Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive804

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Request to block User:Lobsterthermidor from my talk page.[edit]

Lobsterthermidor has declared his retirement from WP as of 13:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)  —SMALLJIM  18:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 WP:WIAPA for definitions of "what is a personal attack" (✉→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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editorializing at Every Nation[edit]

Sorry to start this here, after initially requesting help at the BLP noticeboard, but this seems appropriate now. A WP:SPA is using the 'criticisms' section to load original research and editorialize about the church and its positions. I've attepmted to explain policy at the user's talk page and via edit summaries. (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Olympic1012 here. I am trying to respond but having difficulty. I having trouble understanding the concerns. Willing to go through the process to clear this up. I don't understand the concerns as currently stated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Olympic1012 (talkcontribs)
For starters please read WP:BLP and WP:RS.--ukexpat (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
If this edit is any indication, then you should spend more time to familiarize yourself with what we do here on Wikipedia. This section you've written is full of loaded language ("Disney's Gay agenda") and is written like you are arguing a position. Wikipedia should use neutral language and present facts in a neutral way. Please see WP:NPOV. For the time being I suggest the involved parties should use Talk:Every Nation to discuss large edits before they are made so these issues can be identified and discussed. Gamaliel (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Olympic1012 (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Olympic1012 again. There is a disconnect here. It is as if the words criticism and neutrality have the same meaning to people here. Any criticism is going to have a point of view. It, cannot by definition be neutral. My concern is that the individual who deleted my post has his own agenda. Even after I modified the post, it was deleted again. I still do not under stand the objection to the word "agenda" or "gay agenda". This especially true when considering the statement represented a group which opposed the activity of gay activity at Disney. I am concerned that the objection is not about neutrality, but covering up the fact there is support for homosexual positions which occur at Disney. A similar objection might be raised is someone used the phrase "evangelistic agenda". In both cases I see that because the words do not have a precise meaning. Rather, they have a general meaning - referring to the activities as a whole associated with the word "agenda". If someone wants to substitute a word or phrase for agenda, such as "history of actions" or "plans of actions" would that be sufficient? I

Gamaliel, I brought the topic here because I ascertained rather early that discussion at the talk page won't do the trick; the verbiage may have toned down, but Olympic1012 has something to say, and is determined to use a Wikipedia article to say it [1], guidelines be damned. If this isn't handled here then a page protection or user block is the logical next step. The problems are inherent in all the edits since late June, and include other sections of the 'criticism' segment as well. (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I've watchlisted the article and I'll talk to Olympic if s/he tries to place that section in the article again. Gamaliel (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism of So Fresh: The Hits of Autumn 2012 by IP users from the address range[edit]

In the last three or so weeks, there have been 12 separate vandalism incidents on So Fresh: The Hits of Autumn 2012 by the IP addresses ([2][3]), ([4]), ([5][6]), ([7]), ([8][9]), ([10]), ([11][12]) and ([13]), which all fall in the address range. No vandalism edits to that article have been made from outside this range since January, and between the above IPs there is only one edit to any other article (an apparently constructive edit to List of programs broadcast by ABC Television by [14]). Given the narrow range of edits from these addresses and the fact that they are numerically similar, it is likely that they are the same user. If it is possible to implement a rangeblock for a specific article, I propose that the range be blocked from editing So Fresh: The Hits of Autumn 2012. --Ahecht (TALK
) 23:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done Gamaliel (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Upped to much longer, as there's no collateral via CU and this has gone on for months. WilliamH (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! The (presumably) same person has been vandalizing the related article So Fresh: The Hits of Summer 2012 + The Best of 2011 for quite a while. Favonian (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Bidgee using editnotice to defame other editors[edit]

If I may be so bold to NAC this, Bidgee has removed mention of Retrolord from the edit notice. In return, Retrolord is directed to drop the stick and not post on Bidgee's talk page unless it is for official notifications, however it would be wise of Retrolord not to do so to avoid any misunderstanding in future. Blackmane (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)
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 |  | 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 WP:POLEMIC. Banning someone from your talkpage is typically childish, and should only be a very last resort when actually being harassed. The fact that you have to do it (yes, I've done it once or twice) shows more about you than it does the other person. Plus, you of all people are one to talk about wikifits...did you actually just accuse them of "crying over" it? Seriously asking for a block right here on ANI? (✉→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 |  | 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 |  | WER 15:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Doug Tushingham / user:Proudly Canadian[edit]

