Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive804

Based upon many requests to stop personal attacks (see #User will not understand original research#Continuing incivility), I request that my talk page (User talk:CaroleHenson) is blocked to prevent edits by User:Lobsterthermidor.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

A block would be from all areas of Wikipedia, not just your talkpage. Normally, you formally request them to no longer post on your talkpage. If they continue, then you report them for harassment. I do not see anywhere where you have distinctly requested that they leave your talkpage alone. You might also want to review

BWilkins←✎

) 17:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I had not specifically asked him to stop uncivil comments on my talk page - it was requested that he stop uncivil comments totally.

If I don't have the right guideline (personal attack), I am happy to use whatever is the correct guideline.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have left the crustacean a note to empahsize: a) that Carole has requested he remain off her talkpage, under possible penalty of blocking for harassment, and b) that civility is not optional. If the Lobster violates your request to stay off your talkpage, let us know ... if they continue to be uncivil, then be aware that they're not quite close to the chronic level ... yet (
  BWilkins←✎
  ) 17:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. User:Bidgee's editnotice on his talkpage clearly bans me from his talkpage in a rather rude and inconsiderate manner. I recently, and wrongfully, had such messages on my own talkpage, but they were removed. I have requested Bidgee twice to remove the message, only to be insta-reverted.

I would note that Bidgee in his edit summaries is effectively throwing a fit, in what I presume is an attempt to whip up sympathy for himself.

I post here hoping that someone will tell Bidgee to remove the editnotice about me, which ANI removed from my own talkpage for pretty much the exact same reason. Thanks, ★★RetroLord★★ 14:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I question the point of such an edit notice, especially since you have decided to ignore it anyway. Regardless, it seems pretty neutrally worded to me. In what way is it "rude and inconsiderate"? It's nothing like your large bolded "These users are banned forever!" message you had on your page. Also, he seems to be throwing a fit because you keep posting on his talk page anyway, not to whip up sympathy.--Atlan (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

So its perfectly fine for a user to keep a list of banned users, aslong as its in an editnotice, not their talkpage? I'll keep that one in mind for later. ★★RetroLord★★ 14:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Nobody said that ... but you do recognize you were being extremely insulting to Bidgee on their talkpage, and could be blocked right now for harassment? (

BWilkins←✎

) 14:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I edited his talkpage twice, to place "an important notice or warning". I'd consider ANI notifications important warnings, hardly harrasment. Can we get back to the topic? Bwilkins surely you remember the similar notices removed from my talkpage. ★★RetroLord★★ 14:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Calling them "Bidgeroo" was somehow considered valid/useful/positive/not-insulting? (

BWilkins←✎

) 14:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Well you said "extremely insulting", not "somewhat annoying". Its the equivalent of someone calling you Bwilky I guess, not really an insult. ★★RetroLord★★ 14:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Your messages prior to the edit notice where quite condescending. I can sympathize with Bidgee here. To then come over here to act all sanctimonious doesn't make you look any better.--Atlan (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• On topic, any editor has traditionally been allowed to ban others from editing his or her own talk page; I don't see why it would be inherently problematic to say so in an editnotice, and I don't see any insult or offensive material in the editnotice itself, so I don't really see any merit to this ANI thread. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The merit was that I wasn't allowed to have similar notices on my talk page. Why are edit notice bans allowed, yet talk page ones not allowed? ★★RetroLord★★ 14:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Your most recent edit was a neutral ANI notice, which is fine. Bidgee removed it without comment. Your previous edits, asking to be removed from the edit notice, were met with hostility - likely because you threatened to take him to ANI. You also seem to have attempted to out Bidgee here, just yesterday. This is one of those situations where you need to walk away and not interact with Bidgee in any way, shape, or form. He has asked you to stay off of his talk page, and you need to honor that request. Doing it in the edit notice is unusual, certainly, but not out of line at all - and the request seems to be made without attacking you personally. If it were me, I'd remove the caveat about notices, as I would want nothing to do with an editor who harassed me so clearly on my own talk page. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm getting sick and tired of Retrolord commenting on my talk page (after this comment), even had the guts to remove the notice. They have made attacks ([15][16][17]) against me, harassed me on my talk pages and articles I'm connected[edit] to (
  JetGo Australia[19]) Bidgee (talk
  ) 14:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Someones pretty riled up over what? 3 or so edits? As for charles sturt and jetgo, i clicked the links on your talk page, and removed promotional material, or unreffed stuff I disagreed with. Its generally accepted policy you ref things on wiki. ★★RetroLord★★ 14:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You did it to

make a point after the I said that the burden was on you to provide sources for your claim on the Australian Greens talk pages. Bidgee (talk

