Misplaced Pages

:Requests for investigation: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:00, 31 December 2006 editOnly (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users32,384 edits →{{IPvandal|222.225.117.108}}: move to archive, user has been blocked for 3 months← Previous edit Revision as of 03:22, 31 December 2006 edit undo76.210.12.232 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit →
Line 797: Line 797:
{{checkuser|BenBurch}} is the founder of the website, which is dedicated to "proving" the claim that the leaders of the Bush Administration are fascists. He has admitted that he was a long-term member of the ] website, which is dedicated to ridiculing Bush and other Republicans. He has also admitted that he was banned for life from that website for his misconduct. {{checkuser|BenBurch}} is the founder of the website, which is dedicated to "proving" the claim that the leaders of the Bush Administration are fascists. He has admitted that he was a long-term member of the ] website, which is dedicated to ridiculing Bush and other Republicans. He has also admitted that he was banned for life from that website for his misconduct.


The following has been excerpted from his Talk page and its archives. <FONT COLOR=BLUE>


<FONT SIZE=4><b>Please refrain from personal attacks</FONT></b>


Notice that BenBurch was warned by Alphachimp that he couldn't remove warnings on July 1, 2006. But he has continued to remove such warnings on a regular basis.
With regards to your comments in the history page of the Democratic Underground article, specifically, your needless comment of "I believe the consensus is obvious except to those who will not tolerate it for brittle ideological reasons": Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. ] 02:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

:* It's not a personal attack, since it was not directed at you personally. ] 06:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

::*No, actually, it was directed at me personally because I am the one who restored the section and asked for proof of the alleged consensus. ] 06:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

:::*Believe that if you like. You will anyway. ] 06:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

::::*Only because it is true, factual and reality-based, Ben. ] 06:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

::::Ben, would you care to explain this:

::::RE: DU trolls vandalizing Misplaced Pages over link they personally disapprove of

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

jinxmchue wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Without ever admitting that you were wrong and were grossly misusing and twisting Wiki's guidelines, of course.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because I wasn't wrong. You were. Especially with your repeated personal attacks. I could have had you banned, and an admin even asked me if I wanted you banned.

Well, Jinxie, it was ANOTHER person you attacked.

And as it happens the Admin is somebody I know from the bartcopnation chat room, and have known for many years now, and who would do anything I asked him to do.

http://liberalunderground.activeboard.com/index.spark?forumID=60876&p=3&topicID=7478848&subForumID=208875&topicPage=

] 10:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. If you continue to remove or vandalize warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. <!-- Template:Wr (second level warning) --> A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: . If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. <!-- 769--> ] <sup>]</sup> 15:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>re: Revert to my talk page</FONT></b>

Hi! I removed that warning because it is from a fellow who has been leveling personal attacks at me for weeks now, and I consider it to be absolutely baseless. Plus I saw it already. ] 15:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

:You still cannot remove it. Append a note to the end of the edit describing the issue in question. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

</FONT>

<b><FONT COLOR=RED><FONT SIZE=4>ArlingtonTX note: Notice that BenBurch was warned by Alphachimp that he couldn't remove warnings on July 1, 2006. But he has continued to remove such warnings on a regular basis.</b></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR=BLUE>

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Warning</FONT></b>

] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the ] if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to ], are considered ]. If you continue in this manner you may be '''blocked from editing without further warning'''. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others.

Thanks. <!-- Template:blatantvandal-n -->
Please refrain from making ] edits to the ] page. Read the wiki article on ] and you will see that your motivations for making these changes are, indeed, in ]. You are advocating the removal of an entire section, yet you are populating the section with links to every blog that you can think of. Please conduct yourself in a mature manner. ] 05:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

:PS, I have reverted your changes. ] 05:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Crockpot, not in bad faith at all! I am just keeping in the spirit of the section. If it must remain, then it ought to be as complete as possible as this in an encyclopedia. ] 05:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

::* Obviously this dispute will not be settled between us. I suggest we take this to an arbitration/mediation proceeding. I believe I have sufficient evidence to prove that you are not acting in good faith, and that you have issued a serious warning on my talk page as retaliation.] 06:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

:::* Feel free to call for an RFC first, as that is the first step in this process and mediation is for disputes involving only two editors. This does not. And yes, I put a serious warning in there. I'm betting if I looked at your little nest over at CU, you folks have been coordinating strategy here simply against my edits, in total violation of policy. Or am I guessing wrong? You are acting in the very most partisan and disgusting bad faith yourself in attempting to ] an article about a message board you despise. And it CLEARLY is payback for the AfD of Conservative Underground. That is absolutely clear to anybody. Having said that, I am totally willing to compromise. The section stays. The DUFU link stays. But also the other EQUALLY related offshoots stay too. Or do you factually dispute any one of them? Deal with the facts here, not the personalities. I'd like to see your argument against each and every one of the links I posted. ] 06:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

::::* You would be wrong on the coordination issue, and on retaliation for the CU AfD. I let the CU thing go, and I have refrained from commenting about your edits on other sites after I was warned about it, even though there was no coordination, just commenting. How exactly does the Randi Rhodes site or the Mike Malloy site relate to DU, other than crossover membership? CU has crossover membership with DU, but we also have archived DU posts that have been deleted from DU, and cannot be found elsewhere. Our DU forum is the most active forum on the site. DUFU is a site that specifically lampoons DU. If crossover membership alone is a criteria, then a link to the Automobile Association of America would also be appropriate, no? I believe you are taking a serious stretch at this. Your motivations clearly seem to be to bolster your argument for removal of the offshoots section. That would meet the definition of ]. Add to that your threats on other sites to get your wiki admin friend to ban other editors. Please, take a step back and look objectively at what you are doing. You may be in danger of getting yourself banned. I honestly would not be happy to see that happen. I thing you have made some positive contributions to WP (as have I, to a lesser extent). Sometimes you can be quite reasonable, but other times, I wonder what is going on with you. ] 06:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::* The Malloy board and the Randi Rhodes board are all basically refugees from DU much as the NU and PI boards are. DU came first and people got disgusted and stopped posting there and moved to RR and MM. They are totally appropriate. I accept that the section has to stay, if for no other reason that you intend to ] it. Given that, these links I have added are the ones I would expect to be there were the section complete. They are all boards where DU members in the DU Diaspora wound up. They all exist in relation to DU in an auxillary fashion, DU being still the 500# gorilla in the Liberal/Progressive world. And they all RECRUIT from DU given the opportunity. And topics banned at DU land on those boards to get thrashed out. A good example would be the Andy Stephenson affair which wound up largely on Malloy's board when DU would have none of it. Do I think this section ought to exist at all? Nope. But pragmatically, I cannot revert it forever given that you have organized to outnumber me. So I intend to make sure it at least lives up to what it ought to be. Unless you intend to extend your ]ership to that as well. ] 06:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

::::::* Again, I am coordinating with no one on this. I do not wish to "own" the DU article. I am simply trying to prevent the removal of the CU and DUFU links. Looking at your history, one could believe that you would like to see all conservative references wiped from WP. You were instrumental in getting the CU article deleted, and now it appears you are trying to wipe the last remaining reference to CU from WP. I believe that CU and DUFU links are appropriate, for reasons already stated. If you really feel that strongly about your justification for the links you added, let me ask you, would you have a reason to object to a link to scamdy.org?] 07:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::::* Not at all, please feel free to add it. Assuming you like promoting people who did that to a dying man, of course. ] 07:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

::::::::* I would prefer to be editing pages on Vietnam War history than doing the wiki two-step with you all of the time. I may or may not add it, as the site documents the entire Andy Stephenson saga, and refutes all of the allegations that CU members "killed Andy", complete with document scans, and archived posts of his own DU friends attacking him, the same friends that have accused CU members of killing him. I'm out for a day or two, so I'll think about it. If you happen to be successful at getting me banned from WP in my absence, then allow me to pre-congratulate you.] 07:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::* I have absolutely no desire to see you banned! (And that is a VERY rare thing in any event, even if I did.) As for CU and Andy, don't expect to hear the end of that even if I never say another word. Others with <b>far</b> more resources than I are at work on that story, and I expect that when they are done with it, CU will easily merit a Misplaced Pages page. In fact, I'll even create it for you at that time. ] 07:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::* OK, now THAT was funny. I mean it, I'm laughing here. If you had objectivity on the Andy saga, you would be laughing too. I'm pretty sure, listening to Will and Beth go on, what the grounds for a lawsuit would be. Of course, Andy's own statements (not to mention Will's) would contradict those grounds. Hold your nose and go read the scamdy site, and you'll see what I mean. You may get to write that article, but when the dust settles and the facts are all known, you may wish you hadn't. BTW, isn't the threat of a lawsuit verboten on WP? (Just kidding.) Thanks for the late night chuckle. Have a safe and happy 4th.] 07:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::::* Not a lawsuit. Something even more public. ] 07:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::::* Oh boy, sounds like another well-sourced TruthOut exclusive! Stop, please, my sides are aching! But seriously, I hope they don't get in over their heads. One of our members is on staff at the WSJ. A slanted story could really backfire. ] 07:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::::::* Guess again! MUCH bigger. ] 12:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::::::* Just a quick reply before I hit the road. I understand now. I guess we'll be getting a big boost in membership this fall. Be sure Mikey spells my name right. It's crockspot with a small c, wiki conventions notwithstanding. ] 17:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::* No, not CBS, though they expressed interest at one time. And Mike Wallace has been dead for nine months now... ] 17:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

::::* Oh gosh, he's warned me, too. I guess my only option now is to do an unprecedented archive of my talk page to hide it. ] 06:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::*Whine Whine Whine. You had it coming too. Deal with the material itself and not your projection of motives onto me, bub. ] 06:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

::::::* I don't need to "project" motives onto you; you've stated them clearly. You do not believe that the Offshoots section has relevance, and yet you're adding links to it anyway. You're editing in bad faith. Is it okay to point it out, or need I fear that your friend the administrator who would "do anything you asked" will retaliate? ] 06:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::* Expect to get a second warning from him for assuming bad faith. He gave me another one.] 06:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

::::::::*I'm not sure that you really understand the purpose of placing an archive on your talk page. Archives are generally made to truncate the length of an excessively large talk page (there is a warning that appears at the top of the page.) Many editors, myself included, choose to archive their page at a certain interval or number of messages. I'd be interested to talk to the admin that you are threatening us with. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

*Your additions to the "offshoots" section do not fit as they are not "offshoots." As I mentioned in my reversion note, simply having "crossover" membership does not make them "offshoots." ] 17:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

*:Sorry, no, they are proper offshoots, as I already explained. ] 17:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

::*They are (barely) related, but definitely not offshoots. See, it's like this, Ben. Star Trek: TNG, Star Trek: DS9, Star Trek: Voyager and Star Trek: Enterprise are all offshoots of the original Star Trek series. A show like Babylon 5 is related, however it is not an offshoot.

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Editing ]</FONT></b>

For crying out loud, Ben... you remove the entire offshoots section on the grounds that it doesn't meet ], and then eleven hours later you edit the entry on ''yourself'' to include a link to a site which much more clearly doesn't meet the same guideline, and which you happen to have a financial interest in? I would really like to know why you believe the link to your part-owned site meets ].

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Links to normally avoid</FONT></b>

Except where noted, the below do not override the list of what should be linked to; for example, if the subject of an article has an official website, then it should be linked to even if it contains factually inaccurate material.

# A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Misplaced Pages, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Misplaced Pages editors decide whether to add the link.

# Links that are added to promote a site. See ].

] 19:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Good for the goose. Good for the gander. ] 20:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If you believe the practice of including links which do not conform to ] is wrong, don't do it yourself. See also ]. ] 20:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If those other links stay, then I see no reason not to include as many others of the sort as seems reasonable to me. ] 21:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Those links meet ], yours does not. Again, see ]. ] 21:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope. They don't. ] 21:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If you believe they don't, then don't add more like them... or you're disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. ] 22:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I'm just following precedent. If they pass the bar, then the other links, and the list is about 30 long now and I am still researching, DO pass the bar. On the other hand, if those links go, so do mine because, obviously, they don't pass muster. ] 22:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Were the links in the ] section of ] created by people who owned the sites and had a financial stake in their success? Were they created to promote a site that does not directly pertain to the main article? ] 23:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Accusations of Vandalism</FONT></b>

Your accusations of vandalism against other Wiki editors is uncalled for and I suspect they are being made in bad faith. Everyone who has removed your ridiculous additions to the external links on the DU page has been accused of vandalism by you. If you have a dispute with other editors who have legitimate arguments, it is very rude to mindlessly accuse them of vandalism. If you continue to make these baseless accusations, I will be compelled to ask the admins to block your editting privileges. Please see ] for more. ] 03:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ask away, big boy. ] 04:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

<strike>*Fine. Since you refuse to pay attention to and follow ], which explicitly states that good-faith edits (prove our edits are bad-faith first) are not vandalism even if they are "misguided or ill-considered" (prove that applies to our edits as well), we'll bring admins into this. ] 04:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)</strike>

:*In light of the truce, I won't be pursuing this as a show of good faith. Just please don't do it again. ] 20:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>I recommend that you stop editing ]</FONT></b>

Hey Ben, it's Che again. I've got to put it to you straight: your edits concerning the ] article are, if not the cause of, then at least in the middle of some problems. Other editors on the page are accusing you of bad faith edits, bad faith warnings, and disruptions of WP:POINT. And I've got to admit, although I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not intentionally disrupting, a lot of the things you're doing seem to be a little misguided. Simply put, if you disagree with the quality of the links in the EL section, it doesn't really make sense to add more of the same quality. That's where the accusations of bad faith and WP:POINT are coming from. And their reverts don't really count as blatant vandalism if they believe they're doing the right thing.

I really think it's time to end this fight. The other editors there seem to really believe that the edits they're making are correct. You, on the other hand, have pretty much said that you think the whole section should go. So I think it would be the right thing for you to step away from this conflict.

I'm trying to convince the others not to get admins involved. If they do get involved, they may interpret a lot of what they see as bad faith, incivility, and personal attacks. In short, you're liable to get yourself blocked. Some others may as well, but that should not be any consolation.

I would also like to discourage any further type of discussion with users Crockpot and Jinxmchue. That can't go any place good. Try to avoid them.

Of course, I can't make you do any of this, and even if I could, I wouldn't try. I just think this is the best way to end this war: for you to step up and end it by walking away. Take my advice if you like, leave it if you don't, I'm just another guy with an internet connection. But please think about what I'm saying. - ] <sup>] ] ]</sup> 23:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>No kidding?</FONT></b>

What happened? ] 03:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Got banned because I stand up to jerks, I guess, they won't tell me. DU is not what it once was. ] 06:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it, man. We should hook up some time on or elsewhere; I'd love to engage you in real, substantive political debate at some point. ] 16:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

*I think your willingness to take an honest look at the DU membership numbers may have had some effect... I have an extra DU mole if you need one. Come to the Dark Side.... ] 16:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'm actually surprised, somewhat, by this development.

:Is this a perma-ban?

:And if not, have you discussed possibly being reinstated with Skinner, or one of the DU admins?

:Also, is there any thread on LU about this?

] 00:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

All bans are permanent, unless they are not. I did ask for reasons, and was not afforded the courtesy of a reply. And just as well. I was pretty much fed up with the place. I am hanging out at DemocraticWarrior.com now. ] 00:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

:*Given any consideration to my invitation to engage in honest, rational debate somewhere? I enjoy a challenge. ] 01:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

::Some, yes! I will try to find some time for that. Right now I am doing a LOT of work on writing some patches to icecast and its associated tools to do scheduled stream switches based on a mysql database... ] 02:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

:Well, it's not the end of the world I suppose.

:I've been expelled from more websites and banned from more blogs-both liberal and conservative-than I care to recount.

] 00:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Re: Your vandalism warning on my talk page</FONT></b>

I'm just giving you notice that I'm striking out the warning. It's just really becoming nothing more than a target for unreasonable people to attack me with elsewhere online. If you feel that this is unacceptable, please let me know and I will change it back. Thanks. ] 04:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Please refrain from making personal attacks against me or anyone else</FONT></b>

My tolerance is pretty high, but your last attack against me on my talk page really pushed it. If you continue to make these ridiculous and (more importantly) unfounded accusations (i.e. you don't and can't back them up), I will take the necessary steps to make sure they are stopped. ] 13:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

* I am laughing at you now. ] 16:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

:: Yo, Benj. Haven't seen you around for a while. Just stopping in to say "hey". - ] 16:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Hey there! I've been BUSY. I'll be around more after Election Day. Hastert is TOAST! Leggy Toast! LOL. ]

20:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

:*Laugh all you want, Ben. Just keep your attacks off Wiki. Please and thank you. ] 21:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

::*Your threats and $1.97 and you can have a medium coffee at McD's.

::*What threats, Ben? These are facts. People who disrupt Wiki eventually are dealt with one way or another. Your abusive comments are no more wanted on Wiki than vandalism. I'm trying to be nice here and have used "please" and "thank you," but apparently that doesn't matter to you. You just heap on more and more insults. You are contributing nothing positive. Perhaps you should consider either taking yet another break from Wiki or leaving the community altogether. ] 21:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:::So you just repeat your threats? Nice. ] 03:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Where am I threatening you, Ben? Wiki has ] users are expected to follow. Among those is ], which states a number of things, particularly:

::::*Assume good faith

::::*Treat others as you would have them treat you

::::*Be polite, please!

::::*Be civil

::::*Forgive and forget

::::*Recognize your own biases and keep them in check

::::I am having a very difficult time seeing how you are following these rules (particularly with that "You were engaged in vandalism and a blatant and Stalinistic attempt to make the page serve your ideology" tirade), and people who cannot follow them probably shouldn't be on Wiki. Saying this is not a threat any more than saying that if you rob a bank, you'll have the police after you and you will likely end up in jail is a threat. These are facts, not threats.

::::I have been incredibly polite and civil to you, Ben, and am trying to help you see reason, but the choice to be reasonable ultimately is yours and yours alone. Just please try to remember that words and actions have consequences. ] 16:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::Polite and civil? So was the Gestapo. With similar effect. I find nothing you have done to be any more civil than neatly veiled threats meant to push a political agenda. Perhaps you might take a wiki-break yourself and come back when you can be at least somewhat honest about your motives. Personally, I intend to be here when you are simply a bad memory. ] 21:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::Keep proving me right, Ben. BTW, I've been honing my editting skills the past couple months. Other than attacking me, how have you contributed to Wiki? ] 05:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::I have to agree with Jinxmchue.

:::::The extended Wiki break you took-which most of us appreciated-doesn't seem to have given you any more insight into how to conduct yourself civilly and collaborate usefully with other Misplaced Pages editors.

:::::You certainly haven't used the time to reflect upon the concept that Misplaced Pages is neither a soapbox, nor your own personal outlet for leftist propaganda. ] 14:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>]</FONT></b>

A tag has been placed on ], requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done because the article is a repost of either already posted material, or of material that was previously deleted under Misplaced Pages's ]. If you can indicate how Walter Andrew Stephenson is different from all other articles, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template hangon (with double brackets), and also put a note on ] saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our ], particularly item 11 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Misplaced Pages, and we ask you to follow these instructions.] 17:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

:Ben, I requested a copy of the article to work on and it was posted on a page in my user space. We can work on it there. It should be no problem to get it passed after Nov 2. Please see the comments there as well

*

:Considering that no opponents of Conservative Underground have edited the CU user page even though many have known about it for months, I ask that no 'opponents' of Andy work on this project. Let us get it up to snuff first, then you can raise your objections then. Thanks. ] 21:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

::Amazing how many assholes there are who edit Wiki, isn't it, FAAFA? Who would spit on a good man's grave? We WILL have an Andy Stephenson article if I have to ask Mr. Wales for help personally. ] 00:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

::: What is amazing is the irony in the above user's username. For the "accuracy" point, I am not an "opponent of Andy". I am an opponent of people who would exploit his death to smear other people. And I have had a couple of people jerk around with the CU article, albeit minorly. As for the "fairness" aspect, if you guys write an accurate, fair, well-sourced, and non-libellous article, no one has any reason to mess with it. If you write another hit piece aimed at conservatives, then you are at least going to get some lively discussion on the talk page. Since the article was deleted for notability problems (like the CU article), I suggest that you do what I did, and write as good an article as you can, hold it in user space, and then wait for notability to come along. If things work out the way Ben intimiates that they will, I suspect that we will be moving both articles to the main namespace at the same time. - ] 00:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC) - '''further comment''' And just to qualify, I can only speak for myself. Contrary to the opinion of some, I am not part of a wiki conspiracy or cabal, unless you count the VRWC in general. - ] 00:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

::::No one's smearing 'conservatives'. Andy himself spoke out, before his death, against the harrassment campaign directed against him. An organized group of people who opposed Andy still have their Website and Forum up and the documentation of their actions are still there for all the world to see. Several of the people who hounded Andy were non-conservatives, and any info about the group that harassed Andy, even on his death bed, will accurately reflect that. ] 01:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Yes, it's quite amazing, Ben, that there are "assholes" that would do an end-run around the rules in order to repost an article that was deleted and remained deleted after a review. I knew at least one of you would try something like this. And lest you think I'm being biased against the inclusion of the article, I initially voted to keep the first article as long as someone worked to improve it. That didn't happen. Instead, you and you ilk resorted to the old "we're being victimized by the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" bit instead of doing something useful. When I saw that none of you wanted to improve the article, I endorsed the deletion and I now endorse the deletion of your sneaky attempt to put it back up. That is not the way to get things done on Wiki and trying these stunts won't win you any support here. ] 22:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

'''Crockspot''' : You wrote ''" And I have had a couple of people jerk around with the CU article "'' I just looked at the ENTIRE history of the CU page in your user space and couldn't find a SINGLE edit which could even REMOTELY be described as ''"jerk around"''. Certainly not Derex's one edit. Which edits are those? Thanks ] 01:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

: I am referring to both Derex and Brookie's identical edits, which appear to be a subtle and organized attempt at making a ]. In the comment above, if you are referring to http://www.scamdy.com , I hope you look that site over very carefully, because it contains an archive of just about every post made on the subject from multiple sites, many of which contradict the claims that were made subsequently. - ] 16:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Spamming</FONT></b>

Please stop spamming other persons talk pages looking for votes. It is against wikipedia policy. See ]. -- ] 03:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

:I couldn't be LESS interested in what you have to say about it. ] 04:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

::Then maybe you should be interested in what ] has to say about actions like yours. If you value your presence and input on Wiki, I suggest you read it and follow it (as well as a lot of other Wiki rules - ] in particular). No one wants to see you banned from Wiki, Ben, but your hostile, belligerent attitude will have repercussions if it continues. That's not a threat, Ben, as I will take no action against you, but others might. Your choices will make or break you when it comes to resolving disputes. I can tell you that telling someone to put their "head in a bucket three times and pull it out twice" will not help your case. ] 22:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Ben's actions could be considered this: ''"If there are a small handful of editors who share your taste and/or philosophy, it is sometimes acceptable to contact them with regard to a specific issue as long as it does not become disruptive."'' ] 05:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Yes, it could, which probably is why he hasn't been officially warned about it. I can easily see this practice becoming more and more frequent and involving more and more like-minded editors as time goes on, however. ] 22:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

::You don't get to selectively follow Misplaced Pages rules, Ben.