I think that user:Proudly Canadian has plenty to be proud about but copyright violations at Doug Tushingham isn't one of them (and it is a copyright violation unless he is the author of the copied piece). Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing regarding Talk:Tech Nine#Requested move 2[edit]

I would like advice about how to handle this requested move in light of the canvassing by STATicVerseatide (talk · contribs). Let me emphasize right off the bat that I am not seeking sanctions or punishment against this user; I've had a discussion already on their talk page and they have noted they were unaware of the guideline. The violation of WP:CANVASS occurred as this user notified 13 editors [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] asking them to comment "to overturn another horrible move". This was not a neutral message to them, and the users were pre-selected as the same ones supportive of the recent requested move of Deadmaus to Deadmau5 or in the case of the last user, supportive of the move Sunn (band) → Sunn O))). Thus it is a large group of editors who would be expected to support the move of Tech Nine to Tech N9ne. My question is, to people who might have more experience dealing with canvassing than I do, what do we do with the discussion Talk:Tech Nine#Requested move 2? I'm tempted to speedily close it as inherently problematic due to the canvassing. (A large outcry of WP:NOTBUREAU would be sure to ensue.) Or do we leave it but add {{Canvassed}} next to the comments of people who were canvassed? Or just add a comment to the discussion and leave it for the closer to sort out? Or do we canvass other editors who would be expected to hold the opposing position? (I am doubtful about reacting to canvassing with yet more canvassing.) Thanks in advance for any guidance. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Just let the discussion take place, this way it is receiving a better full consensus (the last one had a very low amount of voters). It would have been the same if I had posted it on the talk page of Deadmau5. I had not picked and chose editors to leave the message on their talk page, I just chose a group from the last requested move, and in the case of the last one had nothing to do with the Sunn RM and another two other due to their previous comments on the talk page. I already admitted to never hearing about canvassing before and agreed the original message should have been neutral, but the debate should continue as it is as it is just their opinions, I did not go on a big campaign and tell them how to vote. If there was a template on the article page to notify of ongoing move discussion I would have not even bothered sending the message out. STATic message me! 02:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I noted that editors were participating in the discussion and ignored the canvassing notice on my user talk page. If necessary a canvassing notice can be placed on the discussion, but that is as far as I would go. Apteva (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I assume there's a reason we (the 13) weren't notified, but I feel a need to make a comment - I'm not sure this person was acting in bad faith at all, a requirement for canvassing. They wanted people who had recently formed a consensus regarding the use of 5 in Deadmau5 instead of Deadmaus to come and comment on this new thread relating to the same thing. Yes, they notified only editors who supported the change, but in my opinion they did such because there was a consensus that it's okay to include the numerals/other characters in the name. Not because they wanted to influence the discussion one way or the other, but because they wanted people to see the other article discussion. Has anyone asked the editor if they were acting in bad faith? Don't scream canvassing until you do. ~Charmlet -talk- 02:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The number 13 above may have been a reference to there being 26 who supported the Deadmau5 move (two of whom voted twice, probably inadvertently) and 13 of those were canvassed, and 13 not. Apteva (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Uh, canvassing does not need to be bad-faith to be "canvassing" and this is clearly a targeted campaign to supporters. I've already once mentioned the appropriate action for these discussions, and I stand by that. Canvassing was done; that much is obvious, just like it was done in Deadmau's/5' matter, but this one is more egregious because it is on-wiki and it targeted the supporters - I can only imagine why I wasn't contacted as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Charmlet I explained to Paul many times on my talk page I was only doing it in good faith in order to get the proper consensus the discussion needed, but he ignored that and took this here still. And ChrisGualtieri I was also going to notify you along with a couple others, I actually remember opening your talk page too, but my internet had crashed when I was in the process of sending the word out. By then I assumed I had invited enough anyways, it was not even my intention to only invite supporters thats just how it turned out, and by then I had gotten into a discussion on the talk page of Tech N9ne so I stopped sending the message out. STATic message me! 03:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Let's all go home now. @STATicVerseatide: Go forth and sin no more. No more messages that aren't neutral (I find that a link is the least biased thing to give! Just a straight link!). ~Charmlet -talk- 03:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I still think the take away from this is "don't do it again please", you aren't going to get in trouble. It is a beginner mistake and most people don't know such policies even exist. Though I wish the overarching issue is raised at the proper venue. Though which the Chinese character matter, I'd wait. Too much drama on wiki is making "i didn't know" into a TV drama, I just wish more energy was spent on content and maintenance of the encyclopedia. My arguments were bested; I have no need to entrench myself - it was a 3O that made me switch sides and offer strong evidence against 'maus' in the RFC. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, all of you. Again, my intention here is not to get STATicVerseatide in trouble. I am here out of concern that a biased sample of editors is being pulled in to the discussion about the requested move of Tech Nine / Tech N9ne. Apteva offered a helpful suggestion about how to deal with the RM; thank you for that. I would welcome comments (additionally) from anyone who has not so far been involved in the Deadmau5 and Tech N9ne discussions. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