) 14:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Okey Dokey. Interpret my actions as you wish. ★★RetroLord★★ 14:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

So to clarify, it would be allowable for me too to ban people via editnotices? ★★RetroLord★★ 14:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I think you can agree never to post at User talk:Bidgee and he can agree to remove the notice. I also think that comments such as this one continue a pattern of harassment that is going to get you blocked, either by myself or someone else. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• • I'll be happy to remove it if Retrolord agrees to stay off my talk page unless it is important. I have no intention to comment on their user talk page. I also seek to have their harassment cease. Bidgee (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• I don't know of any prior consensus, but if Retrolord already knows that the user doesn't want him to post there, then making it a notice that everyone must see every time they post does look a little on the polemic side. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

So can we A) remove the notice like mature adults or B) keep the notice and throw a wiki-fit because someone was mean on the internet? ★★RetroLord★★ 14:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference between a honking "so-and-so is permanently banned" on your userpage, and a gentle reminder in an edit-notice. No you cannot ban them via and edit notice - you might be able to remind them via one, although it does smell of

BWilkins←✎

) 14:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

RetroLord, will you agree to stay off Bidgee's user page if the notice is removed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Well we all seem happy to admit it is a bit wrong, but we are all so caught up in faulting me that its irrelevant? Right? ★★RetroLord★★ 15:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, since clearly you are the "most wrong" here, looking at the total picture.--Atlan (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

REtroLord, I asked a simple question. Please respond. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am the most wrong, implies the other user is also wrong? Now I know everyone's favourite game is "burn retrolord at the stake hold an ANI discussion" but can we atleast do something about Bidgee too? ★★RetroLord★★ 15:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure. He's already agreed to remove the notice if you agree to stop editing his talk page and harassing him. Seems like a good deal. I would advise you to take it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually me agreeing wouldn't be required. What would be required by the WP:POLEMIC policy is for him to remove the notice though. ★★RetroLord★★ 15:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

He asked you to stop editing his talk page. You ignored him. An edit notice (that was clearly effective, in that you saw it) is reasonable. Now, if it said "Retrolord is an asshole and can't edit here", then yeah - polemic might apply. But that's not what he said. Hell, he even gave you a loophole to continue your harassment with "important notices". There is no cause for him to remove the edit notice - quite the opposite. But he's said that he will if you agree to leave him alone. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, if Retrolord posted after being told to please stop, then a neutral notice makes more sense, as does removing it once Retro will just agree to avoid that page excepting as required for notifications. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't really seem to be much to sweat about, I pretty much tell all IP editors to take a hike in my edit notice. I should return the middle finger image though, that was more amusing than the faces. Tarc (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Big diference between a huge range of people and one account, obviously singled out for the purposes of defaming them. If Bidgee wanted me to stop he would tell me, not put an ad in the New York Times. This is the WP equivalent of doing that. ★★RetroLord★★ 15:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem incapable of understanding that your conduct has been a problem here - as noted above, you've been harassing Bidgee. But they, in a quite unwarranted show of good faith, have removed the notice (as seen here). So now what do we do about your actions here? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Bidgee deserves a knighthood. Can we close this case now? ★★RetroLord★★ 15:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)I never defamed you! It was a request that all you had to do was acknowledge it (without uncivil or harassing comment) and I would've removed it. Bidgee (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: That RetroLord be formally banned from making any edits whatsoever to Bidgee's talk page or other user pages. Any essential notifications are to be made by requesting a third person to make the necessary postings. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Unnecessary and heavy handed. The page notice has been removed, I suggest closing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I reported the user Stowmarket Stingers (not going to link here or notify, or this report will likely end up removed too) to WP:UAA for having a promotional username. Stowmarket Stingers then removed my report (diff). --71.199.125.210 (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Deleted and when an editor does that (self removed) revert. Be mindful of an edit war but it was clear from talkpage rationale they are here for promotional reasons.