::http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=BenBurch

::What you're doing constitutes SPAM.

::I suggest that you take Tbeatty's polite request under consideration, for your own benefit. ] 07:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I suggest that you put your head in a bucket three times and pull it out twice. ] 09:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

:] It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|&#32;on ]}}. Please remain ] and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating ]. <!-- from Template:Civil2 --> <noinclude> ] 20:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

::It seems to me that hypoxia has already taken its toll. ] 22:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Misplaced Pages has a policy against ]. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be ] from editing by administrators or ] by the ]. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please ] appropriately. Thank you. ] 23:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Hahahahahahahahahahaa!!! Oh my god, thanks! That lightened my mood considerably. ] 00:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
::::Good. Now maybe you'll start being civil? ] 02:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::Jinx, considering your recent remarks on deletion review, I'd say you really ought to consider not casting stones here. The hallmark of the worst abusers is their delight in posting obnoxious templates, on their own behalf, on other people's talk pages. ] 00:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::Why don't you take this to my talk page and actually provide some evidence to back up your accusations? ] 02:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

OMFG, the irony of this crowd complaining about votestacking. And I thought I couldn't be shocked anymore. ] 00:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

::Hilarious, isn't it? They have nothing better to do than run Wiki Wars from their Mom's Basement while stuffing their face with Corn Nuts. ]

:::] It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|&#32;on ]}}. Please remain ] and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating ]. <!-- from Template:Civil2 --> <noinclude> ] 01:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:::No Wiki War here other than the one you seem to be waging, Ben. ''We're'' following Wiki policies and guidelines. ''We're'' being civil. All you can seem to do is muster up some warnings of alleged personal attacks while freely throwing out obvious personal attacks of your own. ] 03:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

::Derex, we're not the ones running to online forums or spamming people's talk pages with requests to "look at" AfD nominations or deletion reviews. ] 03:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Oh, really? ] 09:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
::::Derex, that was ONE courtesy notice to someone who would vote the opposite of me. Hardly spamming. Look at his contributions. -- ] 09:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::Actually, I had just been coming over to revert myself, because it was a cheap shot. My apologies, it was just one, which is legit whatever the reason. ] 09:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

::Ben, this is not an online message board or political forum.

::Engaging in gratuituous personal attacks is not merely frowned upon, but prohibited altogether.

::I will politely request-yet again-that you please adhere to WP: Civil guidelines, which are not voluntary suggestions, but obligatory upon all Misplaced Pages editors. ] 04:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Ban me if you like. I'll use one of the 30 other IP addresses I own and another name. But when I see real injustice being done, as in this case, I'll say what I think needs to be said, and I'll be civil to all who merit that respect. ] 04:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Quite a threat there, Ben. So you have no problem with circumventing the rules of someone else's website on which you are only a guest? I'm sure, then, that you would have no problem if I or someone else were to go to your website and do some rules circumventing of our own, right? Pick your battles, Ben. That Andy doesn't have a Wiki article is not "injustice." As to being civil here, you don't get to pick and choose to whom you are civil. If you cannot follow ] in regards to ''everyone'' no matter who they are or what you personally think about them, then perhaps Misplaced Pages is not a website you should be frequenting. ] 05:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::Please tell me you did not just make a hacking threat? ] 05:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::::No, I didn't make any threat. (You did, however, against Wiki.) It's called "a hypothetical question." Obviously, you would have no problem circumventing the rules on Wiki (e.g. in regards to someone being banned), so it would be hypocritical for you to have a problem with someone else circumventing the rules on your website. ] 05:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Ben, simply because you feel passionate about a particular issue does not give you license to flagrantly disregard Misplaced Pages rules.

::::With all due respect, that's just not how things work on Misplaced Pages.

::::I assumed that you would have assimilated that concept by this point in time, having been a registered member for over a year. ] 05:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've enabled my email, so you can contact me. ] 19:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Tit for tat</FONT></b>

Your comments on this page, and ] merit a few {{tl|npa}} and {{tl|agf}} warnings, probably escalating to level 4. But I'm not going to do it, because I'm such a nice guy. (I wouldn't object if some other editor did so.) I probably did deserve an {{tl|agf3}} rather than a {{tl|npa3}} against you, because I was stating that your actions could not have been taken in good faith; as, after thinking it over, they could have been taken in good faith. However, if you continue commenting in the manner you have beeen doing, you might say something you'll later regret. &mdash; ] |
] 00:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:That was a threat you just posted here. ]

::Actually, it was denying that ''I'' was making a threat, but stating, nonetheless, that your actions may lead to consequences you would later regret. People have been banned for only violations of ]. &mdash; ] | ] 01:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Spin it how you like, you were making a personal off-wiki threat. ] 01:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

::::How can it be an off-wiki threat when it's on the wiki and referring to actions on the wiki? &mdash; ] | ] 01:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

::::It's been fun, but I'm going to be off-wiki for a few hours. If you engage in in]ity, you're likely to be blocked by less patient admins than I. &mdash; ] | ] 02:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Continuation from deletion review page</FONT></b>

Again, whatever. Glib responses will get you nowhere fast. If you want to take issue with me, then take issue with me. Don't dance around with your typical vague statements that you never back up (like your little claim a few months back about some major news about CU - still waiting for that, btw). I'm tired of your games. Spit it out. Say whatever you want. I won't report it. ] 05:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:Yeah, right. Like I have any reason to believe you? And the CU news is coming. Just wait. Nearly ready in fact. Though you won't like it. ] 05:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

::What reason do you have to believe me? Because I have not taken any official action against you despite having multiple reasons to do so. But fine. If you're afraid to do it here, then waltz on over to CU and make your case. As far as I know, you're not banned there yet. As for your news, I'm not holding my breath. Just expecting more of the same. ] 05:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Heads Up!</FONT></b>

I just read that the upcoming HBO documentary features a lot of footage that was originally in Votergate, ANOTHER politically motivated AfD!

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Votergate

No wonder they want to delete it. ] 06:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:So much for your pledge to "rise above the muck and mire." Figures. ] 15:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>In Case You Forgot</FONT></b>

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" ] 07:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:Hey Bud - - You might consider enabling your email. ] 08:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:Are you saying that this quote gives you ''carte blanche'' in ignoring Wiki's policies as you pick and choose? ] 15:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

::Interesting. You see all things I do as being in relationship to you and your dispute with me??? I think there is a word for that. ] 16:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Oh, don't flatter yourself. ] 19:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Are you ] in disguise, Ben? ] 20:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::Sadly, I am nowhere near that smart! ] 21:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::Finally, something we both can agree on :). --] 21:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::::One thing I know for sure is that there are real geniuses in the world, and I'm not one of them. (Though at times I have found that I am just smart enough to interpret them for others...) ] 21:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Questionable Use of User Warnings</FONT></b>

Please do not make questionable use of user warnings. It would be a stretch to label ]'s comments as a personnel attack or threat. If you have a diff that you believe indicates otherwise, I'd suggest seeking ]. Please remember that you are equally bound as he is to ] (AGF). The use of questionable warnings can be viewed as ] so you should consider seeking neutral assistance instead of warning users with whom you are actively engaged in a content dispute. Thanks. -- ] 16:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:Thats how I saw it, and that's how I still see it. Sorry you think it is a "stretch". ] 16:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>3RR and ]</FONT></b>

Please be cautious; it looks to me like you've reverted three times now on the External Links section and I'm starting to hand out ] blocks regarding that. ] 16:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

::Will do! ] 16:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Thanks!

:::] 16:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

What the hell is going on at the DU article? I thought we had all worked out a consensus on the external links some time back. I generally try to stay out of you and Jinx's petty fights, but if you're going to start arguing fine-toothed policy interpretations on such things as whether an article on a blog should have another blog as an external link, you may find the shoe on the other foot in other articles. ] 19:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

:They disrespected a new user and refused to play by the rules, so I re-opened consensus. This isn't a "fight" this is a determination of the very fluid concept of consensus based upon the very conditional original consensus. I have outlined what argument I want to see before I decide that original consensus should stay, but nobody will respect that request enough to actually make the argument. And I intend to see this thing through by the Wiki process. ] 19:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>RfC</FONT></b>

I opened an RfC regarding ], it is located at ] and would appreciate you comments if you have any. This message is being posted to anyone's talk page who it seems has had much contact with the user in question. --]<s>]</s> 21:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

:Just a FYI, I was not banned, not sure where you got that from, but you may want to revise your message as its in fact incorrect. Thank you. --]<s>]</s> 00:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

:Just a FYI: MONGO, one of the co-signers to that RfC, has admitted to working for the US Department of Homeland Security (See: ] and the diff ). Isn't that cute, an abusive administrator working on behalf of the DHS and spending his time deleting pages and banning critics. ] 11:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

::So? He's not on here as a DHS employee. I've got a paying job too, how about you? Nice contribs there, socky. ] 11:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

:::So, you can pretend that there is an assumption of good faith in such a case, but you know it is pretense. And speaking of AGF, have you evidence that this poster is a sock?{{unsigned|BenBurch}}

::::I have enough experience with MONGO to know that he's fair-minded. I don't agree with him on tons of stuff, but I do think he is trying to do right. I don't buy for a second that he's on here as a DHS employee, so his biases are no bigger a deal than any other admin's. I'm perfectly willing to ABF, when evidence is strong. I do so with those below, for example. Yes, you're obviously a sock when you have two edits but are quite knowledgeable about Misplaced Pages admins; I'm not an idiot. ] 05:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

:::: I get a check from Rove for every edit, so what? ] 14:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::I work for the Department of Homeland Security. I would tell you what department but then I would have to kill you. '''Note''' this is a play on a popular joke if not obvious, there is not actual life threat here. – ]<s>]</s> 04:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>My comments on CU</FONT></b>

First of all, I do not post about what goes on here for the purpose of "drumming up supporters" or "recruiting meatpuppets" . Never have, never will. The evidence shows that I am not guilty of it. Simply commenting on what happens here is not the same as directly or even indirectly asking people to come here ''en masse'' to influence the site.

As to my comments about you, I sometimes vent when I am frustrated and/or angry. I will fully admit that, yes, I get quite frustrated and angry when it comes to you, but I try to keep it off Wiki. I won't go into specifics as it would delve deep into personal attack territory, but I will say that your attitude, behavior, and comments often incite me. I try really, really hard to take a moment to think through my how I will respond here and try to keep it as neutral and as close to Wiki guidelines as possible. I know I haven't been perfect, but I have taken friendly correction well.

In any case, we both know that neither one of us is innocent of "talking smack" on other websites. So, since we're on even ground, from now on let's both agree to avoid making comments on other websites about things that happen here. No more venting. No more accusations. Nothing. I'm sure the admins will appreciate it and it will benefit both of us in regards to our activities here. ] 05:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

::Fair enough. Truce. But perhaps you could develop interests other than the pages on Wiki about Liberal establishments? I think it is as improper for you to be editing those as it would be for me to be editing the Ronald Wilson Reagan article. ] 06:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

:::: Ben, please. Take a look at your own edit history. I don't believe you have edited more than four or five actual mainspace articles since you joined WP. It's improper for you to judge the propriety of another editor's choice of articles to edit. Jinx's edit history seems pretty varied to me. I have removed libellous statements from tons of articles about conservative, liberal, Buddist, gay, etc. people and issues (I think I even cleaned up an article for a gay lefty rabbi somewhere in there).

Yes, I do have political biases, and that is exactly why I wear them on my sleeve (my user page), so that other editors can call me on it if I am acting unobjectively. So far, the only people who ''have'' called me on it have been people who I suspect are allies of yours off-wiki, or at least have off-wiki axes to grind with me, and their accusations were merely meritless attacks to attempt to knock down my well-reasoned policy comments.

While my entrance to WP was basically to come here and mess with you personally, I quickly discovered what a great project this is, and am really trying to be a positive and consistent asset to it. I don't really have a problem with you personally anymore. I think we've evolved to the point of Maggie Simpson and the other baby in a carriage, giving each other the evil eye from across the street. But I have to tell you this, and it isn't intended as a personal attack, but you're very inconsistent. Sometimes you are reasonable, and it is almost pleasant to trade barbs with you, and other times, you act like a spoiled brat. If you're on meds, maybe some sort of adjustment is needed. Or it could just be general ]. From what I've seen the past five days, no one on "your side" is acting like someone who just won a pretty big electoral victory. One would think that teh hand of Rove picked all the dems who won. (OK, so maybe I am messing with you a little at the end here.) :) - ] 18:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

:::I actually have edited articles about other subjects, and I don't think it would be improper for you to edit Reagan's article if it was done properly. ] 06:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>New Article</FONT></b>

Hey ya Ben,

I'm still basking in the sweet afterglow of our overwhelming and well-deserved victory. Is it just me, or do many of the 'losers' seem much more combative yet more morose than usual since Weds? I won't let them bring me down though! Hey, I started a new article on ]. Maybe you can work on it in your spare time. He's been cited ALL over the www, and the in news since his run-in with the 'Macaca' campaign staffer. Cheers, bud! - ] 09:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>White Rose</FONT></b>

Ben, a heads up, looks like somebody overwrote the White Rose article with info about a student group of the same name at the University of Texas, then they reverted it back. I made a suggestion on the talk page about a possible solution. ] 21:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks. Clearly a disambiguation is called for. ] 21:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

::Did it, can you see any problems with it? See ] which was another page they were editing which I converted to a redirect to the main article ] which references the disambiguation page. ] 21:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>RSX-15 binaries and sources</FONT></b>

You had said on the talk page for ] that you no longer had access to RSX-15 sources. Complete sets of source and binary DECtapes (including the XVM/DOS-based build/install programs) for XVM/RSX V1A and V1B (XVM/RSX V1B was the last version of RSX-15) can be found at . It will be possible to install and run them in SIMH 3.7 (the current version of SIMH is 3.6-2, and it will not run XVM/RSX because of several bugs) once it is released. There will probably also be a pre-installed disk image of it available. I already have XVM/RSX running reasonably well in a patched version of SIMH. If you want, I can send you a disk image of XVM/RSX and the necessary patches to run it. ] 09:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, please! benburch AT pobox DOT com. ] 15:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Hmm... I wonder if Ava's article "reads like an advertisement," too.</FONT></b>

Well, look at that. I think it does. Perhaps I should add the "advert" tag without explaining exactly why I think that, attempting to improve the article or even making helpful suggestions. Nah. I'm not that petty. ] 19:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

:It would only be petty if you didn't think it did. Though there are many other editors of that article who would disagree with you on that one. I think your article DOES read like an ad - I could easily see it being a press release from his agent with those exact words and minus the cites. Not a criticism of you, but a true fan wouldn't write any other sort of article. You'd have the same effect had I written the article on ], for example. Don't assume that any time I touch one of your articles that I am attacking YOU. --] 20:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

::No, actually, Ben, I wouldn't "have the same effect." Whatever you see in the article isn't based upon what's in the article. That much is obvious. ] 02:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ben, why are you attacking his article? It looks factual, neutral, and well sourced to me. It's a decent first article. What exactly do you think makes it read like an advert? Can you suggest some improvements? I was planning to update the the books and videos with citation templates. ] 21:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

:Does the man have any critics? From where does his comedy derive? Most comedians emulate the style of another. And I think the article has a tone of praise that isn't neutral. That's all. What any fan would write about a subject he was thrilled with. It's a good article except for those issues. I was hoping to motivate him to remedy those issues. --] 22:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

:: It's very possible that he doesn't have any critics. He's a Christian comedian. How much trouble can the guy stir up? If you can find something, feel free to edit it into the article. It's a wiki, after all. ] 00:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::He has critics, though none I've seen worth noting (non-notable blogs and such). In any case, your concerns are of little weight as to Misplaced Pages. Having or not having critics and no mention of where his style derives from (if it does at all) have no effect at all on the articles for him or anyone else. For example, in a quick perusal of the articles for your beloved John Stewart and Stephen Colbert, I see no obvious mentions of criticism or where they derived their styles from. You said, "I think the article has a tone of praise that isn't neutral. That's all. What any fan would write about a subject he was thrilled with." I could easily, VERY easily say the same for, oh, say the article for Annie Sprinkle. No doubt that if I had added the advert tag to that article, you'd have responded with frothing indignation.

Of course, even articles for other people - Robin Williams, for example - could be said to have "a tone of praise that isn't neutral." You also said, "I was hoping to motivate him to remedy those issues." Quite frankly, Ben, that's a load of bull. You simply marked the article with the advert tag and left it at that. You '''outright refused''' to discuss both why and what exactly you thought needed improvement. ] 02:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:::What about "It reads like an advert" was unclear? Nothing. ] 02:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Oh, come on</FONT></b>

Ben, your "New Year's Card" on ] is plainly an ] ]. I have no idea what the history is between you and Bryan and Bryan's suspected sockpuppets, but I expect better of you. ] 17:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

:Sorry, you're right. --] 17:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>]</FONT></b>

Tagging that page with {{tl|Humor}} is ].—] (]) 02:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

:It was an attempt to lighten the mood of the page! --] 02:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)</FONT>


<b><FONT COLOR=RED><FONT SIZE=4>Fairness And Accuracy For All</b></FONT></FONT> <b><FONT COLOR=RED><FONT SIZE=4>Fairness And Accuracy For All</b></FONT></FONT>


{{checkuser|Fairness And Accuracy For All}} began his Misplaced Pages career as ], an acronym that starts with, "Neocons Be Gone." Maybe someone else who is more familiar with his uninterrupted history of misconduct can fill us in about the rest of it. Like his inseparable companion ], ] has admitted that he is a long-term member of . The following has been excerpted from his Talk page and its archives. <FONT COLOR=BLUE> {{checkuser|Fairness And Accuracy For All}} began his Misplaced Pages career as ], an acronym that starts with, "Neocons Be Gone." Maybe someone else who is more familiar with his uninterrupted history of misconduct can fill us in about the rest of it. Like his inseparable companion ], ] has admitted that he is a long-term member of . The following has been excerpted from his Talk page and its archives.


:I hope you live up to all this. ] 16:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


::Obviously you have not. Why am I not surprised? ] 02:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


Notice that F.A.A.F.A. was advised by ] on November 1, 2006 on how to create a cabal without appearing to create a cabal, and on how to “use wikipolicy as a sword” to advance a partisan agenda when editing articles.
::::LOL! I've seen you been wrong before, but not this wrong. Is the President of Diebold running for office or something? WOW! - ] 03:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::Oh, okay. So some "muck and mire" on Wiki is okay, then. Just as long as it's not about candidates running for office this year. ] 03:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::1) I didn't enter ANYTHING negative about ANYbody (running for office)! 2)Your mistaken assumptions are astounding. If you watched the documentary or even read a little, you would discover that in districts where Dems are in control and use evoting, the Repubs are actually fighting against it, arguing that its unreliable and prone to hacking and fraud! I know you're upset about the loss of the House (and possibly Senate) but you don't need to act out with your wild unfounded accusations against me! - ] 04:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::*Ironically, you contradict (1) with your final sentence. As for my assumptions, accusing someone of "Play Admin" or saying that someone is good at "dodging" because they "get lots of practice" is hardly positive or rising "above the muck and mire." Ah, but your "escape clause" makes it okay, since these aren't current election candidates, right? ] 05:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::Yup - I refuse to lower myself to the GOP level. I'm not a scumbag like the Repugs who crafted and ran the underhanded, dishonest attack ads against Michael Acuri and others. Unlike Repugs, I have values and morals! I don't do meth OR have gay sex with male prostitutes, like your exalted leader either! LOL!- ] 06:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::: Getting a little heavy on the partisianship & politicking there. Wiki is not soapbox. ] 06:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::I don't even need to respond to that. It responds to itself. ] 06:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's my user page Dman, and an entirely appropriate reply in response to a mertiless desperate attack considering that I clearly stated that I promised not to edit the articles of '''"candididates running for office"'''. Obviously another case of this - ] 07:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

::I stand correctedt. It is your user page and you have that right. Rant On citizen, Rant On! Feel free to expose your partisianship and bias as you see fit. I apologize for interfering.] 09:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Apology accepted. 'Speaker Pelosi' has an especially sweet ring to it, doesn't it? :-)- ] 09:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

::::I suspect that you may be suprised to find that I agree with you. FWIW, I don't consider myself a Dem or a Rep. I do however like a mixed government as it keeps one party from running away with an agenda (as all have done at various points throughout history). Either way, I'm waiting till tonight before emotionally investing in any outcome. cheers! ] 16:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>fyi</FONT></b>

]

<FONT SIZE=4><b>The Irony</FONT></b>

The irony considering whats above, but I have good faith in your intentions:
*
*
Not sure if they are recent, but both use their content from Misplaced Pages, just in case admins at AN/I do not oblige you, those are at least images of the article at one point to work off of. --]<s>]</s> 23:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks! I didn't think of checking there. ] 23:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Protest Warrior</FONT></b>

<!-- ''I posted this in an onging discussion between PWs and supporters and neutral parties, but the PW deleted it, so I'm reposting it here.''

I'll repeat what I wrote months ago which is the God's honest truth: "I am ONLY interested in insuring that a reader who might not be familiar with Protest Warrior gets an accurate picture of it - an 'activist' organization that is home to under 100 active 'activists' - with founders who are no longer participating in the organization they founded. An organization with about half a dozen active chapters, whose usual protest size is in the single digits, and might protest a handful of times a year, at most. A counter-protest organization that was never able to fulfill their promise of "we will be on hand to counter their (the left's) hate and negativity directed at our United States of America and the United States Military, at all times, in all places." - indeed they never even got close. An organization that is inarguably Islamophobic. I know now that I will never be able to get the PW article to accurately reflect these truths, so I won't try anymore.

I will say something that I hope doesn't hurt the PW's and supporter's fealings. Months ago after all the valid but WP:NRS criticism from the Anti Racist Action Network was deleted, I was angry, and approached CAIR and another Islamic Defense NGO, and spoke with people high up in their orgs. I was trying to find out if they considered PW a 'hate group'. Neither of them had ever heard of PW. Both checked PW out and said it was too insignificant to bother with, and one, while on the phone, visited the website, took a look at some past operations, and actually laughed. I won't repeat what she said.