  • It was my mistake, not a "beginner mistake" I have been here three years and surprisingly never heard of canvassing. Anyways its all unnecessary drama as we all have much better and more constructive things to be doing on here, it is not a biased sample as all the contributors to the Deadmau5 RM have commented on the Tech N9ne one (outside of 5-10 supporters, and 3 opposers two of them being IPs). The thing is the large majority of the last RM were supporters. STATic message me! 03:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I do wish I had been notified of this discussion, as is the rules; I happened to stumble upon this by sheer chance. — Richard BB 15:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Tech Nine/Tech N9ne RM come up a few times during the Deadmaus/Deadmau5 RM discussion? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes many times if I am not mistaken. STATic message me! 18:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thought so. That means these notifications weren't fully necessary, as people were notified about the debate in the Deadmau5 discussion, but it also means that there shouldn't be anything more than a caution from this thread, as it was already being discussed. Maybe this thread should be closed? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Without meaning to discount others' contributions to this thread—some of you have provided some details that are very much worth taking into consideration—I still have not received any input from anyone who has not previously been a part of the deadmau5 and/or Tech Nine move discussions ... which I was looking for in a "third-opinion"–uninvolved kind of way. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Did you invite them? Please put a note in their talk page about this discussion if not already done.  A m i t  ❤  02:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── But that would be Canvassing. ;) -- MisterShiney 06:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Self-removal of report from WP:UAA[edit]

Blocked for cause. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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). -- (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. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I've softblocked the account per {{causeblock}}. January (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Helen Oyeyemi[edit]

Anonymous users keeps deleting picture without explanation. Maybe some protection template should be used. Thanks, --RomanM82 (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Protected by Nyttend -- Diannaa (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Removing AfD tag, planning to canvass, and personal attacks[edit]

User has been indef blocked
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copied from WP:AIV which may have been the wrong place -

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 pbp 22:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Please participate in the Visual Editor Request for comment. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

User:STOPhaus violating NPOV and threatening "war"[edit]

STOPhaus indef blocked for legal threats and talk page access revoked following even more legal threats. Blackmane (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Jauerbackdude?/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 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 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Qwh claiming to be a professor[edit]

Multiple socks found, person is not here to contribute, accounts indef'd. —Dark 07:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I first came upon Qwh (talk · contribs) when they posted on the Education Noticeboard asking to be given Course Instructor rights. I asked for clarification and they removed the request, indicating that they would do it later. The reason I asked for clarification was that the dates of the class didn't make sense with any academic calendar and there was no professor by the name of Jacob Smith at the University of Maine. Anyways, I recently was poking around the page history and clicked on his userpage, which now states that they are Jacob Smith and work at UMaine. In the time since the request was withdrawn, they added information that seems to show that they are trying to construct an online persona around being a non-existent professor. In light of the whole Essjay thing from years ago, I figured I'd bring it here to see what others thought, as I could see the potential of this getting out of hand down the line. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

