the close of the discussion did not address the deletion discussion at all. Yet when I raised all this to the user who performed the non-admin closure he responded:

“ I'm afraid you never stood the least chance of success with that nomination. I waited until there were enough !votes to prove that to you before snow closing. ”

That seemed to be an admission that the editor was monitoring the discussion with the full intent of closing it as an endorsement from the beginning. Notably among the last six comments on the discussion, three were supporting a relist. Given that this was a non-admin closure (violating the criteria at WP:NACD and WP:NAC) by someone who appears to have been biased towards a certain outcome from the start in deciding to close I would like an admin to re-open that so it can continue for the remainder of the seven days.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Could it have been closed any other way? Probably not. So how cares how it was closed? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The DRV certainly could have been closed another way and the MfD as well. Discussion appeared to be turning towards a relist given the last six comments. Instead of allowing things to play out for the whole seven days, it was closed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you also raise this on Jimbo's talk page, on Wikipedia Review, on the AN noticeboard, and on at least five WikiProject talk pages. Perhaps an RfC is in order here. If all else fails, send a letter (registered) to ArbCom. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, almost any decision is possible with pages involving the ARS--the divisions within the community about it are pretty clear, & it may take some different approach to settle them, if they can ever be settled. But the best way of avoiding further conflict in any contested deletion process is to let the process run for the normal time. 71.125.252.218 (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 The results of the MfD which was snow-closed by other users, twice in quick succession, and the DRV which I snow closed, look crystal clear to me. I've never been a member of the ARS and I doubt if they'd think of me as sympathetic to their aims, but on reading the DRV I felt that this user might be being a bit overzealous in his dealings with them, so I decided to examine the background more carefully. After reading around I was confident that this user was conducting a campaign or vendetta of some kind and I felt strongly that it should be brought to an end. I was probably a little sharp with Devil's Advocate on my talk page, and for that I apologise, but I really don't think it's in the encyclopaedia's best interests to reopen the DRV.—S Marshall T/C 01:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to state in the strongest possible terms that S Marshall is among the most competent editors we have and that he is far, far more qualified to close a DRV than most admins, myself included, and that any complaint about him closing a DRV based on his lack of an admin bit is completely and wholly without merit. 28bytes (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if he were an admin his comment that I quoted would suggest that his close was anything but appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Again, I say, "is there a chance it would have been closed as overturned"? No. There were many, many more Endorses than Overturns, and less than 24 hours remaining. I echo Drmies' roundabout way of saying this conversation is a waste Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There are "less than 24 hours remaining" because Marshall closed the discussion over twelve hours ago.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ho hum, another "ARS is teh evulz" thread on AN/I...must be a Thursday. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, these assumptions of bad faith have got to stop. I am not pursuing a "vendetta" against ARS. What I have been witnessing are non-stop shenanigans, often by people who should know better, that have allowed very little time for these issues to be discussed and so I have been looking for the appropriate venue to have all these issues aired fully within a reasonable time frame given that the last discussion we had over the rescue tag went on for days and involved nearly a hundred people jumping into the fray. The longest discussion we had about the rescue list involved that DRV and it was closed just as more editors were coming to support having the discussion relisted.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you stop opening these pointless "ARS is evil" threads all over the place. Quite frankly, this behavior of repeatedly restarting an old discussion is disruptive. Drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass already. It hasn't been four days since we last got done discussing these issues. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Alpha, point to a single time where I said "ARS is evil" in any way. This isn't even directed at ARS, but the closure of the DRV. I am not even trying to say anything about the editor. I just want the DRV to last the whole seven days.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion contesting this close because it was closed by an non-admin is an absolute non-starter. The reason that admin closures are often a good thing is there has been some assessment of their ability to correctly asses consensus. S Marshall's ability to do so has been more than adequately proved by other means such as the respect he's held in at DRV. It's is my opinion (and I believe that of many others) that the only reason he's not an admin is because he does not want to be. I'd be very surprised if an RfA was anything but very successful. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and insisting on an admin close when an equally well qualified editor has closed is nothing other than bureaucracy. Dpmuk (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please, read my entire comment. It is about more than just him not being an admin. That just adds insult to injury.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Well, thank you Dpmuk and 28bytes for your votes of confidence, which have me tickled pink, but I must say that I don't think this should be a referendum on S Marshall's qualifications to close DRVs. I've made a lot of contributions there in the past but I'm just as capable of making a mistake as anyone else. I think this should be about whether this particular snow close was appropriate, not about the identity of the closer.—S Marshall T/C 01:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Quite right, and I'm expressing no opinion on the merits of the close itself (I've had my fill of reading any more ARS-related debates for quite a while, I think), but the "non-admin closure" aspect of it is, as Dpmuk says, a non-starter. 28bytes (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I assure you, I get no joy out of talking about this at all either. There are many things I would prefer to do, but I can't just ignore a group that appears to be, intentionally or unintentionally, little more than a tool for canvassing deletion discussions, or any discussion for that matter.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

