Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:45, 26 March 2007

For older history, check as well as the archives:

1. /Archive 1

using diffs

FYI regarding the diffs I am required to use as evidence,I'd just like to mention that I have used diffs for most of the evidence I have posted. Other evidence which I am posting or will post not using diffs are for the reason that the specific peice of evidence is from an archieved page and a history cannot be checked since it's not archived.

I hope that's okay with you guys.Regards.--Nadirali نادرالی

Please explain your revert

do you think this is not true:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Palestinian_refugee&diff=114320433&oldid=114318942

Zeq 16:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think you've been here long enough to understand why it's not relevant for that article, in that place; I'm not sure it's relevant anywhere in that article. Perhaps I'm wrong; feel free to explain on the article talk page why the sentence belongs. --jpgordon 16:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection for the "Hippie" article

Might some protection be appropriate for the "Hippie" article given massive daily vandalism? Seems there is more vandal action than legitimate editing. Apostle12 17:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps. WP:RFPP is the place to bring that up. --jpgordon 18:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"how'd that happen?"

Please see Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(technical)#Edit_histories_temporarily_scrambled.3F--VectorPotential 19:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My RFCU the other day

Hi, for this one you had confirmed it was the same person/IP on those two accounts. Were they supposed to be blocked for sockpuppetry? I noticed they weren't. - Denny 13:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• See the bottom of the green box on WP:RFCU: In most cases, any block or other action based on the outcome will not be taken by the checkuser-people or the clerks. Instead, you will have to do this yourself. --jpgordon 14:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, wasn't sure what/could/should I do, since I'm not an admin... - Denny 15:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Just ask another uninvolved admin. --jpgordon 15:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
      • thanks, I will! - Denny 15:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Regarding the Woodstocks. I would have been comfortable just blocking them as {{sockpuppet}}, but that rather distasteful edit prompted me to ask if we could find the IP behind it, and that needed checkuser. Thanks for your time and patience! -- Avi 06:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

TOR blocking

Is there anyway to edit Misplaced Pages using TOR. For example, becoming a registered user with some kind of TOR privilege.

Having to use other services is a pain, as is trying not to get arrested by governments whom don't take kindly to Misplaced Pages.

perfectblue 14:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Trouble on Zanj

Dont know if you can help, but there is an issue with an editor that regardless of how much i explain you need sources, you also cannot go against references and add in your own content, the editor continues to be a pest and just shows up and reverts the article, it has been an edit war for months. Because it is a non-popular topic no one notices. I post dispute tags and he reverts everything. What can be done? see Zanj.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 23:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pens withdrawn

Hello. You declined this request here. Could you explain to me the reason for declining the request? There is a lot of sockpuppetry going on at National Development Front. There are two users with the same POV edit-warring with the other side. Both have used sockpuppets before. Hence it is very difficult for me to identify which of them are involved in sockpuppetry. Regards, Aksi_great (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• I wasn't going to go through all that messy noise in the request. Make a clean one and I'll consider it. (Not that the noise was your fault; but I'm not interested in evaluating such arguments during the process.) --jpgordon 15:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  I don't see how a new request is going to change things. There is nothing I can do which will stop them from wikilawyering on the page. This version is clean enough. If you want I can just copy-paste everything once again in a new report. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  Well, the whole argumentation should have been removed by a clerk; not your fault, by any means. I'll look at it again. --jpgordon 17:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done. Confirmed. --jpgordon 17:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet of User:Sundaram7 . Please go through this section Regarding the block. The day when I was blocked, I sat down to analyse the whole history of the article which was disputed and few strange facts were found and I have explained it there.. User:70.113.116.46 and User:70.113.94.221 where also listed as Sockpuppets of User:Sundaram7 along with me(User:Aksi_great added those tags). I have clearly proved that they are sockpuppets of banned User:Hkelkar who was in the other side(those who are trying to vandalise the article). But now I see that those tags are removed... Just by showing two similar edits, User:Aksi_great convinced you that i am the sockpuppet of User:Sundaram7. You are not aware of the vandalism in the article. I have seen User:Sundaram7 and his sockpuppets trying hard to save the article and I just wanted to support him.. Please go through my argument which will clearly prove that I am not sockpuppet of User:Sundaram7. If you have no time, then at least go through the points (3) and (4). -- 59.160.207.14 06:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser

Hi, you recently confirmed a CU request I submitted. Policing the images uploads of 3 accounts that are all the same user is not my idea of fun. I'm really not sure whet to do next; block the two younger accounts? --Peta 11:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I blocked both the old accounts and told the user to contact me to let me know which one they wanted to keep editing under. Thanks. --Peta 11:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

