Misplaced Pages

Here's my simple suggestion: Allow even a *little* intellectual integrity to leak into the QW article on the V RS problems with Quackwatch's bias and errors, starting with the academically based Hufford (UPenn/Penn State Med School bioethics prof), reference directly quoting Kauffman (medicinal chemist, prof emeritus USP). a proposed example Maybe everyone could go home and have nice holiday dinners this year.--I'clast (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that that would resolve this issue on the QW article. Anthon01 (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Analysis

Let me offer my analysis of the situation:

1. Levine2112 has been editing alt-med articles for some time and seems to take particular pride in keeping certain characterizations in those articles in line with his own opinions.
2. WP:NPOV clearly delineates how we must treat alt-med articles: giving the proper weight to the scientific community's dubious opinions on most of these matters. There are a number of editors whose goal is to achieve this level of neutrality. Levine2112 often clashes with these editors over their attempts to contextualize and characterize the alt-med-related topics appropriately.
3. Quackwatch has been so contentious an article that over the last few months it has usually been under protection. Levine is often in the edit history of this page and he or those in his party have made frequent reverts with somewhat questionable edit summaries.
4. Levine2112 wears his civility as a badge and as a shield. His comments seem to indicate that he thinks that superficial civility is all that is needed.
5. I listed my concerns with Levine2112 above as his actions seem to me to correspond precisely with disruptive editing as defined by Misplaced Pages.
6. Instead of responding to these concerns, Levine2112 decides to level an attack against me which I felt compelled to analyze point-by-point above. He seems to think that my involvement in totally unrelated arbcomm cases invalidates my presentation of the problem here at AN/I. He seems to be trying to confuse the situation and scare off administrators who don't want to act hastily.
7. Now Levine2112 has decided to attack two different administrators who expressed concerns with his activities.

What seems to be developing here is a pattern where Levine2112 has issues raised about him and his response it to attack the messenger. He has a very high opinion of himself and seems to think that his activity at, say, Talk:Quackwatch is beyond reproach when in fact we've documented cases where he has basically declared consensus where it didn't exist, Wikilawyered his way into reinterpreting and synthesizing sources to get his opinions inserted in the article. If we were a company and I was presenting this matter before the board, I would recommend terminating Levine2112's employment as an editor at the encyclopedia. I just don't think he has made any useful contributions to our encyclopedia.

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Can sanctions be taken for an editor devising such a completely false depiction of another editor? Surely, this is the level of bad faith and incivility which ScienceApologist's ArbCom decision warned him/her about. -- Levine2112 23:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This response again seems to indicate that Levine2112 intends to continue in this pattern. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

SA frequently "skeptically" denounces, dismisses and harrasses editors on altmed edits that he doesn't agree with pretty readily, whether they might have more subject specific chemical & biological background or not. I consider SA's ANI here gratuitous, wasteful and provocative again, he's been plenty rude and threatening, to me too. I urge everyone to re-consider the merits of my suggestion above and allow the Quackwatch article to finally begin to re-stabilize with some slight element of NPOV, instead of endless stonewalling and POV denials on academically credible criticism of QW.--I'clast (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sock harassment

This sockmaster has moved from edit warring on pages (now protected) to pasting his edit into the talk page and demanding people place it in the article. Make them go away. Kluokli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See the vast list of socks on the user page. This sockmaster apparently made dozens of socks months ago specifically to avoid semi-pp. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Go to WP:ARBCOM right now. Go! --Gp75motorsports 15:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom is not the right suggestion to deal with sockpuppet issues, Gp75. I see there are tags, was an official WP:SSP case filed? There is a checkuser link, but it does not go to the correct case, it only goes to the main checkuser page. If a checkuser was done, it would be best to link the tag to the subpage. The editor is blocked, so it is just a matter of identifying any additional socks, tagging and blocking. ArbCom is not for dealing with sockpuppet vandals. Ariel♥Gold 15:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee would probably laugh if someone filed a case for this... Daniel 04:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom is used primarily as a last resort for disputes, and they make a decision that all parties must abide by. Sockpuppetry is handled differently; the accounts are all blocked, including the sockmaster. There are two places socking is handled: WP:SSP, where administrators compare editing patterns and attempt to establish a connection, and WP:RFCU, where checkusers check the IP of a suspected sockpuppet for tough cases. It checks every account that has logged into the IP, as well as every IP the account has logged into, in the last six months (I believe that's the amount of time). If the socking is persistent enough, the user is banned. Maser 06:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Aranherunar

There is a misinterperted Japanese reference at this article Ayumi Hamasaki. Information was provided on the talk page under the heading "sales" to show it was wrong, but this user continued to revert the article anyway, and responded to me with this racial slur "You can learn what you little pumpkin Japanese called "etiquette". Go drink a cup of tea" which I am very offended with. I also find his comment on my talk page insulting, particularly this sentence "In fact, please don't live in a world I assume you should not live in" 220.253.16.5 (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I call for the rejection and ignoring of this completely premature content dispute. There is apparently a misunderstanding here, with this user believing me to have added the "misinterpreted Japanese reference". The Japanese reference and the corresponding comment had nothing to do with me- What I did, along with another user , was to revert the edits in which the user removed massive amounts of well-cited information, claiming "copyrights" which obviously does not apply and original research. The user also happened to have made several attacks on my person, but I will let that go as he is apparently a new user and has little experience. End of case. Aran|heru|nar 18:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Aranherunar, I can understand that it can sometimes be frustrating to deal with confused new users, but why on earth did you have to use the term "you little pumpkin Japanese"?? What is the excuse for such incivility? Aecis 19:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have self-reverted the comment after consideration, but I must insist that Japanese do look like pumpkins - if you are willing to go to the articles and make the comparison. This, I believe, is not a misleading description. I understand that unnecessary descriptions only add to the stress (or, in this case, possibly a tingle of shame) to other editors - however, as the editor has been making a lot of descriptions himself, some on me (In fact, I did not even recognize the IP user at the beginning of this discussion - only now do I realize that I have had a few previous encounters with him, which probably explains why he accused me, wrongly, of "wiki stalking") and many on others , I can' help but show the user that we, like others, can make descriptions. Thank you. Aran|heru|nar 19:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the user added them back himself. If I do not misinterpret, being called pumpkins is actually an entertainment in Japan. Aran|heru|nar 19:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have protected the article for 2 weeks (at the wrong version, naturally), though obviously the protection should be lifted earlier if the edit war is over (however it ends). There was a subsequent flurry on my talk page, and I have told the two editors to go off and talk to each other and try to resolve their dispute. Both have conducted themselves poorly, and when I see one editor making a racial slur which is then wisely self-reverted and the offended editor reinstating it, I'm inclined to think that both parties need a cold shower. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It was reinstaded due to this complaint, it appeared the user was trying to pretend they didn't write it. 220.253.16.5 (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The information was removed because it is incorrect. It is also stated on the companies website (and the reference) that it may not be used without permission. The reference itself is misread, I even provided a reference from the same website, which mentions the first Japanese musician to sell more than 100 million records. This user claimed to speak Japanese, so I find it interesting they ignore both these points. I also provided an English reference to a news publication about the death of a famous Japanese female singer, who has achieved considerbly more than the singer in question. They are the only parts which were removed from the article. This user ignored them, and instead made a racial slur, and again insisted upon it!! I am very insulted by it. 220.253.16.5 (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I claimed to read Japanese, not speak Japanese. Suntzu says, "知己知彼， 百战百胜"; Confucius says, "溫故而知新，可以為師矣"; Laotzu says, "知人者智，自知者明". By the way, somebody should learn to read Chinese! Ha. Ha. Ha. Not funny.

Your words are very wise, BrownHairedGirl. In fact, I haven't had a shower for two days. I'm definitely going for one now. So long, my friends, especially the one resembling a radish head. Aran|heru|nar 19:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Aranherunar, coming to ANI and making further offensive personal attacks is not clever. I will now block you for 24 hours.

220.253.16.5, if you are offended by a comment, then reinstating it is simply disruptive: it remains in the page history, so there is no problem in determining who write it. Continuing this personal dispute at ANI is also disruptive, so you too will now be blocked for 24 hours. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Now both blocked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

... and one talk page protected due to further attacks. – Steel 19:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There's more to this than meets the eye; after some strange edits this week, I spent some time looking through Aranherunar's talk page and edits, and found a pattern of warnings removed from his talk page with edits similar to those I saw. Since his/her user talk page isn't archived, I had to step through the diffs to see how frequently these issues are occurring, and found one instance of a claim of someone else using his/her computer. The issue I saw was at ¿Por qué no te callas?, where Aranherunar made a series of edits that appeared semi-legitimate, but removed a good deal of cited text that enjoys consensus. Red flags went up at one piece of strange original research, uncited prankish text inserted into the middle of the seemingly legit edits: It looks like cleverly disguised vandalism, to insert vandalistic text among semi-legit edits. It's not clear to me if this is ongoing vandalism, pranks, someone else using the computer, or what, but I hope someone will take a closer look at the long term pattern of this user. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In this edit, most of our Hong Kong English article has been deleted (without any allegation that the assertions removed were either untrue or erroneous). May I restore them? Alice 20:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that text isn't fully cited. In the case of ¿Por qué no te callas?, Aranherunar twice deleted fully cited long-standing text, and replaced it with uncited original research prankish text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it. There may be some merit to the suggestion it needs review, but mass culls without discussion are probably unlikely to result in such an outcome. Orderinchaos 22:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have prepared a version with seven references hereAlice 23:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I've extended his block to 48 hours after this completely unacceptable post on his talk page after the block. Orderinchaos 22:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There does seem to be a common theme here. In this edit, ostensibly referenced material is removed. Alice 23:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That ridiculous request for unblock deserves an indefinite block, imo. Aecis 23:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No rush. If the user needs an indefinite block, they will prove it time and again. The diff provided by Orderinchaos is the sort of thing that leads me to conclude that this accounts purpose is disruption, not encyclopedia editing. - Jehochman 23:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I am disappointed by the way this complaint has been handled, especially BrownHairedGirl's administratorship. Anyway, unless that user wants to disrupt the article again, or make further asinine racial remarks, this issue has been resolved. Thanks 220.253.144.187 (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