In other words, you don't like it. Should we delete the Deletion Sorting pages too while we're at it? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No, my reason is very simple. I have very little tolerance for people trying to game the system in any way whatsoever. Other delsorts notify interested parties who can provide knowledge that is particular to that subject area without regard to their perspective on whether things should or should not be included. The ARS delsorts do nothing like that. If you can point to one of those other delsorts being used in the same manner then I will be just as quick to persistently criticize that. However, at this point I am only familiar with the ARS and not out of any agenda. Two articles I have nominated for deletion got tagged by the ARS and the result each time was that the discussion got flooded by members voting keep while making no significant change to improve the article or establish its notability. In other words, my bringing them up at ANI is only because they have been repeatedly drawing people to deletion discussions using questionable mean and I just happen to keep noticing it. For heaven's sake this list was created the day after the rescue tag got deleted by the very same editor whose use of the tag created so much controversy. Suffice to say I find that rather unsettling and even more unsettling that numerous people who make their bias clear seem intent on shutting down any discussion about it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• • I have my own reasons for not wanting to comment here but felt strongly enough about the NAC bit of it to comment on it. I'll leave discussion of the the close to others. Dpmuk (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just want to add my opinion that S Marshall is certainly capable of closing DRV's as well as anyone. And that in this case his close was entirely reasonable. Nothing would be gained by reopening this debate. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTBURO. There's no way this close was going to go any other way, even if it had run its full course. There's no point in prolonging a bureaucratic process past the point where the answer is completely obvious. It wastes the time of everyone involved. The amount of time and effort spent on ARS related threads recently is ludicrous, and I hope that this is the last ARS related thread from TDA in the near future. If not I feel like it's getting to the point where a topic ban would be warranted to stop wasting everyone's time. Kevin (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If I had say, more evidence of much more blatant impropriety involving this list, would you really suggest that? That evidence was something I planned to bring up at the MfD, in lieu of yet another ANI thread. Also, I will say that until the DRV we got barely 20 hours of discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If you had this evidence, why have you not mentioned it before? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You've had eons to produce said evidence. If you have it, produce it. Otherwise, stop murdering the dead horse. If you suddenly solid produce evidence that something horribly horribly wrong is going on, then of course my earlier statement doesn't apply. But if you produce another noticeboard thread about the same set of issues without producing additional, solid, convincing evidence of wrongdoing then it will be wasting the time of everyone here. It's clear that the community is okay with the idea of the existence of ARS, and is okay with the idea of a delsort like this as long as it's not in the main space. I do not personally like ARS. But it's disruptive to refuse to respect community consensus. Kevin (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This evidence only came about because I kept looking over that list during the Deletion Review, something that might have surely been noticed sooner had there not been attempts to conceal the discussion altogether. It concerns a different AfD than the one that most recently brought me here. Do you want me to start a separate ANI thread for it?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless it's, like, indisputable evidence of an ARS member secretly orchestrating a malevolent, malicious, cross-wiki campaign to bring about the new world order, I would suggest that you avoid creating a new AN/I thread. Unless you have strong evidence of some form of actual wrongdoing, I would suggest just stepping away from the dead horse for a while. I would suggest sending any strong evidence of wrongdoing you have by email to a sympathetic administrator who can evaluate it and then act on it themselves or bring it up on a relevant board. Kevin (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everything said about S Marshall above, but do still think it was wrong-footed to close this early. Better to have let it run its course. Not as a paper-shuffling excercise, but to get along nicely with each other. Give that little bit extra to someone, "let the baby have his bottle," if I may paraphrase without prejudice. To do otherwise causes discussions like this one to occur. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Aaron Brenneman, I normally agree that it's best to let discussions run their course. In this case I do not: TDA has had many opportunities to have his say, and he's just repeating himself. There's nothing new being added to the discussion here, it's just dividing editors along tribal lines. The only objections to my close have been process-based, and that's not a strong objection to an IAR close bearing in mind that nobody's actually supported TDA's position. The DRV was also creating needless drama and interfering with the process that ought to be going on right now: reasoned and collegial debate about the reform of the ARS proceeding in an orderly manner. I'm quite keen that we do begin to make progress on that.—S Marshall T/C 08:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? It is just a "process-based objection" that you appeared to state that you were intending to close it as endorse all along but just waiting for "enough votes" to prove what you believed was the "correct" decision that just happened to be right as the discussion was turning towards relisting? I honestly do not see the DRV as having created any drama that was not created already by editors who were creating drama from the outset. Honestly, allowing it to follow its natural course was doing the exact opposite, as letting things take their natural course tends to achieve. Rather than being subject to frequent disruptive closures by involved editors we had four-and-a-half days where people actually had the time to discuss things and raise concerns (not to mention allowing people time to realize there actually had been a deletion discussion as CrossMR's comment at DRV clearly indicated), as well as allowing everyone to focus on other things since it was not a constant battle just to be heard. I can say right now, the DRV left me feeling more calm and allowed me to focus on other things under the belief that a fair decision would be reached.

