Article semi'd; sock drawer closed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Resolved

 – SP'd for a week. Notify me if the trouble persists. Manning (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page Brentwood High School (Brentwood, Pennsylvania) needs admin attention. I have removed an inappropriately written, partisan section on a recent incident from the article, but users keep re-adding it. (See my explanation on the talk page.) I don't want to be revert-warring, so I am reporting it here. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 87truthseeker78 (talk · contribs) has taken the rejection of his preferred version of the article quite personally. I don't want to be involved any more, in order to avoid escalating the issue. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makotojs (talk · contribs) and 87truthseeker78 (talk · contribs) have both been indefinitly blocked for disruptive editing (and I smell meatpuppetry, if not outright socking, between those two). Pizzaluver (talk · contribs) has been blocked because  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me as a sock of 87truthseeker78. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • SPI turned up Fishbait71 (talk · contribs) as another sock. All bagged and tagged, should be done here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:[reply]

• Talk:Large_Black_(pig)#Facts.3F Dana nominates the article on Feb. 7, JLAN immediately jumps in with criticism. see [5]
• [[6]] 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 [7]
• [8] Attacks Andalusian horse when it is to be TFA
• [9] Demands Percheron GA reassessment, after Dana brings Percheron to GA, rejected
• [10] Attacks Lusitano GA article, also Dana lead editor on GA push
• [11] and [12] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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 [13], [14] and several more, some moved some not, but if you review his contribs history circa nov 20 2011, there is a pattern
• [15] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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:[16] 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:[17] 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]
• 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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

Article semiprotected. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Resolved

 – semi'd for 3 days. --Dianna (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin please look at semi-protecting Finnish heritage disease which has been very stable up until today when it has attracted more than 50 , mostly vandal IP edits. Many thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected for three days. If the problem persists once protection ends, please list the article at WP:RFPP for another round of protection. Thanks. --Dianna (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I just come across User:Bjmullan yesterday who is fact tagging instances of British Isles with view to returning later to remove the usage. Is this not tantamount to pushing an anti British Isles POV? He has a long history in this respect. Correct me if I'm wrong and if what he's doing is valid, but to me it seems as though fact tagging individual words that are disliked is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. CommonPAS (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This incident has been posted by a British Isles SPA. Have a look at their edit history. WP is based on RS and V sources not hearsay. I'm just trying to improve this project. CommonPAS is doing what exactly? Bjmullan (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a 3rr note on each of the above user's talk pages as they have been edit warring on turquoise. Vsmith (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log may be relevant. Thincat (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thincat you are absolutely right that it is relevant ... Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing. CommonPAS is just another British Isles SPA (and probably a sock of one of the many blocked SPA in this area). Just have a look at their edit history. I have an interest in BI among many many other topics and believe that I contribute positively to this project. Bjmullan (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, has the term British Isles retroactively ceased to exist, in history? GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I think Thincat is trying to point out with the use of Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log is the number of times that Bjmullan has been "topic banned and sanctioned" regarding to this very issue. Looking at the log, the user received 2 topic bans within a week back in September 2010. The first was for 12 hours, the second was for a period of a month. Wesley☀Mouse 21:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact tags shouldn't have been placed, as they question the usage of the term British Isles & rightly/wrongly damages NPoV. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Forgive me, I mis-read a name on that log. Multitasking reading this and watching CSI isn't a good idea. Wesley☀Mouse 21:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest Wesley Mouse that you strike that above just in case someone gets the wrong idea. Bjmullan (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did say "forgive me" very politely, is that not good enough? Wesley☀Mouse 21:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strike them please. Simple enough request and simple to do. Bjmullan (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone at admin level please do that on my behalf - I'm not overly familiar how to implement strike-through, as I personally prefer to write statements of retraction rather than make a page look untidy with lines running across it. Thank You in advance - Wesley☀Mouse 21:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. [26]

2. [27]

3. [28]

Other bad faith actions from POVBrigand: [29] The talk pages of this article and Energy Catalyzer also contain many other examples. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Conduct and communication by administrator Fastily in explaining a particular block