McCarthy, McCarthyism

I am inviting all recent editors of Joseph McCarthy to comment on a current dispute. Although you don't technically qualify, you have weighed in there in the past, and from some collaboration I have had with you in the past I think I can expect a calm and neutral assessment of whether I'm overwrought or if there is a pattern here. Here is the general request for comments I have posted for other users: User:KarlBunker, in his stated view out of concern for WP:NPOV#Undue weight, has reverted, deleted, and selectively reinstated factually accurate sourced information that I have added. I contend he is in error. Please see the discussion at Talk:Joseph McCarthy. Thank you. Kaisershatner 17:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Discordian Works

I think your comment when rejecting the requested RFAR has been misinterpreted: would you mind clarifying what you meant? Thanks. Cheers, Moreschi 13:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

gene mc c

sorry - I had intended to reinstate your parkinson's edit that someone else removed, and got off on a tangent with Mclaughlin and forgot to do it - glad you noticed! Tvoz | talk 15:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• No prob. Wasn't my edit in the first place; I'm just always suspicious of uncommented additions or removal of data by anon editors. --jpgordon 15:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, that Bavarian flag rocks! Tvoz | talk 15:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC/discussion of article Sulla

Hello, Jpgordon. As a prominent contributor to Sulla, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:Sulla, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- Nick 15:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

RFCU

Hi. Sorry to bother you. I filed Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Verdict a while back and we have a new account, MGAME (talk · contribs), who was brought to my attention as a possible sockpuppet. This particular account is editing many of the same articles but uploading a disjoint set of images. As such, it is not clear to me whether or not this is an abusive sockpuppet. When you have some free time, I'd really appreciate a check on this as the person has been quite productive already and the longer we wait, the more hassle it is to undo the changes. Thanks for your time, I know you are busy. --Yamla 16:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Best I can say is that MGAME edits from the same pile of open proxies as other Verdict socks. Thing is, every one of those names points to dozens of open proxies -- and though Verdict uses open proxies, so do other editors (including many from behind the Great Firewall), so I'm reluctant to release a big list of possibilities. --jpgordon 16:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a big problem. And I understand exactly why you are reluctant to release any such list. Thanks, I appreciate your help. --Yamla 19:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I correlated this user's edits with the confirmed sockpuppets from Wikimedia Commons. There's no doubt any more that this is another Verdict sock so I banned accordingly. --Yamla 19:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Beaner article

Sorry, didn't mean to step on anyone's toes by recreating the beaner article. I thought about taking it to WP:DRV first, but decided it wouldn't be worth it since the previous article had little content and that it would be self-evident that the new version would meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion. Guess I'll take it there now though. --notJackhorkheimer 22:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Richard Walter - Fraudulent Article

Arbitrator:

Richard Walter seems to have been created with a large amount of false information, perhaps gathered from a phony/ anonymous press release posted at "www.richarddwalter.com". Walters's false testimony was actually confirmed in NY v. Robie Drake. In 2003 and again in 2006 his testimony was determined to be false, misleading and could be presumed perjurious on at least one point (perjury being a very specific type of false testimony) by a fedeal judge.

This is all confirmed in the judge's ruling at: "NY v. Robie Drake" (2006). The acrobat file here was obtained from United States District Court, Western District of New York. Just select judge John Elfvin's rulings for March 2006 re: the Drake case. You'll need to select more than 100 documents per page to see it. Get the drake file.

I editted the many factual inaccurancies in the page with references to the court record online and articles regarding Mr. Walter's false testimony. However an anonymous editor immediately swooped in and removed those edits. I have reverted the page and posted a warning to the anonymous editor. Now Buzzle45 (talk · contribs), an original anonymous creator of this false information page designed to rescue Walters flailing credibility, has stepped in to replace anonymous editor 24.240.17.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I am not certain these are two separate individuals.

At any rate, I expected that whoever created the page would change the edits and that this issue would become something that needed an official look - as there are quite a few dedicated and obsessed people determined to keep the actual substance of this court ruling from being public. It hurts Walter, and it hurts more than a few because of their association with him.

Anonymous editor 24.240.17.187 has removed the Richard Walter page at least six times aleady and has also removed this section from the Talk: Richard Walter page at least six times, since 3/18/07 to prevent me from even having a civil discussion about it with others. Buzzle45 (talk · contribs) has done the same. Not exactly actions that are conducive to resolution, let alone communication. They just don't want the ruling public because of their hero worship (that's assuming that one of the individuals is not actually Richard Walter -this a very distinct possibility).

This informaion is not libelous. It is corrective. It is the posting of a court's ruling using the court's own document. The Misplaced Pages entry currently states that Walters was exonnerated by the judge in the Drake case. This is not just false, it is beligerantly deceptive at this point.