You say that it is "interfering with the process that ought to be going on" as though somehow there was no effort to have such a process. In fact, that is exactly what I tried to get involved in at the Village Pump right after the rescue tag got deleted. There was hardly any participation and the discussion about reform quickly died off as everyone lost interest. My problem is that North didn't even wait for discussion about reform before creating this list and it is being used just like the rescue tag was used. The fact is, I wasn't even looking for this. I nominated an article for deletion, ARS showed up just like the previous case, and I was all "Again? Are you kidding me with this?" Seeing that North had completely disregarded numerous concerns raised at that first ANI discussion and the TfD, I went straight to ANI since it was obviously the only thing that could have any effect on that editor's tendentious activity. Also, are you kidding me with that "no one's supported TDA's position" comment? I can direct you right now to several people who commented in clear support of my position in every single discussion. Honestly, I shouldn't have to since an editor who closed the DRV should have paid enough attention to the comments there to realize that claim is just plain false without even considering the two ANI discussions about the list.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Really? "The discussion was turning towards relisting"? Really? Are you and your "several people" reading the same discussions that I am?—S Marshall T/C 10:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Topic ban discussion

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Topic_ban_proposed

Nobody Ent 13:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Additional evidence of ARS canvassing

Since Drmies has decided to make this discussion about allowing a DRV another 36 hours to finish into one about banning me from bringing up any misdeeds on part of the Article Rescue Squadron, it seems it is appropriate that I leave this here now.