False accusation of vandalism on Mr. Children

Excuse me but I also have a complaint in this matter in regards to 220.253.16.5. They have been editing out content in many Japanese articles in regards to sales record, and have been using only one English article to prove they are right (which only talks about one artist). They have given no other verifiable fact or resources, and pretty much have come to the conclusion that they are 100% right and the referenced source in the article is wrong. For example in the Mr. Children article, I reverted their deletion of Mr.Children's sales based on the fact that the Japanese equivalant of Billboard USA, called Oricon, said Mr.Children was the second highest selling artist. They even made a table in the article listing the top 5 artists. (and the statement was even referenced) This ip user then reverts my edit and then says this in the Mr.Children history edit page: "See talk page. You will be reported if you vandalise this page again,)". The Mr.Children article was NEVER vandalised, and this comment is totally uncalled for. They are threatening me for NO reason at all. I do not appreciate that. They even wrote this in my talk page: "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox." I've been editing here for a while now and again this is totally uncalled for. I am not vandalising anything. These statements made were referenced with a verifiable source. I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to comment on this, but since it's connected to this dispute in a way I figured it was okay. And now I'm afraid to edit the Mr.Children article since they said they're going to report me. - Hedatari (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No problems with raising it here. I've put a subheading on it to distinguish it from the rest. Orderinchaos 01:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I gave you a level 2 vandal warning because you continued to add misleading and false information into articles. The reference you are talking about is not an article about the 5 highest selling Japanese musicians. It also clearly states that the article may not be used on any website, blog, cell phone, ect, without permission from the company. This can cause copyright problems for the Misplaced Pages. This is from that same company , which I'm linking here to resolve this problem. It is the artist page for Michiya Mihashi, who in 1983 became the first Japanese musician to sell more than 100 million albums. There is an English version at this website. It appears it is your personal opinion that the band B'z is the highest selling Japanese musician, with around 75 million records as of 2007 (according to that same company) Edit: I'm not going to search for record sales of other Japanese musicians who have sold more than 75 million records, such as YMO. It is a rare thing for a record company to publish such information. Although an English news release about the death of Hibari Misora has already been provided on that talk page, and it details the amount of records she had sold at the time (which was 20 years ago) Please do not add information into articles, which is not true. This is the type of thing that mkes the English Misplaced Pages a poor website for learning. 220.253.144.187 (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly I NEVER added that original B'z sales statement to begin with. Someone else added that. I only reverted the part where you deleted it. Don't accuse me of stuff without thoroughly reviewing the article's edit history first. Secondly, like I said I did not add false information. Also the article can be used for encyclodic purposes as it is NOT stealing the information from the article. If it was copying and/or reproducing directly what Oricon had written in their article, then yes it could be considered a copyright violation, but instead it's linking (in addition to crediting) readers to the original source, in addtion to taking no direct quotes from the article to be in violation. Tons of Japanese artist articles here reference Oricon as that is their main source of verifable and factual information. Having some verifiable source to back up statements is better than having none at all. It seems this is something you are very passionate, and unfortunately, angry about but instead of trying to be helpful and work with your fellow wikipedia editors to improve these articles, you are bullying them and threatening to report them as vandals. - Hedatari (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with my complaint. I'm not being helpful and working with fellow Misplaced Pages editors to improve articles? I removed false information, and gave a polite explanation on the talk page, only to be met with racism from one editor and your ignorant and rude response. (below)

"It is NOT false information and can even be confirmed by the reference link that was listed. If you have a problem with the way Oricon calculates sales, I suggest you write to them and complain. By deleting information like you just did, you are placing your own personal opinion, and are failing to see that, while you may disagree, the information is verifiable and correct according to Oricon. Misplaced Pages is for posting verifiable facts. Not inputing personal opinion on whether or not we believe something to be true or false. I'm sorry you feel like the article is making false statements, but it is not. Unless you can find another official list (from RIAJ for example) of the highest selling artists in Japan, I'm afraid we have to stay with the current official list which was released by Oricon, of which places Mr.Children as the second highest selling act."

Thats speaks for itself, I shouldn't need to explain it. If you want to revert articles back to contain false and misleading information, especially after giving the above statement, then you will be given a friendly warning. Furthermore, according to Oricon, you may not use any information from their website without permission. This could explain why the Japanese Misplaced Pages appears not to have references to that website. If the English Misplaced Pages wants to take that chance, thats their problem. I was just pointing it out, especially since Japanese companies tend to protect their rights and take action. 220.253.144.187 (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. If a site is publicly available on the internet, then it can be used as a reference if it is deemed reliable. What they are actually stating is that the page itself may not be copied without permission (which is standard for copyrighted text). That's the most common statement I've seen on a wide variety of Japanese and English sites out there. ···日本穣 05:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well in the context, Oricon states you may not use their ranking data. I only mentioned it, because a magazine once used their data (quoting Oricon, which is as good as referencing) and were sued. Anyway, this problem is solved too. Thanks 220.253.109.122 (talk) 08:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That's just a standard copyright notice. --Saintjust (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I was not trying to be rude, and if you feel that way I am sorry, but you're initial talk response did not seem like a "polite explanation", but more like accusing everyone of trying to purposely sabotage artist sales. I also don't consider threatening to report someone in addition to calling someone a vandal a "friendly warning". Not only that, but now you are implying me and everyone else is stupid in all your talk page responses. Do you not see a problem with the way you're handling this? I'm sorry that other person was rude to you, but I never called you any names, and I'm not being ignorant. All I'm asking is for you to try and be a little understanding and not call everyone liars and vandals. Also, this issue does have something to do with your complaint as it is connected to the larger issue at hand. Additionally both of you wrote in my talk page, so I wanted admins to know there was more to this story than what the initial complaint was about. - Hedatari (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is an issue here. If you want to poke at a dead horse so to speak, then point out where I'm implying "everyone else" is "stupid" and how my initial comment on the talk page is not polite, and how it is also "accusing everyone". It is short and to the point. A decision to be stalwart after your comment, and this summary "According to Oricon they are. If you have a problem with it, I suggest you write to Oricon and complain" it was clear what action needed to be taken. Furthermore, Oricon is not an official source of anything, its just a marketing company. 220.253.31.178 (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User:hopiakuta

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/User:hopiakuta —Random832

User:Larry Lurkington and User:Betacommand

• Original thread re-located to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Larry Lurkington. Further comment is welcome at that page.

Subsequent confusion over the relocation archived below.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Well, that's one way of hindering a debate you don't want to have! It would be helpful to have more clear edit summaries in future for such moves (eg. indicating the section title of the moved material). DuncanHill (talk)

• It was a compromise between clogging up ANI with a thread that had moved towards "Yes it is/no it isn't" territory, and merely archiving it. You are of course free to continue the conversation on the subpage if you beleive it would be constructive. BLACKKITE
  • There should not be a compromise between something and "merely archiving it", because archiving an active discussion should not even be under consideration. -Amarkov moo!
    • It wasn't archived, just moved elsewhere. Does this need to be moved into another sub-page? —Wknight94 (talk)
      • I admit that moving it to a subpage is better than just slapping on the archive tags, but neither of them should have happened. There was no cause.
        • The discussion no longer belonged on the main ANI page as it had mainly moved towards a discussion of WP:SPA and WP:SOCK, and no admin action is currently required. BLACKKITE

User:Muntuwandi and the Origin of Religion

Main issue solved; no need to turn this into Yet Another Drama Magnet. —Kurykh 05:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In editing content about the "origin of religion" User:Muntuwandi refuses to abide by WP:Consensus and thumbs his nose at the outcomes of processes like Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion, Misplaced Pages:Deletion review, and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. While I can imagine specific content disputes being dealt with through mediation (even if it quite literally is Muntuwandi against the world), I would like to know if something can be done regarding this user's disruptive editing behavior. Here is a relevant outline of activity.

1. Muntuwandi adds information about the prehistoric origin of religion to the entry Religion. In the resulting discussion it is suggested that Development of religion is a much more appropriate forum for his information, but also that his presentation of the information is problematic.
2. Without engaging Development of religion Muntuwandi returns to add the same information to Religion once again. This time he creates a parent entry called Origin of religion prior to doing so and links to this parent entry. In the resulting discussion it is also suggested that Prehistoric religion is the appropriate entry for some of Muntuwandi’s information, which in its present form still suffers from presentation issues and various inaccuracies.
3. In the meantime another editor nominates Origin of religion for deletion, the result of which is delete. The closing admin deleted the entry as a content fork of Development of religion and during the discussion several editors suggest merging the usable portions of Muntuwandi’s content with that entry.
4. Muntuwandi then asks for a deletion review which endorses the deletion.
5. Before the review finishes Muntuwandi appeals to the Mediation Cabal who remain unresponsive to his request.
6. Muntuwandi then appeals to the Incident Noticeboard where it is suggested that he stop forum shopping for a favorable answer.
7. After this Muntuwandi simply recreates the deleted entry by changing the singular “origin” to the plural “origins.” The resulting discussion can be seen here.
8. When Origins of religion is redirected to Development of religion Muntuwandi creates Evolutionary theories on the origins of religion which is speedy deleted.
9. A month later Muntuwandi once again recreates the entry, this time making a plural into a singular to end up with Evolutionary theories on the origin of religion. He then returns to Religion to link to his new entry.
10. Currently Muntuwandi is fighting tooth and nail to 1) keep the deleted entry under its current title 2) to have all the other entries he once created redirect to it and 3) to keep relevant information out of entries like Development of religion so his entry can't be accused of being a content fork.

All the while Muntuwandi has refused to take the suggestions of engaging Development of religion and Prehistoric religion seriously, while ignoring the outcome of the AfD and DRV and/or the advice of the Incident Noticeboard. While I understand that content issues should be dealt with through mediation I don’t believe what I have outlined is a content issue, but a behavioral issue. This editor simply refuses to believe that all the other editors who have commented on his entry through several processes are right, but he is, and he is willing to continue a disruptive pattern of editing in order to come out victorious. Is there anything that can be done about this? Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi's latest content forks have now been deleted (under WP:CSD#G4) as recreations of the deleted Origin of religion. I have suggested that considering he's been warned a number of times already, that continuing to act against consensus, edit war, ignore AFD discussions and continue to try and create content forks he will face various sanctions which may include blocking. Given the warnings he's had, you could consider this a "final warning". Neıl ☎ 15:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

NOTE TO ADMINS: Muntuwandi has recreated the entry Evolutionary theories on the origin of religion about 4 hours after it was deleted. I can't see any administrative justification for doing so which causes me to assume he's simply taken it upon himself again to say what's what.PelleSmith (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I posted comments on the Anthropology project pagewhere I received positive feedback regarding this article. Muntuwandi (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This is done in bad faith. I have even requested for mediation to which the editors refused to get involved. See Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-17 Origin of religion. Muntuwandi (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see point #5 above which links to and refers to said request for mediation.PelleSmith (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have posted the content to my talk page. User talk:Muntuwandi/The evolutionary theories on the origin of religion for review on the accuracy of the information. I have requested Neil the admin who deleted the article for retrieval of the talk page discussions because there were some important and valid arguments that have been deleted. I think this should be treated as a content dispute, rather than a procedural dispute. I am and have always been willing to go for mediation. At present this dispute centers around three editors, myself, PelleSmith and Dbachmann. I have no problem with going through any independent dispute resolution process. Draconian measures such as deleting, protecting or threats of blocks will work in the short term. In the long term, the origin of religion is arguably one of the most important aspects of religion. As long as these underlying issues remain, the dispute will not be resolved. This dispute should not be played out on the notice board because this is mainly for administrator attention of procedural issues. We will not get any academic input from the notice board because the administrators are not necessarily academics. I therefore recommend to go for dispute resolution, if anybody is willing so that we can end this problem once and for all. Muntuwandi (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Below are Dbachmann's comments

ok, now we slowly seem to be getting over this paleolithic / out of Africa business, how should we arrange this article, and what should be its scope? At present, the article addresses three topics:

• 1. origin of religion in human evolution (origin of religion)
• 2. the development of new religions in human culture (history of religion)
• 3. the teleological view (revelation)

the three topics are all valid, and all related to notions of "development of religion", but I am not sure they should be discussed on the same page. perhaps we should move this whole thing to origin of religion and refactor it so that the historical part is a summary per WP:SS, and delegate the teleological part to a separate article? thoughts?. Muntuwandi (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC) The notion that I am unilaterally considering this article is not valid.