I asked if either would be interested in putting out a statement calling PW an Islamophobic Hate Group, and both said the org was just too insignificant to spend any time or resources on. It wasn't even a blip on their radar. I don't bring this up to be mean, but with all due respect, really think that some PW's and supporters have myopia as to the importance of PW on the world stage. It's important to them, but not to many others. Please take what I wrote as my honest feelings and beliefs, and not an intent to insult, cause it's NOT. (As an aside that you might find amusing, I spoke with Cindy Sheehan for about 2-3 minutes today, and gave her a big hug and kiss on the cheek! I cracked her up. I asked her how it felt to be the only woman in America more hated by the far right than Hillary Clinton. Pics coming on Indymedia later) Peace. ] 04:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

:No offence meant by this, but in light of the fact that most of your bans have been reguarding the PW article, it might be best to leave it alone for a while... ] 09:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC) -->

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Walter Andrew Stephenson</FONT></b>

Please see ] 00:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Section header</FONT></b>

Please do not make further edits like one as it messes up the numbering on the main page, ]. ] 02:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I didn't see the note in the edit summary till too late. I've seen other discussions with page breaks, so I thought it was OK. ] 02:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

<b><FONT COLOR=RED><FONT SIZE=4>ArlingtonTX note: Notice that F.A.A.F.A. was advised by ] on how to create a cabal without appearing to create a cabal, and on how to “use wikipolicy as a sword” to advance a partisan agenda when editing articles.</b></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR=BLUE>

<FONT SIZE=4><b>You might get indefinetly banned</FONT></b>

I have watched this debate with interest from afar, like a pedistrian watches an oncoming train wreck, powerless to stop it, knowing it will happen, and secretly, deep down inside facinated to see its conclusion.

Ask yourself Fairness, are you really any different from the person you argued with? To attempt to difuse the situation, I won't use his name, but that won't matter anyway, will it? Go ahead and post yet another ANI. I will illustrate the blatant hypocricy of the ANI when you do.

Both of you are hardcore partisans who use wikipolicy as a sword.

Both of you are going to be eventually banned. You will be banned first, and soon, because the other user's side is better organized and has virulently partisan admins on his side.

The only chance you have is to:

1) Become a diplomat and edit smart, in otherwords, become a POV diplomat. You are editing stupid. By stupid I mean that your partisanship is so evident, and the tit for tat deletions etc. are going to get you banned. You have pissed off a well organized group of partisans, who have much more power than you do.

2) Take a deep hard look in the mirror, and ask yourself if you are any better than your nemsis in the AfD. I don't think you two are much different at all. You are both POV warriors, pushing your own POV, refusing to comprise. POV warriors eventually get AfDs, then they get restrictions, and eventually they are banned or leave wikipedia with a loud egotistical pronouncement, which no one really cares about anyway. And they are in the outside looking in, and everyone keeps editing, and forgets about the POV warrior.

That is your fate. If I was a betting man, I would bet 99 to 1, that is your fate. I have seen it dozens of times before. Rarely has anyone changed. I was indefinetly booted myself once, it is only by the grace of one kind admin who I had argued with before, that I am still here. I am still here because I radically changed my behavior, whereas most editors I know are slowly on there way out or have been indefinetly banned. Will I eventually get banned? Probably. I hope not, but if I was a betting man, probably. But I will be editing here months, if not years after you are forgotten. '' '''You might get indefinetly banned.''' ''

Signed: ] (]) 02:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:Hmmm. You must be MUCH more more dispassionate that I am. When people start f_cking with me, I'm pretty much powerless not to respond in kind. I already DID file another ANI! LOL ! Thanks for your thoughts. On to Nov 8!

:Note - no pics here please. ] 02:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

: You know what? You are DEAD wrong. I wouldn't even THINK of trying to add negative info into the article of ANY politician running for office next Tuesday, no matter HOW much I despise their views. Some of them are working OVERTIME doing just that.

:I refactored your prediction. It was bad juju. ] 03:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

::Here is why I restore the photo: ] you can delete it now if you wish. I respond to people in kind, but I do it in a diplomatic way, and I use wikipolicy like a weapon, as my advisaries have taught me.

::I went up against some of the most powerful admins, and got indefinately banned. I then learned by looking at their edit histories, that these admins are no different then me, and in fact, in most cases they are far more partisan, stubborn, biased, peity ideologues than I am (or was). Except the difference is:

:::1) These partisan admins and veteran editors know how to use wikipolicy like a weapon, they learn how to vent in other ways, instead of using their mouth like a weapon, like you naively do (and I naively did and sometimes still do), they use wikipolicy like a weapon.

:::2) These partisan admins and veteran editors form "clics", some people call them "cabals". It is obviously going on, but because of ] and other policies, no one can actually say the word "cabal". It is the "elephant in the room", like I mentioned recently on the village pump. So what do you need to do? Get organized: seek out and kiss ass to partisan editors who share your POV.

::Want proof? Look at the admins you have gone up against, they are so terribly partisan. People report them to ANI '''ALL THE TIME'''. Many users have gone up against them, and many of those users who went up against them are indefinetly banned. Ask yourself: Why are these other novice editors banned and these admins are still editing?

:: Two in particular that you are fighting with currently come to mind.

:: The absolute '''best''' tactic you can do is be less ideological and less partisan. But I have no illusions about this happening soon. Peoples ideologies change glacially. Unfortunatly, you will be banned before yours changes.

::''You know what? You are DEAD wrong. I wouldn't even THINK of trying to add negative info into the article of ANY politician running for office next Tuesday, no matter HOW much I despise their views. Some of them are working OVERTIME doing just that.''

::Yeah sure, everyone else is biased, but you. I already mentioned your stark and aparent bias on the AfD, maybe you should reread that section. ::RE: ''Thanks for your thoughts. I responded to them on my page Very nice pic too, I just don't want pics on my talk page.''

::No prob, I will watch your page, so you don't need to comment here, and all comments are in one place. When I saw the "unread message" notice, I was thinking you were an admin who dislikes you, threatening me.

::It is only a matter of time before someone threatens me or puts up a ANI about my comments on your user page. Many of these editors tactics are so pathetic, obvious, and predictable.

::Maybe I can save you from yourself, you have been one of several "interventions", everyone always ignores me, especially partisans (because, of course, by there nature, they are not very open to new ideas), and they get banned or leave noisily and nastily. Maybe I am simply becoming more convincing with practice. ] (]) 03:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:::You know what? You are DEAD wrong. I wouldn't even THINK of trying to add negative info into the article of ANY politician running for office next Tuesday, no matter HOW much I despise their views. Some of them are working OVERTIME doing just that.

::::Yeah sure, everyone else is biased, but you. I already mentioned your stark and aparent bias on the AfD, maybe you should reread that section.

You didn't get my point. At all. Yeah, I'm partisan, but there are some lines I won't cross, which 'they' do, and one is trying to affect even a SINGLE vote via editing on Wiki. Look at ANY politician running for office next tues, and you won't see a single edit from me . ] 03:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:I guess we will agree to disagree.

:Just because you don't do x, doesn't mean you are any less partisan. Putting articles which don't fit your POV, I would consider massively partisan. The idea is that you should add verifable sources to these articles you disagree with, not delete them outright. I know finding verifable sources is more work, but it is more effective. You were trounced in the AfD, and you are close to being in an AfD. In otherwords, your partisan wikiediting is a failure. You can be partisan and get your point across, you just need to do it right. You are doing it ''all'' wrong, and you will be booted if it continues.

:'''We are not talking about the other guy''', that is a ] falacy of logic. Please look it up. I use falacies of logic all the time in my partisan debates.

:In otherwords: your level of partisanship does not decrease simply because someone is more or less parrtisan. The bottom line, is that you are incredibly partisan, and you are falling into the same traps that many others novice editors fall into. You need to realize that the other sides arguments have merit, and the only way you can be an effective editor here on wikipedia is use reliable sources, and when someone deletes those reliable sources, and you kindly ask them to stop, and they adminently refuses to stop, diplomatically use the "wikipolicy sword". Deleting articles and sections of articles you don't like is not only rude, but it is counterproductive, and against the spirit of wikipolicy. We are here to build an encyclopedia remember?

:My partisan edits and POV have stood for months, sometimes years. Why? Because I use reliable sources, impeccible sources, exhastive sources and I compromise with partisans and allow their voice to be heard too, those who refuse to comprimise, I use the "wikipolicy sword".

:Your edit style is disruptive and a losing strategy, I can't say that enough. I have seen it a million times before, from all poltical views. If you keep it up, which you probably will, '''you will be indefinetly banned'''. The writing is on the wall. Now all I need to do is sit back and watch the train wreck. ] (]) 04:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Friends/Special Friends</FONT></b>

I had your old account on my watchlist, so I noticed the name change. May I ask a favor or request of you? I notice that on the top of your page you have a "Friends" and "Super Friends" list that seems modeled after Morton Devonshire's little list. We could duck and weave all day on what "Special Friends" means, but I think you and I both know that it divides people into a "Friends" camp and an "enemies" camp. It wasn't okay when Morton did it (in fact, it drove me up the walls fuming), and I really don't think it's okay that you're doing it, either. It divides the Misplaced Pages community further along ideological/personality lines.

Right now, it's looking like you're getting more attention than you might like from people in high places. At the very least, you might want to pull down the list in the interest of not attracting more attention than absolutely necessary. ] * ] 03:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:That might be a good idea. Thanks for the advice. By the way, the Super Friends category and a sock puppet account playing off my user name were created by Tbeatty. ] 03:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

::That explains a few things. I'm glad that I was able to communicate with you and work against one of my little pet peeves. Happy editing. ] * ] 03:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:::My solution: ] and I lump everyone together. I am glad that I saw this talk page topic, because if my ] section is attacked and deleted, Morton Devonshire's "Super Friends" will be a casulty of this new policy too, and I can use his "Super Friends" section to argue the validity of my own section. There is nothing like an external enemy to bring two ideologically opposed editors together as allies. :) This worked faulously in ] with ], the most intellegent conservative wikieditor I have ever met, and someone I edit warred with for months on ]. This pages history is a great case study in effective edit wars which actually make the article better and more balanced than before. ] (]) 04:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

::::To clarify, I don't mind too much lumping all users together. It's when the lists start getting separated (like the Kelly Martin /B brouhaha) and categorized (like Morton's page used to be before he refactored the whole thing) that I get nervous. We're already factionalized enough, particularly on the left/right spectrum, and there's nowhere near enough good faith running around. Even innocuous lists can become problematic if not carefully managed. ] * ] 04:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::User:Captainktainer, notice how User:Captainktainer is such a diplomat? He got you to remove that section, because he was nice about it. He obviously has been on wikipedia a long time, and knows how to get what he wants. i.e. you get more bees with honey then vinegar. I need to write more like User:Captainktainer.

:::::(removed comment thanks for pointing this out MONGO--I usually remove comments which are not permitted ASAP) ] (]) 05:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::Actually, I haven't been on Misplaced Pages that long. Only since April as a registered user. I just try to treat people on Misplaced Pages like I try to in real life. It doesn't always work, haha, which is why I'll never be an administrator. Ah, well.

::::::As for whether it's acceptable to say naughty things about those who have left the project, in general it isn't appropriate to do so. They may always return to the project, and then what has been said cannot be unsaid. I had to warn a user today about placing various comments on WikiWoo's userpage; even though WikiWoo is a known vandal and sockpuppeteer, community decorum still applies... with some reasonable deviations given the disruption caused by that user. ] * ] 06:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:not to dredge up a dead horse (I can't resist) why does it matter if you have friends and "super" friends? It's your damn page and if someone else doesn't like it then they should hike the hell outa the page.... and go worry about something important like admins abusing their powers... Just because of the "Cap" I am now creating my own list of "Superfiends"... sheesh. ] 06:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Looks like we have the same "special friends"</FONT></b>
]

You may also be interested in the village pump article I wrote:

]

:I've been following that - good reading - well argued. ] 05:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest finding an admin that is either neutral or sympathetic to you, maybe Thatcher, and complain that they are baiting you, which they are. ] (]) 04:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:I'll ignore 'em for now. I could care less what <s>Moran</s> <s>Moron</s> Morton does, writes or thinks. (strikethroughs OK per Admin ) Gonna be pretty busy until next Tuesday anyway. Working on a phone bank calling voters in tight races. I think we start in Tennessee tomorrow. - ] 05:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

::Well, in a broken two party system like America has, you can vote for bad or worse, I am casting my ballot for bad this year, as I always do.

::I will vote straight democrat for the congress and governor, but I don't know about anyone else. I think maybe I will simply not vote for the rest.
::In my state, there is this troubling idea that you can vote for all judges, even supreme court ones, if I am not mistaken. Like the founders believed, there really should be checks and balances against "unrestrained democracy". That idea is alien today in a Big Mac super-size society which erroneously thinks that '''more ''always'' = better''', but the founders ])''], beleived differently. I am rambling. Good night. ] (]) 06:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Third party neutral</FONT></b>

I have asked Thatcher to watch your page, and the other editors who you have had edit disputes to unwatch your page, the full conversation is here:

]
and
]

I have suggested on this page, that you voluntarily commit to not voting on or editing any AfD for one month, as ] suggested I and another user do. I have voluntarily committed to not editing AfDs for one month (until November 30), despite the other user not voluntarily doing this. If you voluntarily did this, this would show that you have good faith intentions, and are willing to comprimise, if you or the other editor refuse, then it '''arguably''' shows that you don't.

It is important to get that "arse" image you have changed with other wikieditors.

Again, it is voluntary.

I have spent way to much time tonight with this. Goodnight.] (]) 06:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:I'd never agree to that unless 'they' did. I'll try not to start any AfD's MfD's or ANI's unless I absolutely have to. I'll vote in AfD's, but will be less mouthy. How's that? I'll be pretty busy helping the DNC win the Senate to do much editing for the next week anyway. We already got the House ''' won.''' It's so certain that they already shifted almost all of the emphasis onto the Senate. I'm SO looking forward to 'The Hearings'! - - ] 06:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks for your efforts and your willingness to comprimise, I have been busy these past few days, and I just opened up my account after a 6 day hiatus. ] (]) 15:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Food For Thought</FONT></b>

This says it all about the current Partisan POV of Misplaced Pages:

''"I count 42 mentions of Bin Laden in the main Clinton article. By contrast, this main article for Bush has a grand total of TWO mentions of Bin Laden. (In fact, the main article on Bush had ZERO mentions of Bin Laden until I recently raised this issue myself in the "Discussion" area). I find this incredible. If you read the 2 articles, you pretty much get the sense that the fact Bin Laden remains a free man today is entirely due to Clinton. '''I've seen a lot of pro-GOP bias over the years on Wikpedia, but this issue sets a new low for this "reference" resource."''''' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.86.120.67 (talk • contribs) 14:14, October 30, 2006. (on the GW Bush Talk Page)

'''Ain't that the truth!''' (All for naught come Nov 8 too!:-) - ] 09:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:I've been around quite a while here. I do think that prior to a year ago, there was probably a slight liberal bias. There were certainly more liberal editors, but they generally tended to be quite careful of POV issues. I'd say today there is a fairly dramatic conservative bias, and your example is a good one. I have my opinions about why this is, but I won't speculate aloud. ] 09:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

::I was a Republican until the middle of this year, when I felt my party totally left me (and this country) behind and I joined the Democrats. I can understand why Derex probably wouldn't want to talk about it, but in my humble opinion, which I shall keep on this talk page, is that the conservative bias is becasue Misplaced Pages is being "Freeped" like CNN polls and other media which some conservatives feel is biased or not sympathetic enough to their viewpoint. It's one thing to add more information to gain perspective, it's another thing for one to promote their viewpoint on all.--] 05:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Welcome to 'America's Party', FS. Both you and Derex are right. About a year ago there was an organized effort on several Conservative discussion forums to recruit <S>Conservatives </S> Republican GOP defenders to become more active on Wiki. It worked. - ] 07:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Did I do Anything Wrong?</FONT></b>

What did I do? Nothing. I just said on the talk page my opinion of how the article could be better, which is what the talk page is for. To talk about how to make the article better. Did I edit the John Kerry article? NO, I did not. Do I think that it is important for people to know how the soldiers who were supposedly being criticized felt, yes I do. If John Kerry said something about Hilary Clinton, then someone on Misplaced Pages would have put her response. But I don't see why you do not want the soldiers response, and I still do not see why you have a problem with me putting my thoughts on how to make the article better on the talk page. Also, I don't see why you complained about my editing when I didn't edit anything. ] 01:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

:No electioneering on Wiki! 'Keep control of the House'? LOL! - ] 02:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I said They might, or might not, keep control of Congress, If you had read what I had wrote in the first place then you would have seen that. I still don't see why you have a problem with me using a disscusion page for what it is used for, and I thought I made it clear before, I didn't even edit the article. ] 19:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Pre Election Desperation Syndrome</FONT></b>

'''''"Voters want Democrats, rather than Republicans, to control Congress by 52% to 37%, a 15-point margin. The spread matches the widest ever recorded on this question in a Journal/NBC poll."'''''

What we have happening here on Wiki with the John Kerry article, and all over the Internets, now has a name.

It has been officially coined as . -They're behaving like cornered rats! - ] 07:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont know what your background in PolySci is, but you might want to check the historical accuarcy of that particular question... ] 08:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

: ''"The spread matches the widest ever recorded on this question in a Journal/NBC poll."'' - That's the qualifier. - ] 07:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>AFD for Hacking Democracy</FONT></b>

(reposted from Tbeatty's userpage)

In light of your involvement in the Andy Stephenson debate, your nomination of this documentary seems suspect. Even if the consensus was that Stephenson was non-notable, a point I will concede even though I was on the other side of that debate, this documentary seems to be ''prima fascia'' notable. Deleting Andy Stephenson as not notable for lacking sources is one thing; deleting this article makes it appear as though you have an agenda for trying to remove the issue of electronic voting scandals from wikipedia wholesale. I want you to know that I am not accusing you of anything, and please note that I mentioned NOTHING of this in the AFD itself, and have no intention of doing so.

It just looks suspicious, and this is a friendly warning. --]] 06:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:I would be interested in seeing what you think is notable about it. It has only one review in the NY Times. It's had a month to generate references and details. It has nothing on IMDB (and IMDB has pretty esoteric stuff). The reality is that there are no "electronic voting scandals." My agenda is only to have an encyclopedia with verificable facts, not a willy-nilly collection of everyones pet project/conspiracy theory. In the end, "Hacking Democracy" is an non-notable documentary. I'm also not sure what your warning me for? -- ] 06:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

::On the contrary, electronic voting, and specifically its unreliability, has been the topic of NUMEROUS discussions on all major news channels and shows. In the last week, I have seen and heard probably a few dozen discussions and bits specifically devoted to it on CNN, NPR, MSNBC, Fox News, etc. etc. As a topic, it rises above wild conspiracy theories. We aren't talking about any widespread conspiracy to defraud the american public. We are talking about the fact that the Diebold machines and others have had serious security concerns raised about them. Such concerns are '''verifiably''' part of the national conciousness. WRT the Hacking Democracy documentary, it isn't just some indy film that showed up at some student film festival. It appeared on HBO, and was seen by many people. It was a notable film by that standard. The only thing I am warning you of is that it appears you are making a ] that there is no serious public discussion of electronic voting ''vis-a-vis'' its reliability. That is patently and plainly not so. Implying that it is a "conspiracy theory" implies that it is the concern of a lunatic fringe. While conspiracy theories DO EXIST around the issue, it does not make the issue itself non-notable. The Kennedy Assassination has conspiracy theories, but it is by itself a notable event. We can discount the conspiracy theories surrounding it without dismissing the subject itself. Electronic voting unreliablity, and the public discussion thereof, is equally as notable, the existance of any conspiracy theories surrounding the issue notwithstanding. --] ] 07:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Not at all. Electronic voting is indeed a real issue. "Hacking Democracy" however is not the notable documentary on this topic. There is no "scandal". HD lacks reviews. It lacks major coverage as a documentary. It lacks any awards. It's empty page on IMDB is a testament to how many people have seen this film and filled in the details. It is objectively not-notable regardless of what you believe of its content. THis article was not about ] it was about this specific documentary. Not notable. --] 07:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

::::Snowball says otherwise. ] 07:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

::::The point of my warning is that there appears to be a pattern of nominating multiple articles dealing with Electronic Voting for AfD. Again, I am not accusing you of anything; you may very well be an expert on the issue, and involved in editing numerous articles on the subject. I will also concede that your prior nomination for Andy Stephenson bore out: Concensus was reached that he was non-notable, my efforts to the contrary notwithstanding. This one however seemed weird. There were NUMEROUS reviews cited in the AfD in MUCH more than the NYTIMES, many papers seem to have reviewed it. A google search turns up lots of blog discussions, but also a first page serious review in a reliable source (salon.com). Even more damning, search turns up a HUGE number of reviews in real papers (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Arkansas Times, The Register, Boston Herald all on the first page alone). Don't hang your only hope on IMDB. This shows up in so many other places, IMDB notwithstanding, it passes notability and verifiability with flying colors. Anyone, you included, could have taken 30 seconds to find these reviews on Google and avoided the whole nomination from the start. --]] 07:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::Considering that I snowballed it for consensus reasons, not notability, I am not sure what your point is. --] 07:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::And, that consensus was that it is notable. ] 07:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Your warning</FONT></b>

Please tend to your own house: . Everything you are accusing me of you yourself are guilty of. In fact, I actually have not urged people ''en masse'' to come to Wiki for the sole purpose of influencing the site. You have. (Ben, too.) Also, I rarely ask the few CUers who are experienced Wiki editors to get involved in things - they usually get involved on their own. ] 18:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>RfC</FONT></b>

I opened an RfC regarding ], it is located at ] and would appreciate you comments if you have any. This message is being posted to anyone's talk page who it seems has had much contact with the user in question. --]<s>]</s> 21:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

:Good luck. Posting your message on multiple talk pages is spamming. You're already on probation. I'd hate to see you get banned. I know that you're very upset and bitter over the humiliating election losses, but you don't need take it out on me. Maybe you should take a Wikibreak? - ] 22:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

::Please re-read ]. Not all messages posted on multiple talk pages is considered wrong. And your faux concern for his Wiki status is betrayed by your personal attack(s). You're really not helping your case when you make comments like that. ] 23:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend acknowledging old sins and focusing on improvements you've made. As best as I can tell that's what you've done in practice, so just be up-front about it. Most of this RFC is based on ancient history, and that's frowned upon, as RFC's are supposed to help correct on-going behavior. ] 00:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Just dropping in to make you aware that TBeatty has certified the RfC, and there was 2 days left anyway. Thank you for attempting to report the information repeatedly, however its listed at the top of the RfC. I thank you for realizing it was in the wrong location. --]<s>]</s> 01:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

:Just a FYI: MONGO, one of the co-signers to that RfC, has admitted to working for the US Department of Homeland Security (See: ] and the diff ). Isn't that cute, an abusive administrator working on behalf of the DHS and spending his time deleting pages and banning critics (See: ). ] 11:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

::So? He's not on here as a DHS employee. I've got a paying job too, how about you? Nice contribs there, socky. ] 11:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't advise you how to act under an RfC file against you, other than to say that impeccably appropriate behavior should always be exercised. Try to take criticism with grace, and know that two wrongs don't make a right. I have faith that you can be an upstanding, constructive, non-combatant editor if you want to be. A good thing to do would be to demonstrate that.