The article concerned is Keerthi sagathia. It was listed at the ARS page before the article on Sal's Pizza that I nominated and was clearly nothing more than an emotional appeal bemoaning that a "new Wikipedian" was being "bombarded" by deletion nominations and described this as serving to "chase away a newbie" from "a part of the world" we needed to attract and so on. One thing that sticks out is the user that created the article who only made one contribution, creating the article, also happens to have the same last name. A ten-second Google search turns up that it matches the name of the artist's manager. User:Ginsengbomb clearly noticed there was a WP:COI issue within two-and-a-half hours of the listing and expressed difficulty finding sources. At the deletion discussion only five votes were made, the four keeps all being from people who clearly arrived from the rescue list (the only one who doesn't appear to be an ARS member is the person who listed it there), who would have all reasonably seen Ginseng's comment. Despite this, not a single one of them thinks it worthy of mentioning that there was a conflict of interest issue in a promotional article for which they had trouble finding sources. The one delete vote happens to be from someone who is from India, part of Wikiproject India, and interested in Indian music.

Despite pretty much all of them indicating they did not really know much about the subject, they still voted keep basically arguing "well this person must be notable we are just having a hard time proving it" and all the while failing to disclose a very serious issue with the article they had every reason to know about. Undoubtedly thanks to their involvement, the decision was keep. Why would they not disclose a WP:COI issue they clearly knew about? Of course, mentioning that would likely strengthen the case for deletion and it is clear the listing at the page was worded to evoke sympathy for the user creating the article who clearly joined just to use Wikipedia as a platform for promoting the artist.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Your "clearly noticed" link points...here. On that AfD, there is nothing mentioned by Ginsengbomb about COI, but on the list, he hinted at it - while agreeing with the "bombardment" comment and voting !Keep at the AfD with an assertion that notability was established. From the above it seems you're misreprensenting Ginseng's position on the matter, and as there was no CoI assertion, by him or anyone else, on the AfD until you brought it up at the very end, the assertion that they "clearly knew about" potential CoI is disinguious at best.

I hate to say this, but the appearance that you are conducting a campaign against the ARS is extremely strong. Whether or not you actually have a beef/vendetta/etc. about them, it has reached the point from your actions that other editors are no longer able to reasonably assume good faith that you do not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Bleh, fixed the diff. As to your "hinting" comment, there is no hinting about a conflict of interest involved in saying the article appears to have been created by a family member. That comment was made five hours before anyone said anything at the AfD. I brought it up because I saw it had been brought up on the list almost immediately upon it being listed yet not a single editor from ARS commenting there apparently thought it worthy of mentioning at the AfD after over a week of it being up there (all of them had commented at that section of the list days before I said anything).--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The power of numbers can make anything look different. Undoubtedly Wikipedia has a bias towards the group and against the individual more often than not so a large group are more likely to be heeded than a single outspoken voice. However, sometimes that voice just happens to be the first one to notice or speak out about a problem before others take action. Every time I initiated a discussion involving ARS it was mentioned at the project's talk page. In some cases, like the deletion discussion and deletion review, I am specifically required to put a big old notice at the top of the page to notify people frequenting that page about the discussion. Effectively, I am expected to ask that something be deleted while at the same time required to notify a large group of people likely to vote keep and being unable to offset that as to do so would be seen as canvassing. That is one of the reasons why consensus is not supposed to be a vote, and in this case a clear demonstration how it often is just that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Nota bene: The author's COI in itself neither strengthens nor undermines the argument for deletion. If the article is written neutrally or is non-neutral but not to the point that a full rewrite would be required, COI is irrelevant in a deletion discussion. Goodvac (talk) 07:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Once again, there is no evidence of canvasing keep votes because some of those that regularly appear say delete, and sometimes no one goes over to say "keep" at all, even among items listed at the same time. Hopeless articles like this one [48] I pointed out I did a thorough search, and listed reasons why it shouldn't be an article, and suggested redirecting it. Articles like this [49] are obviously notable, and its a good thing people showed up to take at least a second to click on the links at the top of the AFD for Google News archive search, book search, and scholar search, all showing ample coverage of this. Its good to catch bad nominations from people that don't follow WP:BEFORE. Dream Focus 08:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You are wikilawyering about WP:CANVASS if you think success rate means anything. Above all else, intent is what matters. Can anyone honestly say that the discussion I listed above did not involve a partisan message targeted at multiple editors who were perceived to be inclined towards a certain view and that it also resulted in multiple votes consistent with canvassing?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that everybody knows about the existiance of this page. Anybody can watch it - pro- or anti-deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I only have two things to say, and they're simple. 1) COI is, as Goodvac rightly points out, not really relevant in deletion discussions, so I have no idea why that was brought up. I'm certainly not about to raise a major reason to delete an article and then turn around and vote keep because of the seductive and insidious canvassing power of the Rescue List (avert your eyes! run away!). 2) At what point does this endless crusade of TDA's become an actionable disruption? Talk about WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I am utterly confident he's acting in good faith, but this is getting well beyond absurd.