• Dbachmann in his own words expressed validity for this article.
• Bruceanthro also expressed the same concerns and support for the article. Anthropology project page.
• The administrator who closed the deletion review said there was nothing wrong procedurally but he admitted that there were a lot of merits to the argument.
• when the article was first created, editors dismissed it as being complete nonsense. However these were just initial impressions due to a lack of understanding of the content. Even PelleSmith, my adversary in this dispute, now admits that the content is accurate and valid. Our dispute is mainly about which article this content should be placed.
• PelleSmith has been deliberately trying to undermine my efforts on other articles. For example he tried to get this article I created on Steven Mithen deleted simply because I created it. See Talk:Steven_Mithen and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Steven Mithen. Editors deemed the nomination for deletion to be in bad faith.
• AFD decisions are not permanent. They just reflect the consensus at the time. The AFD took place 3 months ago. This article has to be reviewed on its specific merits again because it has undergone significant changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muntuwandi (talk • contribs) 19:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I therefore believe the articles deletion is premature and not justified. I have changed the name of the article from "origin of religion" to "Evolutionary theories on the origin of religion" so that iit is specifically referring to evolution. I understood that one of the problems is that evolution is not accepted by everyone, therefore having an article titled "origin of religion" that reflects mainly evolutionary science, may only be giving one perspective. Hence the controversy. By specifically naming the article "evolutionary theories on the origin of religion" narrows down the focus, so that those editors who believe in creation will not find a reason to dispute the content. It is for these reasons that I have outlined above that I will proceed to recreate the article. Feel free to post your comments there. Muntuwandi (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Lastly, allegations of disruptive behavior are without merit. This is my third year editing on wikipedia,I have enough experience to know when content is valid, and I am always willing to work with other editors. Unfortunately it is other editors who are not willing to work with me, despite many invitations from my self. Muntuwandi (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all nothing you have written here is to the point. This is not a noticeboard for content disputes. Any content disputes withstanding what I asked for was some action on your behavior which is disruptive and tiresome. Also, to clarify, I did not nominate Steve Mithen for deletion at all. In fact I clearly stated that I was only bothered by the circumstances of its creation but had no expertise to judge its merits and did not vote in its AfD. I have also never opposed all of the content in your original entry. I have been clear about this all along as well. There has been no 180 here since I, and others, have always stated that aspects of what you have been writing are worthy of inclusion in Development of religion and Prehistoric religion. It is the manner in which you synthesize information, and sometimes also misrepresent information, that is problematic and that lead to the downfall of the disputed entry. Yet I should repeat that this is not the forum for content disputes. This is a forum in which I've asked if there is a way to make you respect the results of the forums in which content issues were discussed by many editors (not just you, Dab and I). The fact that you haven't even waited for a single response from any administrator before taking it upon yourself to recreate this entry I think just about says it all. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I redeleted The evolutionary theories on the origin of religion. It also has been copied in user space at User talk:Muntuwandi/The evolutionary theories on the origin of religion, if that matters. Pastordavid (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionary theories on the origin of religion, article name

These are the primary sources that have been used in the article User talk:Muntuwandi/The evolutionary theories on the origin of religion. A few editors have suggested that the content should be placed in the articles Development of religion or Prehistoric religion. I don't know the basis for their suggestion. I included the content under the title "origin of religion" and "evolutionary theories on the origin of religion" because the major sources cited used the term "origin of religion" not "development of religion" or "prehistoric religion".

• "King, Barbara (2007). Evolving God: A Provocative View on the Origins of Religion. Doubleday Publishing." ISBN 0385521553.
• Excerpted from Evolving God by Barbara J. King
• Nicholas Wade uses the terms "Evolution of Religion" and the term Origin of religion in the book
• The Prehistory of the Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion and Science. Thames & Hudson. ISBN 0-500-05081-3.
• The Religious Mind and the Evolution of Religion. Also uses the term evolutionary origins of religion in the first paragraph.
• Ritual, Emotion, and Sacred Symbols: The Evolution of Religion as an Adaptive Complex.
• Wentzel vanHuyssteen uses the term Origin of religion.

I would therefore like a good explanation why, other than the consensus of two or three editors, the content should be placed under the title "development of religion" or "prehistoric religion". I would like to know where these editors got the idea that this content should be in the articles "Development of religion" or "Prehistoric religion". Without an answer, I cannot be satisfied with these assertions. The articles may be deleted, I may get blocked, but I will not be satisfied.I will be under the impression that it is just a personal opinion that is not scientifically substantiated or verified. I have provided proof from external sources for my reasoning and you can verify for yourselves. Muntuwandi (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place for a content dispute. If you believe that Development of religion or Prehistoric religion should be renamed, take it up on those talk pages and at requested moves, and seek consensus. However, there was a consensus here, involving much more than two or three editors, for not having the seperate articles. Pastordavid (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is not the place for a content dispute, however PelleSmith reported me here so I have to defend my position. Misplaced Pages works on consensus, however consensus must reflect the reality. Reasoning should prevail. If there is consensus to give an article about cats the name dogs, then the consensus is incorrect. The consensus should still justify why they want to give an article about cats the name dogs. This is exactly what is happening here. The consensus believes that this is a content fork of Development of religion, when the authors cited do not use the term "Development of religion", they use the term "origin of religion", "evolution of religion" or "evolutionary origins of religion". I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why the content should be in Developmen t of religion, when the authors cited do not use this term. There is a tendency for administrators to just focus on procedural issues so that they can keep their records clean. However, i think this case some very simple logic is needed. Procedurally, yes I am wrong because I am going against a 3 month old consensus. Academically I am right.Muntuwandi (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi - on your talk page, Pastordavid pointed you in the direction of Misplaced Pages:The Truth. I suggest you read it. Continual insistence of "I am right and everyone else is wrong" is usually a sign that you need to take a break and cool down. If you are unwilling to step back, and continue to act up against consensus, a break will be enforced upon you. Your own content can stay in userspace, and I suggest you try and discuss things on the appropriate talk pages (Talk:Development of religion or Talk:Prehistoric religion, or ask for further input from Wikiproject Religion. Neıl ☎ 09:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Neil,I dislike your MO of continuously making threats of blocks and trying to throw your weight around as an administrator. This behavior is nonconstructive to resolving disputes. First of all there are other editors who have been in agreement with me as I have pointed out above. Secondly any group decision has to provide justification for their decision with some form of reliable source as per wikipedia requirements, which they have not. Therefore the consensus is flawed because it has no backing from reliable sources. To be fair, I have researched their point of view and still find no justification. If you read the article on crowd psychology you will realize that some times groups of people do act irrationally. Muntuwandi (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There are many administrators who would have not done you the courtesy of warning you that your behaviour could lead to a block - they would have simply blocked you by now. I note that my "threats" have stopped you continuing to recreate the deleted content under different names, and so they achieved their purpose, with no blocking necessary. Please engage with your fellow editors in a productive way rather than running roughshod over the consensus they only recently arrived at because you don't agree with it. Group discussions do not have to provide reliable sources for their decision(s). WP:RS only applies to article space. Neıl ☎ 16:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see you have your finger on the trigger. I engage with my fellow editors all the time. Unfortunately along with the article, you deleted pages of useful discussion on the talk page. I would be happy if you could restore it to my user space. If you read through, you will find that your actions may have been unnecessary. If a group decision refers to article space, then it must comply with WP:RS. Otherwise groups will engage in original research, which is what they did. They made up a decision from out of the blue.If you read point 5 why was my page deleted, it is perfectly acceptable to recreate content that has been deleted which is what I did 2 months after the AFD. The guidelines indicate that one needs to do is to find more evidence of notability. If you see the article that was deleted 2 months ago and the article you deleted yesterday, there are significant changes. This is why I believe it is inappropriate to refer to an old AFD when dealing with new content. On the talk page that you deleted, you will see plenty of discussion on the reliability and notability of the content. As I mentioned to Pastordavis, we cannot continue to refer to one AFD forever and ever. It is not the holy grail of all decisions. I have seen articles nominated for deletion several times with the outcome of each decision different. Some articles get deleted after surviving several AFDs. This means consensus is never fixed but ever changing and evolving.Muntuwandi (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody here cares for content disputes. This is the incidents noticeboard, where one-off things like banned users evading blocks or other things requiring emergency administrator intervention are discussed. There are other venues to resolve grievances of your nature. east.718 at 09:23, December 18, 2007

I didn't bring this dispute here, someone else did. Muntuwandi (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

And the reason that they brought this matter here was not because of the content, but because of how you have been disruptive by recreating this article. You have what you wrote in your user space, where you can show it to others to make your case about article content. If you stop recreating the page, then the matter is ended & we can close this thread. Simple as that. -- llywrch (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not restrict the recreation of an article if notability is justified as I have mentioned earlier. In fact the article already meets all notability guidelines as per WP:RS AND WP:VERIFY.Muntuwandi (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

One last thing, if there is any administrator interested in some dispute resolution, you would very welcome as long as they would be willing to take a neutral and unbiased approach. It is a very interesting topic. Muntuwandi (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible spam by Timjowers

I have to head out right now, so I can't take any action/investigate this further, but could some admins take a look at Timjowers (talk · contribs)? His last edits are all adding a link into about 2 dozen articles. Thanks, Metros (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Note also that many of the links are inappropriately added in "See also" sections. Maralia (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked for now, feel free to unblock if the user shows that he won't carry on. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't a warning have been in order instead of a block 2 1/2 hours after their last edit? --Onorem♠Dil 19:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No-one asked this user about his edits. No-one told him about WP:SPAM. No-one told him about this discussion. No-one warned him. All his previous edits show good faith, don't have anything to do with the supposed "spam" links, or any other external links. Both of the links he added appear to be to ad-free non-profit pages with information appropriate to the articles in question, and quite within the ambit of WP:EL. While posting the same link to several articles may be spam, there's no evidence it was in this case. JzG: please explain why you did not warn this user, or ask him about the links? Please explain why a block was necessary despite the user being inactive for several hours? Please explain why you blocked an account with other, quite acceptable, edits indefinately? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

External links to votesmart.org are in my opinion reasonably appropriate. It might be a good non-partisan source for data on candidates. guono.com also just might be a useful non-partisan external source with a matrix of public perceptions of positions for the presidential candidates, though it isnt a scientific survey. JzG has been removing both, but I am not sure that is justified. and a block in the situation seem wholly inappropriate. With any additional support, I am willing to unblock & they should be discussed first before further action is taken DGG (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please unblock him. The vote-smart link is a valid link. I haven't looked at the other one, but a warning should have been issued first. Horologium (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Although the user hasn't requested an unblock—he may, of course, having been bitten (although the account was registered several months ago, the user had just fifteen edits before today, each, notably, constructive and plainly made in good faith), departed—I, too, would support unblocking. Even were the votesmart.org link not almost certainly appropriate per EL, a block in the absence of a prior polite warning/explanation of EL/SPAM seems altogether unwarranted. Joe 03:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• As I said here and on the user's talk page, I have no problem with him being unblocked once he comes back and starts dialogue, but users whose principal contributions are numerous external links to the same website have a long history, in my experience, of being unrepentant spammers, so I did not want to set a block that would simply expire without some kind of admin interaction to ensure the problem is fixed at source. This is not a failure of good faith, it's ensuring that an apparent problem is averted. Guy (Help!) 14:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