Note please that I am the only person in this dispute who must testify in court on a regular basis, under oath - and that I am also the only one willing to be identified.

As it stands, the article is full of false and bloated information about Walters that is designed to prop him up despite the court ruling - so that those who use Misplaced Pages as their primary nfo source (and there are many too many) will be misled. It is a disgrace to the professional community, and it is the furtherance of a weakly crafted fraud.

Do not hesitate to contact me for further assistance.

Brent E. Turvey, MS - Forensic Scientist Bturvey 23:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Richard Walter article - Libel

Why is Mr. Turvey so relentless in trying to slander Richard Walter?

To accuse someone of perjury is a serious charge. Mr. Turvey makes that claim on his own websites, but that is a matter between Mr. Walter and Mr. Turvey to settle in civil court.

I hold Misplaced Pages to a higher standard.

In reading the court document, in the final ruling in the Drake case, the judge overturns the appeal.

In his opinion, the judge states that Mr. Walter "may" have committed perjury (which he did not), but he rules that such an issue is a moot point because Mr. Drake does not have the basis for appeal.

Thus, Drake's appeal, and all of its allegations are ruled false.

I welcome you to read the decision on Lexis-Nexis and not Mr. Turvey's version on his websites.

While on Lexis-Nexis, I would also encourage you to read about Mr. Turvey's false statements under oath in Mississippi last year and his previous false statements under oath regarding his employment by the Sitka, Alaska Police Department as a detective. (Mr. Turvey lost in court in his bid to claim that he was employed as a detective in Sitka).

Mr. Turvey claims that Mr. Walter has "flailing credibility". Yet it is Mr. Turvey who is in serious financial trouble: http://dnr.alaska.gov/recorders/sag/DocDisplay.cfm?SelectedDoc=20060017500&District=103

Because Mr. Turvey was not allowed into the AAFS, he has spent his short career creating his own organizations and schools. His organizations are nothing more than him and a few of his former "students" posing as a substitute for the AAFS.

Still, the bitterness of rejection has never been exorcised from his soul. He maintains a website that lists several well-respected forensic pathologists as "frauds" (Mr. Walter is not his only victim).

With all due respect, his situation reminds me of a jealous child in the playground who wants to "take his toys and play on his own".

I suggest that the Richard Walter page remain permanently locked in its pre-March 17th state.

Please disregard Bturvey's threat to "show why[REDACTED] can't be trusted as a source in my class". He has many more enemies than friends; no one will stand in his defense.

02:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Buzzle45 (talk · contribs)

Beaner deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Beaner. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. notJackhorkheimer 23:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Since I did neither of those, I might not. --jpgordon 01:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

check user CrystalizedAngels/Benjiwolf

Thanks for running this check user. I note that it comes back confirmed. Just to clarify - does this confirm that both Benjiwolf and CrystalizedAngels have edited from 129.132.239.8 or was it just CrystalizedAngels? Because if we are going to do a block for 3RR we should do it on all the Benjiwolf accounts.

Would the evidence also suggest justification of blocking IP addressses begining 83.78. and 83.79?- these are thought to be Benjiwolfs dynamic IP address range - see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Benjiwolf (2nd). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ttguy (talk • contribs) 08:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

• What part of "no comment on the IP" is confusing? I wouldn't recommend blocking hundreds of thousands of IP addresses in Switzerland, no. --jpgordon 14:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I am just confused about what confirmed means. Ttguy 07:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Confirmed" mean that the two named users are (as far as we can tell) one person. --jpgordon 14:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser (Maleabroad)

I noticed that you flagged the latest checkuser on Maleabroad as unnecessary. I agree with that, but my question is - if we have such good evidence (and he's not exactly subtle about it, so that's usually the case) - where should we post to get them blocked? WP:AN/I, or somewhere else?

Thanks, Orpheus 23:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• AN/I should do it. No need to post a whole list there, though -- clutters things up and also kinda breaks WP:DENY. Just make User:Orpheus/Blockthese or something like that and point readers of AN/I to it; there are plenty of admins that love to go on blocking sprees. --jpgordon 23:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser (Aristideskrista439)

Thanks for checking this one. There are way more socks than checkuser discovered. Shall I file a new request for those, or can you just take a look at the talk page at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Aristideskrista439#Checkuser results sorted and decide whether it's worth running checkuser again on these newly discovered socks? (Note that there may be still more, I didn't yet check the user creation log for dates before March 5. This vandalism is rather annoying; it's often sneaky enough to be missed by the RC patrol.) Lupo 11:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• I know there are more; I only went one level deep. It's pretty frustrating, I know. I'll look at those today. Don't bother filing a new report. --jpgordon 14:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Another handful of open proxies. Thanks. --jpgordon 15:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • You're welcome. I've added some more on Feb 28 and March 6. That's it for now; it takes too much time to dig up those old accounts. Let's hope that the proxy blocking takes him out for a while. Lupo 10:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Verdict back again

Verdict is back being abusive again, this time requesting unblocks on many of his socks. He's used the following:

• Unstoppable88 (talk · contribs)
• Unstoppable89 (talk · contribs)
• Fusionxking (talk · contribs)
• Datghettoplaya (talk · contribs)
• MGAME (talk · contribs)

so far and will likely use the rest before the end of today. Could you block whatever IP address he's using right now before this spins out of control? Or do you need a checkuser request to be filled out? I'm not interested in knowing which IPs are being used, just having them blocked. --Yamla 17:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Got it. Just one. Also:

1. Arthur80 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
2. BatistaTheMan (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
3. Big Deacon (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
4. Jflo36 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
5. Jflo37 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
6. Oakster Oakster (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
7. Sebastian P 12 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
8. The Manster (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

jpgordon 18:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you check on BenTotkyo (talk · contribs) for me? We've moved to protecting the articles this vandal attacks which is making it harder to judge. I found and confirmed Jamal89 (talk · contribs) today and then this user became active immediately after the block on Jamal89, editing the same kind of articles and performing the same kind of edits. However, BenTotkyo has been active since the beginning of the month, making it slightly less likely to be an abusive sockpuppet. As an aside, I reported the abuse to the ISP in Sweden who forwarded a warning on to the user. This appears to have had no effect, however. --Yamla 18:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

BenTotkyo comes from a different sorta place -- a high school which is currently AO-blocked. --jpgordon 18:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. If it is not a school in Sweden, it's almost certainly not Verdict. If it is a school in Sweden, though, and particularly if it is in a certain city (which I'm not providing in public because of privacy considerations), give me a shout. Thanks for checking on this for me, I very much appreciate it. --Yamla 18:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked User Problem

Dear Josh,

Please check out my talk page at to see the wording of my unblock request. As you see it instructs me to contact you as to why my edits are 'similar' to two other users and why they apparently have used the same IP address.

My reply is as follows:

(a) Peta's complaint about "similar edits" (see my talk page) appears to refer to these other users (& myself) apparently incorrectly tagging image licences. Whilst I can't speak for the other two users, I can say that most of my image uploads have been PD-old-70 and I didn't think there was anything wrong with tagging them as 'Creative Commons 2.5'. I can't find any clear instruction on this on wikipedia, and so I suspect it might be a common mistake that many users make. This would explain this 'similarity' with other users.

Any correctional advice from you on how I should declare PD-old-70 uploads would be appreciated.

(Peta does have a somewhat abrupt way of implementing draconian measures without being very communicative. If you scan through her history, you will see she has treated others like this before. A classic example of her 'off-field' judgement is when she put out a TfD on the Guitarist Infobox and not one person agreed with her! And there are many other examples of her abrupt trigger happy behaviour. See her talk page and notice how another user refers to her approach to things as 'high handed' . Her levels of communication are also poor...if you scan through her talk page and follow the links, you'll see that she rarely replies to anyone.)

(b) Regarding the point about IP addresses. Well, I am somewhat at a loss here as to which is the offending IP address, because I for one do not use just one IP address but many. I edit from a number of locations. Some have very public access. I also work in a very large science organization with >20,000 people, many of whom would share an interest in scientific biography (which is the major type of wiki article I edit). Many of the computers have multiuser access.

I hope this helps to explain the situation. Unblocking me would be appreciated. Regards, SuperGirl 11:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I stand by my analysis of your IP usage; your description is utterly infeasible given the actual pattern of your edits. It's not even ambiguous or vague. Please do not continue to create sockpuppet accounts such as this one. Thank you. --jpgordon 04:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't waste your time.

Turok etcetera etcetera has been sockwarring for the last three hours or so. He's too stupid to stop. Just report any variants to the admin board HalfShadow 00:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Tor

Please be careful when blocking tor, as a lot of people actually need it. You should block it in a way that registered users can still edit. --Frenchman113 on wheels! 01:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please show me policy requiring this. --jpgordon 18:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sure you already know about Meta:WM:NOP which I understand to mean that TOR proxies should be blocked in such a way as to disallow registered users from editing. --Yamla 18:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

RFCU

In re Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dereks1x: Too obvious for CU? Insufficient grounds? Just curious. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'll generally not accept G cases; I don't think the category should exist. --jpgordon 18:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)