Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Welcome to the incident noticeboard. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors. Any user of Wikipedia may post here. Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting. You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so. Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion. Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. For incidents involving the possible misuse of administrative powers, please attempt to engage in discussions with the admin before posting here.
Are you in the right place?			How to use this page
To report persistent vandalism or spamming, see administrator intervention against vandalism. To report impolite or uncivil communications with other editors, see wikiquette assistance. To report improper deletion or request undeletion, see deletion review. To report improper usernames, see usernames for administrator attention. To request page protection, see requests for page protection. To report edit warring, see the administrators' edit warring noticeboard. To report long time edit warring/abuse, see long-term abuse. To report suspected sockpuppetry, see sockpuppet investigations. To request permanent deletion of sensitive personal information, see requests for oversight. DO NOT make such requests here; reports here are visible to everyone. To get assistance in resolving disputes, please see dispute resolution.			Please add new incident reports to the bottom of this page. New threads should be started under a level-2 heading, using double equals-signs and an informative title that is neutral: ==Example title==. If a thread is related to an ongoing discussion, consider instead placing it under a level-3 heading within that discussion. Sign your post with "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automatically. When moving long threads to a subpage, add a link to the subpage and sign without a timestamp: "~~~"; this prevents premature archiving. Move to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/[concise title]. Also consider adding/updating a status tag (e.g. {{unresolved}}). Threads will be archived automatically after 24 hours of inactivity. If you see a thread that should not be archived yet, please add a comment requesting more discussion, or if it is already archived, remove it from the archive and restore it to this page, preferably with a comment. If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, place your comments on this page and they will be addressed accordingly. When an issue is resolved it may be marked with {{resolved}}. If it is misplaced it may be marked with {{NOTHERE}}
Requests for Comment on User Conduct Candidate pages Certified pages Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kolins – potential editing against consensus and lack of discussion on talk pages. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DocKino – alleged persistently uncivil edit summaries. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ - allegedly misleading citations, disputes over BLP sourcing and WP:CLEANSTART. General
What this page is not
This page is not part of our dispute resolution process for content issues.
See also
Requests for Arbitration enforcement Blocking policy Block user		List of blocked IP addresses and usernames Block log List of protected pages		Protection log Subpages of this page

Click here to start a new discussion thread

---

Noticeboard archives

Another external link to Beatles music

There have been previous discussions here regarding external links to copyrighted Beatles music. In this edit 78.106.83.130 added a link to [1], which appears to have copyrighted Beatles music. I reverted the edit, but it was restored by 176.15.136.73, stating "Vandalism: Internet Archive can not contain illegal material - this is impossible". What is the appropriate next step? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Revert again and issue a warning to the IP, then take the link to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 01:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Jeremy! GoingBatty (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Please be gentle. The IP most likely doesn't understand what you're saying and from their perspective is genuinely trying to help. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right - I should assume good faith instead of assuming these IP addresses are related to those who added inappropriate external links in the past. Thank you. GoingBatty (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This IP editor has had our copyright policy explained to him/her over and over and over and over again and still refuses to accept it. The IP may come from a country where flouting copyright law is a way to stick it to The Man, but that's irrelevant: s/he is not ignorant of policy but deliberately acting in contravention of policy. We don't assume good faith indefinitely, not when faced with evidence that an editor knows s/he's contravening policy and does not care. --NellieBly (talk) 04:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nellie. I don't see much reason for good faith here--unless it's that the IP only added one of those links instead of dozens. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

As noted earlier, the IP in question is one of a series used over time by some guy in Russia who won't listen to repeated assertions that these are copyright violations. I thought they were going to set up some kind of edit filter, but maybe the Russian guy figured out a way around it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Echoing Baseball Bugs' concern; this is not a complete newcomer, and he has been told repeatedly to stop this for quite some time, now. See his various discussions on Jimbo's talk page over the past month:

• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 95#Request to make Warning
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 94#CULTURE OF THE BEATLES UNDER THREAT
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 94#APPEAL TO THE PROFESSIONAL (COPY)
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 93#About man, who makes lobby for EMI or Apple Corps.