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. OhanaUnitedTalk 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. Kevin Rutherford (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. -- (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)
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 (talkcontribs)
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 (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. Kevin Rutherford (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. Kevin Rutherford (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). OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Concur - no need to block based on very misguided actions, but they should read this article,and re-think falsifying credentials either on the internet or in real life (✉→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 ( 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]
OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dogmaticeclectic blowing things out of proportion, again.[edit]

NAC. Nothing that is actionable by any admin particularly as this spat started off on an admin's talk page to begin with. Parties are reminded to be a bit more mature and WP:CIVIL in their discussions. Blackmane (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On an admin's talk page, User:Dogmaticeclectic is suggesting that I should be blocked for edit warring (despite this only being over one sentence in a single article which I declared to be trivia and fancruft; he argued that this change required consensus on the talk page).

My concern comes upon his comments; he specifically went to Bbb23 because of his involvement in another edit warring case that involved me and himself, asserting that I should be blocked for making two reverts because he got blocked for making two reverts. While I argued that this was a very different scenario (I only disputed one sentence that was trivia in comparison to the rest of the article, and he wiped out every change I did to Microsoft Office 365 by claiming that it was vandalism, whilst assuming bad faith because of my past disputes with him), he also asserts that it would be a violation of Wikipedia policy not to block me for my actions because "administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues."

I personally think this is unfair because of the bias he's expressing by going back to an admin that he clams I fooled him into being on my side. He's effectively performed canvassing. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:46, 10 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. Dogmaticeclectic (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 not template regulars, specially when there's no reason to. — ΛΧΣ21 20:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Citation needed for the second part of the first sentence... and WP:DTTR is just an essay. Dogmaticeclectic (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. WP:ATA is only an essay too, after all. Don't WP:VAGUEWAVE with "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. Dogmaticeclectic (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 User:ViperSnake151's consensus-violating positions over and over again (in no small part by blocking me or threatening to do so). I've therefore pointed out this particular instance early on to one of the administrators in question. Dogmaticeclectic (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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:RKC Vakwai logo uploads[edit]

In reviewing potential images for Commons I've noted a number of images by this uploader which are claimed as own work, but which are clearly logos of another entity. I have been tagging these as "no evidence of permission', The uploader hasn't responded, despite the warnings and at least 2 requests for further information on their talk page by others.

I am therefore asking for a second opinion from the admins. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

(clerical note) Uploader informed of this disscusion Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Pretty obvious the images are not free and the editor doesn't have an understanding of our copyright policy. But I don't think the editor is deliberately being disruptive, just has an unclear understanding of copyright. Should probably tag the useful logos (the ones used in the articles for the football clubs) with {{Non-free use rationale logo}}. I'll pop a note on the editor's talk page about this. —Dark 12:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Edits to Politicians page Steve_Kent_(politician) from opposition supporters and might have violated revert rule[edit]

Firstly I apologise if I have violated any rules, it was unintentional, especially the revert rule, but this is my first time seeing this issue. The issues related to flurry if edits to Steve_Kent_(politician) which began last Friday when the local media whipped the public into a frenzy about a Leadership Race with an opposing political party. [1] [2] Various IP (, have been making Politically motivated anonymous changes to the page.

I am looking for assistance to stop these edit wars and allow the page to remain an unbiased as possible which it was before 5th July.

Hopefully a temporary measure will allow others to become distracted by other things, so that they will move on.

Thanks for your review. Canbrit01 (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Kevin Dewayne Hughes[edit]

This is a content dispute, and as such, discussion needs to start on the article's talk page, not here. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm about to logoff; but spotted Kevin Dewayne Hughes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which to me has some questionable content. The primary ref used is something called "Bugeisha Shimbun" which I can't locate any mention of anywhere as existing; and the first couple external links are Facebook pages. On the other hand, the patent mention and some other technical write-ups appear to be potentially good source docs. At the very least, the article needs considerable cleanup - although after purging the questionable content, I'm not sure enough would remain to still meet WP:BIO. It also appears that several of the editors are only involved in that one article - so there's a chance the article is the result of some sort of class project.