  Beyond that, I have nothing to contribute to this. Cheers, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

High database server lag

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Is there any cause for concern regarding the message "Due to high database server lag, changes newer than 804 seconds may not appear in this list"?

I know this is a semi normal occurrence but the number keeps increasing which indicates to me that something might be going on, perhaps a concentrated attack, is that possible? N^oformation ^Talk 02:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Is Jaobar still Jonathan Obar?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is, I suspect, not the right place to post this message. But I can't find a better one, and posting here will, I think, get the job done.

User:Jaobar, you may recall, is Jonathan A. Obar, the academic who hopes to have admins interviewed by his students. OK so far. But in view of his explicitly divulged background (complete with funding from impressive places) and his earlier eagerness to impress people with his motives and seriousness, his recent editing pattern has been odd indeed. Consider this set of edits to his sandbox ("My favorite band is Phish", etc etc). And more so, this edit, in which he compliments an unspecified Jonathan (but in the context, presumably Obar) on his "awesome" talk.

Looks to me as if his account has been "compromised" (euphemism). I hesitate to block him, as he hasn't done anything harmful that I've yet noticed; but if somebody else would like to do so, I wouldn't object. -- Hoary (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You could contact him directly at his university address to make sure. Elockid ^(Talk) 05:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in on me. I was teaching a grad class this evening that included a section on editing Wikipedia. I made the edits when teaching students how to make edits in their sandboxes, as well as how to properly edit talk pages (complete with signatures!) It's me, not to worry. Oh and Phish is my favorite band. :-) Best, --Jaobar (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, User:Jaobar would say that. The question is: Will Dr Obar also say it? -- Hoary (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, Elockid. Dr Obar hasn't yet replied to the email I sent him. -- Hoary (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

He's emailed me. False alarm; all clear. -- Hoary (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Curious editing activity by User:Bisexual Orchid, User:69.171.160.39 / User:69.171.160.12

I'm not sure what's going on here: under normal circumstances, I'd report this to the edit-warring page, but the circumstances, with the accusations and counter-accusations and mentions of ipsocking and User:Justamanhere, are sufficiently curious to make think this might be part of some larger pattern of behavior. Could both ends of this actually be the same entity, self-editwarring for the purposes of creating confusion and drama? -- The Anome (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Folks, I'm not sure I can really puzzle out what's going on here. Yesterday I saw Bisexual Orchid (talk · contribs) reverting some constructive edits by an IP from earlier in February. That user appears to be a single-purpose account. But if those IP addresses are the socks of the blocked user, then they should be dealt with. It seems to be a dynamic IP in the 69.171.160.xx range, e.g. 69.171.160.39 (talk · contribs) is the most recent one I've seen. See Masdevallia for an example of the disruptive edit warring. Don't really have the time right now - anyone else want to unravel it? Rkitko ^(talk) 12:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed the section above, so I merged my note here! I wondered the same thing about the self-editwarring. Curious. I'm glad someone else has noticed. Rkitko ^(talk) 13:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Bicurious editing, perhaps? —Tom Morris (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've declined the UAA report on this user in the mean time to await the outcome of this one here. It does seem strange, the IP is reverting this user back with similar accusations of sockpuppetry or trolling in the edit summary. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've done some research on this account and cross referenced through some of the wikipedia tools. User:Bisexual Orchid is a sockpuppet of User:Pfagerburg, an account previously banned for wikistalking and repeated harassment of wikipedia users. His pattern is to raise sockpuppetry and banned allegations claims along with a group of trolls from a message board called SCOX, then troll wikipedia. One admin in previous wikipedia posts referred to these users from SCOX as 'playing wikipeida like a cheap flute'. Seriously, I am just here to write good articles about plants when I have some spare time. I don't have the time for someone who trolls around looking for people to harrass. Life is too short to waste time on trolls. There is another account, User:CanadianLinuxUser who is a sockpuppet of another user banned named User:Kebron who appears to act in tandem with this user to harrass wikipedia users and disrupt editing on the site. It's clear this user was here solely to harrass and disrupt. Better to just ignore trolls. Paying attention to them and reacting it what they want. 69.171.160.168 (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This account is a sleeper account for these trolls that has managed to get itself granted rights to read and distribute IP information for this group on SCOX. This account should be investigated -> User:CanadianLinuxUser. Access patterns of this account indicate it is used mostly to track wikipedia users by IP and maintain an offsite respository of IP information in violation of wikipedias policies. 69.171.160.168 (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Their pattern and motive appears to be to use wikipedia to create scrapable content with high page ranking by piggybacking wikipeida which is then used to manipulate search engine results using SEO link farms. Review of Google webmaster tools shows 41 links from blogs.wikipedia.org to this page already placed to create a spamdexing entry. See [50] 69.171.160.168 (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