talk

) 16:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I've softblocked the account per {{

causeblock}}. January (talk

) 16:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Copied from

• Elite spark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On KPassC: actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. Multiple AfD tag removals. Personal attacks such as violating human rights, vandalizing by sending the article to AfD, acting out of malice, being elitist, and being bias. The editor also said to partake legitimately or get lost. SL93 (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Now the editor has expressed a plan to canvass the AfD discussion. SL93 (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Another personal attack in the AfD debate after being told twice that it was wrong - "There is a fine line between opinion and fact and some of your response incorporates emotion I suspect which may or may not impair your reasoning skills.". SL93 (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)."

He then proceeded to call another editor a Nazi and said "I'm gay, like hairy chests and a seven inch ding-dong. Yaaay! nazi won.". AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KPassC. SL93 (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Any help is appreciated. This has been going on for a few hours. SL93 (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• This is bad. Dude probably should be indeffed
  p
  22:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what to do about this, so I'm going to bring it here and see what everyone else thinks. Specifically, the problem is that User:STOPhaus has been violating the neutral point of view policy on The Spamhaus Project, and since his edits there have been reverted, he's threatening "war" on this site on his user talk page and on The Spamhaus Project talk page. I thought about bringing this to AIV, but it seems like this isn't normal vandalism, so I think here would be a more appropriate place. As far as I can tell, based on his edits and his username, this user isn't here to build an encyclopedia. Lugia2453 (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I caught this on AIV. I've blocked them for

legal threats. Jauerback^dude?/_dude.

23:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The user name is also a violation of

WP:ORGNAME. See [33], although I imagine this is a moot point at the moment. Voceditenore (talk

) 05:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Appears to be evading the block as 174.120.156.50 and continuing to post legal threats, e.g. [34]. Voceditenore (talk) 05:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 24h. Legoktm (talk) 07:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

See news.admin.net-abuse.email for further details. This is a very dedicated spammer who isn't going to go away. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe create an edit filter or blacklist entry to stop their website from being used here? It won't stop them but might slow them down a bit.

Ravensfire (talk

) 13:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I first came upon

For those who forgot or don't know who User:Essjay is (and what it was about), you can find the information on this page. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I should mention that another thing that I noticed is the fact that their grammar is quite poor for a professor, and their talk page is a mess, which is not something I've seen of professors on this site.

talk

) 05:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support block I can think of all sorts of reasons why one might pretend to be a fake teacher/professor online, and none of them are even slightly good. At the very least, they can't do it here. Might be worth contacting the school and letting them know what's going on too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• I don't think an immediate block is in order; they haven't done anything harmful yet. I seriously doubt they are a 34 y.o. Professor based on their edits (this one is enlightening). Suggest blanking their userpage and notifying them on their talk page further falsifications will lead to a block. Rgrds. --64.85.216.200 (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• How do we know there is no such professor? Many adjunct professors have little or no online presence at their schools and as non-permanent employees many not be present in staff directories and the like. Gamaliel (talk) 06:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• I would think a Ph.D would be able to pronounce kept in the proper tense, not to mention capitalize everything that should be capitalized. This suggests absolutely the opposite. I mean, I know some academics do live "under the radar" as far as computers are concerned, but I seriously see how somebody could have possibly gotten through typing a dissertation on a computer through with communication like that (aside from cheating and/or gross academic dishonesty). --MuZemike 06:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Having worked at a couple of colleges, I've met professors who couldn't spell their own names half the time. Gamaliel (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) This can be resolved by having them email [email protected] using their University of Maine email account. --64.85.216.200 (talk) 06:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, seems like a reasonable requirement. Gamaliel (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't believe that the editor has currently done anything that merits a block, however I do see a potential risk if he tries to take advantage of his supposed position. Having bad grammar is not definitive proof that he is not a professor; we are making assumptions when there really is no need for it. Simply asking him to email us using his university account (as stated above) will be more productive than posting it on ANI. —Dark 07:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