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 (talkcontribs) - 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting topic ban for User:BobFilner from the article Bob Filner[edit]

Usernameblocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-close comment: I'm 99.94% sure I'm not the only person who saw this and immediately thought, "MelanieN, you're an admin, why don't you fix this yourself?", and then a split second later thought "MelanieN's not an admin? What the..?" --Shirt58 (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Malicious merge proposal by a sockpuppet[edit]

WP:AN/RFC is thataway. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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:

  1. The merge proposal was made at about 22:00 on 11 July 2013 by an unregistered user
  2. The IP addressed used by that was, a dynamic address owned by Vodafone.
  3. Earlier that day User:Cobulator was banned as a sock-puppet of User:DeFacto
  4. User:DeFacto has used IP addresses from Vodafone in the past – here and here
  5. Sockpuppets of User:DeFacto proposed a similar merge of the article Metrication of British Transport back into Metrication in the United Kingdom shortly after the new article was created – see here.

The case for writing the article in the first place is Talk:Imperial and US customary measurement systems#here.

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Offsite outing[edit]

Consensus is no admin action required. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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 WP:OUTING , part of the official WP Harassment policy.

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Tmcfootball96[edit]

User:Tmcfootball96 appears to have a history of unproductive edits and vandalism per User talk:Tmcfootball96 talk page. Most recently, this edit at Geno DeMarco. I'm an admin, but I've also edited this article some. Please consider me neutral on the matter and that this is merely a notice to other admins that may take any action as they see necessary.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism by numerous IP and IPv6 addresses[edit]

The IP addresses and, as well as numerous IPv6 addresses, all within 2600:1000:b100::/42, have been mass-blanking pages. Some of them have already been blocked, but I think a rangeblock is in order. -- (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It is. Elockid is on it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this has been happening for a couple of days. Will keep an eye out. Elockid (Talk) 19:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


Could an admin remove this user's talk page access? This user has been posting attack comments on there, such as this, and abusing it in general since being blocked. Thanks. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Just did. —C.Fred (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for Article Page Ban for Binksternet for Consistent Inappropriate Edits on the Mitsuo Fuchida Page[edit]

Since March of 2012, Binksternet has been reverting and altering the Historical Controversy section of the page on Mitsuo Fuchida, contantly shaping it to produce as unfavorable a picture of Fuchida as possible without regard to historical accuracy, references, or qualifications. I, TheLeopard or T Martin Bennett, have spent eight years researching the life of Fuchida, have the endorsement of the highest qualified experts on both Fuchida and Pearl Harbor, and am a full-time researcher/writer and cannot maintain the integrity of this page no matter what I do. I am not as skilled as Binksternet on Wikipedia as I cannot devote much time to it.

After an edit war with Binksternet in late November 2012, I requested a page block to at least protect the page from damage during the week of December 7, when it receives the most visits. A block was put in place for about 6 months, for which I am grateful. As soon as the block was removed, the "Controversy" section was highly altered, leaving Parshall's full paragraph of anti-Fuchida comments, while deleting my information and replacing it with a single sentence falsely presenting a view as being mine. This is the very reason people do not trust Wikipedia.

Most recently, I added four references to articles appearing in the Naval War College Review showing Parshall's full arguments and my own. It is very, very difficult to get published in this Review, even in the "Letters" section. I also updated my counterpoint to Parshall's charges against Fuchida. You can see these two edits here: [50]

Within a day, Binksternet reverted my counterpoint section and replaced it with the opionion of someone else falsely speaking on my behalf, and completely deleted the entire four references to the Fuchda dispute article series in the Naval War College Review.[51]

Understand that these articles are highly academic, highly researched, highly vetted, present both sides, and are extremely germane to the "Controversy" section of this page. The Review allowed two articles on the subject from each author – point and counterpoint, and two letters – point and counterpoint. There is no good reason to simply wipe them off the page when at the same time, Parshall's book, entitled "Shattered Sword" is listed in the Bibliography section when his 640 page book has only a few mentions of Fuchida's name and has virtually nothing to do with the Fuchida article.