Peace. - ] 08:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

:Che is right, but I'll give you specific advice. It doesn't do any good for ''you'' to point the finger at someone else. Be accountable for yourself; admit errors with grace, and focus on improvements. Then, actually improve. NuclearZer0's role in this has been pointed out by others on the RFC, and that's where it's going to be most effective in establining a context. However, you really do need to really act impeccably at this point. To the extent you are provoking people I can't support you. However to the extent that people are provoking you, let me share with you this wisdom that ] laid on me a couple years back, and of which I should be more heedful. <blockquote>''I find that nothing fazes a provacateur more than refusing to be baited. It not only doesn't give them a reason to strike back, but that inability drives them crazy since I'm not giving them what they really want - the satisfaction of biting back. I take my shots carefully, and in as subtle a manner as I can.''</blockquote> ] 11:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>regarding comments on my talk re: ]</FONT></b>
I didn't remove anything from the article. My edits all were additions, such as cn templates, a category, and a template to the talk page. I even left the FR cite, just tagged it for additional citation. ] 21:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The information I deleted was superfluous. There is simply no reason put everything he ever posted on FR as well as his profile in this article. This article is not about FR and what he posted there. Nor is the article about the chain of events that led blogs to associate him with FR. The article is about Costanga, and with the limited information we have from him from reliable sources shouldn't be much more than a stub.--] 22:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

:What he wrote is inclusionable and even REQUIRED by the article. He is notable BECAUSE of these actions (threats). I will list everything I can find which he wrote as noted in the afadavit and the actions he was charged with as noted in the afadavit and other RS, including calling Nancy Pelosi a 'cuntface' (moving discussion to talk page)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Edits to userpage</FONT></b>

to ]'s userpage is unacceptable and you know it. If you can't get along with the other editors here, then you should seek out another forum. If I see this nonsense one more time, I will be forced to block you from editing. Please keep arguments centered on the material and not the editors. Thanks.--] 07:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

::Since tbeatty is apparently so upset over a little playful fun between other users that didn't even concern him he must be opposed to any and all such stunts. Or not. Take a look tbeatty's own sock puppet - he created an entire sock puppet account ] ''Tbeatty's Super Friend Sock Puppet account'' solely to 'vandalize' my FAAFA page and taunt me. (did I run to an Admin?} Is it OK to create a sock just to play with another editor's page? Thanks - ] 07:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

::: Come on dude. You've been given a chance to redeem yourself, and to some limited extent, you have, yet you keep pulling these childish pranks. Two wrongs don't make a right, Golden Rule, yada yada yada. In spite of the gains that you and I have made, you still illustrate that my initial contribution to your RfC was spot on. Prove me wrong and fly right. - ] 20:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

:::: I am getting nostalgic, right before I was indefinetly banned, several editors kept warning me to shut the hell up, and stop. I didn't.

:::: I would suggest maybe making a sockpuppet and editing articles on wikipedia that have nothing to do with the current controversy you are involved with. (preferably non-political pages)

:::: Put a wikivacation sign on your user page, and turn off your e-mail.

:::: You must follow the sockpuppet rules though: It is important you do not edit the same wikipages that you do with Fairness And Accuracy For All. Change the link in your web browser to this new sockpuppet. I suggest not voting for any AfDs etc. with your new sockpuppet.

:::: I did this with my sockpuppet ], and it worked really well. When another user messaged me at my sockpuppet, I quickly removed his comment to the archive, and asked him not to email me at the sockpuppet anymore.

:::: You need to lay low and let the train wreck you created die down. Hopefully when you return, your editing behavior will change, otherwise you will eventually be booted indefinetly. ] (]) 14:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Endorsement</FONT></b>

RE: Can you please reduce your endorsement of my outside view on the Seabhcan RfC to just a signature. Comments like the ones you left can be seen as baiting and I do not endorse that nor wish for it in my section. Thank you. --]<s>

]</s> 23:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

:] "gets it" he has evolved into a POV diplomat, whereas you are still a bumbling POV warrior, ]. I was going to delete [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3ARequests_for_comment%

2FSeabhcan&diff=89002697&oldid=88995970 those comments] myself. Don't you get it ]? Think about it, User:NuclearUmpf is probably getting a lot of grief for bravely endorsing Seabhcan, your stupid comments:

:# only agitate the situation,
:# give your ideological foes more ammunition for ]
:# makes ] look bad for endorsing Seabhcan

:] handled the situation artfully and skillfully. I am very impressed at his transformation. Long after you are permanently banned, ] will continue to be editing wikipedia. I am happy to admit that all of my predictions about ] being eventually booted are wrong.

:Look at the masterful way that ] is handling his RfC, compared to the bumbling way that you are handling things. You can learn from other editors behavior.

:Maybe only an Arbcom ruling or a boot will make you change your behavior. It took me about 10 times getting booted for me to get to the point I am at right now. I was much like you when I first started editing wikipedia. Thankfully the editors I tangled with were not as skillful as the editors you are dealing with, or I would have been indefinetly banned last year. You do not have that luxury.

:When you are angry at the state of the nation or the world, I suggest finding a web blog with little oversite, where you can voice your slanted, biased opinions. I suggest frontpagemag.org, for example. Posting your stong ideology here is only going to cause you continued grief. I still post on azplace.net when I want to vent my own ideological biases.] (]) 14:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Substing</FONT></b>

] on this page have been ] using the ] . Note:'''This is not a new warning''', but only some minor maintenance, following Wikipedias policy of subst'ing warning templates. Thank you.- ] ] <small>(])</small> 21:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>"Idiotarian," "fitzmas" vs. "santorum"</FONT></b>

Your stance on these terms seems grossly inconsistent. "Fitzmas" is far and away more well-known than "santorum," and "idiotarian" is even more well-known than "fitzmas." However, you nominated "idiotarian" for deletion for supposedly being a "Non-Notable Internet-only Neologism" and claimed that you would vote to delete "fitzmas," yet "santorum" is perfectly okay with you. Care to explain this? ] 15:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

re: your response on my talk page - It doesn't matter where you ''personally'' have heard things. The fact of the matter is that "idiotarian" is more notable than "fitzmas," which in turn is more notable than "santorum." Your postion on the deletion and inclusion of these words on Misplaced Pages is inconsistent and betrays your POV attitude towards Misplaced Pages articles. ] 14:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Image:Santorumloser.jpg listed for deletion</FONT></b>

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. You really should know better than to do this. — ] 07:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)<!-- Template:Idw --> --] 07:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

*Please do not make personal attacks on other people{{{{{subst|}}}#if:Image:Santorumloser.jpg|&#32;as you did at ]}}. Misplaced Pages has a strict policy against ]. ] and images '''are not tolerated''' by Misplaced Pages and are ]. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images will be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. Thank you. <!-- Template:attack --> &mdash; ] (]) 13:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

:*Par for the course, it seems. ] 14:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Saddam & AQ</FONT></b>

Just to clear something up, while I do not believe there are "conspiracy theories" about who knew who and did what. I do believe that some of the information is false or has been disproven. I also do not believe that Saddam and bin Laden had an active relationship, but through security forces/intelligence agency has a passive relationship. Similar to the fact that the president of the US never had an active relationship with bin Laden when he was a "freedom fighter", but the CIA surely did have a passive relationship. Figured I would drop this here since I seen you classified me as someone who doesn't agree with you, figured I would further explain my stance, I may drop into the article, but currently dealing with a user on one article has been time consuming and trying to bring peace to another article has turned quite ugly. --]<s>]</s> 13:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:It rises to the level of Conspiracy Theory when right-wing propagandists push disinfo long after the Gov declares the claims false:

:''"In a transcript of Rush Limbaugh's radio show, titled '''"Believe Hayes, Not 9/11 Commission,"''' Limbaugh promoted Hayes's book and his contention of a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Limbaugh also featured Hayes's book on his online "Limbaugh Library."''

:''"Since the June 16 release of the 9-11 Commission Staff Statement No. 15, The Weekly Standard has published no fewer than six articles by Hayes challenging the commission's findings."'' - ] 02:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks for pointing out that article to me. It has no interest other than one for Misplaced Pages, and, for all I see, falls under Original Research (apart of some supporters of Bush in the US &mdash; and only some &mdash; I hear that all of the rest of the world has dismissed this propaganda some time ago - albeit too late...). On the other hand, events such as those portrayed in the ] article are accused of being "hoaxes"... Leave me a note if there is any decision taken about the article you mentioned; eitherwise, I fear not having much time to put in arguments about an article whose very title is misleading. Cheers! ]

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Request for admin</FONT></b>

{| align=center border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style="border: 1px solid #CC9; background-color: #cfc"
|-
|]
|I appreciate the innumerable requests and suggestions -- and yes, even pleas -- that I run for Administratorship. I am thinking it over, and will keep you all informed of my decision. I thank you in advance for your support, and for your future vote.- ] 23:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
|}

:Please do. It would be great fun. --] 23:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks for your support. ] 01:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:::LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL... ] 01:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Thanks! I am counting on your vote too, should I decide to run. ] 06:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:Strike while the iron is hot I say. You should proably should run while you have the throngs of innumerable pleas to run supporting you. ] 19:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

<div style="float: left; border: 1px solid #000; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 360px; background: #000000;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: #000; text-align: center; font-size: 12pt; color: #fff;" | ''']'''
| style="font-size: 8pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: #FF0000;" |<span style="color:#FF0000">'''THIS SPACE IS A USEBACA-FREE ZONE!<BR> Member #1 COUNTER-USEBACA Squad'''|}</div><BR><BR><BR>

WTF is USEBACA? Or do I even want to know? ] 05:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:See Morty's talk page. Apparently Wiki is chock-full of CIA and NSA agents. It's even alleged he's one of 'em! ] 05:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:: Well, my name isn't mentioned in the list of usual suspects, so I'd say they're off the scent. (Faxing an update to teh Rove). ] 19:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

::Is there a Comic Relief position currently open at Misplaced Pages?

::I might endorse you if that's the case. ] 20:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I plead with you. Please run for admin. You would have my support 100% Consider this an unequivocal endorsement. ] 02:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do inform me if you do a RfA, I would love to participate in the discussion.--] 22:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>]</FONT></b>

] You have made an edit {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|to ]}} that could be regarded as ]. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. See the ].<!-- Template:Blp1 -->--] 09:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy</FONT></b>

Please see my comments on the talk page, especially the links to the opinions given on your application of the policy at this article. ] 03:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Hey Fair</FONT></b>

Mentioned your name several times here:

:]

Looks like from your talk page, with all the warning messages here, you are on the way to being booteded. If I was a betting man, I would bet you will get booted. I am being '''very''' serious.

Before you are booted, can you advise: ] about how fun a RfC is?

Nuclear stated today on ]: "If he wishes to continue in this antagonistic behavior" is an attack and if you continue them I will file and RfC." I take Nuclear at his word.

Please see: ], as I wrote ], I am asking ], to advise you how fun RfC's are.

:I archived your comments as per: ], I hope you don't mind, you can revert if you wish, the last comment was 3 days old, and you have been on wikipedia since then.

:When people write me inflamantory things, or I get warnings, I thank them nicely, then archive the comments, so everytime I go to my talk page, I don't have to see the inflammatory comments, and therefore I won't get mad or depressed. I archived the comments once on Stone's page, and I think it helped difuse the tension a lot.

:If anyone ever gives you grief about archiving your comments, let me know ASAP, and I will give them the wikipolicy riot act. ] (]) 05:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks but I archive them when they get too long. - ] 05:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

:::No problem, just trying to help. If I start acting like an overbearing mother that you are glad you never had, just tell me. ] (]) 05:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Hi, as per ] I am going to archive your comments. Thanks for your comments, if you would like to have the last word, please do. My response to you is in my latest archive, if you care to read it. I wish you the best of luck FAAFA. I only ask that in the future, you please don't put anymore articles up for deletion which are referenced and don't match your own POV. I know I can say things to you that I can't say to other wikiusers, I hope you understand why, and don't get offended by my blunt words. ] (]) 06:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

(UI) If you think a Neologism no more important than the Neologism 'Freeptard' desrerves its own article, an article sourced only from blogs that don't meet RS V, thats your opinion. I don't, and as I told someone, I would vote to delete 'Fitzmas' too. Nite! - ] 06:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Substing</FONT></b>

] on this page have been ] using the ] . Note:'''This is not a new warning''', but only some minor maintenance, following Wikipedias policy of subst'ing warning templates. Thank you.- ] ] <small>

(])</small> 21:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Re:Santorum pic</FONT></b>

It was listed for ] by another user before I was even finished with the ] process.

And you should really know better than to upload such unencyclopedic and copyright issue images to Misplaced Pages.

Not to mention I thought all the threads popping up around DU concerning that picture and ridiculing that little girl were absolutely disgusting, I hope you played no part in any of those discussions.--] 10:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Tiring</FONT></b>

In my rationale for deletion, I not once stated that any editor was trying to make a profit...I stated that the book was spam advertising. Your comment indicates that you didn't read why I nominated the article for deletion. Please cease these ongoing mischaracterizations.--] 17:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, ...if you can't stop insulting others, then you need to read ]. You have been blocked many times, so I again ask you to refrain from continuing to be incivil. Thanks.--] 11:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

''Transcluded from ]''
:I didn't mischaracterize anything, and I didn't insult you. You insulted your fellow editors by accusing them of profiteering and having ulterior motives - serious charges which you now refuse to prove. I suggest you not repeat your actions again. - ] 15:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

::I not once stated that any Wikipedian was seeking a profit. Your continued accusation that I did will not stand. You did indeed insult me and again, if this is the kind of behavior we are to continue to expect from you, then this will be a big disappointment, but not a surprise as you have been blocked numerous times already for these kinds of infractions.--] 18:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Fair, I didn't see Mongo accuse any editors of profiteering . Unless you can show where he did, I think your username implies at least an acknowledgment for misreading/misinterpreting what he said is in order. FYI, I voted to keep on the book even though I think it's garbage. ] 00:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)</FONT>


<b><FONT COLOR=RED><FONT SIZE=4>NBGPWS</b></FONT></FONT> <b><FONT COLOR=RED><FONT SIZE=4>NBGPWS</b></FONT></FONT>
Line 1,756: Line 817:
{{checkuser|NBGPWS}} was the original name of ]. Readers will note that ] and ] are almost inseparable. When others figured out that the acronym stood for "Neocons Be Gone ..." he changed his name. Readers should take note of the number of blocks he has experienced, the length of those blocks (reflecting the severity of his offenses) and his actions in pushing a "Bush as Hitler" Misplaced Pages article, which is synonymous with the single purpose of the ] of ]. {{checkuser|NBGPWS}} was the original name of ]. Readers will note that ] and ] are almost inseparable. When others figured out that the acronym stood for "Neocons Be Gone ..." he changed his name. Readers should take note of the number of blocks he has experienced, the length of those blocks (reflecting the severity of his offenses) and his actions in pushing a "Bush as Hitler" Misplaced Pages article, which is synonymous with the single purpose of the ] of ].


The following has been excerpted from his Talk page and its archives. <FONT COLOR=BLUE>

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Protest Warrior</FONT></b>

Just like as on PW, blatant repeated vandalism can get you in trouble.

Please do not add nonsense to Misplaced Pages. It is considered ]. If you would like to experiment, use the ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:Test2 (second level warning) --> <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] •

]) {{{2|}}}.</small>

Re-added per Kuzaar's recommendation. This warning is for your edits to the ] article. Specifically, I am referencing your edit where you added "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer!" to the "Examples of Protest Warrior signs." This was and is blatant vandalism. ] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the ] if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered ], and if you continue in this manner you may be '''] from editing without further warning'''. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you.

<!--Template:Blatantvandal (serious warning) -->

<FONT SIZE=4><b>License tagging for Image:Pwka.jpg</b</FONT>

Thanks for uploading ]. Misplaced Pages gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an ] applied to the ] indicating the copyright status of the image.

This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
*]
*]

This is an automated notice by ]. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at ]. 01:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>3RR Warning for edits on ]</FONT></b>

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages under the ], which states that nobody may ] a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the ''effect'' of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.<!-- Template:3RR --> ] 03:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Protest Warrior Talk Page</b></FONT>

Do not delete important sections of that page.

The warning was given its own section for a very specific reason.

You've already been warned repeatedly about this.

] 19:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Your questions</FONT></b>

1) When is the last time Alan or Kfir particpiated in a PW counterprotest? Will they be counterprotesting Cindy Sheehan in Crawford? They're only 100 miles away. If not, why would the leaders of such an 'important' counterprotest organization fail to capitalize on such a significant opportunity?
:''I don't know if there has been one since the FR incident.''

2) Why is the gallery section of the PW site no longer being updated with official galleries? Why are PW videos posted to youtube, but not to the PW 'video page'? Why is it no longer being updated?

:''There are rumors of a major PW site overhaul going down. There have been PW videos posted on the site in the last year, however.''

3) It definately appears that Alan and Kifer are no longer actively involved in any manner of political discussion on the various PW fora.

Please point me to any recent threads where either of them discussed politics. Please point me to any posts discussing politics by either

them in the last YEAR.
::''It's Kfir, and you know this. That, unfortunately, is the only answer I have.''

3b) It also appears that they are no longer actively counterprotesting either. I see no couterprotest activity from Kifer since he was attacked by the Freepers in Crawford a YEAR ago, and even longer for Alan. Please provide documentation otherwise.

:''See question 1.''

4) What happened to 'Operation Butterfly'? What was 'Operation Butterfly'?

:''Apparently it's still going on. We haven't been let in on it.''

5) Please address the obvious discrepancies in these statements and estimate the current number of PW's who actively counterprotest in real life in the streets:

"He (Kfir) heads up an organization of over 12,000 people worldwide. (most in the United States)" a PW member 2006

"Protest Warrior is a national network of some 7,200 right-of-center activists." article 2004

"I'm expecting about 100 PWs nationwide to take part in it." (a nationwide PW counterprotest) "(25 in SF, 30 in NYC, 30 in DC, and 15 in LA)" a PW chapter leader 2005

:''I assume the numbers are the total memberlist in PW Headquarters. Sept. 24, 2005 had 100-150ish for the nationwide DC protest. Interest is winding down due to the election being over.''

Anything else? I put it here because PW talk is getting huge.

--] 21:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Reminder</FONT></b>

:Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox.

:It is not a platform for you to vent your frustration with a particular website, or organization.

:If you have a problem with the way Protest Warrior is run, then contact the people who administer it.

:Do not use the Protest Warrior talk page as a platform for your own views of Protest Warrior's goals, which are irrelevant to the discussion.

] 08:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Warning to ruthbar</FONT></b>

] WARNING: you are acting in an uncivil manner. Remain ] and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate ]. I will be reporting your continuing insults and personal attacks. You have been admonished for your personal attacks by Wiki admins on mulitiple occasions. Expect another warning. Stop now.
<!-- from Template:Civil2 --> <noinclude>

] 18:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Warning to you</FONT></b>

STOP IT!

Immediately.

I have not engaged you in over a day, and do not plan on communicating with you in any way, shape, or form in the future. The next time you place anything on my talk page I will be referring your actions to administrative authorities.

I suggest that you cease and desist immediately.

] 11:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I will continue to note your incivil behavior wherever and you attack me - on my page OR yours.

] 11:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>] as a hate group or islamophobe</FONT></b>

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. While the Misplaced Pages community appreciates your obvious efforts to increase the amount of information on the site, we'd like to point out our policy against ] and for ] for the information you provide. This increases the reputation of Misplaced Pages as a whole and aids in ] of that article. <!-- Template:User-OR --> --] 04:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>] and your accusation of vandalism</FONT></b>

] Misplaced Pages guidelines dictate that you ''']''' in dealing with other editors. Please stop being ] to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Misplaced Pages. Thank you.<!-- Template:agf3 -->

Please AGF. This is a content dispute, not vandalism. It is considered a personal attack to accuse editors of vandalism when edits are made in good faith.--Please see so you know what is not vandalism.
] 06:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>] and your personal attacks</FONT></b>

] This is your '''last warning'''. The next time you make a personal attack, as you did at ], you ''will'' be ] for disruption.<!-- Template:Npa4-n -->

FYI: I made an honest mistake that I owned up to on the talk page. Your personal attack response is unwarranted and unjustified (again).--] 04:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>3RR re: ]</FONT></b>

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages under the ], which states that nobody may ] a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the ''effect'' of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.<!-- Template:3RR -->

I have filed a report at ] regarding your violation of this rule. --] 04:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Blocked</FONT></b>

<div style="float:center;border-style:solid;border-color:blue;background-color:AliceBlue;border-width:1px;text-align:left;padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">] '''You have been ]''' for '''3RR violation on ]''' for a period of '''8 hours'''. To contest this block, please reply here on your '''talk page''' by adding the text <nowiki>{{unblock}}</nowiki> along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC) </div><!-- Template:GBlock

-->

{{unblock reviewed|{{{1}}}|decline=Clearly in violation of 3RR. Sit out the (not very long) block, and then discuss these issues on the talk pages and with the users in question. -- ]<font color="green">]</font> 17:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)}} I believe user ] should be blocked not me. By his own actions, he agreed to the insertion, even changing some text, and then repeatedly deleted this important info that he, in essence had helped write. This was a report on the actions of Protest Warrior by Anti Racist Action, a legit well established organization in existence since 1988, and the people deleting (and in my opinion vandalizing) the article by repeatedly deleting this important info have tried to misconstrue this article as a 'blog', or 2 individual's views, in an effort to squash the truth and all opposing views. I welcome full mediation of the Protest Warrior article.

] 05:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:'''1)''' I did not <u>repeatedly</u> delete the material in question. I deleted it <u>once</u> and explained to you on the talk page that I did so after reading a cogent argument there which pointed out why the sources upon which it relied were unacceptable under wikipedia policy. '''2)''' I believe any time people have made edits to the article with which you disagree, they were done conforming to wikipedia policy, with edit summaries explaining why <u>and</u> with discussion on the talk page. Despite having been asked repeatedly to <u>assume good faith</u>, you consistently refuse and instead continue to make tiresome, baseless, and, quite frankly, offensive accusations. Your behavior has been documented . ] 13:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>]</FONT></b>

With regards to your comments on ]: Please see Misplaced Pages's ] policy. ''"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users."'' Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. <!-- Template:NPA-n --> ] <small>

] &bull; ]</small> 05:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Your vandalism warning is of no merit</FONT></b>

Nobody would mistake my edit of ] as vandalism, which is the deliberate attempt to compromise an article. At best, we have a difference of opinion, at worst, you're abusing the system. I don't want to make this personal, let's resolve the issue on ] and not escalate it. ] 00:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Same here<FONT SIZE=4><b>
Your accusation of vandalism is a personal attack.

]This is your '''last warning'''. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be ] for disruption.<!-- Template:Npa4 --> --] 01:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:I say this with the utmost sincerity,

:NBG, please resist the temptation to increase the acrimony and divisive atmosphere on the talk page that accompanies the article on Protest Warrior.

:You've received numerous admonitions in this regard-almost all of which you've chosen to disregard-and have been advised on how you can very easily rectify the problem.

:Please take the constructive advice and criticism of your peers on Misplaced Pages under consideration before continuing your fruitless edit war.

:Thank you.