A block strikes me as killing a fly with an atomic bomb. Plenty of adjuncts are master's level degree holders, and depending on the campus, may not have access to a university e-mail address. A bit more AGF seems in order until there's a better reason not to, as worrying as this situation is. --Drmargi (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This user gives an email address on their userpage. Checking this on Google seems to lead to several drugs-related sites. This user has edited mainly drugs articles on Wikipedia. I strongly doubt the claim to be a "professor of history". RolandR (talk) 10:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how that's the least bit relevant. Being interested in drugs and being a history professor are not mutually exclusive conditions. That said, some of the user's other activities here are suspicious, and the claims made on his user page are strange or misleading. He's done nothing blockable (yet) but it would be good if editors would keep an eye on him. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry i will not do it again Qwh (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

@Qwh:, you won't do what again? What are you admitting to have done? GiantSnowman 10:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry for doing that i used to work there i do not any more Qwh (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Is Jacob Smith your real name? Or the name of somebody you used to work with? What was your role at UMaine? GiantSnowman 10:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

My real name is Jacob Smith i was a cleaner from 2000 to 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwh (talk • contribs)

OK, thanks for explaining, I hope you see why pretending to be someone/something you are not is simply not acceptable on Wikipedia (or in real life!), and that you won't repeat your actions/behaviour. If you need any further help or guidance please ask. GiantSnowman 10:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Now i know i remove the thing from my user page and i now know that its not acceptable Qwh (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

What about the email address on your user page? Is that really your address? Do you realize it's associated with illegal drug sales and a Long Island phone number? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I find it even harder to AGF here. The contribs from his IP 65.175.255.73 (talk · contribs) (which comes an unblock-auto request Qwh requested here) are extremely questionable, and a few of them are outright vandalism. --MuZemike 15:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Going off of what MuZemike said, it is a bit hard to assume good faith if someone comes to the Education Noticeboard and falsely claims to be a professor in order to get a right. I know in discussions with another Regional Ambassador, we were perplexed over this whole thing, because of how little sense it made. Even the above comment by them that they worked there is something I doubt, in light of the past actions of the editor, but that is another story for another day.

talk

) 15:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedians need to remember that assuming good faith doesn't mean ignoring evidence of bad faith. Falsely claim to be a university professor and the Good Faith ship has officially sailed without you. Wikipedia (quite rightly) took a lot of heat and bad press for the Essjay fiasco, and even in that case there was substantial good contributions to outweigh the bad. This time there isn't. I see absolutely no reason to continue to extend editing privileges to someone who has clearly taken the community for a bunch of gullible idiots. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

While it is inappropriate for someone to misrepresent themself as a professor, the only remedy I see is to ask that and insure that the incorrect information is removed, as it has been. While their grammar may not be perfict,[35] such errors are easily corrected,[36] and I see no reason to restrict them from participation. Apteva (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I do not think that we should block them, as it would be unproductive to get rid of someone because they likely didn't know that there was a rule against this sort of thing. That being said, the IP evidence is concerning, so that should be taken into account in any further action.

talk

) 17:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sadly Qwh's two different attempt were rather feeble. First time, Qwh requested for course instructor rights which is only granted to professors/teachers that use Wikipedia as a learning tool. Qwh decided that he wants that right and claims to be an instructor so that he can obtain it. When his ruse was discovered, he took that request down. But he didn't stop there. In the second time, he made a userpage to assert himself as a professor. I can draw many similarities between Qwh and Essjay (lying about being a prof, using the prestige of an academic to obtain rights, creating a userpage to deceive others). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Concur - no need to block based on
  BWilkins←✎
  ) 17:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• "didn't know that there was a rule against this sort of thing"?! Please tell me that was some bizarre attempt at sarcasm. If not, what strange alternate universe do you live in where it's generally considered okay to fraudulently pass yourself off as a university professor? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps the rule isn't written, but it's still a problem. Read Essjay controversy to see what happened some time ago when someone wrongly gained influence based on a false claim of being a professor. Nyttend (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Based on the IP that MuZemike provided, I strongly believe that Qwh is socking. Qwh was using

good hand/bad hand

. The IP is being the bad hand by vandalizing and Qwh being the good hand by immediately reverting the vandalism on multiple pages and large timespan that it couldn't be coincidence. See this list