Binksternet has implied that I have a Conflict Of Interest because I have written on Fuchida, which is absurd. I will be the first to show that Fuchida was a corrupt person and I have altered my own writings based on criticism giving others the benefit of every doubt, as my only interest is in the truth. I am one of the most knowledgeable people in the world on Mitsuo Fuchida. I have indeed written about Fuchida, (good things and bad things) which in no way disqualifies me from commenting on his page. In fact, it is quite the opposite. On the other hand, Binksternet has yet to demonstrate the least qualifications to edit this page.

I am requesting a permanent article page ban of Binksternet from the Mitsuo Fuchida page based on the fact that he consistently bends the page against Fuchida, violating WP:NPOV while demonstrating no personal qualifications or documentation to add to the content of the article. There is no way I or anyone can keep up with the constant erosion of the integrity of the page if he continues to edit it.--TMartinBennett (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried Dispute resolution before coming here? Do you have extensive input from people not previously involved in this dispute? --Jayron32 02:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I have gone over the issue on the talk page at length, but there are few, if any, with the knowledge to participate who are also Wikipedia-savvy. I am not involved enough in Wikipedia to find competent WWII experts to participate, although I have looked. Binksternet has never made any contributions of substance to the Fuchida page, whereas I (and many others) have. He deletes and reverts to promote his POV. If you can bring in some WWII experts who are disinterested third parties, that would be great, but even if there is a temporary resolution, what would prevent Blinksternet from going back to his old ways? He has no business fiddling with a serious page like this and does not respect the guidelines. This has become a serious problem.--TMartinBennett (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
The only knowledge required on Wikipedia is how to read sources. There is no other requirement for working on a "serious page", whatever that means. I certainly know how to read sources—I have taken four articles to Featured article status, and none of them were topics I was previously familiar with. The call for experts is a fine sentiment but not necessary.
I intend to keep an eye on the Fuchida biography because it has been the center of a real-life dispute between T. Martin Bennett, entrepreneur and would-be filmmaker who is working on a Fuchida story, and Jon Parshall, a respected military historian. Let's not allow this dispute to boil over into Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Mr Bennett, Binksternet is a highly experienced Wikipedian who can help shape the article to meet Wikipedia standards. He's knowledgeable about WWII topics. You are a person with knowledge of this particular topic who is not as familiar with the particular requirements of this website. This is a good opportunity to cooperate to make the article better, as there should be some synergy here. I would suggest by starting with providing reliable sources for all the material in the article – not just the Controversy section – as presently there's entire paragraphs that are unsourced. Mr Bennett, the reason why it might be deemed that you have a conflict of interest is because you are citing your own article as a source for the corresponding Wikipedia article. While this is not forbidden, you need to be careful not to give your own point of view undue weight. See WP:SELFCITE. Binksternet or other experienced Wiki editors can help you with this aspect to make sure that you inadvertently do not commit this error. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, and thanks for your thoughts. It's important that disinterested third parties (not friends) help remedy this situation, so please state for the record that you have no prior relationship or communication with Binksternet. RSVP, thanks.
I have provided many substantial contributions with accurate references to the Fuchida page already and will continue to do so as time permits. There is no prohibition against citing your own material (although there are guidelines) and Parshall, who started the "Controversy" section in the first place, only quotes his own book and no one has yet to object. It is only information that contradicts his assertions that is quickly deleted by Binksternet and violating the NPOV that continues to damage the accuracy of this page.