] 02:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:Ruthfulbarbarity is showing a you too much leniency here, IMO. Next disruptive comment and you will be blocked for a couple of days so that you can re-consider your editing and your overall behavior. ]. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 02:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)<P>

<B>My apologies!</B><P>

I offer my sincere apologies to those editors I wrongly accused of vandalism. I am pretty new here, and have repeatedly been wrongly accused of vandalism by some of the much more experienced editors who have been working on the PW article - over what were merely content disputes, so I had an incorrect idea of what vandalism was. I will strive to be more circumspect in my comments and not throw around baseless accusations like they did. I ask that user Jossi take an active role in editing this article to insure balance.<P> By 'balance' I mean this.... There are 3 active Protest Warriors and 4 supporters who I contend use WP in an inconsistant manner and as 'weapons' to exclude much valid criticism and other info which they consider unfavorable to Protest Warrior. That is exactly <B> WHY - *I* </B> asked for FORMAL MEDIATION. Do I need to reference the thread on Protest Warrior asking members to skew the Protest Warrior article to make sure PW is viewed in a positive light?. I also ask that others refrain from accusing ME of vandalism which I gather is verboten per WP. <I>"The only individual who's been vandalizing this article-repeatedly-is you."</I> Ruthfulbarbarity 22:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC) As civil-rights icon

Rodney King once pleaded, "can't we just all get along?"<P>

] 06:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

] This is to let you know that you are in gross violation of ] at ].
The edits in question are , , , , . ] 07:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)<P>

That's untrue:<P>

"Reverting, in this context, means <B>undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. </B> ] <P> I think your use of the warning can be considered a violation too. Someone complained when I did it. I'll have to check.<P>] 08:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)<P>

Here is your own 24 hour edit history on the PW main page, TheKaplan<P>

19:28, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (removed pov pushing)<BR>
18:51, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (&#8594;Motivation - removed<BR>
18:46, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (re: criticism, see talk)<BR>
18:33, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (pov and grammar)<BR>
14:35, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (&#8594;Methodology)<BR>
07:41, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (&#8594;Past operations - added cite)<BR>
07:40, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) m Protest Warrior (&#8594;Past operations)<BR>
07:39, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) m Protest Warrior (&#8594;Past operations)<BR>
07:39, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (&#8594;Past operations)<BR>
07:31, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (&#8594;Past operations)<P>

] 09:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Regarding protest warriors</FONT></b>

Whilst I agree with a lot of what you've done with the article, I'd ask you to drop referring to Rush Limbaugh being on drugs when quoting him. Its an example of ] and is something I've reverted elsewhere. Yes, hes a drug addict, and admitted it - but thats something for his article, which I believe carries such information. ] 08:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:Advice taken<P>
:] 09:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>] case</FONT></b>
{| align="left"
|| ]
|}
You have been accused of ]. Please refer to ] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with ] before editing the evidence page. ] 13:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Re: Your warning of ]</FONT></b>

I'd like to point out that it was incorrect to warn Vpoko over a content dispute on the Protest Warrior page. It has always been Misplaced Pages's policy (see ]) that only attempts to compromise the integrity of the Misplaced Pages project can be considered vandalism- in using a blatant vandal warning against him, it leads me to think that you are using warnings are vengeance on other users instead of their intended purpose, to remind users of the rules and bring them in line. As policy dictates, content disputes are NEVER vandalism, and the only appropriate time to warn such a user would be when he or she is in danger of breaking the 3RR. As such, I have alerted him on his talk page of this fact and reverted your warning. --]<sup>-]-]-</sup> 14:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

: I agree - Please see my apology above.

:] 21:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of HTML code</FONT></b>

Please do not use HTML code, such as <nowiki><P></nowiki>, within the English Misplaced Pages. The only HTML code you should probably concern yourself with is <nowiki><br></nowiki>. You can use a colon (<nowiki>:</nowiki>) to indent a paragraph. By hitting return twice you can start a new paragraph.

That's how I got this paragraph down here.

Please also review our policies on ] in an article, as well as our policy on ]. Thanks! ] * ] 18:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Exhausting the Communities patience</FONT></b>

] I believe your recent personal attacks, reverts, use of sockpuppets and other miscellaneous actions that have been well documented here and in other places have "exhausted the communities patience." Please weigh in here ]. --] 06:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Personal Attacks</FONT></b>

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Misplaced Pages has a policy against ]. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be ] from editing by administrators or ] by the ]. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please ] appropriately. Thank you. --] 06:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Friendly warning to Tbeatty</FONT></b>

I believe your unfounded accusation of me using a sock puppet and you use of warnings and warning symbols on my page might be considered personal attacks, and violations of WP. I will be issuing an official complaint if I can determine that you have violated WP. ] 06:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

::Your sockpuppet was confirmed ]. It was not meant as an accusation but as a statement of fact. If you think there is an error, you should take it up with the blocking admin who made the determination. As for warnings, I use them when I believe you have violated WP policy. I also report them so an admin can make a determination. Leaving warnings are not personal attacks but are part of an escalating process that culminates in adminstrative action. --] 07:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>]</FONT></b>

]You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Misplaced Pages by making ]. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. <!-- Template:Npa5 --> ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 15:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

:During the 24 hr block, you may want to re-consider your attitude to others and your overall behavior. There is good material that you may want to read at ], as well as ]. Have a good rest. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 15:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|Which of my comments in the last 2 days did you consider personal attacks? I thought I was being pretty congenial!

|decline=But evidently trolling in virtually all of them. I would have blocked you for longer. ]<b><font color="red">]</font></b> 18:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)}}

Thanks!

] 18:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What L2B wrote below is PATENTLY and DEMOSTRABLY FALSE. One needs only to look at the PW history page. Go back a few months, before I even got involved, and you will see a documented history of active protest warriors and their conservatively biased supporters using Wikilawyering and violations of WP in an blatant attempt to exclude valid criticism that they think looks bad. This has gone on since DAY ONE, and with opponents much more formidable than myself, like Ben Burch, and RocknRev. I ask that L2B retract his TOTALLY false claim.

<I>" Idon't know that a poll (or anything other than how things were handled before User: NBGPWS showed up) is necessary. The article was being edited and improved through a seemingly natural consensus and the talkpage seemed to be devoid of personal attacks, INCIVILITY (eyeing User:NBGPWS) and other assorted policy violations. Am I mistaken? Lawyer2b 19:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)</I>

] 20:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

: You allege that there are editors (PW members) who are clearly biased (and their PW membership certainly lends credence to that). They allege that you are biased (and things you have written lend credence to THAT). Since this creates an impasse, how about you take a short break from the article (a few days). I don't have any bias on this issue (I've never heard of PW before this), and I will be actively involved to make sure nothing POV gets in there. If I see users inserting POV things or bucking consensus, I will take it up with them. Is this agreeable? ] 21:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

::You're right, but I don't plan on taking ANY break. Once my ban expires I will be as active as ever but will try my hardest to keep my emotions in check. Go back in the archives. Archive 3 or 4, 5 for instance. You will see the SAME protest warriors using their SAME tactics against ANY and ALL editors who attempt to include valid criticism. Without exception, they have managed to drive off these well intentioned editors with wikilawyering, violations of WP, and persistance. Ain't gonna happen to me. I STRONGLY feel that all active protest warriors, their conservatively biased supporters, and yes, even those vehemently opposed to PW, should consent to let a team of POLITICALLY NEUTRAL editors take charge of the article.

:: ] 21:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

::Please sign your comments.

::Actually contemplating the advice you've been given by numerous admins and editors might also be a wise idea.

] 21:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I consider your comment not only unhelpful, but given our past history, closer to harrassment and trolling, and WILL be noting it. I try to always sign my comments. My previous comment was signed, as is this one.

:::] 22:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

:::: NBGPWS, it looks like you still don't "get" it. You have misinterperted so many wikipedia policies (vandalism, personal attacks, POV, RS), that it's become obvious that you don't hold a monopoly on the truth. You do not, yourself, decide what is and isn't a policy violation - the community as a whole, and their elected administrators do. Therefore, if you have strong views, it's important that you dicuss them before taking action because there are many, many other people with equally strong and valid views. I also note you tend to accuse people of things after you, yourself, are accused of them. Case-in-point, you started using the term "wikilawyering" after I accused you of it, and you started accusing RB of trolling after an admin mentioned that you were trolling. ] 22:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

So ? As I learn more and more about WP, I learn to spot it when I see it! A lot of WP I'm not even familiar with until I've been accused of it. I read on Wiki to 'be bold' and 'jump in with both feet', so I did! This is what RB wrote ME only a few days ago, by the way:

<I>I have not engaged you in over a day, and do not plan on <B>communicating with you in any way, shape, or form in the future. The next time you place anything on my talk page I will be referring your actions to administrative authorities.</B> I suggest that you cease and desist immediately. Ruthfulbarbarity 11:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)</I>

Peace!

] 23:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Look, NBGPWS, editing gets intense sometimes, in particular when we feel passionate about a subject. Now, I would like you to know that Misplaced Pages is actually an amazing place, in which edits have to be made within policies to remain in an article and these policies are there to assist you and other editors in making it work. Complaining and shouting, disrupting and attacking will not take you anywhere besides growing an ulcer. Be nice to others, be impeccable in your behavior, provide sources for your edits, and politely ask others to assist you if you cannot manage. That is what this community is all about. And it works... ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 22:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I will take your advice to heart, and again encourage you to scour the archives. You will see protest warriors and their conservatively-biased supporters using their SAME tactics against ANY and ALL editors who attempt to include criticism. Without exception, they have managed to drive off these well intentioned editors with wikilawyering, violations of WP, and persistance. Here's a challenge Jossi. Spend an hour reading the archives especially the discussion pages. If can honestly say you don't agree with my assertion that they have conspired to exclude valid criticism - you can add another 6 days to my suspension.

Peace

] 23:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

:The duration of your suspension is not a matter for debate. You can't unilaterally extend or curtail its length. The archives demonstrate that you have repeatedly thwarted efforts at achieving consenus, and maintaining a climate of civility with respect to the Protest Warrior article. This has nothing to do with familiarity with Misplaced Pages guidlines, but is simply a matter of basic etiquette. ] 23:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

:: RB, please don't bait him. Your promise not to engage him was a good one - please keep it. Actually, I think we could all use a cooling off period. Accordingly, I'm taking a break. ] 23:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to have a dialogue with Jossi, RB, and your comments, which strike me as trolling and provocations - your comments - after YOU promised that you would not engage ME, are unhelpful and counterproductive. Please quit attempting to bait me. Jossi can look in the archives to see who called whom "dim chimpanzee" not long ago.

] 23:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Vpoko,

In these comments, did you mean deleting the entire Wiki protest warrior entry, or the article/subject about abortion?

<I>"My only issue is notability, but I think this whole subject lacks notability, and since we're humoring ourselves and not deleting this article, I guess the Kfir forum comment should be allowed (per Misplaced Pages:RS a personal website may be used as a source about itself</I>

Thanks

] 00:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest, sincerely, that both you and your opponent, take a deep breath and stop provoking each other. Otherwise, this is likely to result in more disruption, more animosity, and more blocks. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 00:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)



<FONT SIZE=4><b>Regarding reversions made on ] ] to ]</FONT></b>
{| class="user-block"
|| ]
|| You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the ]. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
|}<!-- Template:3RR5 --> The duration of the is 48 hours. ''']''' 05:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)</div>

I feel this penalty is not applicable. Please actually read the edits. It was a content dispute with a user who deleted a CRITICALLY important link with NO edit summary, and no attempt to explain his actions until after he was caught. I merely reverted the article back to its previous version. Then another editor tried to explain his actions for him. One editor can't speak for another's actions, can they? Please unblock. Thanks in advance.

Plus..

<I>"If you violate the three-revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for <B>up to 24 hours.' </B></I>


1st revert: 03:42, 23 August 2006 original edit reverted: <BR>
2nd revert: 06:59, 23 August 2006 original edit reverted: <BR>
3rd revert: 02:37, 24 August 2006<BR>
4th revert: 02:45, 24 August 2006<BR>

Here is the discussion. You'll see that I CLEARLY state my reasoning, and was not trying to hide any edits, but undue what I felt RB was doing - making a few gramatical edits with the intention of trying to hide his deletion of a MAJOR link that had been a bone of contention for weeks.


{{unblock reviewed|{{{1}}}|decline=Clearly in violation of 3RR. ''] ]'' 12:09 ] ] (GMT).}}

Suggest you look at ] if there are real problems with an article you can't handle without breaking 3RR. ''] ]'' 12:09 ] ] (GMT).

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Blocked </FONT></b>

You have been blocked for 24 hours for spamming talk pages . ] 09:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:Why? That wasn't 'disruptive' nor was a trying to influence a vote! It's not like when Protest Warriors themselves posted on their own site, and on Free Republic trying to get people to vote to keep the article during an AFD vote! (and calling Wiki admins 'Commies'!) I object! (oh well.... at least I'll get some work done today! ;-)

:''Canvassing (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting") is overtly soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians on their talk pages, and it is controversial...A clarification has been offered on behalf of arbcom: "a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved.''

:Free Mumia! (maybe not!) Free NBGPWS! (definately yes!)

:] 10:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

</FONT></b>] </FONT></b>
You've sent notice to several dozen users. Please review the guideline at ]. Given your previous behavior, this aggressive cross-posting is likely to provoke sanctions. I would recommend that, in the future, you refrain from cross-posting, at least until you've acquired a less controversial relationship with the community.

As an additional note, frequently editors will use the "+" sign next to the edit button when adding new messages to talk pages. Your demand that editors add new material above the welcome message makes it more difficult to contact you, and places barriers to communication between yourself and other editors. I would recommend moving it to your user page, or bringing it to the top of your talk page, to make it easier for fellow editors to talk to you. ] * ] 08:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:Please read before posting, I was already given a 24 hr block for the alleged 'spamming' (see above)

:] 08:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
::The fact that you've already been blocked does not change the fact that you still don't seem to consider what you did wrong or against Misplaced Pages consensus. I was aware of the block, but you don't seem to be getting the message. Your behavior and the way you're interacting with the community is rather telling. ] * ] 08:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Hmmmm. If you were aware of the block, why did you opine that it would LIKELY lead to sanctions? It already had! What admins have written is more telling.... ''"What the response to his'' (my) ''actions have shown me is that there are a large number of editors who are incapable of tolerating criticism in any form, and will go out of their way to collude and ensure that such criticism is never heard."'' That's why I await formal mediation. Toodles! ] 08:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
::::I can see why you might get that impression, but I think you misunderstood me. A block is a singular event, with no lasting consequence other than a diminishing of trust. Pretty much everyone gets blocked eventually. I'll probably get blocked at some point. By sanctions I mean the punishments that the ArbCom often hands down - article bans, probations (where even a little slipup leads to a ban), even project bans and IP range blocks. Right now, once the block is over, you can go back to editing. ] * ] 08:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No comment on the Admin's thoughts? Please read my recent comments to L2B. I advise that the PW's and their supporters take the Admin's suggestions to heart. Why IS that section on 'operation military shield' still there almost a day after the Admin said it needs to be removed? G'nite Capt ] 09:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

: NBGPWS, Admins are entitled to their thoughts like the rest of us - their thoughts are not Misplaced Pages policy. Besides, how does anyone know an admin even said that? No link? No name? ] 13:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Kuzaar on June 21. Did you read that RB claims you're on 'my side' now, since you dared question the notability of PW? LOL! ] 18:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

::: Let's just say I've seen a lot of immature behavior related to this article, but it seems to be getting better. ] 18:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

::::What do you mean that Admin's thoughts are not policy? You mean that after Kuzaar ruled that 'operation military shield' can not be included in the article as documented factual history, that the editors can just ignore that? Thanks (even though my block is over I'm going to try to stay away from the article for a day or two - see what actually gets done without my chiding) ] 19:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

::::: He didn't '''rule''', he gave his opinion and we accepted it because he's an experienced, respected member of the community and made a logical argument. If we (as a whole) disagreed with him, we'd be free to ignore his opinion. Misplaced Pages runs on consensus; admins are regular editors, like the rest of us, trusted with making sure things run smoothly by implementing the will of the community. At Misplaced Pages, it's about who's right, not who has a title. Good idea staying away from the article for a bit - any muck that gets in there can always be reverted, and it's easier to make good contributions when your emotions aren't entangled with the article. We're all human and emotions get the best of all of us, sometimes. It's like in real life - if you feel like you're going to put your fist though a wall, best to go for a walk and unwind.] 19:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::: I made one helpful civil post on talk, and will leave it at that for today, unless I have to contest something. ] 20:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>I humbly decline your offer related to Protest Warrior </FONT></b>

I have no patience for those who have such extremist views, and acknoledging them by responding to them is not worth the "we are persecuted because we are right" (see: ]). --<font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="pink">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> 09:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Sorry you've been blocked again. </FONT></b>

I'm sorry you've been banned again. I actually disagree that it's wrong to "canvass" and solicit other 's opinions and contributions to an article. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be written via consensus (while following policy, of course) and to say it's "wrong" to ask people to contribute seems to be contradictory and self-defeatist. You seem to have strong political views, as do I, and my invitation still stands to discuss politics via email or even chat. ] 15:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks for your concern L2B.I didn't think my canvassing would be a WP Violation. I didn't ask people to vote or even edit a certain way. Some advice on the article, since I can't post anywhere but here. A few days ago, an admin commented that he was concerned that the criticism section had been gutted down to one sentence, something like "lefties on indymedia don't like protest warrior". So what was the response from the PW's? You PW's and supporters spent the 2 days while I was blocked discussing your rational of how you would get the (tangental to the article) Hammond warrant included again. Guess what? Except to you PW's, who consider this your 'watergate' or 'killian memos' moment, this info MATTERS NOT to the average Wiki reader wanting to find out more about PW. It's an issue of MINOR importance - except to you guys. Such is the myopia of 'group think'. There are 3 major articles on the 'crawford incident', fox, SF Chron, and a CBS news page to be found in the first 50 Google results of 'protest warrior' + crawford. You would have found them IF you had looked. I guess no one did, or did and decided not to include this info, as it didn't make PW's look like 'heroic Freedom Fighters' PW's and their supporters attempt to portray the group as.

:Thanks for your offer to discuss politics, but I respectfully decline. I choose to only debate those people whose sensibilities are firmly grounded in the unfortunate realities of the two-party system here in the USA. Nader, Badarnak, La Rouche, and Clymer supporters need not apply! (Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan supporters ARE welcome though! ;-)

:] 18:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:: I've never heard of the rule myself, but just as an FYI, there are good places on Misplaced Pages to post things like that so you don't have to go to individual user pages. ] is a good place, but I would only use that as a last resort. Also, ] is a good place for general wikipedia discussions, and people there are pretty helpful.

::(the comment above was from Vpoko - thanks for the info!) ] 19:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:::That's a good point. I guess it <u>is</u> better to use an Rfc since it should draw a more balanced group of contributors to comment rather than one person going around soliciting only those who agree with his opinion. ], I'm confused by your decline as you seem to have been interested in discussing our politics on the Protest Warrior talk page. I'll just leave you with that, while I'm a libertarian, I'm not a huge supporter/believer in the goals of Libertarian Party as I don't think it will ever be successful at electing libertarians. Should you change your mind I think we would enjoy chatting. ] 20:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:::: I might enjoy sparring as well - from your admission you seem to be reality-based, unlike many Libertarians, but I have very little spare time. I'm about to get heavily involved in phone work for the Dems, so we can take back the house (not as much hope for the senate) and get those impeachment hearings started! YEAH BOY!

::::] 21:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

-deleted RB's comments already addressed by an admin - he continually forgets he promised not to communicate with me, and that he was asked not to bait me - next time he does, I may file a complaint-

] 21:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Recent Edits/Behavior</FONT></b>

Please don't post messages on pages that are completely irrelevant to the topic of the page. It can be seen as ] and Misplaced Pages regards adding spam to articles or talk pages as a form of ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:Mess2 -->

] 23:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

<div class="notice" style="background:#ffc; border:1px solid #AAA; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto;"> ] OK, it is time for your joking to end. You are potentially offending people, both here in the Misplaced Pages community and the wider readership. What you are doing could be seen as ] and you could get ] from editing Misplaced Pages for it. '''You might not get another warning before having a block imposed''', so be careful and be serious from now on. <!-- Template:Seriously (level 4 warning) --> </div>

] 23:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

] It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain ] and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate ]. <!-- from Template:Civil2 -->

] 19:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the ] if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to ], are considered ]. If you continue in this manner you may be '''blocked from editing without further warning'''. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. <!-- Template:blatantvandal-n --> --] 01:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>WP:AN post </FONT></b>

You may want to move your post at ] over to ] where it is more appropriate and will get dealt with faster. ] 03:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:Thank you sir! You are a scholar and a gentleman. ] 04:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Re protest warrior </FONT></b>

Thank you for your information regarding this nasty group, but I've really no time for fascist groups like that. It really makes me sick. I find myself unable to respond civilly to such radical fascists because I would never willingly accord them the privilege of courtesy and respect, of which they are not deserving. However, I thank and support you for informing others of this nasty group of people. Thanks very much, ] 15:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>]</FONT></b>
RE:
Sorry, this strawpoll is closed, please direct your comments to the talk page. ] (]) 09:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

OK - Thanks ! I didn't know it was closed ] 09:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

</FONT></b> You have been blocked </FONT></b>

Your recent comment on the Protest Warrior talk page was deemed totally uncivil. On its own it may have stood, but you have repeatedly demonstrated your lack of respect for Misplaced Pages policy in relation to conduct with other users. Therefore, I have decided to enforce a cool down period of one week to allow other users of the talk page to recover. Please understand that this action is not related to my mediation work. I hope you will choose to contribute more constructively when your block expires; thank you. &mdash;] / 08:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

:I'm not sure which comment you're referring to, but it really doesn't matter. For all intents and purposes, Protest Warrior is dead, defunct, kaput, and the PW's editing the article are now awakening to that fact. I doubt you will see many more attempts from PW's trying to hype their now non-existant org. (It's actually been on life-support for the last year after the leaders gave up on the org after their debacle in Crawford - but the PW's were in denial to that) One week? Too harsh, bud! ] 21:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>I have noticed this in your edit history </FONT></b>

# 09:31, 28 August 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Zjhafeez (info on Islamophobic group) (top)
# 09:30, 28 August 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Zereshk (Info on Islamophobic group)
-snip-

Please don't spam talk pages with the exact same thing. Thank you. --<font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="pink">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> 03:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
: That's almost a month old, and has already been adressed. ] 07:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


<FONT SIZE=4><b>Notice to Ruthfulbarbarity </FONT></b>

<B>NOTICE TO USER:</B> ] In light of our past history, I may consider any and all personal posts from you on this page an unwelcome attempt to harass and/or bait me, thus possibly constituting vandalism and spam. You may post unmodified Wiki policy . Any comments may be removed at my discretion.

<B>'Talk page vandalism'</B>

''Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, aside from removal of internal spam, or deleting entire sections of talk pages, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. <B>The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion</B>...''

] 04:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

<FONT SIZE=4><b>Notice to Ruthfulbarbarity</b></FONT>

<B>NOTICE TO USER:</B> ] In light of our past history, I may consider any and all personal posts from you on this page an unwelcome attempt to harass and/or bait me, thus possibly constituting vandalism and spam. You may post unmodified Wiki policy . Any comments may be removed at my discretion.