None of his previous edits were spam links; in fact, outside of his user page (to which he added three external links), the only external link he had added prior to yesterday was a reference to the IRS for one of his edits. This is not a linkspammer. Horologium (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The sites that he linked too may be useful, but is it necessary for every candidate page? Can they just go to the more general election article? I don't see a reason for this redundancy of having the same links on every candidate's page like this. That's what set off my radar was that he was posting this to dozens of candidate articles. Metros (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a classic case of shoot first and ask questions later, but without ever asking any questions. I found the Project Vote Smart website several months ago and have found it to be an invaluable source of information about candidates and current office holders. The Misplaced Pages article for the organization states that "Barry Goldwater, John McCain, former US Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, founded PVS. PVS does not accept financial contributions from lobbyists, governmental organizations, corporations, labor unions or other special interests." One would be rather hardpressed to manufacture a complaint that actually refers to links to Project Vote Smart as "spam", regardless of how many articles have been updated by any individual. I, myself, have added the website as a link and source to nearly all 120 General Assembly and State Senate members in New Jersey (take Upendra J. Chivukula as an entirely arbitrary example). When can I expect my permanent block to start? It disturbs me that there are admins like JzG (including Metros comments above) who will allow their "radar" or "Spidey senses" to allow them to determine that edits are in bad faith without any further investigation or information from the user involved, and that the only answer to the supposed problem is a permanent block. This isn't spam, this is administrative abuse. There is a problem here, and its not with Timjowers. Alansohn (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• I present this set of contribs, and these responses from JzG (Guy), when engaged by Tj, as evidence for unblock. It was a bad block. Mr Which??? 19:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't really see evidence of a bad block in that particular exchange. In fact, Mr. Jowers response here concerns me somewhat. — Satori Son 22:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the sites are appropriate or useful, it doesn't confer a license to spam Misplaced Pages even when it's true. We are going to see alot of these type of Political positions sites added over the next year, this trend has already begun, for example Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#WhereIstand.com. Spamming is about promoting a site or a site you love (Ie. adding alot of similar or related links), which does not always mean they need to be "commercial" or "spam sites" to be spam. "Relative and informative" sites get spammed excessively on the project all the time. good link/bad link + mass addition = spamming. FWIW. --Hu12 (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, sure, adding useful links from a given site to a wide variety of articles is, indeed, spamming, but it's not the sort of spamming for which we would ever block, since, well, it's constructive. Under your formulation, an editor who adds links to the respective IMDB pages of a large group of films would be engaged in pernicious spamming, notwithstanding that the links would be entirely consistent with EL; a block, then, would devolve simply because a user elected to add in rapid succession links to the gradual adding of which no one would object. In any case, though, even was the user here engaged in spamming, it is clear that he acted in good faith, and it is, frankly, ridiculous that he was blocked with no warning at all; had issues been raised at his talk page, he might well (AGF and all) have stopped adding links until such time as a consensus for their inclusion developed or until the EL/SPAM issues were clarified, and so any putative disruption might have been prevented with much less collateral damage. Joe 21:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop making so much sense. What you say is very true, though. Adding links to candidate positions isn't inherently "spam", which has a negative connotation. And it's certainly not blockable, especially when it's combined with the set of contribs I linked above. This was a bad block, it's as simple as that. Mr Which??? 21:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• I have a great idea: why not just ask Alansohn about everything, he'll always tell you I am wrong, and then we can all go away happy. I blocked the guy to stop what looked to me like repeated addition of links to a site which I don't see is authoritative or objective; I googled beforehand and saw several incidents of Tim Jowers promoting the site. I said then and here that I have no objection to anyone unblocking if they think the risk of further spamming of this site is over, I don't think it is based on his response to me, but I don't like political zealots (which his response to me suggests he is). People seem to be making an awfully big deal of this. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• I have a better idea. How about not getting snarky, checking Timjowers contribs, and unblocking him yourself. The fact that someone whom you claim opposes "everything" you do "on principle" opposes your block in this case, does not mean that your block was, in fact, good. The evidence doesn't support a block of any length, his angry reaction (that you classified as "right wing zealotry") notwithstanding. Any new user (heck, even old users) would get pissed if they were blocked for no good reason, and without warning to boot. Mr Which??? 21:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• And furthermore, blocking someone is a big deal, even if you think it's not, as you apparently do from your last line above. That's an awfully cavalier attitude toward one of the most sensitive buttons an admin has at his fingertips. That's one of the more disturbing comments I've seen from an admin lately. Mr Which??? 21:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What only makes this whole Timjower "spamming" incident all the more disturbing is that a set of three links to Project Vote Smart -- for biography, voting record, and interest group ratings -- are included on the Misplaced Pages articles of every single member of Congress, as far as I can tell. How did they get there, pray tell? It's included on the Template:CongLinks, which builds these links and links to a whole set of other links, including for-profit company websites with (heaven forbid) ads, such as that of The Washington Post. I'm not sure why we allow any administrator the ability to decide arbitrarily what constitutes spam, but this seems to be one of the worst determinations ever. Be warned, that there are over 1,600 links to vote-smart.org, if anyone is really determined to remove this offensive site from Misplaced Pages. Alansohn (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see of it, "guono.com" is not a neutral, reliable site. Their explanation of the issues, , is not mainstream. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Legistorm spammer

As an example of the supposed abuse of "spam" that we'll be sseing more of, check out Special:Contributions/Lyoshka, who has had the unmitigated gall to add links to legistorm.com, a site that provides information about salaries paid to congressional staffers. This person seems to have added 505 links to this site so far. Will this user be blocked, as well? Please do so quickly, as there seem to be 30 more congressional articles left to be updated and lots of work to needlessly revert all of these changes. Timjowers seems to have been hit by one of the greatest presumptions of bad faith I've ever seen. Blocking a user should only be done as the last resirt in the most extreme of cases where the block will stop abuse that is currently taking place; that's the principle I seek to uphold. I don't oppose anyone's actions on principle; it's the lack of principles that I object to. Alansohn (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Ugh. A once and final warning was issued earlier today, I'd have blocked. That is spamming, pure and simple, the user has no edits other than adding that link. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Plus, an anon who was reverting removal, soft blocked for a while and rolled back. 130+ links remain, if anyone feels motivated Special:Linksearch/*.legistorm.com. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Good grief! What's the problem with adding links to salaries of congressmen?!? Were they to a commercial site? A blog? What was the problem with the links?!? Mr Which??? 00:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the problem Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Storming_Media_LLC_Spamming. 5 WP:SOCK spam accounts and an IP registered to the owner of the site.--Hu12 (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• So, let me see if I understand your reasoning here. If I, as a user that is not an "SPA" were to have added these 505 links (all to neutral, objective, and informative information), it would have been fine. But because a new user who does only this does it, it's spam? That doesn't make any sense at all. And it makes less sense, if it's also spam if I did it, as there is absolutely nothing wrong with any information at those links. Mr Which??? 01:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Twsx

This user has for the last few months waged a constant edit war on at least two pages (Dissection (band) and Amon Amarth). He has been warned many times before about this. I reported him before but no action was taken as this was the first time he was reported. However, User:Scarian had a conversation with him telling everyone if they continued to edit war they would get reported and blocked. Well, Twsx refused to listen, obviously, because he's right back at edit warring. I ask for a block. As you can see from these history pages: 1 and 2, the user has waged a long running war and has an agenda that no one wants (users such as myself and other keep having to revert him). Thank you. Blizzard Beast 18:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Notified editor of this thread. Pastordavid (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, Pastordavid. As I have had to respond to this very issue (with this very user) too many times before, I have created a small page listing my arguments on the matter. It can be found here. Thank you. ~ | twsx | _cont | 18:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That page Twsx would have you look at is ridiculous and biased against me. It also brings up many old issues and edits that I have done in the past. For one it brings up that I have been blocked twice for edit warring on two different pages. I agreed to stop a long time ago and I would like to point out that Twsx is now doing the same thing I was blocked for and that is not acceptable. Blizzard Beast 19:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have warned this user a couple of times about his(/her?) POV pushing and warring behavior, without any success. I have tried to stop the POV pushing through discussion on a larger scale here. As users couldn't agree with each other I proposed a truce (here). Since the truce has been in place all edit wars and POV pushing have stopped.. except for the ones Twsx was involved in, despite numerous comments on Twsx' talk page. Kameejl 20:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Some comments I've posted on Twsx' talk page. , , , Kameejl 21:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Magnonimous/24.36.201.161

• Magnonimous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24.36.201.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Article

• Coral calcium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Magnonimous has changed signatures for 24.36.201.161 to his own , so I'm assuming these are the same person. He's a WP:SPA that's been edit-warring in Coral calcium from his earliest edits. While his edits probably qualify for WP:AN/3RR, I thought it would be better to report here since the situation is complicated and involves WP:OWN and WP:FRINGE issues.

I'm an involved editor here. Once it became clear Magnonimous/24.36.201.161 was going to edit-war no matter what I said on the talk page, I've tried to restrict my edits to the talk page other than to tag problems and properly main tags. (Yes, some of the edit-warring is over tags). --Ronz (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal Re

Magnonimous

User Ronz has overstepped WP:FANATIC guidelines 2-6 on repeated occasions. I believe Ronz may have used sockpuppetry to disguise some outright deletions of my contributions to the article. My contributions have been undermined repeatedly by outright deletions with questionable reasons. The fact that Ronz keeps coming up with new and creative ways to justify these deletions, leads me to believe that he is more concerned with blocking content that he disagrees with, than maintaining the integrity of the article. I believe I have acted in an overly defensive manner at times. In my defense, I do not currently subscribe to ownership of articles, but I do believe that complete deletion of contributions is not constructive to articles, and I may react accordingly. Magnonimous (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"I believe Ronz may have used sockpuppetry to disguise some outright deletions of my contributions to the article." Please provide evidence for such, or remove the accusation. I've made no other edits to Coral calcium or Talk:Coral calcium, through another account, an ip, etc, nor have I asked anyone to do so. --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have acted in an overly defensive manner at times. In my defense... Sweet Mother Irony, what would humor be without you? JuJube (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to forgoe some diffs here unless asked for, as Magnonimous's tiny contribution history (he only appeared just recently to push his content changes to Coral Calcium), as well as having all his edits confined to the article in question and its talk page, makes it very easy to see what he's been doing. Magnonimous is attempting to add content to Coral calcium on purported health benefits. The primary issue at the moment, in my opinion, is that these studies don't mention coral calcium. Rather, they are about calcium supplements in general. I've explained to him that making his claims about coral calcium constitutes content forking and original synthesis, but he has comitted to push his edits anyway, and doesn't see a problem . He has also professed to be driven by a somewhat unusual conflict of interest . Someguy1221 (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The only question is whether these studies can be applied to coral calcium; and the only difference between all calcium supplements is how much calcium is made available to the body. This amount, or percentage, is called elemental calcium. Example: "If a tablet contains 500 milligrams of calcium carbonate, it contains only 200 milligrams of elemental calcium. This is because only 40% of the calcium compound is elemental calcium". -Calcium Supplement Guidelines, VERONICA A. MULLINS, M.S., R.D. and LINDA HOUTKOOPER, PH.D., R.D.; It's not: What amount of coral calcium provides health benefits?, it's that coral calcium provides health benefits. Magnonimous (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, There is prominent research that suggests that coral calcium is actually better than calcium carbonate for preventing colon cancer. Calcium carbonate was used in the original study. Magnonimous (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Nobody on this noticeboard cares for content disputes. Take it somewhere else. east.718 at 02:24, December 18, 2007

Continued edit-warring

Magnonimous continued to edit-war after commenting to this report, and after calling for a "TRUCE": . --Ronz (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The "TRUCE" applied to me and you only, and stipulated that both points of view be included in the article. Magnonimous (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"I will agree not to add any more to the article." This clearly implies that I would not add more than I already had. Magnonimous (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Magnonimous, while we do not care about content disputes, we do care about things like WP:3RR. The edit Ronz pointed above brings you a hair's breadth away from the electric fence of that policy. I strongly encourage you not to reinsert this material into this article again unless you can obtain a consensus on Talk: Coral calcium. -- llywrch (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Update

"

1. 02:59, 18 December 2007 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎ (→User:Magnonimous/24.36.201.161 - continued edit-warring)
2. 02:52, 18 December 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Calcium‎ (→Coral Calcium Merge - Oppose)

"

• User Ronz enlists the help of a respected colleague: User Someguy1221 to help him resolve this edit war in his favor.