And you, 69.171.160.168, wouldn't happen to be Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, would you? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Who is that? 69.171.160.168 (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I reviewed links on google and found that numerous wikipedia postings do point to 'Jeff Merkey' on google. The purpose of the trolling is to promote links to this name in order to promote wikipedia entries to high page entries. Most of them appear above the facebook entry for 'Jeff Merkey', which indicates deliberate spamdexing, with wikipedia being used as a link farm. 69.171.160.168 (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. This entry alone has 181 links, some of them on blogs.wikipedia.org, all of them hidden links with artificial keywords littered throughout wikipedias domains. [51] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.168 (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I added the following as a suggestion on the talk page at Wikipedia Criteria for speedy deletion which will prevent this type of misuse of the site in the future and protect site users -> You should add that user pages which are excessively linked to by blogs and appear to exist solely to be used for search engine spamming in user talk space such as this page should be treated as WP:BLP issues and deleted on that basis [52]. Many SEO groups who promote deragatory content can and do use wikipedia user pages which are not normally visible to search engines and can link to them through SEO. Any user talk page which appears in googles listing should be treated as BLP and deleted to protect the user and wikipedia, and to prevent misuse of the site for spamdexing. This page has 181 links from external sources whose sole purpose is to promote derogatory content and is exposing an innocent user of wikipedia by promoting this page above even facebook entries. 69.171.160.168 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

Obvious sock is obvious. Bobby Tables (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Repeated copyright violations

Sudar123 (talk · contribs) keeps adding some copyrighted material to the article Lies Agreed Upon [53] [54], despite being clearly warned. The section he continues to add is a verbatim copy of the following articles: [55] [56] [57]. Astronomyinertia (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I know that is a copyright violation, but the article Lies Agreed Upon is created based on, as a major source the "Lies Agreed Upon" a documentary by the Ministry of Defense of Sri Lanka and was critisised by International Crisis Group as a propaganda piece. The Ministry of Defense is the line Ministry and waged a War with War Crime Charges. Considering above factors only I have added the Critsism of the International Crisis Group on Lies Agreed Upon and requested other editors in dispute to copy edit it.Sudar123 (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please note I have informed the user now that any user not supposed leave copyright works on the page even for a minute.Further I have removed the copyright violation from the article and put the NPOV tag.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Continued legal threats by blocked user

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.