His response to my last (umpteenth) attempt to tell him to stop, which has failed miserably. Now, I understand there is some sort of a language barrier, as English is not his first language, but that still does not excuse one from blatantly and freely ignoring everybody else's concerns. --MuZemike 05:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This has been going on since at least November 21, when 128.68.192.115 (talk · contribs) started posting this stuff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we were supposed to have a filter. MuZemike, that's the same guy, judging from grammar and style, if memory serves me right. What can a rangeblock do in this case? Bugs, can you dig up the last ANI thread? (While I crawl in bed with Thomas Mann?) Drmies (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say, make a list and post it to the meta spam blacklist (this needs to go there if this is a copyright violation - other mediawikis should also not be able to link to this stuff then). That should deter this quite a bit. I wonder why the original website does not exist anymore, and why this is only available from the archive - that already should give a hint that this is a copyright violation.

Even besides the copyright problem, I wonder whether these are external links in the spirit of WP:EL (they are certainly not 'must have' type of links, and except for the copyright violation they are also not really 'must never have' type of links), and when questioned, this should go onto the talkpage for further discussion. Alternatively, we could use User:XLinkBot to bash some sense in this - hard override and overruling of standard warning practice for this specific set of links. But I would say: Defer to Meta blacklist (you'll have to collect all the links, if you give me a handful of the IPs who spammed this to mainspace for this, COIBot may be able to help in collecting the links from the last couple of weeks). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crazy1980/Archive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • And Special:AbuseFilter/443 - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I became aware of this situation in late November, due to having some Beatles songs on my watchlist. It's pretty clear that rangeblock is not a practical solution, and it doesn't seem like the filter is working either. Semi-protecting all the Beatles articles also seems impractical and overkill. Blacklisting the URL seems like the best solution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, there are a couple of different sections in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive727, from this past November. In the first, it is alleged that these IP's are socks of Ron Halls (talk · contribs), who in turn is a sock of John Torn (talk · contribs). In the second, various possible solutions are discussed. I originated a section in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive728 on this same subject. A lengthy discussion ensues, and reasons are given as to why a URL block won't work. Since I have no access to edit filters, I can't say what's up with that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • If you're going to blacklist the URL, make it the exact URL - archive.org itself is used quite a bit (or it used to be). It would probably be best to tell archive.org that someone is uploading copyrighted material to their archive - they'll delete obvious infringements fairly quickly. Black Kite (t) 11:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• I can block it on meta, but I indeed would need specific urls - \barchive\.org\/details\/NoReply\b seems to be one of them, I guess the others have other terms in stead of NoReply, so \barchive\.org\/details\/(?:NoReply|<Term2>|<Term3>|<etc.>)\b will do the trick on the blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• As one who has explained the situation to the editor multiple times on OTRSN and on my talk page, I assert a positive DUCK test. Best we can hope for is RBI and DENY the editor any attention. Hasteur (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• I've gone ahead and blacklisted the one added by the editor in this thread, please ping me if there are more. Hasteur, RBI may here just give more frustration, some people don't do things for the kick, they simply persist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The link has returned to No Reply (song) via this edit by [Special:Contributions/2.94.173.212|2.94.173.212], who accused me of a "long pattern vandalism and war of edits" [sic]. GoingBatty (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree it's probably a good idea to tell archive.org. It's unlikely they want this content even with its 'impressive' list of UN treaties and conventions. IIRC someone had planned to contact them. Does anyone know if anything happened with that. Edit: I see it was User:NellieBly who said they intended to contact archive.org. P.S. [2] shows there's a lot of this on archive.org. If they expand to other articles, it looks like there's a lot of possible targets. Nil Einne (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I did contact archive.org's admins, but they didn't seem as responsive as I'd hoped. I'll try again. --NellieBly (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

They do get those reports all the time and they act on them. They don't have 1000's of admins online 24/7 like Wikipedia does, so it may take them a little longer than we're used to here. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