--TMartinBennett (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I am a Wikipedia administrator and part of that job is to try to help answer inquiries on this board; that's why I responded to this thread. Binksternet and I have edited a few of the same articles as we both work on WWII topics so I cannot say we have never communicated with one another, though I would not class us as friends. If you want the help of a disinterested third party, your best bet is to try one or our dispute resolution protocols. There's more information on this at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, Diannaa. You realize that Binksternet is altering content and helping to falsely attribute opinions to me on the official page that are not my opionions at all, right? As soon as I post accurate, referenced material, he deletes it immediately, apparently not even bothering to read the sources or material. If any entry gives the balance of opposite information to Parshall and Binksternet's POV, it is immediately excised. I have a job and much work to do and cannot maintain the integrity on this page so long as Binksternet runs free to shape the page to his own POV, which he's been doing since early 2012. For the life of me, no matter how hard I try, I cannot even list the four highly academic articles that appear in the U.S. Naval War College Review. Binksternet deleted them immediately. It is unfair to the readers of Wikipedia to not be able to read for themselves the most thorough examination of the "controversy" re: Fuchida that exists today. Also, Binksternet is not adding any substantial valuable content to the page, only deleting information and adding opinion. So long as he has access to shape the page, it will never be accurate.--TMartinBennett (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I've been on both sides of a discussion such as this, so believe me when I say that neither user is thinking about page content anymore. At least, not from the edit history I saw. This looks like an edit war, plain and simple. Binksternet and I have history, as we've "fought" over things before, but I don't see how his edits help the page at all. On the other hand, Bennett, you should have alerted someone of this issue as soon as the pattern became clear; since you waited a bit before bringing in a third party, it looks like you're simply rallying support for your point of view. Trust me, I've been there, too. Now that another editor, Theleapord, has become involved, this whole thing has devolved into a game of tug-of-war, with the page as the victim caught in the crossfire. As for citing your own works as a reference, that may not be prohibited, but it's an extremely precarious leg to stand on. Published works by two authors, both contradicting the other, that are being toted by their authors. That's a recipe for disaster in my view; both of you are just asking for trouble. Magus732 (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Magus732, you and I have worked together successfully on the Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory article as well as on the Boeing XB-15 article. I do not agree with your assessment that "neither user is thinking about page content anymore." I have not been building the Fuchida biography but I believe I have been valuable to the wiki by removing unsound timber from the construction. An important part of page content is the removal of poor content, which must be done with the reader in mind, and Wikipedia guidelines as the anchor. My point is that Bennett is not very well known so his contribution must not be given undue weight, especially in regard to more highly respected authors such as Parshall. Binksternet (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
@Magus732, User:Theleopard and T Martin Bennett are the same person. @Everybody, this is a content dispute, and is beyond the scope of this board. The first step a content dispute is to discuss the proposed edit on the article talk page. If that doesn't work, the next step is dispute resolution. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: Binksternet is now deleting content on the Talk page in direct violation of WP:TPNO in order to bolster his POV. Binksternet is not concerned with who the experts are, from Dr. Goldstein to Dan King, he's consistently bent on producing the worst image of Fuchida in the controversy section, as he has deleted comments from these experts as well. Parshall is also highly disrespected by extremely qualified and well-known experts. This is no longer a content dispute, but a behaviour problem that is far outside the Wikipedia guidelines. Why is Binksternet allowed to delete Talk page content without consequence? For the record, I started using my own name, T Martin Bennett, when Theleopard became confusing to others. I appeal to the editors to prevent Binksternet from further damage to this page.--TMartinBennett (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Historical controversy should have more reliable sources and/or references. Having just three of them is too few. At the same time, it should be noted that when reliable sources and/or references are added not to have too many. To have controversial content should be backed-up with at least two or more references. Can I also request that the talkpage be auto archived as well? If anyone doesn't mind, I can set that up. Adamdaley (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Binksternet should not have removed your remarks from the talk page. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I removed the same material from the article and from the talk page, both per WP:BLP. I do not see Bennett's own letter as being a good enough source to demean the reputation of Parshall, especially in the manner that this disparagement was presented, with belittling remarks presented without specific point-by-point criticism of Parshall's work. The Fuchida biography (and its talk page) is not the platform for generally denigrating comments about Parshall. Only specific criticism of his Fuchida research should be brought in, and that criticism must not be given undue emphasis. Binksternet (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I'm not sure I agree with your perception that it was disparaging enough to warrant removal, but it was a logical thing to do and done for good motives. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Binksternet erroneously refers to my "letter," by which he means my vetted article. As I've pointed out on the Fuchida Talk page, the Naval War College Review has no "letters" section. Parshall is an executive of a small software company who co-wrote a single book six years ago that puts forth some controversial, and widely rejected theories regarding Fuchida, especially by those who are experts on Pearl Harbor and Fuchida. Parshall's credibility, or lack thereof, is of paramount importance. Goldstein is a doctored professor of many years in law and history and the author of over a dozen books on Pearl Harbor, The Pacific War, and Fuchida, yet Binksternet has immediately wiped his statements from the page. Parshall conceded that his ideas are conjecture so there is no belittling in stating simple facts. Binksternet has now shaped the page with a full paragraph on Parshall's theories and helped to dumb down the the other side of the issue to a single statement supposedly showing my viewpoint, which it does not. Is this the bar for Wikipedia editors? For articles?--TMartinBennett (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Bennett, here's a quick timeline of your involvement at the Fuchida biography:
  • [52] December 5, 2008. A series of edits which added Fuchida present on the Missouri battleship for the signing of the Japanese surrender (an assertion which has been called a Fuchida "fabrication" by historians[53] because no hard evidence supports it, and nobody else remembered him there), and a self-promotional link to a Youtube video that was uploaded by T Martin Bennett, a 90-second clip about the Bennett film project known as Wounded Tiger, a Fuchida biography under development. Both of these additions are changed by others: one editor removed the promo video link, and Jparshall toned down the Missouri bit by changing it to "Fuchida claims to have been part of a delegation"...
  • [54] January 4, 2009, Bennett insists that Fuchida was really on the Missouri.
  • [55] February 19, 2009. A series of edits which adjusted some text but which removed 10 fact tags without answering them.
  • [56] Mid-October 2009. Assorted changes, no harm.
  • [57] January 4, 2010. The day before this, Jparshall once again toned down the Fuchida assertion that he was on the Missouri during the surrender. Bennett follows with his preferred reversion.
  • [58] December 4, 2011. An IP editor added a "reappraisal" of Fuchida based on the Parshall and Tully book, Shattered Sword, and the Parshall piece about Fuchida's "Three Whoppers" (fabrications.) Bennett reverted this addition.
  • [59] December 5, 2011. An editor restored the "reappraisal section, so Bennett removed it again.
  • [60] December 16, 2011. Bennett sees that he cannot remove the section so he adjusts it, writing that, even Fuchida's story was doubted by Parshall and Tully, it was believed by Prange and Goldstein, using only the argument from authority fallacy.
  • [61] December 16, 2011. Bennett rethinks the previous strategy, taking out his addition, and he removes most of the Parshall-based text he didn't like, along with the "Three Whoppers" reference.
  • [62] March 13, 2012. Bennett removes the whole "reappraisal" section. He is quickly reverted.
  • [63] November 3, 2012. Bennett tweaks the link to his promotional video clip about Wounded Tiger
  • [64] December 4, 2012. Bennett gets his own letter published in the Naval War College Review, so he uses it as a reference to say Parshall's work is "riddled with errors... conjecture and speculation... misplaced confidence in unreliable sources... all of his charges are groundless." No detailed rebuttal is supplied, only this denigration and dismissal.
  • [65] December 4, 2012. Seeing his wording reduced to the essence, Bennett reverts to the larger, more wordy version.
  • [66] December 5, 2012. Same as above.
  • [67] December 5, 2012. Same as above.
  • [68] December 5, 2012. Same as above.
  • Article is fully protected from content warring. Binksternet (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Your list is very incomplete as I've added entire paragraphs not included above. Perhaps my variation of names, Theleopard and TMartinBennett have interefered with your search. Please feel free to list your additions of content to this page. Thanks.--TMartinBennett (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Mr Bennett, I see where on the talk page of another editor you have made the assumption that I am Binksternet's friend. I am not his friend; we are-co-editors who share an interest WWII topics and therefore have edited some of the same articles, but that's all. In fact we had a disagreement at Manstein when I re