Looks resolved. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

---

User Trojancowboy was recently blocked for legal threats. He is continuing to make them on his (unblocked) talk page.[[58]] Can somebody revoke talk page access? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at the edit to which you point. What legal threat? I don't see one. -- Hoary (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

He states that he is trying to contact the subject of the article he was blocked on with the purpose of initiating litigation for libel. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that he is trying to contact the article's subject, but at no point does he state he is doing this to initiate litigation. He says he wants "his thoughts" on the matter. That said, the continued refusal to retract the legal threat should be enough reason to close down the talk page at some point.--Atlan (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've revoked talk page access. This continued "discussion" (it isn't) is going nowhere, and what we should see on the talk page if we wish to reconsider anything is a retraction--and that's still not there. If I'm wrong I gladly stand corrected. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP needs admin look-in

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.

Looks sorted to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Yes, went to revert this IP's peurile edits to video game controversies [59] but Achowat beat me to it, same for the warning on the talk page.

Please see this user's talk page as there are serial warnings from Cluebot and editors about their behaviour and I was surprised to see that they had not been severely warned or blocked yet.

96.5.162.75 (talk · contribs)

CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Not enough recent vandalism to justify a block - they come on once a week, make some random edit (this diff shows they are experimenting) and leave again. If they persist, please use WP:AIV. You also need to notify editors about ANI, which I have done for you. GiantSnowman 16:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, oops, been off-wiki for a while, will remember AIV for this sort of behaviour, thanks for your time. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No problems! GiantSnowman 16:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

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

A serious issue needing to be dealt with.

• Dave1185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Abhijay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since 14th February, there has been a hot showdown of dispute on my talk page. It all started with a simple mistake, only to be told in an extremely belligerent way, then proceeded to a blame game of who did what and all that. This as many would know is not Civil on wikipedia, and neither is it appropriate or accepted in this community. I have continued in my actions not to forgive the editor for his vulgarity because never In my life on Wikipedia I have been greatly insulted by such abusive remarks. Therefore, I would endorse the idea of an interaction ban with this user and possibly a block/warning for this user's actions because this issue between the both of us will never seem to stop and neither party appears much more innocent than the other. As much as the editor I've had a disagreement with looks like a good guy with a sensible humor and all, this user has the tendency to deliver personal attacks and hurl vulgarity. If you are asking for diffs, please refer to these: ([60]), ([61]), ([62]), ([63]), and then with this ([64]). Please deal with this as soon as possible because this is starting to get on my nerves. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 18:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm plowing through your contributions, hoping to find the 14 February diff that started this all--and what I'm seeing is an editor who probably needs to stop making those automated "test/vandalism" edits. On 16 February, at 10:16, you made nine of them. This is the problem with reporting: it opens one up to investigation, and you might lose your rollback as a result. Also, your talk page gives me a bit of a headache, with all this stuff on the top (you've covered over the User talk:Abhijay?) and two things floating around on the side. Please stick to convention. And now I'll continue to search for the spark that started this fire. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• I gather it started with this? (Dave1185's talk page is also enough to send me for aspirin). I think I can make this easy for you. Your interaction ban is granted. Both of you may not interact with each other for a whole month, starting now. Maybe then you will have cooled down. Dave, I hope you're listening. Also, Dave, tone it down. Your language and approach leave something to be desired--seriously, what was going on in your mind when you added this? Also, Abhijay, just drop it already. Someone insults you--well, consider them an idiot (softly, to yourself) and move on. [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Does Not Need You|Let it go.] One more thing: if anyone wants to have a second look at the enormous amount of semi-automated edits ("test/vandalism") made by Abhijay on the 16th, please do. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Fleming Facebook post

There's been a discussion going at WP:BLPN#John Fleming (U.S. politician), and the article talkpage, about a post on his Facebook page linking to an article in The Onion as if it were factual. I feel that without evidence that Fleming personally approved the post, it is a WP:BLP violation to mention it. Given that evidence, it would probably still be WP:UNDUE, but that's a discussion that could go either way. For the moment, I believe it needs to stay completely out. I'm bringing it here because once people start using edit summaries like re-writing section to appease SarekOfVulcan's misguided and unreasonable objection, further discussion on the talkpage isn't likely to help.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)