Date	Article	IP (65.175.255.73)	Qwh
2013-02-22	Loperamide	[37]	[38]
2013-02-24	Persoonia levis	[39]	[40]
2013-05-19	List of the poorest places in the United States	[41]	[42]
2013-06-02	Grand Theft Auto (series)	[43]	[44]

OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

•  The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: the following accounts are  Technically indistinguishable:
  • 2013xd (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Qhw (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Qwh (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • ثلج (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Xylem52013 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Officialpsy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Ipod3g (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Korbat (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Raju Dab (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Well now. Looks like somebody's been a busy little bee. One spamblocked, one that should have been spamblocked, one claiming to be Psy. I'd say that tears it; all blocked or soon to be so. (Note that Ipod3g is the acutal oldest account of this farm, but I've tagged Qwh as the master due to being the most active and the subject of this kerfuffle.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Given the evidence above, I think we can safely conclude that the person is not here to contribute constructively, and the matter is resolved. —Dark 07:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I consider this entire report a personal attack and have warned this user accordingly. I would ask that an administrator close this immediately to prevent this report from further disrupting Wikipedia.

talk

) 19:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Posting here is not a personal attack, but templating someone for it when said person did not commit personal attacks is a personal attack (and to some extents, a blockable offense), and you should know that. I'd recommend you to

²¹

20:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed for the second part of the first sentence... and

talk

) 20:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

While I fully agree that "regulars", up to and including Jimbo (not that that would ever be necessary!), should be templated when templating is necessary, the "it's only an essay" argument makes me twitch.

it's only an essay" - make an argument for your position. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

01:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Which part of this constitutes a personal attack? Said policy reads that "discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion" (which Administrators' Noticeboard is considered to be). And how can a dispute between only two editors disrupt Wikipedia as a whole? ViperSnake151  Talk  20:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not "the appropriate forum for such discussion", at least right now, given that the discussion at the administrator in question's talk page is still ongoing.

talk

) 20:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Is there something stopping you two from discussing the content dispute on the article's talk page? That would be a better idea than block-shopping like this. Also, stop templating each other. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) DE, it was entirely inappropriate for you to template Viper. I don't understand what you think the personally attack is. And Viper, you're just as bad templating DE for templating you. Both of you should be a little more grown-up about this. Looking into the dispute, the material in question has been around for a bit. Viper tried to remove, DE restored. From there, it should have gone to the talk page. Viper, you are editting warring and you should probably stop. DE, rather than discussing your concerns with Viper, you ran to Bbb23 48 minutes after templating Viper in an attempt to get him reprimanded. He was warned, that's it. There is no need for anything further unless it happens again. I suggest this be closed with a caution to Viper to avoid edit warring in the future and a strong warning to DE to stop the vindictive behavior. Ishdarian 20:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The problem with this is that certain administrators keep supporting
    talk
    ) 20:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you, although I am starting to see the potential bias concerns you're raising. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Gee, why does this look like my talk page? I second Mark's suggestions.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Because Bbb23 you have a leaky talk page :-P. all that talk is leaking to ANI. This whole discussion really shouldn't be here. Some one please close it already.  A m i t  ❤  04:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm about to logoff; but spotted