749 currently active admins out of barely 1,500. Many of them work odd volunteer hours and don't deal with reports to begin with. Doc talk 08:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI: With that article being monitored, other articles are now also having the link added. I was glancing through this link, and spotted this edit. adding archive.org/details/PleaseMisterPostman to the article Please Mr. Postman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Bl'd this link as well. Any others? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sadly this is what I expected to happen as mentioned above. Given the number of songs available on archive.org I'm guessing just about every Beatles song is a potential target. Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

So? Every link that gets blacklisted is one that they can not use anymore. Every IP you block will result in a new IP being used. That, or even rangeblocking will have significant collateral damage. Blacklisting the specific archive links is taking them out one-by-one, and it will get more and more annoying for them to find yet another link to add (one that is not blacklisted). And this can be done pre-emptively, has no collateral damage, and I hear that archive.org is already starting to remove the links. The other option is to write a proper edit-filter, but I am afraid that for that to function properly one would also need to know all the links, otherwise an innocent IP out of the range using a valid archive.org link would also be blocked. XLinkBot would have a similar problem, I could Whack-A-Mole using that bot as well, but then still, I would also whack the innocent editor adding an innocent url. IMHO, the only real solution is RmBI - Revert-metaBlacklist-Ignore. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm simply pointing out that this was as I feared above. And given that there appears to be 328 different songs [3] as I showed above (well I didn't note the number but it was 7 pages), that's a lot of possible targets. (In case it wasn't clear from the indenting, note that my response was to Barek not to you.) If this is done preemptively, that would be great but I presume this hadn't been done at the time of my comment since one still got thru as demonstrated by Barek. Archive.org does seem to have removed the stuff from November, as I noted below but I don't know how long it took and the 328 songs still seem to be there. (If this person keeps abusing archive.org I presume they'll start to look in to other ways of stopping it but in the mean time it's fairly annoying.)

Note that even when the stuff is removed, the links remain junking up our articles. And while these probably could be detected and even automatically by a dead link bot, this isn't done yet. (And would need to be done carefully particularly since archive.org is fairly flakeky and often has strange problems.) I didn't mention numbers below but I found 3 from November (which as I said the songs themselves were no longer available) in my searches, which I think was all although it took me about 1-2 hours to be fairly sure. (Although to be fair, I actually found all the extant links in about 20-30 minutes, it was only checking there wasn't anything else that took the rest of the time.)

P.S. I do agree there's no easy solution. For example as I found in my search, there are plenty of legit archive.org external links for music stuff, as they host recordings from performances where they have the performer/s permission.

Nil Einne (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Would it be helpful to simply block each IP sock after a single instance of re-adding any of the offending links rather than go through a more lengthy process of warnings? Sure it's whack-a-mole, but I've had some success with persistent vandals using this approach. In the long run, the effort to breakt he rules is much greater than the effort to undo the damage and block an IP. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That's already the process being used by myself and others. I'd like to suggest that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crazy1980 be added to whenever another IP is added to act as a repository of sorts. In addition... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed a bunch of stuff mostly from November that was already deleted on archive.org (so they are taking action). The only recent on I came across was [4]. Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

ban discussion on AN

A related ban discussion is here. Nobody Ent 22:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging and removal of opposing comments

Jasper Deng's Conduct (continuing previous discussion)

Beyond this need to archive so quickly getting out of hand, I don't think this situation is entirely done yet. I didn't really do any background on Jasper, and simply looked at this incident as it was. While I was away, Jasper mentioned being under mentoring so I did my due diligence. After doing so, I have some increasing concerns over his behaviour. There seemed to be incredible concern over his editing last april [6], on multiple levels regarding multiple things including competence. Including this bizarre exchange [7]. Again in September we have more concern over his behaviour [8], including biting newbies as he just did here to this IP editor. Eagle points out in that discussion that this was not an isolated incident and that he'd been repeatedly warned about this behaviour. As this is a furtherance of the behaviour for which he was repeatedly warned, this gives me some grave concerns here, as this has been going on for quite awhile despite apparently being mentored by 3 people.--Crossmr (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

What did Jasper say when you brought your concerns to his talk page? 28bytes (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

April was a long time ago; I've changed since then. 28bytes is my most active mentor (the other two are not as active).Jasper Deng (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There are two incidents, the second one is in september, it's much closer, and specifically addresses you biting newbies.--Crossmr (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion (despite trying to jam it closed) was already here. There is no reason to take a discussion from AN/I to a talk page, especially when the behaviour has already generated consensus twice on an admin board.--Crossmr (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

From what I saw initially, this user was apparently not a new editor, judging from the other contribs; all that matters is that I stop my own behavior.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Crossmr - As you know, we are trying to clamp down on the improper use of AN/I. I'll note that you have opened a discussion concerning a user that you have not contacted directly in the past several weeks, nor did you post a notice on their talk page concerning this AN/I case. Also, as you seem to be concerned about an issue that happened in September, so this isn't exactly an "incident". Please take this matter up directly with the editor, and then take it to the appropriate noticeboard only you cannot find resolution. Manning (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Manning. If you have not discussed this issue with Jasper directly, it shouldn't be placed on ANI. —Dark 01:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

On this matter, I've started a discussion on Crossmr's talk page about my behavior.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

(Ecx50)The issue was being discussed with Jasper directly above. I did not bring this issue here. I continued the discussion as new evidence was found regarding his behaviour that indicated this was not a one-off incident. This is not a new discussion, it's a subheading to an existing discussion of which he was already aware.--Crossmr (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Crossmr. Jasper has a history of biting the newbies and overdoing things. This is yet another example of a long term behavioral issue--Guerillero | My Talk 01:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Just in passing there seems to be confusion about what triggered Crossmr's complaint about Jasper, it was something in the immediate preceding closed discussion. (biting an IP) I don't think that's clear to some here and I don't know if that would effect your propriety analysis of the report but I do think it is important that you understand each other first. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Crossmr - My sincere apologies. The problem with this archiving trend is it isn't immediately obvious the new item is connected (of course I should have looked a bit more closely). I suspect I'm not alone in this. You are perfectly justified in continuing the discussion from above. Manning (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly it. The IP came here to complain about Jasper Deng's behaviour. Now, the IP had some kind of agenda himself, and was rightly blocked, but it's Jasper's behaviour that is outside of the IPs odd behaviour that is the problem. Restoring all those tags claiming there was no explanation needed, removing the entire comment on the talk page, even if the IP wasn't doing an "experiment" I can't imagine them reacting well to that kind of behaviour. The reason I added this, was as stated, I discovered this was not a one-off, this was something that seemed to be an on-going, long term behavioural issue on the part of Jasper, and before the community considered this matter closed, they should be aware of that as it could influence how the community wanted to proceed with closing this matter.--Crossmr (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Brentwood High School (Brentwood, Pennsylvania)

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

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)

• 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)
  • 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  It looks 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)

Rangeblock of 109.155.160.0/19

Could somebody take a look at this rangeblock and see if it is appropriate? This range is part of a much larger range of BT addresses, so the block (3 months!) won't be particularly effective - I've been hit by it twice now, and both times rebooting my router gave me a new address outside the block (this time it is 86.151.*). I suspect by now the original user has a new address and this block is doing nothing but hitting bystanders. Interplanet Janet (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've checkusered it, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Note that it only affects anonymous users - log in and it won't affect you. WilliamH (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I know how to get round the block, but that's not the point. The block may have been applied for a good reason, but I don't see how it is possibly serving any purpose. The original blocked user almost certainly has a new dynamic IP address by now, outside of the blocked range. All the block is doing is annoying innocent bystanders who don't know how to get round it. Interplanet Janet (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Nobody will care, it only affects IP users. Hopefully they will just block anon editing fully and be done with their hatred of it before the end of the year. --81.98.51.7 (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If we are unable to use rangeblocks to prevent banned users from editing, then we have no choice but to unban and unblock said banned user, because he will not stop. --MuZemike 03:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers

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

• Talk:Large_Black_(pig)#Facts.3F Dana nominates the article on Feb. 7, JLAN immediately jumps in with criticism. see [14]
• [[15]] 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 [16]
• [17] Attacks Andalusian horse when it is to be TFA
• [18] Demands Percheron GA reassessment, after Dana brings Percheron to GA, rejected
• [19] Attacks Lusitano GA article, also Dana lead editor on GA push
• [20] and [21] Initial appearance is to attack Thoroughbred on its Main page appearence day, team getting it there includes Dana.