• Someguy1221 Gives good advice including the fact that parts of this article may be a content fork.

• User Magnonimous takes advice to heart, and proposes reintegration of content fork into main calcium article.

• Ronz opposes proposal based on advice of his friend, and then proceeds to retaliate by claiming the edit war continues, in his tireless quest to ban his arch nemesis, who's only crime is to have a differing opinion, and to express it, with sources to back it up.

Magnonimous (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

edit warring at kwanzaa

Don't know where to bring this as he is a very powerful user here at wiki, User:jpgordon has been edit-warring at kwanzaa over the past couple of years and has escalated things in the past week or so. He's reverted multiple times in the past day or so with very dishonest edit summaries like "yawn, that's just vandalism" when the edit was clearly NOT vandalism and calling contributions "rants". Just now he told me he'd block me if I edited the article. Seems like bad behavior from an arbitrator. Maybe another admin could speak to him about it.

Thanks Justforasecond (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that it's not vandalism, and appears to be a good faith attempt to add to the article. However, a point that is not mentioned is the fact that it's not sourced. You quote a Washington Post interview, but do you have a citation for it? Issue number, publication date, etc? I'm still reading through the article, but claims about living persons fall under WP:BLP, which may be what is triggering the revert.

Also, If you agreed at one point to stay away from the article, as jpgordon indicates that you did , perhaps it would be better to post your additions (with citations) to the talk page for discussion? If it's well-cited, someone else will certainly add the material. ZZ ~ Evidence 19:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, it is not being reverted as BLP, its being reverted as vandalism. It is easily verified in frontpage mag, which I think covers the BLP question, but other editors have also looked through washington post microfiche and verified it is there too. Anyway it seems like improper behavior to me, jpgordon knows wiki inside and out and is calling things vandalism which are not at all vandalism. He's reverted at least three separate editors in the past couple of days, which seems to be disregarding consensus. Gordon's policing for true vandalism, like the time an IP called kwanzaa "pagan" is appreciated, but calling good-faith edits vandalism is not. Justforasecond (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, regardless, do you have the complete citation or not? That is the real concern. The other editors there indicate that they don't consider Frontpage reliable which doesn't look good when you repeat that argument here. Pharos just saying "I looked it up a while back" in the Washington Post doesn't exactly inspire confidence. The real policy concern is WP:V. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

the citation at , which seems to meet , but if the policy is verifiability can speak to him about the distinction between verifiability and vandalism? also seems really incivil to use edit summaries like "yawn, that's just vandalism". Totally unconstructive. Justforasecond (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Attention needed

I have to go right now, but can someone please block the uploader of this image (don't worry, it's perfectly safe) and delete all his uploads? This is a serial copyright abuser I've dealt with before. Grandmasterka 23:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What's the prior account? We probably shouldn't just zap someone no warnings without confirming the sock history... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I took care of it. See the userpage for details on previous accounts. Grandmasterka 23:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Un-semiprotecting

Royalguard11 (talk · contribs) has started systematically unprotecting semiprotected pages without attempts of obtaining consensus about his actions. This includes pages such as obesity, cancer, Judaism, Muslim, Jesus and other predictable targets of vandalism. When I asked whether he'd considered the risk of vandalism, I received the reply that "eight and a half months is excessive. Period." This user has now stopped communicating with me.

I am deeply concerned that important and vandalism-prone content is being exposed to vandalism. JFW | T@lk 00:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As I've told you already, I'm dealing with the 8.5 month backlog at Special:Protectedpages, mostly because no other admin has taken the initiative to do it. Your also twisting what's happened, because I haven't stopped communicating with you. Your using as many methods you can to make sure that everyone has a bad first impression and therefore side with you. Anyways, yes I consider that 8.5 months is excessive for semiprotection. Every article is unprotected at some time, even Bush gets unprotected once and a while. Why not others? There isn't a policy that says that cancer can be indefinitely semiprotected just because someone says. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 00:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, unless you haven't checked, this is a wiki. Everything is vandal-prone. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 00:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection is never meant to be indefinite solution. Take a look at this discussion on meta: m:Protected_pages_considered_harmful ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The meta page does not allow for semiprotection, which is the crux of this dispute. JFW | T@lk 00:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

We are clearly disagreeing on an interpretation of policy, so I would like to ask you to stop until this has been clarified. Is that possible? JFW | T@lk 00:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be blunt, but I think this is more of a case that you are misunderstanding policy and precedence. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Precedence" actually dictates that indefinite semi-protection be used for articles subjected to continued heavy vandalism, biographies subject to POV-pushing or slanderous material, user pages when requested, and policy pages on a case-by-case basis. I'm disappointed that this administrator didn't seek input before going on a large unprotection spree. east.718 at 00:47, December 18, 2007

Could you explain what I'm misunderstanding here? Or rather, how do I know that it's not Royalguard11 doing the misunderstanding? And where is the precedent you are referring to? JFW | T@lk 00:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'd agree with most of these unprotections, but a few should probably never be unprotected - I've just re-protected Gay after it was hit twice within minutes of the protection being lifted; this one probably isn't worth the effort. I've watchlisted a lot of others, and will keep an eye out. BLACKKITE 00:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

On what grounds, and for how long, would you reinstate semiprotection? Obviously, the majority of the pages unprotected by Royalguard11 will suffer vandalism within the next hour or so. Where are we meant to draw the line, and should these pages have been unprotected to begin with? By semiprotecting we are not exactly closing down editing - we are only delaying for autoconfirmed registered users. JFW | T@lk 00:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• I feel I must chime in here, that mass unprotection is a Bad Idea(tm). Those articles are vandal magnets and consensus has long been reached that indefinite semiprotection was reasonable for those. Quoth the WP:PROT "Indefinite semi-protection may be used for: Articles subject to heavy and continued vandalism, such as the George W. Bush article." — Coren  00:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I am glad that semiprot seems be putting back in place on a case-by-case basis, rather than as a blind mass revert. I haven't checked a list, just yet, but from the chatter it seems like a fair number of these were overdue for unprotection. Possibly not the best method, but I think it was done in good faith, and it's brought attention to the issue. Sooo... on to the issue. If any of these become controversial, we can (and should) discuss them in particular. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure Royalguard11 acted in good faith, but the unprotection of some of these articles shows a lapse in judgment in my honest opinion. In any case I agree with Luna, lets take it case by case for now. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt this was a good faith move, especially given the foundation issue. But it's also a ill-conceived moved— I would support reexamining all of those semis, but just doing the blanket unprotect was a bit... too bold. — Coren  01:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Batch unprotection is not uncommon. There are several admins who routinely go through Special:Protectedpages to let in a breath of fresh air to those that are locked for too long without expiry. There are some pages that remain protected for years because no one has remembered, or bothered, to get them unprotected. There are some pages which are obvious candidates for permanent semi-protection, and I hope the unprotecting admin applies some common sense, but if any are unprotected and subjected to extreme vandalism then they can always be reprotected. No big deal. -- zzuuzz 01:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really like batch unprotection... but at the same time, I don't like when admins semi-protect an article and never follow up. Your goal should be finding the right balance of semi-protection and non-protection. Going around and unprotecting articles like Gay and walking away is irresponsible, but so is semi-protecting some obscure article due to a few instances of vandalism, then leaving it semi-protected for 8.5 months. Everyone needs to be more vigilent here... if admins wouldn't make perpetual semi-protections where they really aren't needed, there wouldn't be admins running around doing batch unprotections and walking away. Unprotecting articles like Gay and so on shouldn't be done en masse... anyone wanting to do that should be familiar with the article and its editting patterns and willing to stick around and revert vandalism, and judge when or if semi-protection is needed again. Assuming someone else will do the dirty work is disrespectful of people who deal with unprotected pages, rather than just dash around making them unprotected. --W.marsh 01:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm just following what's been done before here. Before I did it, VOA did a ton of unprotection runs, again because no one else did. A lot of the ones I unprotected had "vandalism" as the reason, and was protected for 8 months. Maybe I'm missing something, but vandalism that happened 8 months ago doesn't matter anymore. If I don't do large unprotection runs, the backlog will just get bigger and bigger as time goes on (as it has for the last 8 months). Sometimes these articles are protected almost indefinitely because no one goes through them ever, and no one bothers to ask for it to be unprotected. That's obviously not what Jimbo nor the WMF have in mind for the "Encyclopedia that anyone can edit", because we have way too many uselessly protected pages right now. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I would encourage you to try to figure out which ones were bad semi-protections, just in response to relatively minor vandalism, and which ones were on articles with severe vandalism problems. Unfortunately, community consensus is that some articles, like George W. Bush, really have to be perpetually semi-protected... advocates of non-protection have unprotected that article then quickly reprotected it in frustration. You unprotected too many pages, as far as I can tell, for you to be following up on them all to see if vandalism got out of control on any of them. --W.marsh 01:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Then how are all these articles going to be unprotected? Shall I request the unprotection of a thousand articles at WP:RFPP? -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You should indicate you aren't just throwing the article to the wolves, but will be watching it and helping out. Vandalism isn't just magically dealt with... the people who deal with it appreciate a little respect. --W.marsh 01:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, even after the "excessive" amount I unprotected, the backlog still stands at late April. If I unprotected the first 1000 articles, that only puts us at Oct. 10. There's still 2 months after that. Do you have any better ideas on how to deal with that? -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, everyone needs to be more vigilant... that includes admins who don't set expiration dates (not sure if that feature was around in April though) on semi-protections, and otherwise don't follow up with their semiprotections. If they didn't do that, it's my belief there wouldn't be such backlogs in the first place. But one irresponsible action doesn't justify another... even if it is a big backlog. I could go close every open AFD in a few hours, and justify the dozens of bad closes by saying "How else could we have dealt with the backlog?" --W.marsh 02:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I must have missed the memo. When did AFD become 8 months behind? The difference is, of corse, AFD is always cleared within a week because it's watched. And while looking through the logs for pages, some had been thorough an expired protection, then reprotected without one. There were several admins who just repeatedly didn't set an expiry date. There are some who don't put an expiry date now for no good reason. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 02:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you talked to any of these admins? --W.marsh 02:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Two things would help here - first, talk to these admins, as W.marsh says. Second, in the spirit of poka-yoke, is there any way of changing the protection page so it puts an expiry period of 1 month in the field as default, forcing someone to actively select indefinite protection? Neıl ☎ 09:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That second is actually a really good idea. Don't know why it never occurred to me that "Indefinite" should not be the default option for article protection any more than it should be for account blocking. Is this a proper issue for a BugZilla request, or is there a simpler way to edit that interface? — Satori Son 15:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(deindenting) I don't think there's any point trying to talk to admins. Some even missed the whole point here, so if you want to say something, go ahead, I don't think it'll change anything. I see also that no one has come up with a viable solution for the problem at hand (backlog of pages). The idea about defaulting to 1 month I like, because I'd consider that to be the maximum for any new protection. As zzuuzz said above, articles can be reprotected, it's not a big deal like it's been made out to be here. If someone reverts my unprotection, I won't loose any sleep over it, I promise. Everyone is way too afraid of being accused of "wheel warring". Like Nike says, Just Do It, and stop trying to be politicians. Be bold has been a wiki-principle forever, but no one does it anymore. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 17:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any point trying to talk to admins. I'm not sure if that's a good approach. By that reasoning, the rest of us ought not talk to you, either, and just undo your actions without comment.... Incidentally, I don't mind the idea of having a default protection period of some intermediate length. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no point in talking, the only solution is to undo admin actions with a template message? This kind of behavior on both sides is why we have this problem. As far as I'm considered both sides are being uncommunicative and irresponsible... then wondering why there's a problem. --W.marsh 19:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