I may be back online this evening - although it's more likely I won't be able to get back until after the weekend. So, I wanted to mention it here so that someone with more time might be able to review the article a bit more fully to verify/clean-up the content, or if needed, to prod it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Could it be "財界芸者新聞" or just "芸者新聞"? But I don't know because there are a few ways to render "Bugeisha" one... I also see mentions for a small martial arts magazine which is the most likely candidate here.[45] Given the scope I am very certain that this is the link, but have no way to verify it. I think the "Shimbun" / Newspaper is actually incorrect referencing here. I don't think it is malicious or a hoax, but quite a few papers (newspapers being key) are "Shimbun" which literally means "newspaper" and contains the characters "新聞". The lack of those characters means an error on the editor. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the magazine ended in 1998. So its not this one. [46] Ask the editor maybe? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you guys really discussing just an articles content (not even seems to be a dispute yet) in ANI?  A m i t  ❤  04:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

A newly registered editor, User:BobFilner (who is obviously not the real Bob Filner) has repeatedly added negative unsourced material to the article about San Diego mayor Bob Filner. They started small [47] but then began adding huge sections of text obviously copied from somewhere else [48] and re-adding the sections when reverted [49]. I can't keep up with them. Please deal with this BLP vandal promptly. Thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 06:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Indef blocked. User had stopped editing, but as MelanieN wrote, obvious

WP:IMPERSONATE username violation. Please do correct this if I have made an error. Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk

) 09:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I request that this merger proposal be speedily closed with the decision "Rejected". I believe that this is a malicious proposal by a banned editor. The rational is as follows:

Martinvl (talk) 06:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Request for closure noticeboard. Martinvl (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I have become aware of an apparent off-site outing incident and am going to report this here as neutrally as possible and then step back; I have had a mild real world connection with parties involved and hereby declare a conflict of interest in any administrative action.

here (offsite link) the Editor in Chief of a widely read automobile news website The Truth About Cars posts describing a series of IP edits to the wikipedia article on the website by IP editor 76.20.240.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who he alleges is a former writer for that website who resigned in the recent past. The IP geolocates to the general area of the United States of the former website writer, but I have no other specific information as to whether they are or are not the IP editor.

The Editor in Chief is a long-term pseudonymous editor in good standing on Wikipedia, who has described his account and edits on the website, but has not disclosed his account name. I am going to decline to name (out) the Editor in Chief's account, though others can probably figure it out from his own description. Please don't post it here, as doing so would itself constitute outing. As far as I can tell he has not outed anyone on-wiki. If required I will name the account in email, to uninvolved admins investigating, if they contact me in private.

It appears that the article identification constitutes outing the alleged real world identity of the IP editor. This appears to violate

I leave this to other uninvolved admins to review, determine if actionable violations of policy happened, and follow up with any responses. I have notified the Editor in Chief in email (I hope; the other email I sent directly bounced but hopefully the Wikipedia account email went through) and am not going to tag his account with the ANI notice to preserve his identity for the time being.

I apologize for the weird constraints; I don't know how else to do this given the outing policy and specifics. It does not seem to rise to the level of something to pass to Arbcom directly, though if consensus here is to do so I will happily email specifics over there.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yo dawg, I heard you like outing Wikipedia editors so we outed a Wikipedia editor who was outing a Wikipedia editor so you can out Wikipedia editors while they out Wikipedia editors dawg.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a typical off-wiki attack with a slight complication - how does an admin take action without outing the editor in question? and there wont be any one to prevent the IP editor from writing a similar article in a blog or something off-wiki once an action is taken  A m i t  ❤  04:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• The IP's insertion of the information into the TTAC article has been removed, as it is not reliably sourced and quite honestly, does not belong in the article. Since when does the resignation of a single employee (which has 0 coverage outside of a blog post) belong in the company's article? Nothing really should be done about the "outings", however unprofessional the parties have decided to act, it really has nothing to do with us. The editor-in-chief alleges that an IP with like 3 edits is a former employee of the business, without much proof and not even on-wiki. Can't really do much about that. Regardless, if the IP continues to add unreliably sourced and irrelevant information, he will be warned appropriately and blocked if he continues to persist. The editor in chief seems reasonably informed about COI, so I don't anticipate any problems with him either. Open and shut case, really. —Dark 07:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I have to agree; while not in the best of faith, there's really nothing that can, or should, be done here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

GiantSnowman removed two important comments I made on my article's deletion page. I feel this violates my free speech and is just rude and wrong.