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

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

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

Finnish heritage disease

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

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)

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)

Fact tagging to remove usage of British Isles

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)

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)

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)

User:1ravensnflfan's unblock request

(moved from AN) Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I blocked 1ravensnflfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours in August, one week in September, two months in October, and six months in December for ignoring warnings regarding additions of original research and POV, and general MOS problems. He did not post anything on his talk page after the first three blocks, but after the three month block in December, finally spoke up. He posted two unblock requests that were declined, and the third one was met with a request to prove he has changed his editing ways. He posted a few paragraphs of prose he would add to Chykie Brown if unblocked, but no action has been taken since his recent unblock request, which was on January 22 (nearly three weeks ago). He has grown frustrated with the delay, which can be shown by his comment today, "What are you waiting for? Just ban me permanatly and end this!!!" I am requesting that a bold admin attempt to review the situation and either accept or decline his unblock request. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

(Procedural comment: Such a request is better made on AN/I, which is a more heavily-watched page.) AGK [•] 23:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Whomever looks into this might also want to take his edits at Simple Wikipedia into consideration too: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/1ravensnflfan only (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

We issue blocks for MOS violations??? What happened to be bold and anyone can edit? Someone please give it a shot and unblock this guy. Nobody Ent 23:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

He was overlinking after several warnings, so yes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

We issue blocks for disruptive editing. Repeated MOS violations, especially after requests to familiarize oneself with the MOS, can easily constitute disruption. Even disruption in good faith is disruption. --Chris (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Looking over his Simple contributions, it doesn't appear he has truly changed his ways, as he is still adding original research to articles there. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed, in fact it looks like he's actively creating multiple unsourced BLPs over at Simple. Swarm ^X 23:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've just requested the Simple-version of speedy deletion for 11 articles he created as copy/pastes of their enwiki counterpart articles. Every other article contains original research. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• He blanked his talk page (including the declined and active unblock requests), so we're done here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'd generally have no problem giving another chance, but considering the continued problematic editing, even while blocked here, is a WP:COMPETENCE indef needed? (The block's still set to expire in a month.) Swarm ^X 02:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

He just "retired" and subsequently edit warred with me to remove the declined unblock requests. I had to revoke his talk page access. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've upped the block to indef per WP:COMPETENCE. If he wants back in he can use the WP:STANDARDOFFER, but the little rant he posted as his retirement notice [22] clinched it for me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse block per WP:COMPETENCE. --Rschen7754 03:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

BLP issue which may require RevDel

Hi, I asked on IRC #wikipedia-en-revdel, but the Admins there were unsure whether these edits required RevDel and suggested I post here.

[23] [24]

What do you think? Thank you.  ⊃°HotCrocodile...... + 05:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Screw RevDel; take it to Oversight. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 06:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

RevDel'd. Drmies (talk) 06:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Stavgard

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

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

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

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

Issues at Cold Fusion (moved from AN to ANI)

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

Some Diffs:

1. [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)

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

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

Problems with Militant atheism and WikiProject Conservatism

Militant atheism, orginally an article and now a redirect currently up for discussion at AfD, has had a muddled history. The original article, a fairly extreme example of POV-pushing, was transferred by Anupam to conservapedia, when it became a disambiguation page en.wikipedia. The page on conservapedia [29][30] makes it clear what the aims of Anupam and his friends were. A prominent picture of Joseph Stalin starts an article where various eminent academics in the group New Atheism are discussed in derogatory terms. Before being changed to a redirect, a final vestige of the borderline BLP violation was visible on the disambiguation page for Militant Atheism where New Atheism was listed. Jweiss11, a long term user with over 100,000 edits and a block-free record, noticed these final vestiges of the conservapedia article on the disambiguation page and removed the entry repeatedly as a BLP violation. Other users have subsequently commented that he had not misread the history of that page. The problem has now apparently been resolved by placing the disambiguation at a higher level (Atheism (disambiguation) and/or changing the target of the redirect. Lionelt was militating for a block[31] and eventually Fastily summarily blocked Jweiss11. That block has subsequently been upheld by several administrators. However, there has been no explanation on WP:AN3 or any statement by Fastily about why it was not a borderline BLP violation. Stephan Schulz had already commented there, and, as has happened in the past, 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? In this case the block occurred after a general agreement that the disambiguation page was indeed non-neutral and a borderline BLP violation. Bearing in mind the article that Anupam and his cohorts wished to have on wikipedia was an article emblazened with the image of Joseph Stalin in the lede, this muddled set of events neverthless points to the problematic nature of WikiProject Conservatism. In this case it seems to function as "dial a WP:TAGTEAM". Bearing in mind that, after other users agreed that there was some form of borderline BLP violation, the article has disappeared into thin air as a redirect listed for deletion, the circumstances of the block remain cloudy. However the role of WikiProject Conservatism, which has been criticized on previous occasions, does seem problematic. Any kind of organized agenda-driven activism is problematic on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The sole purpose of WikiProject Conservatism is to provide an area where editors can improve Conservatism-related articles. In fact many of the members are self-described liberals. Just look at the talk page. Every initiative of this project is thoroughly discussed and analyzed. Every member of this project is subject to intense scrutiny. With so many eyes on this group of editors it is ludicrous to suggest that there is an intentional agenda to subvert Wikipedia policies. There has been no tag-teaming, no vote-stacking, no canvassing. Correction: there was a single incident of canvassing identified. The post was immediately deleted. This project has been in existence for 1 year. It's record is exemplary. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Lionelt, what does Militant atheism have to do with WikiProject Conservatism? Viriditas (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

As I recall, in early Summer of last year Anupam placed several banners on MA, including WPConservatism. 5 months ago it was decided at ANI to remove the banner. At the time, I was the only member of WPConservatism involved at Militant Atheism. One member from a WikiProject hardly justifies the accusation of "organized agenda-driven activism." – Lionel ^(talk) 13:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It was labelled as part of WikiProject Conservatism in this edit[32] by Anupam, presumably as some kind of call to arms. Once it is listed on that WikiProject page, it will attract the usual cohort of "agenda-driven" editors. Lionelt appeared on the page shortly afterwards, so the method appears to work quite effectively. NYyankees51 also appeared there. Perhaps Lionelt will explain why that tagging was appropriate. Mathsci (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a developing overlap between WIkiProject Conservatism and Wikiproject Christianity - I hope this isn't the reason for people showing up for the first time at a religious article to change dating eras from BCE to BC, whatever their reason. Lionel, are you aware that WP:ERA no longer gives priority to the original dating style? But hopefully that's just a coincidence as the other editor that was also showing up at articles for the first time recently & also presumably unaware of the WP:ERA change isn't a member of either project and we won't see project members doing this sort of thing. I did look through the membership and it seems as most of those describing themselves as 'liberals' are classical liberals rather than 'liberals' as in 'liberals vs conservatives'. Dougweller (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This is something I have noticed. Mathsci (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)oll

Um -- I find all of the "bitchiness" about "conservapedia" to be absolutely irrelevant to any rationale for what should be done on Wikipedia. Further, I find referring to any Wikipedia project as "Dial a Tagteam" to be abhorrent on any noticeboard whatsoever on Wikipedia. Lastly the contention that any overlap between projects on Wikipedia is somehow "evil" is absurd. Wikipedia is supposed to function as more than a puerile name-calling social network, folks! Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No one used the word 'evil', and I agree it would be inappropriate if they did. Dougweller (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's cut to the chase. What, specifically, is wanted from administrators?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Some kind of response or explanation from Fastily possibly? Mathsci (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)