The original request contained the plaint, "Fastily gave no account of why he had decided there was no BLP violation in making the block. Can he please try to improve his communication skills if he intends to continue being an administrator?" This is a request for action, apposite to this page as it directly arises from the incident. Could editors restrict themselves here to a discussion of this incident involving an administrator. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I simply observed a 3RR violation and acted upon it, nothing more. If that block was so egregious, it would have been overturned by at least one of 6 reviewing administrators long ago. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a simple 3RR violation, since technically no 4 reverts fell within 24 hours (to count 3RR. edits at 7:11 on 02/10 and 02/11 have to be used). Several issues raised at AN3, on the article talk page and on BLPN were not taken into account: administrators have subsequently drawn attention to them here. In addition during the block the article transformed radically into a redirect listed at AfD for discussion. In those circumstances and given the carefully nuanced comments of 3 administrators (Stephan Schulz, Dougweller and Swarm), it seems odd to have treated this as some kind of matter-of-fact black-and-white open-and-shut case which only needs to be explained through mechanized templates. As Swarm mentioned, one of the editors involved on the article—not the one you blocked—could well be topic-banned at some future date. Mathsci (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

to count 3RR. edits at 7:11 on 02/10 and 02/11 have to be used - errr, that's 24 hours apart. And WP:3RR says that any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that acting upon perceived violations requires a minimum amount of due diligence and good judgment so as to avoid the shoot first and ask questions later attitude that is destroying this community. Anupam (talk · contribs) had been previously warned about edit warring on militant atheism in September 2011.[38] Why did you not block him as well? Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily, your block on me was completely unwarranted. That five reviewing admins didn't overturn it probably speaks more the reticence of any admin to cross another, rather than any commitment to justice. Frankly, this was a pathetic display by all of you. What happened is that you were all gamed by a Christian conservative effort to subvert Wikipedia. Either you were not perceptive enough to see it, or were in on it. Either way, you are most likely unfit for adminship. The same may be true about some or all of other admins who reviewed this case. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When six people decide to block you/let an existing block in place, it is more then likely that the block was warrented. Shouting, roaring and threatening is not very helpful to convince other people you are a good and innocent boy. If if you really want to file a formal complaint, be aware of the boomerang. Night of the Big Wind _talk 04:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not in this case. And your flimsy analysis of likelihoods isn't helpful as is just perpetuates the unjust positive feedback system that got us here. The point is not whether I am "innocent and good". My long record of constructive editing and project leadership speaks for itself. These issue here is the failure of those in power to discern true threats and act accordingly. Formal complaints will indeed be filed. What you, Night of the Big Wind, need to do is quit with the condescension, mischaracterization of my tone, and thinly veiled attempt to intimidate, and figure out what you are going to do to help rectify this situation and protect Wikipedia from those who have harmed it thus far and bode to do more harm if left unchecked. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic to your position, having been there myself, so I know what you're going through. But it is best to respect DefendEachOther, and let other editors speak up for you. Getting down into the dirty mud puddle isn't helping. I'm neither a Christian nor a conservative, but I think it is both wrong and unfair to attack them as a group. It's no different than what they are doing. Plus, you're giving these editors the false impression that they actually represent Christians and conservatives. Don't do that! We're human and we're individuals first, and we all share those two things in common. Treat users as thinking and feeling individuals, not as spokespeople for groups or memes. Take a step back from this and let others defend you. Edit warring is bad no matter who does it, and you can't escape from this conclusion. In the future, rely more on teamwork and communication. Don't edit while angry, and when you're calm, address arguments not editors. Strategize about your next move and reflect on your mistakes. Make an effort to talk and negotiate with those across the aisle and see if you can find common ground. This isn't a battlefield, it's a meeting place of minds. Let's use them. Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtless if Jweiss11 had adopted a different more contrite tone in his unblock requests, he would have been unblocked early, possibly even after the first request. A minimal kind of explanation posted in a timely way, beyond templated messages, would have been helpful in complex situations like this one. Lionelt had misrepresented consensus on the talk page and the editing of Jweiss11 at AN3, as the edit summaries indicate as well as the subsequent history of the article. The real underlying problem that has emerged here is the editing of Anupam. That has been acknowledged here and elsewhere by several administrators. Jweiss11 was not in fact editing against consensus: apart from Lionelt and Anupam, the other editor [39] who suddenly appeared out of the blue was editing the article for the first time and not in a neutral way. He has not participated in the AfD or commented since.

The summing up by Fifelfoo, which I assume is part of an attempt to create a "new look, new feel" ANI, was probably a little premature and seemed to be forcing various issues. One of the possible uses of ANI is to bring problematic incidents, which can be complex, to the attention of a wider set of users. In truth I don't think that the conduct of either Jweiss11 or Fastily is really an issue here. Instead the issues are those mentioned in the title of the thread which gradually unravelled thanks to the comments of administrators and other editors here and elsewhere. Mathsci (talk) 08:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but wonder about IPs turning up out of the blue. It's so unlikely as to be virtually impossible that a new anonymous editor suddenly turns up by coincidence and does that. And I agree that Jweiss11 didn't handle his unblock request well. I endorse the comments just above mine by Veriditas and Mathsci. Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not an IP actually. Mathsci (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]

It's hardly news that a new editor appears when there is resistance to edits that anupam wants to push through on this topic. It's simply part of how these articles work. How about an SPI? bobrayner (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "new arrival"" here was Trödel, an administrator ... and he edit-warred. [User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a movie piracy website's videos that I found on 10 articles at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. The website is Stagevu and I'm not sure that was the best place for a website that has illegal uploads. SL93 (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cenima (talk · contribs)

Small stuff: user has deleted an apparently valid article and co-opted it to create another, unsourced piece. I don't know how to undo without bollixing things up, and would appreciate other eyes on this. Thanks, 99.12.242.7 (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meiporul Nayanar and Nathaman Udayar split. I'm about to leave a note on this editor's talk page. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. Thanks, 99.12.242.7 (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note left. And thank you for informing us of this issue. If you need anything further, do feel free to drop a message on my talk page. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have reverted a few but it may need some more action as the IP appears to have done disruptive edits that went undetected some time. Richiez (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They don't appear to have edited in 3 weeks ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

User:jamieRothery has continued to show the competence required to edit Wikipedia. After tagging several of his/her pages for deletion, I got this message. Although per WP:OWNTALK it is allowed, they keep removing talk page content from their talk page and don't actually acknowledge the messages. Xe then proceeds to make a troll AIV report reporting me for "removing pages" when I was actually tagging the pages for speedy deletion which were then were proceeded to be deleted by admins.

I wonder if this is showing a lack of competence required to edit Wikipedia? You know, User:Spidey665 was blocked indefinitely for no less than this. --Bmusician 13:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And then removed my ANI notice. I don't think this user cares if action is take on their account. --Bmusician 13:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user is lying about tagging serval of my pages since i never created as many as 7. I reported the user because the user was abousing the the system of tagging pages for deletion. Now he is reporting me out of spite. I removed the talk message as they were abousive and I did aknowlage them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieRothery (talk • contribs)

[[JamieRothery (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)]][reply]

No, the notifications were not abusive. They were tagged under speedy deletion and where did I say you created as many as seven? Tell me, WHY did I abuse the system of tagging pages for deletion? And how is that vandalism? Your very comment is clearly a lack of competence. --Bmusician 13:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You first flagged for delteion with out any reasons so when i tried to recreate the page with more information to please you really didn't know exactly what it needed, you then flagged it again before i had chance to comeplete it. Since then I havent tried to create a page from scrach because wiki isn't friendly to new users and i plan to learn more first before. but you wont leave me alone since, even after i asked you to stop contacting me the issue is beyond closed.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieRothery (talk • contribs) 14:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from accusing me of doing things I have not done. "With out any reasons"? I had a reason, you just removed my message without reading it and then claim that I had tagged "without a reason". If you have no time to finish it you're best off creating a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT. I try to be always friendly to new users, but not when messages like this show up on my talk page. --Bmusician 14:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given I have repeated this about ten million times, there's no use repeating this over and over. --Bmusician 14:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see 4 deleted pages that were created by JR: Spirit of Discovery, CTA Developments, and Red Rat Software was created twice and deleted twice. Bmusician should already know that removal of a talkpage post is tacit acknowledgement that it has been read. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know that a removal of a talk page post is tacit acknoweledgement that is has been read, as this shows, but this user doesn't seem to have acknowledged it - accused me of tagging pages for "no reason" when I actually tagged it under A1 and A7. Despite my attempts to tell them my intention, xe constantly ignore me and continues to accuse me of doing things that I have not done. --Bmusician 14:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying, is that we have a fairly new user, who really does not understand the deletion process, and quite possibly does not understand the basic requirements for articles. They get a little pissed off at "their" articles being tagged for deletion, and get a little snuffy with you. Now you think that calling them "incompetent" is going to help to remove the challenges between the two of you? At a maximum, we have a WP:WQA situation, perhaps needs for some degree of mentoring for a fairly new editor. Calling for a block is pretty premature (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:AN3:

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

• 1st revert: [40]
• 2nd revert: [41]
• 3rd revert: [42]
• 4th revert: [43]
• 5th revert: [44]
• 6th revert: [45]
• 7th revert: [46]
• 8th revert: [47]

Warned [48]

Attempt to discuss content returned with more and blatant personal attacks [49] + warned before on user talk.

Comments: User hoping IP to add content over multiple articles, has already been specified as a sock by another experienced user on the first IP.[50]. The IP has further made canvassing attempts [51] [52] containing personal attacks [53] [54] vandalism accusations in edit summaries. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reboot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, so this one:

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

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

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

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

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