He claims there was a problem with them. I can understand that about one of them. But he removed two comments. One was very long but contained important information and one was short and concise and it was deleted too.

This is giving my subject's detractors the ability to put on a smear campaign on Wikipedia trying to damage his reputation (their words have been stricken at times) and trying to get his article removes. My subject is VERY notable, very well know and very well documented and passes all WP:GNG notability requirements and then some. I have 10 sources and I have several supporting editors with long standing histories on Wikipedia.

I also have evidence that shows reason for this smear campaign and I have shown it to C.fred (that's his username.)

There is no reason why a certain user should try for 6 years to delete this page of a soccer player who has played professionally in 3 continents and is well documented.

So I request that my article's page be protected and not deleted since my ability to defend it has been prevented. I'll notify the person who deleted my comments and C.fred of my posting here. Thank you. Fussballspieler11 (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, this all relates to this AFD. As Fussballspieler11's comments above clearly show - "my article" - they have OWNership issues regarding the article that is nominated for deletion and seem to be personally offended that people are questioning notability. The edits I reverted to the AFD was this - a mass wall of text, including copyrighted material, that was simply disruptive. I've not much more to say on this matter, any admin picking this up needs only to look at the AFD history to see what a mess it is and how Fussballspieler11 edits. GiantSnowman 22:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and don't worry - I received no notification, and I have notified C.Fred (talk · contribs) about this thread. GiantSnowman 22:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This is complete rubbish. User:Fussballspieler11 has engaged in ad hominem attacks against me simply because of my !vote in an AfD (both on my Talk page and the AfD itself). GS has been far more patient with Fussballspieler11 than I would have been. Jogurney (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

He's doing that with anybody who votes delete the article. The bottom of my talk page and the AfD shows it too. This is a case of

WP:BOOMERANG. LionMans Account (talk

) 23:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Ownership" seems to be a bit of an understatement with this spa Fussballspieler11 (talk · contribs) Taroaldo ✉ 23:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

—————→I notified GiantSnowman and C.fred on their talk pages. I have nothing personal in this except I can notice an injustice when I see one. You deleted a simple Google search result showing just how notable my subject is. Pretty much satisfying your doubts. I also refuted yours and your friend's claims about assuming that not finding information is proof of some kind of sham. You're trying to make a proof because of your lack of ability to do research or your refusal to believe factual references from reputable 3rd party sources that have already been used as sources on Wikipedia over 500 times. I'm not taking this personally and I am not the only one who has noticed the strange attention to an article that is obviously perfectly notable in subject and references. Heck the subject has played with pro teams in USA, Brazil, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, Slovakia and maybe more and he founded the Ventura Film Festival and gives awards to Academy Award winning celebrities. He was also in the US Dream Team training camp with the Michael Jordan's of USA soccer. It's incredible the denial. There are videos and pictures of him giving the awards and pictures of him with Pele and David Beckham on his site and his family are award winning, famous actors and musicians. Clearly notable. Your smear campaign is obvious to me and becoming more obvious to others. If 10 references, mulitple official league stats, multiple official pro team blogs, multiple features about him in newspapers and highly regarded news portals, staring in world wide and national tv commercials isn't enough then what is? This reference alone satisfies Association Football notability ALONE http://uslpro.uslsoccer.com/stats/23496.html. The others just back it up. There should be no need for discussion. There are two other good standing Wikipedia editors who have also noted that they sense a strange suspicion of mal-intent by the "deleters" here and at least 3-4 maybe more people who have voted to keep the article.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

One, that is not "your" article, read

WP:OWN. Two, talk of a "smear campaign" by those who do not believe the subject is notable is over-the-top and offensive - but then most of your edits/comments are. Three, do you have any connection, personal or professional, to Jordan Older? GiantSnowman

23:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It does appear that Fussballspeiler11 has corresponded with Older, based on this comment on my user talk page. Whether there's any pre-existing relationship, that's for him(/her) to answer. —C.Fred (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

(

assuming good faith in the edits of other users. The comments about "injustice"s and "smear campaign"s do seem to come a little too readily. —C.Fred (talk

) 23:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)