<B>'Talk page vandalism'</B>


]
''Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, aside from removal of internal spam, or deleting entire sections of talk pages, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. <B>The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion</B>...''


::I have taken the liberty of replacing 150 KB of material with links to it. I've also added the date of November 1, 2006 for clarification, inserted ArlingtonTX's signature to distinguish his comments from my own, and reduced some of his garish huge red boldface to ordinary text. The preceding is not intended to denigrate ArlingtonTX or his complaint, or to mitigate the misconduct of F.A.A.F.A. or BenBurch. The histories of these two editors should be reviewed in detail: the repeated blocks, the multitude of warnings and bickering. This looks like a request for investigation under <b><font color="blue">Complex abuse requiring in-depth investigation.</b></font> BenBurch has also been banned for life from ] which would ordinarily be his natural environment. Neither of them seems to be able to participate here without picking fights and breaking the rules, to pursue an obvious political agenda. They get warned, they get blocked, they come back, and they haven't learned a thing; then they get warned, they get blocked, they come back, and they still haven't learned a thing ... except how to be a little more cunning and clever. I suggest banning both of them for life and blocking their IP addresses. ] 03:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
] 04:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


==See also== ==See also==

Revision as of 03:22, 31 December 2006

←Index of request pages Requests for investigation Archives (current)→
Shortcut This page allows users to request administrator investigation of certain types of abuse only. Do not use this page until you read the policies, guidelines, and procedures. For obvious vandalism, see Administrator intervention against vandalism. Alerts that do not belong on this page may be removed without action or notice.


Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

    Instructions

    Choose one of three sections to make a report: Watchlist, IP addresses, or Registered users. Follow the recommended format for each section including the heading markup. Place the request at the top of the New requests subsection or the top of the watchlist. Provide page diffs from edit histories if appropriate and links to specific problem pages.

    Watchlist

    • Report in this section:
    1. Articles being hit with a very high level of vandalism or that are repeatedly vandalised with an extended time before reverts.
    2. Registered users or IPs that have carried out clear vandalism but have currently stopped.
    • Do not report here:
    1. Articles featured on the front page, or very high profile articles - these will already be watched
    2. Vandals needing to be blocked - see WP:AIV instead.
    3. Users needing investigation - see one of the sections below.
    • Use the following format:
    * {{article|article name}} - brief explanation // ~~~~ or
    * {{vandal|username}} - brief explanation // ~~~~ or
    * {{IPvandal|Ip_Address}} - brief explanation //~~~~

    Watchlist requests

    • Paul R. Ehrlich biography is currently biased and has been vandalized with bias since 2003. Ehrlich is Stanford population biologist warning of overpopulation in bestsellers such as THE POPULATION EXPLOSION (1990). Look at long history of edits since 2003, and extensive discussion page: Religious extremists against birth control, who deny existence of overpopulation, repeatedly vandalized webpage with propaganda slanted against Ehrlich. I edited a dozen times before giving up. Current version is still biased POV: As a biography it barely mentions five decades of Ehrlich's accomplishments or other books Ehrlich wrote. IE, he is world's foremost expert on butterfly population dynamics. Biography is overwhelmed by several paragraphs of "criticisms" of overpopulation theory. Criticisms should be limited to one paragraph, yet criticisms can be found in every sentence throughout biography, and CRITICISMS section is biggest section of biography, and centered on webpage. I re-wrote it several times but religious extremists repeatedly vandalize and revert. It should be re-written with more objective point of view and include subject's five decades of accomplishments. It needs warning flags and should be locked to prevent future biased vandalism. 209.78.98.26 22:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    31 hour block issued on one editor. Recommend the other involved editors watch the suspected sockpuppet for block evasion. This is not simple vandalism and deserves a full request. Please submit a more complete statement with page diffs in the registered user section lower on this noticeboard. Durova 00:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • World Wrestling Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Several different IP's and user's have been for no reason blanking the page, or writing offensive and abusive language. They also type in incorrect information. On the history page, a great deal of reverts can be seen. This page is blanked four to five times a day. Davnel03 21:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Inco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Several IP's in the same range have been adding innacurate information to this page about human rights abuses without citing references. It appears to be a person related to an indeginous group in New Caledonia that are currently protesting against the construction of an Inco plant. It is ok to mention this event in the page, but the article is being very biased towards their cause. Oui222 5 December, 2006 (UTC)
    • Marc Lepine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Several IP's in the same range have been vandalizing this page daily for at least a week, using misleading edit summaries. The edits are all bascially identical and claim that an "international holiday" is celebrated for this murderer as "the first counterattack in the feminist war against men." It's a)not true and b)all the edits to the article are so controversial, its hard to see this as an edit war -- typical diff. New user User:ChaoticGhost has been gamely watching the page and my involvement is as the result of a "help me" request. // Dina 12:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    Update. After the last revert I reported it to WP:RPP and the article is now sprotected. Thanks. Dina 21:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    Semi-protected. Follow up with a full report and page diffs if necessary. Durova 00:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    Vandalism continues on Boy Meets World and Lee Norris Also a joke article Hangin' With Mr. Minkus. See also single-edit user Rockin42 (talk · contribs), and this edit by Blues111 (talk · contribs). I suspect either sock puppetry or a small group of fans working together, or both. Thanks! Karen | Talk|contribs 05:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    And tonight, more of the same on Lee Norris. 69.129.201.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked for this. See also 12.226.49.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who has been busy today, and vandalized the same user page as Chese27 (talk · contribs), but hasn't done anything Boy Meets World-related on that IP. I don't want to compare this pattern of vandalism with a game of Whack-a-mole...no, wait. Yes, I do, except for the part about hitting something with a hammer. BTW, is this the right place to report this? If not, please redirect me. Thanks! Karen | Talk | contribs 04:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    Right page, wrong section. Move it down into regular requests and provide full evidence. If you suspect sockpuppetry that would go to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sockpuppets. One of the joys of administratorship is that we sometimes get to play whack-a-mole with the block button. I'll dig in this garden for moles. :) Durova 03:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    Hmm. I don't want to spoil your "fun", but I think I'd better try the Sock puppet page. The sections below seem to be set up for one user name or IP per request - and the weird thing about this Minkus malarkey is that it comes from two or three user names and at least two IPs. Looking at each one in isolation probably won't give the full picture. So it's off to sock-pulling land for me, I guess. Even if they turn out to be five different people (which seems unlikely), it's all the same puppet show. Regards and thanks! Karen | Talk | contribs 04:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    I am no fun. I have semi-protected Lee Norris and deleted the Munkis junk article. The sockpuppets are old and IPs change frequently, so blocking is sometimes not appropriate there. If the IPs listed are not the same addresses used in the accounts, you can file a Misplaced Pages:Request for checkuser so that the person behind the user accounts can be blocked. In general, though, I don't think this is that serious a problem, and it is adequately prevented by semi-protection. —Centrx→talk • 05:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you very much! I found the sock puppet page a little, um, daunting, and wasn't sure what to do next. Perhaps this Minkus madness is over with, at least for now. Hope, so, anyway. The only vandalism I saw today on a Boy Meets World-related page didn't seem to have anything to do with these others. In any case it seems to come in intermittent waves of concentrated vandal activity. I'll keep the checkuser avenue in mind for the next wave, if any. (Enough with the metaphors already, Karen!) Karen | Talk | contribs 05:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

    There has been a large number of edits being done by anonymous IP's on December 6th 2006, often adding gibberish or lines that are clearly vandalism. I've reverted all of those changes to a earlier version, but this article will have to be watched in the short term to protect it from unnecessary edits and vandalism. ThePointblank 06:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

    • Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related pages such as Li Hongzhi. There have been two main camps of people on this page, one pro-Falun Gong and the other as Falun Gong critics. As the holidays approach, the entire Falun Gong critic camp will probably be going away on holiday. I ask the page be watched so that NO SECTION BLANKING will be engaged in, or entire paragraphs of content be altered to be clearly POV. I refer especially to Omido (talk · contribs) who has persistently done so for the past week despite having been warned before. Naturally if the situation gets worse then watching alone will not be enough, but we are in the seasonal spirit at present. Any help or further advice concerning this would be greatly appreciated. Jsw663 04:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

    IP addresses

    Do not report obvious vandalism here; see Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Only report IP addresses that are engaged in complicated, deceptive vandalism that will require more than a few moments for an administrator to analyse. Please read the policies, guidelines, and procedures before reporting.


    Please use this format at the top of this section:

    ===={{IPvandal|IP Address}}====

    Brief Description. ~~~~

    New requests

    76.2.102.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    This IP's edits appear to be almost entirely vandalism often subtle. Recent edits include:

    85.138.0.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    This IP has apparently randomly been removing tags and text from wikipedia for about 10 days. Random Passer-by 16:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

    No one has attempted to communicate with this editor on the IP's talk page. Welcome them first, then leave warnings as needed. If things escalate to a block warning then follow up here. Durova 18:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you for the advice. I've added a welcome and warning to the IP talk page as you suggested and I'm checking back through the IP edits to clean-up any problems.Random Passer-by 20:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    38.100.34.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    This anonymous IP is over zealously placing cleanup +tags etc. Headphonos 15:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

    Yet there's no block warning so far on this editor's talk page. See if you can work this out. Come back if it doesn't succeed. Durova 18:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    220.233.176.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    This user has been progressively adding more and more hoaxes over the past two months, mostly creating fake children's animations. Examples are Hamptsse Messy and Basil Hair the Squirrel. These pages have been created from the infobox at Tweenies, but the links given either don't exist or link to something else entirely. He has been editing pages for production houses and cartoons to insert references to these hoaxes, as here: . He has also edited pages to include facts that are downright wrong, such as and . While some of his edits were quickly reverted, others were on obscure pages and remained in place from November until yesterday. He has made another hoax edit since I gave him a final warning yesterday, making this edit and being warned for hoaxing here. Please, please block him ... a lot. Vashti 11:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

    He is still at it today, making this edit. He also made this edit, which I have reverted as the only relevant Google hits for "shiff hoobs" were on the user-edited IMDB. Vashti 15:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    24 hour soft block; it's a shared IP. Durova 18:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    82.39.173.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    Vadalism of the Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service article. This IP keeps sneakily vandalising the Fire Station call signs (because they are written in the phonetic alphabet), and example of this vandalism can be found here . This IP also wrote the phrase 'I am gayboy' on top of two of the headings, an example of this vandalism can be found here . I have left a TEST4 template on their talk page because I thought this was necessary as they vandalised it seven times, although I was considering leaving a VW template. If you do decide to block this IP will you please tell me on my talk page which a link can be found in my signature!

    Cheers.......Tellyaddict 17:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


    We've seen this article being attacked before. I've semi-protected. Post again when the need for protection has ended. Durova 00:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

    86.8.105.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    Nearly entire edit history is vandalism (e.g. this diff, which has been repeated something like 20 or 30 times in the last six months), and if it isn't clear vandalism, it's pushing a pro-England POV (note placement of English before Scottish in the ancestry). England is a fine country and all, but I'm getting really tired of cleaning up after this guy. He has been warned multiple times on his Talk page not to continue his vandalism, but without admin intervention and a resulting block, it's sort of pointless to warn him as he continues to vandalise.--chris.lawson 15:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

    Looks pretty fishy, but this editor has begun discussing changes on talk pages. Post again if vandalism resumes. This is very close to a block. Durova 00:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

    4.68.248.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    As I call the UPN vandal, this IP delibirately adds incorrect information to articles (related to UPN), such as this, this, and this.

    He has sockpuppets, including:

    And others. Look at UPN's history for other socks I may have missed. --AAA! 06:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

    The problem is that most of these appear to be shared IP addresses (and the vandal can easily switch to others within those ranges at random). There's no way to reliably block him/her without potentially affecting many other anonymous users. This is why I've semi-protected UPN and 2007 in television. I'm also watching other articles targeted by this individual (and checking for new targets), and I'll consider semi-protecting them if the vandalism doesn't subside. —David Levy 14:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
    I've caught two more socks. I need help. --AAA! 03:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

    24.106.214.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    Will probably need more warnings and cleanup after the mess. Nordby73 23:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

    What mess specifically? Durova 01:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
    It's possibly not much, but I was thinking of stuff like this. Nordby73 08:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
    Valid vandalism but a little old. This may wither from benign neglect. Post again if problem resumes. Durova 00:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

    4.228.123.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    This IP was previously blocked as User:Skimall for personal attacks, & entering his entries into the main Telluride article. He continues to constantly add his personal advertisements to the article. skimall is not by any stretch of the imagination a valid local blog, guide to visitors, or source of news. That he considers it such is, if nothing else, proof of his own stretched imagination. I cannot go through regular means of attaching Vandal tags, etc as he is very malicious... Grye 09:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

    Correction: neither the registered account nor the IP have been blocked. The account's user page has been deleted as an advertisement. This may be a new user who is unfamiliar with how Misplaced Pages works. I recommend first giving them a welcome, then if necessary a warning. Let's hope they become a useful contributor. Follow up here if things don't improve and the warnings escalate to level 3. Regards, Durova 01:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

    69.232.228.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    Appears to be using a cable modem - IP hops around but the behavior remains the same - inserts a claim that Danny DeVito is a Scientologist. I can find no reputable source backing this up - and the link provided by the IP doesn't state this. A few forum/blog appear to have picked up the same claim (possibly from here). This is extremely dicey per WP:BLP and despite attempts to question the IP in question (including via the article history) it persists in reinstating the claim. Probable socks of the IP:

    A block would cause massive collateral damage and I'm getting tired of reverting the same thing on a daily basis. Megapixie 01:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

    I've semi-protected this article. Durova 03:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

    169.132.18.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    This IP address is being used by a banned user. Daniel575 has been banned, his first 2 sockpuppets have been banned as well, and he is now using this IP to do his edits. I know that he lives in Jerusalem, and the IP address points to NJ, but the IP is used company wide and Daniel works in the Jerusalem office. You can also see that for the most part, this IP is editing the same articles, and in the same way as Daniel575. Yossiea 22:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

    It looks like you need to go to WP:SSP and file a suspected sockpuppet report. Durova 03:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    I did but nothing has happened. I filed the request days ago, my two original requests are still there as well, even though the user has been banned twice. Yossiea 14:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    If you'd like to provide detailed evidence that this editor is a sockpuppet including relevant diffs, I could look at what you've got and possibly act on that. Durova 01:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

    70.104.139.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    User appears to be consistently editing articles related to Thomas the Tank Engine, but his or her edits do much more harm than good. Although perhaps not a vandal, a preventative block may be very useful. Gracenotes § 22:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

    Editor has been blocked. Durova 20:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)



    204.147.1.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    An individual using this IP address has recently engaged in disruptive editing in the John Calvin biography and talk page. The disruptive edits and uncivil remarks on the talk page are similar and sometimes identical in a pattern identifiable under multiple IP addresses since October. Several editors have attempted discussion and polite warnings, but the disruptive individual has rudely disregarded the consensus.

    Other possible sock puppet IP addresses include: 198.150.40.60, 128.104.50.213, 128.104.49.216, 128.104.49.140, 128.104.48.118, 128.104.50.147

    Please investigate.--Rgfolsom 04:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

    Agreed. The individual repetitively edits the article contrary to consensus, and has stated on the talk page that he doesn't care what the other editors think, he's going to continue doing so.TheologyJohn 10:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    I can't help but agree. He acts as if Misplaced Pages belongs to him alone. Yahnatan 12:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    This complaint is not to say that the article cannot be improved in the direction the allegedly disruptive anon would like, but the heavy-handed way s/he goes about it is what we have a problem with. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    I am not sure that I understand why this user's edits are considered to be vandalism? 69.140.173.15 03:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

    As I understood the guideline, a request for investigation is appropriate after other steps have failed; the disruptive editor flatly vowed not to respect the consensus, hence this request.--Rgfolsom 20:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

    No activity since 12 December. If problems resume then follow up with specific page diffs that demonstrate the problem. Durova 04:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

    Activity fitting the pattern on 13 November and 14 November, in both cases coming from IP addresses (or similar) listed above. Thank you. --Rgfolsom 20:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

    Explain to me how those two edits are disruptive. Durova 22:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

    By themselves those two edits are not disruptive. The disruption is in the pattern of similar edits and uncivil talk page remarks that willfully disregard the group consensus. Also, your (reasonable) request for an explanation led me to look more thoroughly into the article history. The pattern began as early as this past March, not October. The diffs below came from IP addresses that WHOIS traces to the same location (two in April showed similar edits/comments coming from User:Jeremy4031, now not active).

    • Partial list of article diffs
    (misattributes an inflammatory quote to Calvin),
    • Partial list of talk page diffs
    (deleting another editor's talk page comment), (includes profanity),

    Other IP addresses the editor used: 128.104.50.44, 128.104.50.219, 144.92.231.110

    Thank you. --Rgfolsom 19:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

    Since this editor is using multiple IP addresses it's simpler to semi-protect this article. I've cited WP:OWN and WP:NPOV on the talk page. Quote me as necessary. Durova 21:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

    Thanks so much for your help.--Rgfolsom 22:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

    12.30.216.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    This individual (who call himself "green" but refuses to get an account), has been engaged in discussions on talk:twin paradox for the last few weeks. As time has gone on, his input has gotten less and less productive and he now has several editors debating him on material that is irrelevant to the article. He has recently taken to a style of inserting comments in the middle of other's postings which make the threads hard to follow, and has refused to accept input on this issue.

    I did warn him recently. See my warning edit. What I got as a response afterwards was this edit. --EMS | Talk 05:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

    Final block warning issued. 48 hour block applied after continued violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT. Durova 04:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    Block being evaded 23 minutes after implementation, see last part of this diff. Tim Shuba 06:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    Block extended to 1 week. Sock blocked 1 week also. Semi-protected the article talk page. Report any new problems. Durova 14:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    Article talk page unprotected per editor request. Durova 01:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

    124.150.117.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    This IP address just went through and changed information on many different articles to information that is incorrect, and keeps adding links to NetworkOne Australia, even though it has no relevance to the article it is being posted in (an example of this can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Uniform_Resource_Locator&diff=93132086&oldid=93131554 ). Please investigate this, as this user has interfeared with many different articles.

    Chrisch 13:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

    Looks like a one day spree. Post again if problems resume. Durova 04:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

    209.226.121.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    The persistent vandal to Lyme_disease is back for the third time - multiple IPs (all 209.226.121.xxx as documented below). Two previous requests for investigation are below; the vandal left immediately after each request was posted (so no action was taken), and then returned later. Vandal is obviously watching WP:RFI, and is clearly determined to disrupt Lyme_disease - even posting the comment "Finally! Destroy this stupid article!" after agreeing with content dispute comment by a registered user (perhaps the same IP?) (see history below).

    Please note that Lyme_disease is a very highly politicized disease - some of the Talk:Lyme_disease page history was deleted by administrators a few months ago due to potentially libelous content against a prominent researcher in the field. Though this article is well-documented and was selected for WP:V0.5 (A-Class rating), some users have expressed anger that two sides of the Lyme "controversy" are both represented on the page, insisting "there is no controversy" and that only one side should be represented. Suspicious behavior from this vandal suggests political motives, eg. vandal started out by making arguably legitimate edits with POV consistent with the "no controversy" position, and then as documentation was added to article supporting another position, he started with the penis references, etc. In addition, after the content dispute discussion on Talk:Lyme_disease went against his view and in favor of including both sides of the controversy, he (without explanation) removed the POV tag he'd previously wanted (perhaps because it directed reader to Talk:Lyme_disease), and when the POV tag was restored, he vandalized the very first line of Talk:Lyme_disease -- both suggesting an effort to keep readers away from the discussion on Talk:Lyme_disease as soon as it was no longer going in his favor.

    Because vandal stops immediately when request for investigation is posted, he has never been banned. The suggestion to request page protection doesn't make sense, as it is all coming from 209.226.121.xxx and is clearly a lone determined vandal who is watching this request for investigation page, and apparently not vandalizing other pages. See history below (previous requests are unaltered except addition of internal links) 75.37.237.209 02:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

    From 30 June 2006 request:
    209.226.121.83 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • block user • block log) -- Multiple IPs (all 209.226.121.xxx - listed below). This user is back to vandalizing Lyme_disease and Talk:Lyme_disease. Has a history of persistent vandalism to Lyme_disease despite numerous warnings (some deleted), related to extreme POV. Vandalism from user temporarily stopped after request for investigation was submitted 21 May 2006 - see below (no action was taken since things had calmed down), but started again as of 25 June 2006 (talk page) and 26 June 2006 (article).
    From 21 May 2006 request:
    Prior to vandalism, first edit from IP was generally legitimate though some was reverted as POV; IP had comments on talk page about chronic Lyme patients being lazy, not really ill, etc. Since then IPs have gone on a streak of vandalism - a combination of foul language/images ("penis" references, "sluts", etc) mixed with statements offensive to Lyme patients (laziness etc), and page/section blanking. Recently something more complex is happening - after a registered user added POV tag and related comments on the talk page, 209.226.121.25 initially expressed elation - "Finally! Destroy this stupid article!" But after another registered user strongly defended the article on the talk page, 209.226.121.4 attempted to delete the POV tag on the article and replace it with a merge tag, with no explanation. Now for the first time, blatant vandalism to the talk page ("slut") was added by 209.226.121.71, to the first line of the talk page. (After this was reverted, the IP vandalized the talk page of the user who reverted.)
    IPs: 209.226.121.83, 209.226.121.30, 209.226.121.71, 209.226.121.25, 209.226.121.48, 209.226.121.110, 209.226.121.142, 209.226.121.155, 209.226.121.62, 209.226.121.92, 209.226.121.40, 209.226.121.149, 209.226.121.174, 209.226.121.70, 209.226.121.4
    Not necessarily vandalism, but related extreme POV: 209.226.121.127, 209.226.121.25, 209.226.121.141, 209.226.121.121 // --70.22.141.98 15:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    Also note - On 24 April 2006, 209.226.121.92 uploaded the same image (Masturbation1a.jpg) to Lyme_disease that 209.226.121.71 uploaded to the sandbox today, 21 May 2006. --70.22.141.98 16:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    Semi-protected page, then unprotected per editor request. Not sure what's left to investigate if this editor continues switching IP addresses and the registered users are content with reverting the changes. Durova 04:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

    ===Darthflyer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)=== This anon-user, had removed my posting on Talk:Philadelphia Flyers. GoodDay 22:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

    86.198.206.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    This anon-user, has been vandalizing Colorado Avalanche. Forcing diacritics on the article. GoodDay 23:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

    Under investigation

    72.91.169.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 71.251.88.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 71.251.88.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    Riveros11 has been using a program of attempting to intimidate any alternative contributor to his religious group's topic page BKWSU by slapping vandalism tag on me and others in order to block my IP address - using alternative sockpuppet addresses that leaves his main user loking clean. The latest using the IP; 72.91.169.22, , here . I removed it. Sockpuppetry and personal attack, or just a cynical and dishonest ploy to block other users to gain control over a topic for his group, he has since faked a user page to look like a third contributor he has also intimidated with threatening warnings.