... be bold but not reckless. I have no beef with unprotecting most of those articles. I have a big problem with mindlessly unprotecting all articles without so much as a bit of consideration on whether it's a good idea for the specific articles. — Coren  21:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Eleemosynary

I have only been here a few weeks, but unfortunately I have run across one of the rudest and worst behaved editors here. After noticing me on an article he was engaging in an edit war with several other editors, he followed me to two other articles to revert me. He has a fairly extensive history of being blocked, and is currently engaging in an edit war Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy‎

Could someone please speak with him and ask him to behave. . DJ Creamity 03:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Newly created account User:DJ Creamity has exhibited far more knowledge and dexterity with Misplaced Pages user fonts, formatting, and policies than typical of most three-week-old accounts. That's because he's most likely a sock. He's been concentrating mostly on political pages, and has been blanking huge amounts of data on the Laura Ingraham page, without gaining consensus, and citing the catch-all "BLP VIOLATION!" ruse when no such policy violation exists. When asked to back up his claim of "BLP Violation," he refuses to supply a coherent answer.

And now he's falsely accusing me of Wikistalking, and engaging in an edit war. I'm doing neither. But I will be reverting his blanking vandalism, and I encourage all interested editors to watchlist the pages he edits. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, DJ, he's right about that. Why are you removing much amount of sourced information here and here? I'll also add that for this comment, I have half a mind to just mark this resolved and watch you more carefully. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with Ricky81682. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Per the discussion at Talk:Laura_Ingraham#Removal_of_Controversy_Section, DJ's issue seems to be that the controversy section (even though there are plenty of 3rd party cites) should go because none of those third-party citations use the word "controversy"? I'll leave it to others, but I'd suggest WP:3O but I think it'd be a waste of time. I see that Will have changed the section heading per your view but you still chose to remove the section again. While it is probably not best, I'd like to see how you read WP:BLP. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Phyllis Chesler

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Could someone please look over User:Jayjg's remarks at Talk:Phyllis Chesler ()? It seems to me that his concluding statement constitutes a threat, and I'd be quite interested to see how others would interpret it.

I should indicate that I've already responded to Jayjg here. CJCurrie (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In your links, I see two people who adamantly disagree. I don't see any threats. Maybe a threat to request page protection, but the idea that "stronger action" is a threat of violence or an abuse of admin abilities seems really silly to me. Your response, which you linked to, seems particularly goading and sarcastic. There's no need to assume the worst. My suggestion is: toughen up, assume good faith, and work toward consensus. All the best, – Quadell 03:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you've vastly overstated your case: I don't think Jayjg's comment is even close to a threat. That being the case, I can't help but see this as a case of coming to WP:AN/I with an exaggerated claim in the hope of gaining the upper hand in a simple content dispute. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could be convinced that this is a simple content dispute, but the implications of Jayjg's concluding words might seem to suggest otherwise. CJCurrie (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That's nothing different than what dozens of other administrators say dozens of other times daily at Misplaced Pages in similar circumstances, and frankly, he appears to be correct on the content issues there. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree on that point, but it's not the main issue for our purposes. CJCurrie (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Setting aside the underlying content dispute, it is entirely appropriate for an administrator to threaten to take further action when they believe an editor is violating Misplaced Pages policy or editing against established community consensus. Arguably, that is one of our primary roles as administrators. (Please note that I have not reviewed the dispute in question, I am only commenting on the question of the "threat".)

That being said, I encourage the parties to try to reach an agreement or, failing that, avail themselves of the various avenues available at WP:Dispute resolution. — Satori Son 14:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Kevin.Kinchen

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Block dispute, not only blocked erroneously, insulted by the admin and wronged, when I tried to explain in discussion on my own talk page in a clear civil manner, It was continuously removed... Thats my personal talk page mind you, and then blocked from editing my own talk page, the comments that revealed what was occuring were consequentally removed and a bot came along and mega blocked me. This user or admin didn't just try to provoke me, they out right harrassed me. Coren. They followed me from a discussion that was being had in regards to an article in AFD and lashed out at me. Then to make matter worse they cited "The only contributions from this account are to support another single purpose account posting hoaxes. Please read the policy on using multiple accounts" but the fact is, they are the ones who declared anything a hoax. They declared it on an article that had already passed deletion review and was re-instated and already was in afd and deletion overturned. If it went through both processes and was un-deleted, then in what way is there a hoax. I almost let this go but you see, not only was I insulted, bashed on my own talk page, and subsequently treated very harshly, removed by a bot and apparently indefinately banned. I was left with no way to prove anything, no way to rebute anything and consistantly tormented by someone who has a conflict of interest, I could feel the guy laughing at me on the other side of the screen. I have never been so insulted. this is honestly how i feel and in regards to the accusation of a sock thing, I have an account... 1, only one. Not 2 not five not 11, 1, just 1. Someone I know was trying to promote an effort to be recognized because they wanted to do it. they also are just one. From our discussion, hers and mine i can assertain she was treated just as poorly, (although she might have deserved something) the extent of the actions and the outright refusal of this person to give even the smallest shred of evidence on my or her behalf is infuriating. With little explanation and motive of as i see it punishment for disagreeing with thier point of view we were prosecuted and immediately without regard shot in the back of the monitor execution style. Everyone involved was trying to make an honest article, there was no hoax involved whatsoever. This was totally and completely over blown by someone who just wanted to be right. I feel better now for atleast i have told you why I feel the way I do and why i am really not liking wikipedia much right now. I know not everyone there is like that so for one last shred of decency I thought I would take the chance and post my thoughts.

P.S Her account is castawayred if you want to see her side of what was happening.

Kevin.Kinchen (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at your contributions, it looks like your account is a single-purpose account, designed to keep a single article. If castawayred, who you tried to protect, is also a single-purpose account with the same purpose, then it makes sense that someone may consider you a sockpuppet of castawayred. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason why it was called a hoax is because it is. Every single assertions in that article bearing your name is provably false, and indeed have been verified to be false or physically impossible. Tom Lane (nor any of the other devs) know you by this name or your purported aka, the database you claim to have constructed has been described by them as "impossible", and is alleged to run on a platform that postgresql cannot, and never could, run on. You are not "widely known" in any community, the books you claim to have published do not exist, and I'm willing to bet that if we were to check with the Marine Corps, they never heard of you either.

Whether you are trolling, attempting to make some sort of twisted point or simply honestly deluded is immaterial. — Coren  15:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Block Coren

This is vandalism, and personal attack by Coren. I suspect the reason for the non speedy deletion in cases of a potential hoax centers around this fact. Notoriety pertains to something notable. Having seen this discussion go so many shades of wrong i expect an apology and reversal of everything ioeth or loeth and coren have done in the last two days to anyone who is even remotely involved with this case. The reason being that while I am not allowed my day in court here, the truth is I "can" and given the oppurtunity "would" prove this. Thats why it is notable after all. It is not impossible. Postgres can and does run on that platform. I was in the Marine Corps and the tone and feeling of the entry itself is nothing short of insulting and accusatory.

Dear Od Mishehu, The question has risen if this is a single purpose account. Hello, i signed up saturday, made one comment, got blocked and banned almost immediately and have been hounded and followed by coren and ioeth ever since. Really now. If you are blocked right after you sign up how could you in any way have not only done one or two things.

Given time and the ability to prove this article I would, however, this isn't even my article. The fact that I have anything at all to do with it is because Coren rather than ask for references or proof has been insulting and accusatory. So in that I am here by requesting mediation. I want coren blocked from anything involved, I want "my" account unlocked and only mine because it is mine. and I want the oppurtunity to add relevant facts, proofs and references to a deletion review that would prove this article is not a hoax. That said. The policy of wikipedia requires atleast that much but the admins involved here did not follow it. If I can prove this, and lets just say that I can, and I can, wouldn't you agree, this is insulting. i am gathering all the resources, screen shots, statements, and specs. In addition I am contacting postgres with this activity and getting some statements. In a weeks time or so, I will have it all prepared. Please unblock my account, and based upon all this stress block Coren and ioeth, or at the very least Give me a restraining order against their obviuos harrasment and vandalism to my page. They even blocked my own user page discussion so I couldn't provide evidence. Three days out of the bin and this is how I am being treated, Sockpuppet? Really? Don't you think this is witch huntish.

And I am not simply honestly deluded. I am sick of these abusive comments. They really need to stop.

Kevin.Kinchen (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're blocked, the fact that you are posting here is a violation of your block, and this IP address User:70.6.109.105 should be blocked as well. You can post on your Talk page and put on an unblock tag. Corvus cornix_talk 18:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness, he cannot: Yamla (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) protected it after he abused the {{unblock}} template. — Coren  18:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness I myself apologize for ever starting any sort of article on wikipedia, I didnt mean to cause any harm whatsoever, I am not doing any trolling thing or whatever you called it, I honestly tried to put an honest true article on the encyclopedia and with no ill intent I have one account. The autobot blocked me from my talk page as well for supposed abuse that occurs over a supposed hoax which when it turns out not to be a hoax and is true in any form, by the way still no ill intention whatsoever was intended, and I do have a single account, the initial block would be removed making the subsequent blocks removed making the whole thing null. The autobot blocked for abuse of unblock after asking a second time, I don't get that. I don't see that as abuse but as a personal argument contructed by an admin who should have backed off long ago due to conflicts of interest. It is already too personal for them. regardless, they caused all of the grief and based on thier actions make all the accusations, given what was covered up, restoring what was said and following the progression in a straight line of everything that was done, would this seem a hoax? Would it even seem in-appropriate? Everyone took this just a little too seriously and thats why everyones feelings are hurt. castawayred_talk 16:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.14.130.126 (talk)

User:Sam coles 1234

This user seems to have tons of sockpuppets, so far today 4 of them, is there get the underlying IP for this user blocked? VivioFateFan 10:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

See if this falls into an area under WP:CHECK - they are capable of checking this information, they only use it if it is, in fact, necessary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

A considerate vandal

I must be seeing things - does this mark the first time a vandal has been considerate enough to report themselves to administrator intervention against vandalism? Giles Bennett 13:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Must not be getting enough attention. :) --Moonriddengirl 13:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

A friendly considerate vandal, it seems. They welcomed... themselves . Tonywalton  13:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I had to do a double take when I saw that, but in the end I thought it maybe better to grant the request. 14:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This has me at ... a loss for words. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Requesting indefinite block on IP

12.107.72.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a shared IP address registered to a public high school. Although students might contribute positively to Misplaced Pages, most potential edits would turn out to be disruptive. Please block this user indefinitely. Doomed Rasher (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The IP's current block is due to expire in October next year. Perhaps we could revisit the issue after that. -- zzuuzz 14:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on David Milband

Can we get some more eyes on David Miliband, there is some fair contentious edit warring going on (I myself perform a revert early on in the edit war)which might slip over into BLP territory, since Miliband is a very prominent member of her Maj's govt and that article is likely to be watched by various media sources, I think we'd all prefer not to find ourselves, once again, the subject of mockery in the UK press. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the page, the edit war had been on going for a few days with no non-reverts in between so protection seemed like the best step. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Herward77 is not only engaging alone in edit wars with at least 3 editors over this but he ois also insulting everyone with such classics as Sounds like the newly found power in your otherwise empty and pointless life is going to your head and calling those who disagree with him communists, anti-patriotic and any other insult he can come up with. IMO this editor is being seriously problematic and seems only interested in attacking Miliband, and his behaviour should be at least reviewed as without him ion the picture there would be no dispute and no issue. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be a reasonable compromise position available here, which I have suggested at Talk:David Miliband#Outside_input. Herward77 does seem to be POV-pushing, and has reverted everyone else who has contributed, but I think that when faced with all the furious denunciations of Milliband by Herward77, Squeakbox has over-reacted a little bit by trying to remove all the content relating to relating to Milliband's granbdpa. Some of it seems quite uncontroversial. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

72.39.110.204

User 72.39.110.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) continues to make reverts at Template:Canadian mobile phone companies. He hasn't broken 3RR, but he's gaming the system. GJ (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As you are the only one reverting the edits, the same must apply to you. I noticed the talk page is still a red link. That is probably a good place to start a discussion on the difference between a major mobile phone network operator and a mobile virtual mobile phone network operator. Or you could try and start a discussion on the IP's talk page. -- zzuuzz 15:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, but I'm saying the same thing) The issue seems to be with Fido solutions, who the IP wants in the "major network operators" and User:GreenJoe reverts to "regional network operators". I'd certainly agree that the IP's actions are not constructive, but equally (and bear in mind here that I know nothing about the Canadian telecoms industry) the term "major network operators" does seem somewhat open to interpretation. Is this an official classification, or should it be "national operators" or similar? Unless all ambiguity is removed from the classifications in the template, you're relying on users' points of view instead of on verifiability, and that only encourages the sort of behaviour we're seeing here. We can warn and/or block the IP, but it would be better to sort out the underlying issue. Waggers (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Standshown

Can we block this user for longer time period because of edit wars ? He has been blocked for 1 day before (but he has taken 6 days break). After returning to wiki he has in only 2 days returned to old edit warring (because of which he has been blocked) in articles Puppet state, Serbia (1941-1944) and he has started 2 new edit wars in articles Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization and Ante Pavelić . In the end we are having threats to administrator which has given him 24 hours block . In my thinking this SPA account need to be blocked for long time period. --Rjecina 15:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Capital punishment, Oboeboy (talk · contribs), 207.241.143.246 (talk · contribs)

Oboeboy (talk · contribs), 207.241.143.246 (talk · contribs) have several times between them added what amounts to an anti-death penalty petition to talk:Capital punishment (eg ). I've reverted Oboeboy twice on the grounds taht it has nothing to do with actually improving the article (per the talk header). Thehelpfulone (talk · contribs) reverted all additions by 207.241.143.246 (talk · contribs) as vandalism. I've left two mesages on Oboeboy's talkpage, but he added the petition again after the first. Please could you keep an eye on this situation. I don't want to end up breaking WP:3RR myself. David Underdown (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Although it's not mentioned at WP:VAND, WP:TPG is very clear: "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." As far as I'm concerned, it's a form of vandalism and therefore you should be exempt from WP:3RR when you remove it. You seem to be doing everything right, but I'll add it to my watchlist too. Waggers (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24 hours and noted at User talk:Oboeboy. Bearian (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the block. This is a fairly new user, and he has not even broken 3RR. A warning and explanation should have been enough. Also, if you want to uphold the block, I strongly recommend to replace the completely generic template (attached under the wrong header) with a clear explanation why the user was blocked. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism and reverting at La Plata High School

Page was created with joke content (i.e. "La Plata High School was originally established by a group of Knights Templar as a convent") and being re-reverted back to the same by User:TheSilentJanks and User:Caviarsteel. I have reached 2RR and since it is not "obvious vandalism", I probably cannot revert farther (and continue to add vand noticed to the users.) Can someone please take a look? Thank you, --guyzero | talk 17:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, it is vandalism. One, the Knights Templar have not existed for the last 700 years and there is/was no chapter of the organization that remains in the spirit of the knights. I lived about 20 miles away across the Patuxent river and it most definitely is not anything other than a high school (There is however a carmelite mission nearby). Let me see if I can't add some real substance to the article.

It's not only obvious vandalism, it's self-admitted vandalism. See the end of this revision of the article. Tonywalton  17:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --guyzero | talk 17:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Lyoshka

I just noticed that Lyoshka (talk · contribs) is just putting down links to one website as functionally all of their contributions, as seen here. Is this spam? I'm not totally sure, as the site seems fairly useful, but seeing one user just embed a site on many, many articles caught my eye. The links are all to URLs like http://www.legistorm.com/member/Rep_Charles_Wilson/867.html for government staff pay information. Lawrence Cohen 17:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Though the site is a ".com", I don't see any ads. The material is objective and well-presented. WP now has about 658 links to the site. There are 540 members of Congress, so I assume they've all got the link. I'm not thrilled when an editor makes adding external links their sole job, but in this case I can't find anything to object to. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find a problem either, but it was the spam radar of seeing one person doing just that which led me to ask just in case. An interesting site, at any rate. Lawrence Cohen 18:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

At first blush I thought this looked like a WP:LINKSPAM issue, however after looking a little closer, I do not see anything objectionable per se. Certainly the volume of links added is a bit surprising. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree 100% that there is absolutely nothing objectionable about the content of the http://www.legistorm.com website. I was fascinated to see how my congressman was spending his staffing budget, and this would be relevant information for all 534 other congressman. There seems to be justification neither for a spam warning nor to revert these changes. Alansohn (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

505 links from an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than legistorm.com, is a violation of both WP:SPAM and WP:NOT. It has become apparent that this account is only being used for spamming external links and for self-promotion. Misplaced Pages is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising". --Hu12 (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Um... I know where your intent is from, but... - Penwhale | 00:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

legistorm.com is owned by and registered to Storming Media LLC. So we could add WP:COI to list also. Its fairly clear this is promotional spamming

Accounts
Lyoshka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
74.93.192.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) →Storming Media LLC STORMING-MEDIA-LLC
--Hu12 (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a few more from Storming Media;
Dceditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
M.K.Cummings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wattpower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The last three are spam only WP:SPA accounts, with a pattern of starting articles based on the link.--Hu12 (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• So, let me see if I understand your reasoning here. If I, as a user that is not an "SPA" were to have added these 505 links (all to neutral, objective, and informative information), it would have been fine. But because a new user who does only this does it, it's spam? That doesn't make any sense at all. And it makes less sense, if it's also spam if I did it, as there is absolutely nothing wrong with any information at those links. Mr Which??? 01:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrWhich (talk • contribs)

Vandalism only IP

• 81.149.128.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Vandalism only IP. Not current. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 17:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. For faster service, please report simple vandalism cases like this to WP:AIV. Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Qworty

This user continues to violate WP:BLP issues relating to Mitt_Romney by inserting criticism related to the Mormon religion which is unrelated to Mitt Romney himself. In as much he is in violation of 3RR which apply to violations of BLP issues. In general he is trying to turn the Mitt Romney article into a WP:COAT which is being used to criticize the Mormon Religion. Arzel (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Just look out, one more revert and you violate 3RR. It does seem to be a rather short, well-referenced statement, and I don't think it's turning the article into a COATrack. J-ſtan_{User page} 18:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Material in violation of BLP issues are not subjected to 3RR. It only takes one coat to be a coatrack. Arzel (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore did you even read the reference? No, didn't think so. The reference does not make the assumption that Religion played a large issue for Romney in '68 like it does today. The reference is not even in direct relevance to the subject, it is one sentence "Cherry Picked" out of an unrelated article. Arzel (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

His contributions show that he hasn't edited much else for two days. He's been warned a number of times. I think a 24 hour block might be in order here, though an admin may want to talk to him before we have to go that far.--Phoenix-wiki  18:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

While i'm not sure that Mitt's father's experiences have much if any bearing on 40 years later, since editors at that article have opened the door, what QWORTY is adding looks well referenced and legit. ThuranX (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Arzel, I must say, I don't appreciate the attitude. I'm just trying to help. First off, George Romney is dead. There's no BDP. I actually did read the source - going through it a second time. The article from the NY times says that much of the attention on George Romney was "concentrated on its policy at the time of excluding blacks from full participation." Qworty's edits are referenced, correct, and quite neutral for criticism. J-ſtan_{User page} 19:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Your quick response didn't make it clear that you really took the time to examine before responding. This really is not relevant to George Romney, and I am not making any BLP issues in that regard. However, and let me make this explicitly clear, Qworty has been trying to introduce into this article numerous times that the Mormon Church is either currently racist, or was racist at one time. This many very well be, but it is not relevant to Mitt Romney. This is where the violation of BLP falls. The article is about Mitt Romney, not his run for president. Not George Romney's run. Not about the Mormon Church, and whatever they did in the past. In essence this is what he is trying to say. "Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Mormon's were racist against blacks when his father, George Romney, ran for president." Now tell me that doesn't violate WP:BLP via WP:COAT. Arzel (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that there's a reasonable case to be made that the edits violate BLP on the Mitt Romney article, for reasons Arzel has articulated here. I have left a warning on Qworty's talk page asking that he pay more attention to BLP and NPOV on this topic.

Please do not take this as license to try and swing the article the other direction etc etc. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention of doing so. I don't even particularly like Romney, but I think it is important that BLP articles be neutral and focused on the individual. Arzel (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As the article says"Religion has played a major role in the 2008 presidential campaign". The religious background of his family is relevant to the campaign, discussed widely in articles dealing with him, and relevant to the article. This may be another disgraceful example of presidential campaign politics, but its relevant nonetheless. I don't seethe point of pretending otherwise. DGG (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There may be some relevance to his campaign for president, but this is not an article on his run for president. There is already an article for that. Arzel (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

User:209.62.173.129

This IP has just been unblocked and is now vandalising Pan (mythology)opiumjones 23 (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Re-blocked. Future episdoes of uncomplicated vandalism can be reported to WP:AIV - the response time is sometimes a bit faster over there. MastCell 18:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this a legal threat?

User:Marcellogarcia made this edit recently. Is this acceptable? GlobeGores (talk | contributions) 21:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The article has now been deleted under BLP concerns, and any possible legal threat has been removed with it. Unless the editor repeats the comments (which I haven't looked at) at another venue then we should all just move on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, reviewing their complete contributions including deleted, it's hard not to conclude that it's a single purpose vandalism-only account. I indef blocked Marcellogarcia. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Marcello is asking for an unblock review and may have clued in. Uninvolved admin review requested. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Their unblock request states, "I agree to add content to a page only in accordance with Misplaced Pages's rules. I understand that my substantive difference regarding the William P. DiSalvatore page was not an excuse to get into a needless war over the site and that wikipedia provides ways to deal with disagreements. This is my first time using wikipedia and I have learned something about how it works from this disagreement. Please take this into consideration."

