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]

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)[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. — 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [24] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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]

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

Now responding on talk page - discussing what constitutes a reliable source etc. Will leave this open for a few hours until we see where this goes. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[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. [25]

2. [26]

3. [27]

Other bad faith actions from POVBrigand: [28] 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]

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)[reply]

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.. [29]. What is your next defense, that India is a country you don't like ? [30]. I will make a section on AE and link it to this page. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have filled a notice with AE: [31]. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:14, 14 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.[40] 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 [41] 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. Mathsci (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know how I thought I read something about an IP. I've notified Trödel by the way, only fair. Dougweller (talk) 17:49, 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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The range is too busy and too big to be blockable. With a /16, we're talking tens of thousands of IP addresses that would be blocked/ But have a look through this—there are quite a few constructive edits coming from this range in addition to your guy and what looks like a distinct petty vandal. Blocking the range would be a bit like using a bazooka to kill a fly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first couple edits on that Toolserver link (the ones to Common cold), they were vandalism. The television station ones are universally vandalism. I would love to actually see one non-vandalism edit from that range, but I doubt I will. Since DakTel.com only has the potential to serve about 25,000 (who may or may not have computers), we aren't talking about alot of collateral damage (like say blocking Verizon or something). While there would be some, it wouldn't be a large number. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47] all appear constructive, and the oldest of them is a week old. That's already too much collateral damage—I wouldn't block that range for more than a day, and even then it would have to be for serious abuse, not just regular vandalism. Semi-protection is probably a better option. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This has been ongoing for almost two years. It would be alot of pages to semi-protect...and it would have to be indef protection, cause this guy isn't going to stop. He has two blocked and locked accounts to his name, plus all the IP socks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's accounts:

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

Blocking admins:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Mike Cline

This incident started when I closed an RM on Feb 11 that had been open since Jan 17, ~27 days. Within 90 minutes of the close, Eraserhead reverted my close without discussion with me. I engaged him on his talk page without success. Late on Feb 12, I sought advice from a fellow admin which is restated below: Advice sought on RM situation- I thought I’d ask your advice on this situation. On January 17, this RM was initiated. I watched the discussion everyday. On Feb 6, I relisted the discussion with this comment essentially saying it’s been a stalemate so far and unlikely to result in anything but a no consensus decision unless one side or the other made significant movement. On Feb 7, an involved editor opened this tread Closing the move discussion that began discussing how the RM should be closed. On Feb 8, another thread entitled 218.250.159.25 was opened that began impuning the motivations of various IP editors who contributed to the RM discussion. I considered all of these threads as connected—RM, closing the move and the IP discussion. The direction of the discussion was clear, there was no consensus developing and bad behavior on the part of some was making the discussion personal. On Feb 11, I closed the discussion as no consensus. [63]. Within 90 minutes, an involved editor (not an admin), reverted my close claiming that I had not let it run for 7 days after relisting. This was done without discussion or even asking me about it. I engaged the involved editor here on their talk page [64], but as of now there has been no movement on his part and I doubt there will be. I don’t think reverting my close without asking me about it is in any way acceptable behavior. However, I am not going to enter into a revert war about this as there is zero upside to that. Additionally, I am not going to close this RM again (I actually think the involved editor thinks I am). My question to you is this. Apart from my close only 5 days after relisting, which may or may not have been a tactical error (there was significant indication that other editors wanted this RM closed), does this behavior on the part of an involved editor in an RM discussion warrant discussion at ANI? Any advice will be appreciated. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Based on the sage advice I recieved, I chose not to pursue this and to recuse myself from closing this RM. On Feb 14, once the RM hit the backlog, I relisted it again because there had been some additional discussion ongoing and maybe a consensus was possible. In my relisting comment, I indicated that I would not further involve myself in the close of this RM. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After a lot of work I put in maintaining Belgrade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is still a WP:FA, I must say I'm really frustrated by apparently underage kids, like Filipdr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who never read the talk page, never leave an edit summary, and remove the material from the talk page that does not support their view [65]. Finally, he provides a reference on his own talk page [66] only after a dozen appeals...[67][] Naturally, he goes on to push his favorite changes by means of revert-warring [68]. Then, after I put his own reference to the article, just to settle the matter [69], he [70] reverts it, because my edit also removed his favorite picture (600px-high collage disputed on the talk page long time ago). That revert, of course, also reverts some minor vandalism inserted in the meantime.

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The user Beetstra has removed referenced content from the 'Granada Reports' page and the 'Jo Blythe' page. They use the claim unreliable sources, when the source is in fact a lot more reliable than the unreferenced claims that were there previously. They have then argued they are right claiming incorrect Wikipedia guidelines and gone on to do the same thing numerous times. 89.248.29.41 (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop caring so much where someone was born and if they're on maternity leave. It's unbecoming. --Golbez (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the IP on this one. Since these are confirmed accounts from the reporters of ITV, it is almost as if the person (in this case, the reporters) is confirming the information for us. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Golbez: That is what we are here to do, to care enough to update a page with correct information (like places of birth) so we have a better, more concise encyclopedia...or have you forgotten that? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Place of birth, yes. Relying on a link to a twitter feed, not even a specific tweet? No. The maternity leave? No. Coming to ANI for it? Absolutely not. --Golbez (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutralhomer and the IP. It must be notable that the maternity leave is only reported by their own Twitter. Even the network itself does not have that information, nor is it in any other news. We are not writing a news service here, or similar. WP:NOT, etc. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the UK, but here in the US, it is rare for reporters/anchors of the major networks or the local TV stations to get airtime (and a story on the station/network's website) about a reporter/anchor going on materity leave. It happens too often, so station's don't post about it. But, reporters/anchors do post about it on their Twitter or Facebook accounts or on their blogs. Since the Twitter accounts are confirmed, it is a highly reliable source. But I will give you the "non-notability" of a leave of absence, but a place of birth is very notable (since all BLPs have them). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is quite cryptic again. Yes, birthplace is notable, that is true. I did look for 'Gloucestershire', but did not find it. Moreover, the link is to the thread, which hides the information. I should have looked at every single post and recognised that 'glos' would (or could) stand for Gloucestershire. Sorry, I should here have looked better and updated the ref. I find it still a risky ref (unclear, and twitter accounts are not always what they appear to be), and there are better places to source this (the real birth data .. though that maybe not as accessible as twitter).

I know that networks don't always tell what is actually happening on their site - which is already an indication of notability of the fact. It might however be that the network site says that a reporter is on leave (for unspecified reasons).

Just as a side-note, the IP still did not inform me of this thread (though it is moot, since I am here). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a primary source which, while not disallowed, is highly discouraged. Second is the maternity leave itself notable? I'd say not, if the only source is her Twitter feed. That's what makes it seem tabloid-ish. We don't need to pounce on this right away. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm .. still not really a WP:RS (seems a bit fan-page-ish), but http://www.oocities.org/cbjoblythe3/joblythe_questions.html this confirms Gloucestershire. At least not self published. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a problem with using a self published bio to confirm where/when someone was born - in most cases (unless they've knocked ten years off their age) - if you're sure it's them. Never been happy with using Twitter as a source though - it's so...throwaway. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maternity leave? Really? Drmies (talk)

It gets worse. This was one of the references. This was another. Continued, no doubt, at AfD. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]