    The user page for 72.91.169.22 is faked up to look like; maleabroad, complete with bad Indian-English spelling

    This is an important detail as we will see later. It says;


    " User:72.91.169.22

    How am I vandalising? I was deelteing anti-Hindu propangda trying to create a wedge between BKs and Hindus co-religionists. No racism will be tolerated! "


    If you look at the user contribution for maleabroad, here , you will see the same anti-hindu proganda stuff used on the BKWSU page, here

    Revision as of 16:38, 21 November 2006 maleabroad m (deleted anti-Hindu propaganda user trying to create drift between BK brothers and Hindu co-religionists)


    However, looking at the archive of maleabroad, Luis Riveros11 slapped a vandalism tag on maleabroad from the same IP address in Tampa; 72.91.169.22 (72.91.169.22 ), where Luis or Avyakt7 as he likes to call himself says;

    " Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

    Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. 72.91.169.22 03:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC) AVYAKT7 "

    Luis is of course a teacher and recruiter for the BKWSU Raja Yoga center in Tampa. See documentation of his talks, here , etc.


    • At 02:42 am 30 November 2006 as Riveros11 he made his usual revision/accusation (rv: vandalism - User 195.82.106.244 changed article without previous discussion as stated in Talk page without obeying policies in talk page - vandalism - version from user Appledell) .
    • At 02:49, 30 November 2006 he made a Administrator intervention against vandalism, here . *ipvandal 195.82.106.244 Reported user this morning. Keeps reverting page without discussion and blanks all warnings from talk page.
    • At 02:54, 30 November 2006 .
    • At 02.57 am on 30 November 2006 he then used this sockpupet IP address on my talk page .


    If we look at the user contribution for 72.91.169.22 we see that he has used it soley to attack me ... and once for maleabroad.

    If we look at his own user page for ... we see that despite making all the edits to BKWSU he has not once used it to make an IP vandalism report and only once a personal attack report.

    If we look at the other IP address is uses 72.91.4.91 also Tampa Verizon and used for making vandalism attacks on Maleabroad

    If we look at user contributions for Tampa Verizon 72.91.4.91; here, , we see they are again solely focused on the BKWSU, maleabroad and myself.

    If we look at user contributions for 71.251.88.110 = is also Tampa Verizon; here, , we see they are again solely focused on the BKWSU and myself.


    From 25/26 October 2006 when he first engaged in editing as Riveros11 , he has been a one track record Vandalism, Vandalism, Vandalism, Vandalism and whole load of admin tricks to block others ... no wonder he has been to busy to actually engage in the atempted discussion, mediation or arbitration . Except on others pages where he seeks advice and attempt to discredit me and similarly hitting other first contributors, e.g. .

    I have no doubt that this is not exhaustive but it is exhausting ... I hope that we can resolve matters.

    I would like to point out that the same team are also at work on Google Answers having critical or even independent pieces about the BKWSU removed, e.g. which is now http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=206345, Yahoo and elsewhere. Yes, Misplaced Pages Foundation will be targetted next if they has not already done so. Scratch me and I will bleed citations.

    • One final incident, just wanted to add for the sake of completeness a Request for checkuser that Luis did under the 72.91.4.91 user where he refers to himself in the third party, "He also reported user Riveros11 ... Personal attack on Riveros11 ..." etc. . It is worth noting JUST for the amount of effort he puts into this.

    195.82.106.244 02:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

    195.82.106.244 07:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


    195.82.106.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), , brahmakumaris.info (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), bkwatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    When you are checking the above, please check also the poster of the request above and other suspect SPs. See ArbCom case on Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Arbitrators.27_opinion_on_hearing_this_matter_.280.2F0.2F0.2F1.29 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:Bkwatch either hasn't edited or has had all his edits deleted. ---J.S 22:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    This is all in arbitration now. Durova 03:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

    195.70.17.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    This site ACM Forex and this site Advanced Currency Markets refer to the same company. Both sites are pretty clearly advertisements I believe, and until recently they have been edited by a user User:Acmforex. After my edits and my appeals to this user to please talk on the discussion pages or to state their point of view, instead of attacking my user page Drewwiki, it looks like all new edits are being done by an ip addres: 195.70.17.226 195.70.17.226 This user has a history of putting random ACM Forex links into other articles. These are some examples:

    I believe this ip is the same as the user Acmforex and I believe this IP is not being a very productive wiki user

    let me know what I can do about this?

    Thanks

    --DrewWiki 12:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

    I have blocked the IP for 1 month. I am not sure what the situation is with User:Acmforex. —Centrx→talk • 04:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

    151.204.243.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    Repeated content removal directed to one site without adequate description or reasoning at urban exploration. A sock puppet of 141.149.186.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who has done similar actions. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

    Post page diffs. Durova 18:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    13:50, 26 November 2006, 23:04, 25 November 2006, 22:02, 20 November 2006, 21:05, 18 November 2006 Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not convinced that this is a sockpuppet. Please WP:AGF and invite this editor to explain his or her reasoning for the deletion on the article talk page. Looks like the response to this has been unusually aggressive. Perhaps this is really someone new who could become a productive editor. Follow up if problems continue. Durova 00:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    I was judging this based on the WHOIS for both: and . Is there a way to do a WHOIS on regular users for the record? Thanks for the reply, I'll just keep it status quo on the page and see what else happens. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    Okay, that seems reasonable. Still, nothing beyond a level 2 warning on either IP. I'd like to see some good faith outreach. Ask this person to participate at the article talk page. Durova 02:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    I was under the assumption that they were both sockpuppets, so each warning was a cumulation off of both IPs. Upon the next removal, I'll ask that it be taken to the Discussion page as there is a system for link additions/removals (installed by me due to the high degree of link removals/additions for this article). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    I understand that similar matters have been longstanding problems at this page. Nonetheless, the right thing to do is to welcome each newcomer who might become productive and encourage them to contribute in accordance with site policies before issuing warnings. Some types of activity don't require that welcome - but this isn't someone who's posting obscenities to a page. They might have a genuine disagreement about that link's suitability and not understand consensus editing. Talk first and come back if they don't cooperate. Durova 20:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    Regarding 151.204.242.114, the same user with the same DNS range is continuing to remove links. I posted a lengthy note on his talk page (didn't get around to it the first time but left a note in the edit summary at Urban exploration. This is getting old. This is verifiable with a simple IP query and WHOIS on the domains.
    "Regarding edits to urban exploration. Your edits are similar to that of 151.204.243.217 and 141.149.186.183. The DNS for all three IPs are from the same DNS range: , and . Please cease the removal of information and use the appropriate channels; more specifically, see the Discussion page for criteria on link additions/removals. See WP:EL and WP:VANDAL for more information." Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    I have semi-protected Urban exploration. —Centrx→talk • 04:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you. Hopefully this will resolve the link issues until it settles down. Unsure why this cropped up though... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

    Keltik31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Has been warned and blocked in the past for personal attacks; impersonates an admin here, and trolls various talk pages (too many to list, see contribs) with racist/anti-Semitic comments. -- weirdoactor -- 03:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    I clicked randomly on a dozen contribs and did not find anything egregious. Content disputes are not vandalism. —Centrx→talk • 04:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    Note that there is a user-conduct RfC pending with regard to this user. See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Keltik31. Newyorkbrad 22:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

    Wateva100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Further Vandalism of the article Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service. This user added unnecessary Information in to the article, this was thankfully deleted by the user: 'centrx' (thank you to to him!) for a Screenshot of this vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tyne_and_Wear_Fire_and_Rescue_Service&diff=88488950&oldid=88449288 The Vandalism by this user is written on the right hand side of the Page, In red. Thanks Tellyaddict 16:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

    Only 2 edits total from this account and no prior warnings. Leave a level 2 template on the editor's talk page and follow up if problems resume. Durova 15:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


    ChildOfA303 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Also:

    Multiple linkspam on many articles relating to British geography by likely sockpuppets, involving the inappropriate insertion of links to a mirror of Google Maps located at www.blackcomb.co.uk (which appears to be a commercial website). All appear to be single-purpose accounts. E.g.:

    DWaterson 23:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

    See also Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam#blackcomb.co.uk Femto 11:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    Maybe should be brought to WP:RFCU. —Centrx→talk • 21:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

    I blocked all of them except User:Newmoontube. They are disruptive sockpuppets. —Centrx→talk • 04:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

    Posmodern2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User has been reinserting linkspam and information that was previously deleted and discussed at length on the talk page for Emiliano Zapata, all editors except User:Posmodern2000 agree the information is speculation and unverifiable (Posmodern2000, not surprisingly, claims what he wants to add are all "facts" that have been mysteriously suppressed by authorities and that he's being censored). After all the discussion and attempts at resolution, this is devolving into mere vandalism. Tubezone 01:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

    Post diffs, please. Durova 03:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    No subsequent activity on this account. Durova 16:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


    195.82.106.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    user 195.82.106.244 has used a "forest fire" using his suspected sockpuppet account brahmakumaris.info (under investigation ) Repeated allegations and blanking his talk page to avoid prosecution: Disparaging comments about editors :He has threatened me to contact my employers about using Misplaced Pages. He has published my personal information as well. Direct insults to persons. Finally, user 195.82.106.244 was recently blocked (within a week) and still he has modified article and blanked his talk page: and Please attend this unfortunate matter asap. Thank you. 72.91.4.91 14:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Avyakt7

    We need page diffs, not links. Durova 14:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    Here you are. Thanks!
    Differentials:

    (note that both users in question do not delete each others work but rather complement it) (User Brahmakumaris.info took away the sprotect tag placed by admin. In this way user 195.82.106.244 could post) (brhmakumais.info moved pages to a new page, however here: Note November 15th changes and here user 195.82.106.244 activity on the same day.) link to versions: 72.91.169.22 20:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC) AVYAKT7

    Here are more differentials submitted by another user to me:
    Disparaging and provocative POV presented as fact in discussion (trolling)...

    Bogus personal attack report and deletion of comment...
    He also reported riveros11 on a personal attack intervention board with a very attacking diatribe... Someone answered. 244 obviously didn't like the comment so he deleted it!

    Personal attack on Riveros11...
    Bad faith edit comments....

    Personal information and false allegation of sockpuppet...

    Intimidation...

    Taunting...

    Removing NPOV...

    Removing page protection (probably to be able to post again as 244, evidence of sock puppet)...

    Changing others' discussion and offensive edit comment....

    Shifting of burden of proof onto those questioning the article...

    Forest fire...

    Thank you, 72.91.169.22 13:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC) avyakt7

    That's a lot of evidence over quite a few months. Thank you for searching and summarizing all of those diffs. Some of these actions aren't necessarily objectionable. For instance, Misplaced Pages doesn't take a stand against editors blanking warnings from their own talk pages. Nor is it necessarily wrong to remove an NPOV tag, particularly when it's a single action rather than a revert war. The bulk of the history looks like a heartfelt content dispute. While cult is a hot button word, this editor doesn't use it frivolously but rather supports it with links and detailed discussion - although the allegation itself is necessarily provocative, it seems to have been raised in a suitably dignified manner. So what we're left with is the sockpuppet allegation and some background history. This looks like it presents an editor who was involved in a long term content dispute and then began using socks to WP:OWN the article. Misplaced Pages:Suspected sockpuppets is the best place to handle that (and I'm glad it's already been reported there) because between that page possibly WP:DR your bases should be covered without needing to come here. A few of the other posts cross the line enough that I'd issue a warning or a short block if these were new events, but those actions took place months ago. Durova 04:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

    Dear Durova, and how about this one just a day ago? http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=cur&oldid=90603114 Please note that his links offered as support to his statements does not meet wikipedia standards for an article. Those are note reliable sources. This user however, wishes to use those sources even though admins already have told him that those are not valid. I just wish someone would take action specially after offering such a lenghty proof (user .244 does not even get a warning!!)rather than sending me to post in other places. Best 72.91.169.22 16:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC) avyakt7

    I semi-protected Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University. —Centrx→talk • 03:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    Listen guys, this is a bit of a joke because 72.91.169.22 is Riveros11 and User:72.91.28.223 whom both refer to himself in this and other complaints as if Riveros11 is a third party. Please see detailed documentation above. Riveros11 has been using 72.91.169.22 and other IPs to build up a bogus case against me and others in order to block me out from editing the article.
    The background to this case is that Luis ] is a teacher and recruiter for this millenarianist group the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University and they have an IT team working on this article to ensure that nothing that contradicts its PR can exist there. Not even links for ex-victims as per The Family, Moonies and Scientology. Ditto, that no materials can be references from their "scriptures" or publications as per other religions. What this is all about is blocking any questions being raise. Ditto, The Family, Moonies and Scientology etc all have critical or opposition sections and links which he has removed from this one.
    The history goes back to when he was suspended from a public discussion forum for making personal attacks on others which he has continued to lay blame on me for. I was the victim of those attacks. See,
    With references to consistent claim that I accepted to use the sources he provided and have requested discussion of reliable sources, policy is clear;
    Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s)
    * it is relevant to their notability;
    * it is not contentious;
    * it is not unduly self-serving;
    * it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
    * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.
    I put in for RfC, mediation and arbitration and the guy refused to participate whilst all the time using these alternative IPs to try block me out. I am glad I found all this to understand what is going on. 195.82.106.244 12:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    This matter is now in arbitration. Durova 04:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


    Template:Allen Greenfield - I have definite information that the person calling for deletion of this article has a long history of writing crank letters about this specific subject for entirely personal, rather than critical or cited, reasons. Some claims made by this person, a V. Cybert of Alabama, are apparently defamatory as well as misrepresented. This hardly seems a legitimate reason to call for a vote on deletion of an article, especially when said motive is masked. //Allen Greenfield

    Talk:Spider-Man 3 (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (Moved from Admin Noticeboard to AN/I, and now to RFI, hopefully finding the right place for action) Can an admin please help regarding events on this page which happened saturday, yesterday, and today. Saturday night, both 222.152.186.32 and Boggydark got into a revert war here. Bignole, Erik, Ace Class Shadow, User:Wiki-newbie, Veracious Rey, and myself have all counseled both editors on things like civility, citation, the difference between being bold and a vandal, and more for weeks now. Neither makes an effort to change, both call us all names , for working hard on the page and not wanting POV edits added, and it's time for it to stop. ThuranX 13:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC) (Additional information: One of the posters, the IP user, has also begun to take his issues to another site, IMDb, as seen here. ThuranX 01:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)) Since posting and moving this, the IP user has continued to be hostile, insulting the other editor mentioned on topics, as well as continuing to provoke the regular, Good Faith editors with comments like this . He's clearly gone over to trolling for a fight, to judge by tonight's insulting edits. Many of the editors here are really about to leap out of their skins and get truly incivil back to him. We need Admin help. // ThuranX 03:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

    Registered users

    Read the policies, guidelines, and procedures before reporting. Do not report content or user disputes here, unless you can provide links demonstrating a strong attempt at dispute resolution. Please use this format at the top of this section:

    ===={{vandal|User_name}}====

    Brief Description. ~~~~

    Usernames are case sensitive.

    New requests

    Fresheneesz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    There is currently a Vote about some +categories and as the vote is occurring Fresheneesz moved the articles to the main category. Would you please advise him to revert all of his changes. Thank you Headphonos 00:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    Teeholz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user appears to be engaging in autobiography (which I've tagged for speedy deletion) and spamming to promote his record company and possibly also anonymous sockpuppeteering as IP 217.235.190.206 to add more advertising spam for the same record company. Random Passer-by 20:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

    Otherone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    You better take a look at these user boxes User:Otherone/Userboxes

    Yes, some of them are objectionable. I suggest you leave a polite note to that effect on the editor's talk page. Durova 18:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    Makrandjoshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user has avoided formal mediation, is ignoring informal mediation requests and RfC consensus, and is not accepting Third party viewpoints. He reverts any constructive edits, in spite of consensus from outside admins and long-time editors, to retain a 'attack' section called Controversy in the IIPM article, which is on a large educational institution, and possibly is covered under the 'living persons' category, as the Misplaced Pages article affects the lives of its students directly. Iipmstudent9 07:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

    Please provide specific links and diffs. Durova 18:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    Inra20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user has been vandalizing articles on many former beauty queen contestants. This is a newly sockpuppet account and the user has used names User:RESIA20, User:Urali20, and IP Address 70.126.2.82 to continued to make unconstructive edits. In the article for Denise Quinones and Shanna Moakler she has not listen to several editors' request for citations. I have pleaded many times and yet no success. She has been blocked once on Friday for the 3RR rule. Unfortunately, me trying to stop her vandalism also was blocked for reverting the article in itsstage prior to it being vandalized. --XLR8TION 05:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

    Nareklm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This is a very different request, this user has created over 50 "bio stubs" - looks like he's going through some Armenian "who's who" list and creating 1 or 2 line stubs, non-referenced, non-sourced. I did put a kind "heads up" on his user page, and am tagging all of these as {db-xxx}. Perchance an admin could watch/explain the WP:BIO and other categories before this becomes a nasty situation. Not 100% sure if this is vandalism, leave that call to the experts.SkierRMH 21:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

    7777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user has repeatedly removed maintenence templates from a page s/he created which is in desperate need of cleanup and sources. I have left requests for him/her to stop, and later warnings to stop, on this user's talk page many times. The user has not acknowledged them, nor stopped removing the templates. I don't think that the editor is intentionally being a vandal, but after multiple warnings I don't know what else to do. --Icarus 19:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

    flybd5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    • I have edited and made proper grammatical, punctuation, and typo corrections on the aryicle for Pedro Rossello many times. This user who apparently is a person who goes against many of my personal political beliefs (as discussed on discussions boards) has been reverting my changes and feels that he personally owns this article. If you take a look at the history of my changes, my edits have made the article sound much more professional and informative. I have even listed citations and he deletes them. I have reported him to numerous admins to no ado. Please tell him to stop reverting my changes. Many other Wikipedians agree with me that he has crossed the line. I will revert my changes. pleas take a look at my edits and you will clearly see that this is not vandalism. --XLR8TION 17:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: Article is now locked and I'm watching the situation. ---J.S 18:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    We're back to the same story again. Go look at the latest round of edits on Pedro Rossello. This user is claiming that I am the vandal, when in fact the latest diffs show that XLR8TION is making wholesale changes with obvious grammatical errors and removing information that is shown as factual with cites and refs. XL8RTION continues the exact same pattern of behavior on the article that caused the issues in the past week and a block of the article. I'm tired of dealing with this issue, if you won't do something about it at the level of the user I will simply abandon any effort to keep the article accurate and in good condition. XLR8TION can't even spell correctly! See above! Flybd5 04:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

    Soccerguy1039 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Looking at this user's block log, he was previously blocked by Friday on the 9th of Dec. 2006 for problem editing. I initially contacted Friday, but have not received a response. Soccerguy1039 is continuing his disruptive edits, refusing to sign comments, then removing the {{unsigned2}} templates that other users place next to his comments . Several users have asked him to stop, yet he continues. I believe he is also operating a sockpuppet by the name Emokid200618 (talk · contribs). Their contribs are identical, including the removal of unsigned templates on Talk:Final Fantasy XIII . Soccerguy1039 and Emokid200618 have also made identical edits on Template:Kingdom Hearts series (Soccer = ; Emokid = ). Emokid has also vandalized George W. Bush, though it was a minor nuisance. ( ) Apologies if this is the incorrect place to report this, but it doesn't seem to fit WP:AN, it isn't obvious vandalism (WP:AIV) and isn't only about sockpuppets. AuburnPilot 20:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

    Comment: Soccerguy1039 has been blocked for 48 hours by Friday. I will take the other issues to WP:SSP. AuburnPilot 00:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

    Hashomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Category:Anti-Semitic people Vote

    There was a recent Vote to change the +cat name from Category:Anti-Semitic people to Category:Antisemitic people and it was decided to keep the hyphen. Hashomer has moved the category anyway and without any further vote. In addition, the editor has changed the link at the articles in the category. Would you please move the category back and have the editor revert back all the changes made to each article linking to the new category Category:Antisemitic people. Thank you 69.156.78.94 12:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

    My apologies, I'm a new user and this was an honest mistake. I noticed that the parent category used the spelling Antisemitic for instance "Category:Antisemitism" and that the article on the subject was Antisemitism. I thought retaining the hyphen in the Anti-Semitic people category name was just an oversight and it would just be a housekeeping change to move it over since most encyclopedias try to be consistent in their spelling. I was unaware of the vote in November otherwise I would have left well enough alone. I will revert the move now. Hashomer 19:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

    Toira (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Is it possible to consider giving a warning to this user for this clearly heinous post.  ? Thanks 03:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

    Definitely worth a warning. You can issue that yourself. Durova 19:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    Chesdovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I suggest a warning to User:Chesdovi as he is messing around with the Holiest sites in Islam article by adding numerous non-islamic sites and irrelevant content. (He was a major contributor to this article in the early stages and I'm sure he knows very well about what he's doing) . See the following edits :

    There are more of such kind of edits. thestick 12:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

    He's already gotten a final warning and continued adding nonsense. 48 hour block issued. Durova 08:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

    Cheekychops (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I would suggest a warning be given to User:Cheekychops as he has repeatedly edited living person biographies to add comments stating that various male actors are actually "gay and are dating casting director Lee Dennison". When these entries are removed by other editors he repeatedly replaces them. He cites fake sources and even when confronted continues to insist that the citation is genuine, or alternatively suggest a different citation, resulting in more work for other contributers to disprove him yet again. Examples of this vandalism include

    1. Many edits to Colin Farrell
    2. Vin Diesel
    3. Ron Livingston
    4. Mark Anstee
    5. Rob James-Collier

    In light of the potentially defamatory nature of these comments, and the sheer number of them, perhaps it would be wise to block this user?

    The "Lee Dennison" mentioned in all these quotes seems to have also existed for a short time as User:LeeDennison who created a vanity article about himself which was subsequently deleted. I think this is the same user as User:Cheekychops.

    The user has also added many other entries referring to "Lee Dennison" to various articles.