This new user seems pretty reasonable at this point, and I would support an unblock. — Satori Son 01:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

A second set of eyes

Hey guys, I am having a very minor disagreement at Talk:Charles Peirce about content that has been merged as a result of an AfD. Nothing untoward has occurred, but I would like a second set of eyes on it to make sure that I am not way off base here. Also, I am curious about an editor who gets into a debate about our compliance with the GFDL within 6 minutes of his/her first edit. Thanks Pastordavid (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you merge the full content of Prescisive abstraction into Charles Peirce? Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I placed it (it was a short stub) onto the talk page of the article, for the editors who know more about the subject to merge into the article as appropriate. The original article (Prescisive abstraction‎) was not deleted, but redirected. Pastordavid (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a help guideline that governs what you need to do in this case. You can find it at Misplaced Pages:MERGE#Full-content_paste_merger. So, in short, cut-and-paste mergers can be GFDL compliant, as long as you follow that guideline. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this new account might be an old friend whose name rhymes with Jon Awbrey. east.718 at 23:24, December 18, 2007

• Cloff! Guy (Help!) 23:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The dépeceur of Bergen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:The dépeceur of Bergen is accused on the checkuser page of issuing serious threats in french. It does not qualify as a checkuser case and I do not speak french so I am bringing it here. Below is the text of the complain from CAT:RFCU. -JodyB _talk 23:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Supporting evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ABradipus&diff=177566301&oldid=173777205.

I do not know if any of you speaks french, but this text is a death threat directed to me and my family. This is most probably linked to fr:WP:MS, a long term vandalism on WP:fr. Besides vandalising, the vandal steals identities (I had some difficulty getting back the "Bradipus" identity, also here), and posts defamation on WP:fr admins all over internet (here in the serbian WP, a text accusing various admins of serious crimes such as pedophilia!!).

But what brings me here is this text of which I will translate the beginning: "I will cut you into pieces. I was unfairly blocked (not by me, as far as I know), I will do justice myself. I will cut you into pieces and eat your brain and your willie. I will kill all french speaking bourgeois (...). I will take care myself of your two little pieces of trash (that refers to my two children who are mentionned on my user page) that I will drown after crushing them against a wall. We will have your wife raped by hobos. No flemish would want to have that latin bitch (...)".

Death treats againts me and againt my family, this is getting quite serious. And according to what I know, this guy may well live a couple of kilometers away. I would like to get the IP of that guy if possible. Bradipus (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ask Slakr. He knows French. —BoL @ 23:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely a death threat. Blocking. — Coren  23:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

... been beaten to it. — Coren  23:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I was able to get it confirmed. -JodyB _talk 23:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ewww... Very nasty (odd it's in French, though, given the rantiness of the content against Francophones). I see there's a link in there to the nl wiki. Might that be worth investigating by the people over there? Tonywalton  00:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Took a look at nl - the user mentioned appears to have been blocked as a sokpop (what a nice word) some time ago. Takes all sorts. Tonywalton  00:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It is fr:Wikipédia:Vandalisme de longue durée/Affaire Lustucri-MS and m:Vandalism reports/BogaertB. -- lucasbfr 01:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone should update the meta page (is protected). x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've taken advice from Mike Godwin here and have now answered the above checkuser case to the best of my abilities under the circumstances. I wish there was more I could do here but there isn't. I've revealed as much information as I can legally do and note that there is no useful geo-locating information to be obtained from the underlying IP address. BTW - the message in French actually reads worse than the above translation, IMO. It's disgusting - Alison 04:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Request review of User:JzG's block of User:Timjowers

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

I am formally requesting review of this block. It was placed on a sub-100 edit user, User:Timjowers after he placed links in several different presidential candidates’ articles. It was placed with no warning, and no attempt to engage in a productive, educational dialogue with Timjowers. The block has no expiry, making it even worse. He indef-ed a new user with no warning, and no attempt to engage in productive dialogue pre-block. JzG has steadfastly refused to unblock, though he claims he has no problem with another admin unblocking Timjowers.

Here is the response from the blocking admin, after User:Timjowers responded, with some justifiable anger, to the block. Note the blocking admin’s bite-y “You have precisely two enforceable rights here: the right to fork and the right to leave.”

I would like an uninvolved admin to take a look at Timjower’s contributions to the project thus far, and unblock him straightaway. For further discussion of this block, see JzG’s talkpage, as well as the “spam” thread about Timjowers above. Mr Which??? 23:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

JzG unblocked him about 20 minutes ago. No comment on any further review you were hoping for...just thought I'd mention it. --Onorem♠Dil 00:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. When I constructed the above request, the block was still active. I will strike through the request to unblock portion, but I think such a review of the actions taken in this case might be instructive. Regards, Mr Which??? 00:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• As JzG has now chosen to blank the relevant portion of his talkpage, here is a link to an old page containing the entire discussion, where several editors attempted to reason with him about the block over the last day or so. Mr Which??? 00:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Why is this here? The complainant is already participating in a thread on the same subject at WP:AN. Guy (Help!) 00:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you link to that thread please Guy? I have been unable to find it. DuncanHill (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not there. He's probably talking about the "spam" thread above. But this is a thread intended to focus not on Jowers, but on the block itself. Two different--though related--issues in my mind. Mr Which??? 00:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that JzG has unblocked the user, you still request that we conduct a "review of the actions taken in this case"? After that, what administrative action do you think would be warranted? This is an administrators' noticeboard, after all, not the Misplaced Pages complaints department. — Satori Son 01:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but it does say at the top of the page " If you want to make an open informal complaint about misuse of administrative powers, you can do so here.". -- Ned Scott 01:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with the above statements, seems to be a complaint.--Hu12 (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Are you kidding? I made it clear, I was simply wanting a few admins to take a look at his actions. That Hu12 (a fellow anti-"spam" admin) closed and archived this with an edit summary of "no merit" is beyond unreasonable. I am requesting that it be reopened for an informal review of JzG's actions in this case. Mr Which??? 02:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I would say that Guy could have handled it in a number of different ways. Discussion. COI noticeboard. Editing. Blocking, and without discussion or warning, was probably the worst of the options. But it has been undone and dealt with now. I think that is the best you are going to get. Carcharoth (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I basically was just wanting to know that it wasn't just me as a lowly editor that thought the block was a bad decision. Let's hope he didn't chase off this editor for good with both the block and his snarkiness after the block. Mr Which??? 02:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite Block the only option left for user:Jeeny

Jeeny has used sockpuppets to commit abusive attacks on Jimbo Wales, repeatedly 'retired' then returned, showing a great lack of respect for the wikipedia community. In fact, she is currently editing with her retirement templates still in place. She has also attempted to remove licensing information from images she has uploaded, showing ownership of articles.

Her block log shows that repeated blocks, and even mentorship, have failed to curb her disruptiveness and abusiveness.

Her sockpuppet, which she has admitted to, is user:Humain-comme. Contribs . See these two edits for evidence of both puppetry and abuse and .

Jeeny is continuing to create a very hostile environment on Misplaced Pages. I am suprised an indefinite block was not imposed long ago, especially after the sockpuppetry. --The White Stallion (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merit of the proposal, it seems odd that a sockpuppet is making a report on ANI about this. I think White Stallion is in all probability the user who has been harassing Jeeny for the last several months. Jeffpw (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm stunned this one was not blocked, and have blocked the account. This is one of the most insane users I have ever met, and I use the term in the most careful sense. The OTRS tickets form this user are nothing short of surreal, and the email addresses have been blacklisted from unblock-en-l, otrs-en and probably other places. Far, far, far too crazy to be let loose on Misplaced Pages. 'm about to blacklist the known email addresses in my server, based on what happened to the last admin who blocked this account. Guy (Help!) 00:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

NPA says ". It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user.". As an admin, you should no better. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait a moment, Guy, can you please clarify, were you talking about Jeeny or about the Hayden sock? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Is there actually any solid proof, such as CU, that Humain-comme is Jeeny, by the way? It could be like the thousands that "claim" to be RickK. Also, as Jeff correctly points out, Stallion seems very experienced for a new user and is most definitely a sock. Will 00:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  By the way, this isn't defence of Jeeny; I'm just suspicious about the complainant. Will 00:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The sockpuppet said it was Jeeny when it placed the tags, and Jeeny didn't seem to protest. --EoL talk 00:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't prove anything. Even usertalk vandalism can be buried by further edits. However, Jeff's comment that H-c=Jeeny does. Will 00:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It is Jeeny. She has emailed more than one person saying it was. Now, should the sock who placed this report be blocked also? - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The complainant is Jeeny, too? I've blocked it, anyway.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No. The complaintant is probably the banned User:Hayden5650, who has had probably near 100 sockpuppets, and continues to harass Jeeny. -Rjd0060 (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• As he's started to make legal threats, I've protected his talk for 24 hours to let him calm down. Revert me if consensus goes the other way regarding his block. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on Jeeny's behavior, can I ask something: has Jeeny invoked RTV and start all over in order to get away from Hayden5650? —Kurykh 02:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I comment? I was just wondering about the OTRS comment...WP:OTRS states "The contents of e-mails handled by OTRS members are confidential." Consequently, it doesn't seem proper to user OTRS communications to characterize the user or these communications as surreal and insane. TableManners 05:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I wonder

The block log states that Jeeny has exhausted the community patience. Should this be considered a community ban? Maser 06:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If someone unblocks Jeeny, then he isn't banned after the unblock, defining a ban loosely.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision deletion requested

Could someone please delete the last six or so revisions of Talk:Alberto Gonzales, please? I've requested oversight, but it hasn't been done yet, and there's some alleged personal information there about the subject and subject's family that really should be removed from the history. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Done - it should be restored soon. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Persistant abuse by ip

This IP (clearly a sock of banned user TyrusThomas4lyf) is currently abusing many NBA articles here and here and now even messing with my talk page here after I tried to revert him. I feel that I cannot deal with it alone anymore. And need admin attention now. Chris! _ct 01:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Now blocked. Acroterion _(talk) 01:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Matthew M. Stein deleting sourced content with POV edit summary at 9/11 conspiracy theories

If an admin could take a look, I would appreciate it. This bit of POV-pushing was his first edit in 9 1/2 months. He followed shortly with a reversion to re-delete the sourced material after I restored it. I dropped a note on his page letting him know this was disruptive, and potentially blockable. Mr Which??? 05:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• He is now attemtping to add original reseach and POV wording to the article here. He's made it clear in his edit summaries that he is not editing in good faith. The sooner he is blocked the better. Mr Which??? 06:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Still at it. Would an admin please take care of this? Mr Which??? 06:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• This belongs on WP:AN/3RR since both sides are now edit warring - including 6 reverts by the user being reported here. Report it there instead. EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Menudo (band) again, and legal threats

I just blocked 66.229.248.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) for this rather unambiguous legal threat. Fighting over this article, from tabloidesque, libelous insertions to conflict-of-interest-violating external links, has gone on for a while. I invite review of the block, review of the general situation, and also another few pairs of eyes on what goes on there. Thanks all, Antandrus (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Clear, unambiguous legal threat. Sound block. Looks fine to me. — Ocatecir 06:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I extended the block to six months and contacted Jimbo as the situation is more complicated than what it appears, for once he directly ignored Jimbo's desicion in this case wich was that none of the users involved in the COI influenced edit war was to edit the article within a month. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You probably should email the Foundation's legal counsel also. Cla68 (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)