    It's surprising that this has gone on for so long without any user block. I've left a warning. Post again if the problem resumes. Durova 03:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm on OTRS, and we got a (very very polite) complaint about this. I too am surprised it went on for as long as it did, but at least it let me use an amusing edit summary when blocking ("user is obsessed with casting director Lee Dennison"). DS 15:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

    Love is all we need (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I would suggest a warning be issued to User:Love is all we need as the user is using multiple user accounts, claiming to follow wikipedia policies. The user uses his/her accounts in different discussions so that the reader gets the impression that it is several users commenting an article. MoRsE 20:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

    Please go to WP:SSP and follow the suspected sockpuppet report directions there. We do other types of investigations at this board. Durova 03:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    Well, the instructions led me to believe so, but well. MoRsE 05:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    Maybe that should be worded more clearly: what's obvious to an involved editor may not be obvious from a distance. Durova 03:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

    Bluechevylover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Lord Tortiville II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Please see this nonsense edit of Back to the Future by Bluechevylover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from 12/11, followed by the same edit by Lord Tortiville II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on 12/14. First user name got a Test4, and I gave the second a blatantvandal warning last night. Checking the second name's contribs brought me to the spurious articles Fisherman's Choice and Bailey's Creek Fisherman's Challenge. I tagged them as hoaxes, and 68.39.174.238‎ tagged them for speedy, which apparently went through today. Lord Tortiville II has already recreated the Bailey article. Neither account has many edits. The first one made some to automotive articles, which I didn't look at; the other has basically only touched Back to the Future and the two nonsense articles. I'm thinking there are probably older accounts I don't know about. I'm not sure what is to be done, except to mention the situation here. Thanks! Karen | Talk | contribs 20:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

    The warnings are appropriate. One account has only a single edit and the other hasn't been active since 11 December. This may wither from benign neglect. In case it doesn't, post again with new diffs and I'll follow up on your warnings with a block. Durova 04:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    Actually there were more edits on the newer name, but they appear to have been rolled back or something. (There were two edits each to create the now-deleted articles, if I recall correctly, and one more today to recreate one of them.) The recreated article has been salted, and the other one has not made a return appearance. I'll let you know if anything else happens. Thanks! Karen | Talk | contribs 04:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:Media anthro and User:Squeakbox

    I've had a user come to the mulatto board making constant changes. When I left him a personal note on his user talk, he responded to me on his own talk page. The only way I knew he did that was I went back to explain another edit I did. I told him that if he needed to leave me a message he needed to leave it for me on MY page, not his. He finally figured it out and posted a message on my page saying something about he would block me because he was an edittor. He's a new user and in no way was I vandalising, he was. I told him I would report him for both vandalism and harassment because there was nothing to show he was an editor. Then some guy named User:Squeakbox contacted me saying that administrators would block me if I reported User:Media anthro saying he wasn't an editor because he really was. Does this sound fishy to you?

    Please provide page diffs and sign your request. Durova 04:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

    Imgi12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Candyonashell has consistently vandalized the Satish Mohan page. This has continued after I requested that he/she stop on his/her talk page. This is the only page that the user has "edited." Vandalisms ahve included potentially libelous unverifiable information, and loaded terminology. --Cjs56 03:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

    This user is vandalizing pages related to homosexuality, including the homosexuality article itself and the Family Pride article, injecting POV comments and pejorative insults, user is degrading article quality by weasel wording and referencing extremist groups, referring to them as "conservative".

    --Izanbardprince 01:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

    freescotlandparty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Hi there, been trying to dissuade freescotlandparty from repeatedly removing justifiable and referenced material from the Free Scotland Party page. He makes no attempt to justify this in return but simply keeps reverting. I have posted notes on the edit history log but I'm not competent enough to use the presribed templates. I did leave a message on the obvious vandal section but it looks as though it might not have been acted upon (possibly because the warning procedure wan't followed correctly). The users name is identical to the page name so I can only assume that he's deliberately censoring material he doesn't like. Can someone please help warn the user correctly or take further action. Thanks.

    Users Alex Stanek 999 (talk · contribs), Bachey (talk · contribs), and Akbarc (talk · contribs)

    I'm suspecting that all these users are the same person based on the style of contributions and vandalism. Some of the user(s) contributions have been positive, and I think that this user/these users might have some potential to contribute positively --WillMcC 14:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

    Report to WP:SSP per their requirements. We do other types of investigations here. They handle suspected sockpuppets. Durova 04:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


    E.Shubee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user has been reported here but I'm not sure if this may be a better place to do it. This user has been nothing but a nuisance since coming onboard. The user continues to personally attack other editors because he does not agree with them. The warnings have been low key and subtle in hopes to assist him become a better contributor. I really feel this user needs to be heavily scrutinized. He is not contributing but is in fact creating issues on Misplaced Pages violating disrupting wikipedia to make your point. His adoptive editor recently un-adpoted him (Dispute page), because nothing was changing. He has been blocked twice for various things. I feel that he needs some stronger guidance in order to help him become a positive contributor to Misplaced Pages. Several editors have mentioned that it is highly likely, though not conclusively proven by checkuser, to be the users last account, Perspicacious (talk · contribs). If you follow the trail, you will note that this user has not been a positive contributor. He has consistently attacked editors and he's turned his personal talk page into something to talk about editors he doesn't agree with. He has consistently misquoted and misrepresented what other editors have said (see and for examples) Polite suggestions and invitations to learn the policies, ask questions, warnings, etc., have all failed. Instead user tries to turn around policies to fit his agenda and attack disagreeing editors. If you take a look at his user page and talk page you will see this.

    To point out some other discussions about E.Shubee see:

    Thanks for your attention to this as we are all tired of the the issues being caused by him. --Maniwar (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

    Just to update, there have been more complains see here and here. I'm not sure what else to do besides bringing this to your attention. --Maniwar (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    1 month block issued. Durova 00:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    To add my input, this user has shown absolutely no sign of relenting. Even while blocked, he continues to make accusations and attacks against not only the editors who registered repeated complaints, but also the editor who tried to adopt him, and now the administrator who imposed the block. Every attempt to deal reasonably with this individual has resulted in utter failure, as he tends to compulsively blame and demean others who disagree with him, often resorting to misrepresenting them on numerous Misplaced Pages pages in attempts to prove his position. Hours and days have been wasted in dealing with his individual's numerous disruptive contributions, and his presence has become a significant drain on both the human and electronic resources of this community. Thank you for your time. Zahakiel 05:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    The thread at his talk page has grown rather long. As I stated in the block notice, Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing is recommended reading and this editor is risking a community siteban. Durova 04:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

    Breannarox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    For evidence of what I discuss below, please direct your attention to essentially all of this user's edits on the page in question, specifically the diffs I provide below. The user's talk page will demonstrate multiple warnings. This user continually, relentlessly makes disruptive edits to Laguna Beach: The Real Orange County. User continues to insert biased, patently unverifiable, unencyclopedic information despite being told exactly what is wrong with what he / she is doing multiple times by myself and User:Dina. Specifically, he / she (I'm just going to go with she from now on) seems to be enamored with the character named Breanna, hence the username. She inserts glorious, flowing, totally unsourced and unverifiable prose into Breanna's section of the article whenever I turn my back, ignores my warnings against doing so, and blanks the paragraph or otherwise vandalizes the section devoted to Breanna's "rival" on the program, Tessa Keller. Beyond a content dispute, now a constant edit war, and her blind eye to all warnings makes it vandalism. Examples:

    Her edits regarding Breanna; this diff shows two of her edits, both made after about six warnings: .

    Her edits to Tessa Keller section: .

    --Tractorkingsfan 01:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

    Genuine vandalism here, but no activity in nearly a week. I would have blocked if I had read this sooner. Report again if problems resume. Durova 04:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

    Itake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Itake has previously been fighting with other users, which a quick look at his talk page will tell. He has been gone for a while, or so I thought - he is back, and is conducting edit wars here and there. A few examples: Antifascistisk aktion, Swedish Anarcho-syndicalist Youth Federation, Anti-Fascist Action and Superpower Classic. I don't really know what to do to stop him. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

    Only one edit since 9 December. Post again with page diffs if problems resume. Durova 04:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

    Preform (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Strong suspicions that this user is banned user MagicKirin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who also used the now banned account Tannim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Same group of articles - Hugo Chavez - Cindy Sheehan, Hezbollah - picking up where the previous account was banned. Same arguments. Same litany of poor edits reverted immediately by numerous editors. Same pattern of being oblivious to the fact that his use of a new sockpuppet is transparent.--Zleitzen 01:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

    We don't do sockpuppet investigations here. Request a checkuser if this appears to be a sock of a banned account. Durova 01:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

    Jobjörn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Jobjörn is constantly involved in removing NPOV edits on articles such as Swedish Anarcho-syndicalist Youth Federation and Invisible Party. Even though proper sources are provided as per WP:REF the man still reverts them. When one attempts to make said articles NPOV, Jobjörn goes on to do his own POV edits on other articles such as Christian Democracy as "retaliation". Itake 12:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

    Nadia Kittel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Nadia Kittel works on themes around the Dresden article and the former GDR. He therefore uploaded a couple of images that break copyrights. He reverts deletion of this images from articles . Further he is destroying articles with a dump of data . He is neither justifying his changes nor naming his sources nor minding that he overwrites referenced data. He breakes communication down by just deleting all messages on his talk page . His changes are all without comment or justification. Geo-Loge 17:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

    Avoidant vandalism Geo-Loge 17:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

    Under investigation

    Creepy Crawler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user has repeatedly vandalized pages with blanking, , creation of bizarre fake userpages, User:SurvivorIMDB , User:Spider-Man, and creation of numerous redundant categories: , , , , and . He had repeated warnings, almost all of which he has blanked, been warned not to blank warnings, and then blanked that too, as a check of his user talk can show. He seems bent on continuing this disruptive behavior, because although every warning blanking is summarized as a variation of 'I said I'm sorry!', he continues in the exact same patterns. ThuranX 22:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

    72 hour block. One of the talk page comments accused this editor of being a sockpuppet of two banned accounts. Head over to checkuser and post a request there; if it comes back positive we'd have grounds for a siteban. Durova 22:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    Request submitted as suggested. Will report outcome when it appears. ThuranX 04:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    Checkuser result was nil, but user has since been permablocked. ThuranX 18:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

    Skinny_McGee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Suspected Sockpuppetry, Deceptive Editing and Vandalism

    • A strong suspicion of sockpuppetry, deceptive editing, and complex abuse on the Midnight_Syndicate article.
    • Possibly 6 other sockpuppets.
    • Self-promotion: IPs of past abuse/ possible IP sockpuppets ALL point to Chardon, OH (home city of this group).
    • Removal of other editor's Rfc by SkinnyMcGee. (ie: no help/comment was ever given by outside editors).
    • Non-policed 3RRs and false report of sockpuppet by biased editor.
    • Detailed description HERE of this issue with diffs and comments for all abuse.
    • This really needs investigated. I believe the wrong party has been banned due to nepotism. And certainly the article is now protected and is wrong on several counts according to citations that were also removed by SkinnyMcGee. Peacekpr 06:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    Peacekpr accuses me of a false report of sockpuppet, this accusation is false and unwarranted. You can find my checkuser request here: , and my report here: . Also, when I asked this user to reveal his/her previous username in the user's talkpage, the user refused to do so, I'm beginning to suspect that this user is another one of User:GuardianZ's sockpuppets. Dionyseus 13:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    Sockpuppetry investigations normally go to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets. That's their specialty. Have you tried formal mediation? Durova 04:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    I believe this goes beyond obvious sockpuppetry. I also suspect multiple sockpuppets/meatpuppets, so I thought it best to post here. Also, I moved comments by Dionyseus above to my talk page to keep this section brief, but he removed that link from here when reverting this page, so I am putting it back. Please see User_talk:Peacekpr for my discussion with Dionyseus, not to be confused with the issue. I simply feel that Dionyseus has show bias during the edit war on Midnight_Syndicate. Peacekpr 07:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    The conflict of interest allegations have been made before and seem to apply to both sides. If this really proves unresolvable then Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration may be your final stop. This board doesn't do suspected sockpuppet investigations, which is the only new allegation in the present thread. Strongly recommend WP:DR. Durova 17:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

    Thank you. I made a request for SSP and will wait for that result. Depending on what it bears I will then ask for further help or look for one of the non-affiliated editors who were not involved in the edit war to help in verifying the statements and edit as needed. If the SSP is positive, I have a feeling much of the submitted info will need edited or cited. I just find it odd that only one side of the arguement had any citations to show as evidence, and that person was banned. Peacekpr 04:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

    The account that got banned was a confirmed sockpuppet. As an outside observer, it appears that both sides of the edit war are people who know each other and used to do business together. They might not have positively identified each other out of a group of people who had an interest in this band, but the conflict appears to extend well beyond Misplaced Pages. Earlier I suggested a separate biography for Joseph Vargo and a Wikilink within the article as a compromise solution. Apparently something like that was tried unsuccessfully before I became aware of the problem. I'm still not sure why that couldn't work if it were tried again. I'll level with you: the people who are editing this article probably have enough knowledge to raise this to good article or featured article quality if they would cooperate. The changes that immediately followed my last set of suggestions were steps in that direction. If you don't work things out you'll probably wind up in arbitration, in which case anything could happen: one realistic possibility is that both sides get topic banned and no other Wikipedians know or care enough to raise the article to its full potential. Try formal mediation if you haven't already - and remember there are bigger things in life than one Misplaced Pages article. Durova 20:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    Unprotected the article with a warning to the participants: I will open an arbitration request if this unprotection fails. Durova 00:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    Arbitration is underway. Durova 05:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

    Steve44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user is either a really bad editor or a really good vandal. Often changes information to incorrect info, probably on purpose, along with intentionally bad grammar. Whether or not he is intentionally distructive his edits are still harmful.--CyberGhostface 19:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

    72 hour block for vandalism. Durova 15:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    User is really bad at editing and makes ridiculous spelling errors and changes dates and numbers without citing any sources. —Centrx→talk • 03:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

    William Mauco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user has a persistent behaviour of blanking relevant information in Transnistria - related articles and introducing fake information. He self-declared is the author of 80% or Transnistria - related articles in Misplaced Pages , I didn't check but this is probabily true. However, after I start looking on those articles I realized that his edits look more like propaganda for this unrecognized country and not as NPOV information as should be in Misplaced Pages. This is why I start being involved in Transnistria - related articles in Misplaced Pages, which sometimes went to edit warring with Mauco. 6 times he broke the 3RR but was never blocked (I made a report about this on Administrators Noticeboard In 23 November both me and User:William Mauco were blocked for edit warring. First thing Mauco did after block finished was to revert me, without any explanation, in 6 different articles:

    1. revert on Sheriff. In article Sheriff (company), I gave 12 (twelve) refferences to support my view that between the familly of transnistrian president Smirnov and company Sheriff there are strong links. Between refferences - BBC, Washington Times, San Francisco Chronicles, which can not be considered biases, contrary with Mauco's links, which are from Russian or Transnistrian sources (the entire political game in Transnistria being the desire of Russia to anex this region). Mauco claim that between the company Sheriff and Smirnov there are big clashes.
    2. Politics of Transnistria (see talk page: we had a dispute, a mediator was brought to solve it, there are 4 wikipedians who want to include a paragraph, only Mauco opposed; after a compromise proposal was proposed by mediator which remained unanswered by Mauco, paragraph was included but Mauco reverted without explanations)
    3. List of unrecognized countries
    4. War of Transnistria (revert with the misleading comment that information belong to an other article - Raşcov, while info he took out was not about Raşcov)
    5. Gîsca and
    6. Mikhail Burla.

    Beside reverting me he didn't make any other edit today (until now) .

    In the same time, this user is WP:STALK wikistalking me, he recognized that he is "monitoring" my contributions but claim this is not wikistalking (what else is it?) and previously try to convince other users (without success) what a bad person I am, pretending untrue facts about me. For example, here he told to an other user (Johnathanpops) that I accused him as being a sockpuppet and part of a KGB conspiracy (while I never had any dispute with this user and never accused Johnathanpops of sockpuppetry or of being KGB agent) and here is pretending that I use to edit anonimously and made threats.

    I mention also that I try to solve problems with this user through talk pages and I also tried formal mediation ,

    I consider latest reverts of my work by Mauco, done imediatelly after we both were blocked for edit warring, and without any discussion in talk pages of involved articles, as vandalism.--MariusM 02:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

    Sorry to disappoint, but this is really a content dispute outside the scope of this noticeboard. The most recent posts to mediation happened only four days before this request so - as far as I know - the mediation might still be ongoing. I hope that resolves the issues because if it doesn't you might have to try arbitration. Durova 17:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    Is possible that a non-Russian admin will look at this report? Mediation is not about the articles in which vandalis occured.--MariusM 11:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    LOL, I'm not even Russian by descent. User:Durova/Travels Durova 14:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    I apologies Durova if I mistakenly believed you are Russian, I saw you took a name of a Russian female soldier. However, your denial is not clear - you told you are not Russian by descent, that mean you can be Russian by other criteria, for example, citizenship.--MariusM 01:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

    User was blocked for 48 hours for edit warring. —Centrx→talk • 02:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

    Nationality is irrelevant MariusM. Your assuming bad faith by implying otherwise. ---J.S 22:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

    SideShowFreak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I have repeatedly inform user to stop blanking pages for article discussion on Stephanie Nolasco. Apparently this acccount is a sock puppet account used by subject or someone close to the subject. They are creating vanity pages and erasing anyone's POV that disagrees with them. I have pleaded with this person to stop and have reported him/her to an administrator in the past but they continue blanking pages--XLR8TION 22:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

    The account has been blocked and the page was deleted in AFD. ---J.S 22:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

    Tyrenius' Impartiality regarding Transpressionism is questioned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    • . He is the person who has started many articles on stuckism in Wiki (see her/his user page) In that page he/she claims -- perhaps with all honesty he/she could master:

    I find, not infrequently, that I am editing (and sometimes starting) articles which do not have any prior personal interest for me. I also find that I am inserting edits, with which I may personally disagree or may not believe. This is in order to work towards a comprehensive, informative, authoritative and balanced encyclopedia.

    Here are his other articles related to stuckism: Spectrum London the first West End commercial gallery to show the Stuckists, Go West the title of the first Stuckist artists exhibition, Stuckist demonstrations,Stuckism Photography, Art manifesto according to the article the Stuckists have made particular use of this to start worldwide movement of affiliated groups,Michael Dickinson He is a member of the Stuckist movement, and many more -- so much for being disinterested in a topic!!.I wonder what Stuckists think of meatpuppets? 24.81.86.162 01:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    After I brought this in the discussion page he abruptly decided that a consensus has reached and deleted the page on Transpressionism. He wrote:

    • My particular interest is contemporary UK art. You don't need to search out the articles I've started (mainly on Stuckism, Turner Prize nominees, YBAs and FBA artists). They are on my user page. You seem to have missed out quite a few. Regarding "his articles", see WP:OWN. I suggest you also have a look at WP:NPA as you're currently violating it, as well as checking out what a meatpuppet actually is. Your observations are irrelevant as to whether this article should or should not be deleted. It will be judged in its own right. You would be better off finding reliable sources to VERIFY it. Tyrenius 04:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    He and his sockpuppets have continuously tried to ban me from posting, as well they have deleted any references to Transpressionism in all arts related material. I have read carefully all the Misplaced Pages's policies and I am convinced that there is a place for Transpressionism. I have posted some of these policies in the discussion page.

    I am familiar with Guity Novin's work foremost because of my interest in Kant's philosophy. All the best. 24.81.86.162 23:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    The article was deleted at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Transpressionism. Tyrenius was not the deleting administrator. The appropriate venue is deletion review, please follow the instructions at that page -- Samir धर्म 04:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

    Suspected cabal or meatpuppet relationship between BenBurch and F.A.A.F.A.

    Suspects:

    BenBurch (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

    Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

    Complaint filed by:

    ArlingtonTX (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

    BenBurch and F.A.A.F.A. are single-purpose accounts. (FAAFA initially used a different name.) Over 90% of their edits and Talk posts have been in pursuit of this agenda. Their agenda is to portray everything that is politically left-wing in a favorable light; portray everything that is politically conservative in a negative light, especially such activist organizations as Protest Warrior and Free Republic; and harass and intimidate anyone who gets in their way, going so far as to use modified warning templates and sock puppetry allegations as part of their campaign of intimidation.

    This agenda is a direct defiance and deliberate undermining of the WP:NPOV philosophy. It is an attack on one of the fundamental principles of Misplaced Pages. There is either a cabal, sock puppet or meat puppet relationship between these two.

    As evidence of the continuous bad faith and trolling of BenBurch and F.A.A.F.A., I present the following from the archives of their own talk pages, and the archives under FAAFA's previous name, NBGPWS. Administrators are asked to review the numerous incidents of vandalism, bad faith edits, personal attacks and other misbehabior, resulting in a steady stream of warnings and blocks.

    In an exchange on his own Talk page with BryanFromPalatine on December 5, BenBurch stated, "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on." A few minutes later, after he was certain that Bryan had seen it, he deleted it. Posting such vicious little barbs where he knows the target will see them, and then quickly deleting them, is part of his modus operandi.

    The following only includes warnings and disputes that these two have chosen to preserve. It doesn't include the abundant warnings and disputes they have chosen to delete. Nor does it include all of the little barbs that BenBurch posted, then rapidly deleted. I don't have the time or the patience to recover and list all of those.

    BenBurch

    BenBurch (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is the founder of the White Rose Society website, which is dedicated to "proving" the claim that the leaders of the Bush Administration are fascists. He has admitted that he was a long-term member of the Democratic Underground website, which is dedicated to ridiculing Bush and other Republicans. He has also admitted that he was banned for life from that website for his misconduct.

    BenBurch Talk

    BenBurch Talk Archive 1

    Notice that BenBurch was warned by Alphachimp that he couldn't remove warnings on July 1, 2006. But he has continued to remove such warnings on a regular basis.

    Fairness And Accuracy For All

    Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) began his Misplaced Pages career as NBGPWS, an acronym that starts with, "Neocons Be Gone." Maybe someone else who is more familiar with his uninterrupted history of misconduct can fill us in about the rest of it. Like his inseparable companion BenBurch, F.A.A.F.A. has admitted that he is a long-term member of . The following has been excerpted from his Talk page and its archives.

    F.A.A.F.A. Talk

    F.A.A.F.A. Talk Archive

    Notice that F.A.A.F.A. was advised by Travb on November 1, 2006 on how to create a cabal without appearing to create a cabal, and on how to “use wikipolicy as a sword” to advance a partisan agenda when editing articles.

    NBGPWS

    NBGPWS (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was the original name of F.A.A.F.A.. Readers will note that NBGPWS and F.A.A.F.A. are almost inseparable. When others figured out that the acronym stood for "Neocons Be Gone ..." he changed his name. Readers should take note of the number of blocks he has experienced, the length of those blocks (reflecting the severity of his offenses) and his actions in pushing a "Bush as Hitler" Misplaced Pages article, which is synonymous with the single purpose of the White Rose Society of BenBurch.

    NBGPWS Talk

    NBGPWS Talk Archive

    ArlingtonTX

    I have taken the liberty of replacing 150 KB of material with links to it. I've also added the date of November 1, 2006 for clarification, inserted ArlingtonTX's signature to distinguish his comments from my own, and reduced some of his garish huge red boldface to ordinary text. The preceding is not intended to denigrate ArlingtonTX or his complaint, or to mitigate the misconduct of F.A.A.F.A. or BenBurch. The histories of these two editors should be reviewed in detail: the repeated blocks, the multitude of warnings and bickering. This looks like a request for investigation under Complex abuse requiring in-depth investigation. BenBurch has also been banned for life from Democratic Underground which would ordinarily be his natural environment. Neither of them seems to be able to participate here without picking fights and breaking the rules, to pursue an obvious political agenda. They get warned, they get blocked, they come back, and they haven't learned a thing; then they get warned, they get blocked, they come back, and they still haven't learned a thing ... except how to be a little more cunning and clever. I suggest banning both of them for life and blocking their IP addresses. 76.210.12.232 03:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

    See also

     Category: