Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JzG (talk | contribs) at 21:26, 18 December 2007 (→Possible spam by Timjowers: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Levine2112

Levine2112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is refactored from above (which is a separate issue):

• While we are at it, the restrictions set by ScienceApologist's ArbCom may be topical right now:

ScienceApologist is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, they may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Currently, ScienceApologist is engaged in many examples of incivility, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith including accusations of sockpuppetry , harassment , edit warring , and assumptions of bad faith . We were very close to a consensus with a long-running issue at Quackwatch, a consensus which ScienceApologist has ignored and trampled. Can something be done as he/she is making Misplaced Pages a very unpleasant experience for many? Thanks. -- Levine2112 19:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Those are all outlandish characterizations of my actions: fairly close to a tendentious personal attack. I think Levine is fast learning how to become a disruptive editor. He already fulfills the definitional criteria outlined. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the whole with Levine's assessment of ScienceApologist. SA has also accused me of tendentious editting (and I him). Interestingly, and I think relevantly, Levine and I are on opposite sides of the article-subject-matter fence; Levine seeks to protect a postive representation of alternative medicine, and I seek to protect a postive representation of science (these preferences are not necessarily mutually exclusive). However, we agree about editorial philosophy, at least on working towards consensus. By pitting himself against "both sides" (by refusing any compromise whatsoever, on principle), SA has made himself difficult. (Again, as per above in the other ANI made by SA, re Peter Morrell, I consider myself a disputant, not an objective outsider, now.) Pete St.John (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I retract "SA has also accused me of tendentious editting". I overgeneralized, on account of my sense of his aggregrate comments, but in consideration of what might be considered the terms of his parole, I concede that he did not use those words (directly about me specifically). Pete St.John (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are those criteria and the appropriate links:

A disruptive editor is an editor who:

• Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors

  Levine is notorious pro-alt med POV-pusher. I won't even bother adding links because his entire contribution history lives up to this.

evidently not his entire history. In the few days (since Dec 11?) I've been involved with the debate at Quackwatch, I've found him responsive and responsible. So perhaps recent specific examples would be in order anyway; and as I've mentioned before, if they are omnipresent it should be easy to find specific examples. Pete St.John (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Cannot satisfy Misplaced Pages:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.

  Currently we are engaged in a dispute at Talk:Quackwatch where Levine along with another contingent of editors are consistently misrepresenting a source claiming that it is criticizing Quackwatch for not using peer-review when in fact it is offering a recommendation that Quackwatch implement more an "academic counterpoint" to augment their resource of which the author gives a positive review. While there are others involved, Levine tends to act as the main instigator and ring-leader with many of the other alt-med POV-pushers simply parroting his responses back. I became extremely suspicious of this earlier as it looked to me like a case of meatpuppetry on a scale I have not witnessed before at Misplaced Pages.

Specificaly false. SA seems to interpret "a review says that QW would be improved by instituting peer-review" as an attack on QW. Be that as it may, he misquoted the context of the citation to reverse the meaning; I refuted that by quoting the exact wording (see link below, or the talk:quackwatch). My theory is that he is blind to this, from fixating on the idea of "an attack on QW" instead of the simple "recommendation made by a reviewer". Anyway that thread is extracted, with some rebuttal from SA, at my page where I pasted together some of the pieces. Pete St.John (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.

  This edit is particularly telling. Levine is upset that he is not getting his way, and now wants to reject community compromise as a punitive action.

What? Have you read that diff yourself, SA? Maybe you pointed to the wrong item by mistake? And btw, that's another place where you didn't answer a specific question (read up to the grey above the green). You make sweeping generalities, specific questions are asked, and you ignore them. Pete St.John (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition, such editors may:

• Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Misplaced Pages:Civility,Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

  If that's not what the above is, I don't know what it's supposed to be.

I submit, therefore, that Levine is a disruptive editor and ask that he be banned from the pages devoted to alternative medicine. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• He's not exactly the only editor at that page who meets the criteria of a disruptive editor. A broader restriction on a number of the usual suspects involved in the nonsense at Quackwatch, Chiropractic, Stephen Barrett, et. al. might not be a bad thing to consider. There are editors on both sides of the dispute that are doing more harm than good to the project as a whole.--Isotope23 19:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• As in the Peter Morrell item above, also introduced by SA, please consider me a disputant as well. SA has been persistently using wiki-legalism and veiled rhetoric while spamming the consensus building process with digressions, minutiae, reverts, additions, accustations, etc. (at Quackwatch) Hope for concilliation seems, to me, dashed by this pair of ANI. Pete St.John (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Um, actually, I brought that up. Don't tell me there's still problems at Quackwatch. Want me to go in and yell at people? Adam Cuerden 19:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    • There are always problems at Quackwatch...--Isotope23 19:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• ScienceApologist has asked me to come here to defend myself against his accusations: . I don't think that is necessary when clearly this is just another example of ScienceApologist's uncivil behavior, harassment, and assumption of bad faith in others. I urge Admins to consider the restrictions set by ScienceApologist's ArbCom. Thanks. -- Levine2112 20:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to Levine's accusations

Levine made a nice little list of problems he had with me. Unfortunately, these "problems" more-or-less do not correspond to the labels he has associated with them:

Sockpuppetry allegations

Currently, ScienceApologist is engaged in many examples of incivility, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith including accusations of sockpuppetry ,

I really do believe that MaxPont and TheDoctorIsIn may be sockpuppets of each other. I asked them politely on their talkpages if they were and expressed my concerns on the relevant talkpage of the article that they were reverting in tandem. It was documented that TheDoctorIsIn was keeping track of his reverts and as soon as he reached the threshhold MaxPont came in and reverted back to TheDoctorIsIn's version. More than this, both MaxPont and TheDoctorIsIn have referred to I DONT LIKE IT as criticisms of people with whom they disagree. Now this similarity could be due to the fact that they both edit in similar places and both picked up on this (actually incorrect because WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a reference to a deletion debate protocol) argument by reading the same comments at some point, but I don't think I was out-of-bounds to supsect untoward behavior. I made my suspicions known as civilly as possible. I am very much aware that they may turn out to be incorrect. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done a quick comparison of their contributions and conclude that they overlap closely enough that "a suspicion of possible sockpuppetry is not unreasonable." It would take a little more digging to say anything more specific one way or the other, or to provide basis for a checkuser request. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I have an edit history going back to Aug2006 with 100s of edits. Why would TheDoctorsin nurture another persona for all that time in order to make three sockpuppet edits? Since July I have visitied a few WP pages on and off. Sometimes I made short comments in ongoing discussions. But I am appalled by the disruptive and uncivil editing environment created by editors such as ScienceApologist and a few other editors and don't really enjoy the consant bullying and harassment. Take a look at how ScienceApologist welcomed me entering the discussion with two comments on the Talk pages and one edit. He obviously assumed bad faith immediately. I am not surprised that there is an ArbCom ruling against him. MaxPont (talk) 08:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If MaxPont and DoctorIsIn are socks of each other, then I would say "MPDII" is a true genius. "MPDII" would have the apparent ability to be in two much different geographical places at once, with very much different personalities to me. Also "MPDII" would have to have feigned not only being a newbie, but then feigned being a po'd newbie as DoctorIsIn getting pulped by a skilled, sock troll known to me (who disappeared again when I surfaced myself) almost a year ago, whereas MaxPont previously had already acquired the experience and skills to avoid such an unpleasant baiting and beating. I see no basis for SA's sock allegations on MP and DII.--I'clast (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Harassment

harassment

In this diff: "I would appreciate a straightforward answer to my straightforward question. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)" How is this possibly harassment? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Look at my answer above. MaxPont (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In this diff, I warned MaxPont about what I perceived to be some very shoddy explanations for his revert and what I considered to be borderline disruptive editing. I do not consider this harassment, but I do consider this to be a warning that the behavior associated with fly-by-night reverts associated with seeming POV-pushing is not tolerated at Misplaced Pages. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit waring

edit warring

Here we have examples of me removing a problematic passage which I explained on talk. When that was reverted, I tried to compromise and I rewrote the passage to conform to Misplaced Pages standards. When that was reverted without a rather nasty edit summary by User:TheDoctorIsIn, I reverted back asking him to assume good faith. When later that was reverted by TheDoctorIsIn again without so much as a comment on the talkpage while I had created an entire section to discuss the rationale for including at least an expanded version of the summary of the review, I reverted back. Maybe the last revert was not the best thing to do (there was, in fact, another round of reverts between other users over this passage), but I hardly see this as cut-and-dry as Levine seems to think. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• You guys are way too fast for me. I've begun putting together notes explicating my complaints concerning ScienceApologist at Quackwatch. QW Talk is huge, with many subsections on the same topics (mainly because sections get too large to edit conveniently). In particular, my own main single complaint against ScienceApologist is that he misquoted the context of a citation, to reverse the meaning of the quote iteself. Since he was accusing others of misconstruing the context, I considered this particularly egregious, exacerbated by his not having acknowleged (much less rebutted) the error since. My notes so far are at this section in my user space. It's a gloss of a very very spammy debate at Talk:quackwatch. Pete St.John (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

  I have responded directly at that location. It looks to me like this is a misunderstanding that I hope we can work out elsewhere. I wasn't aware of misquoting (in fact, I wasn't quoting, but rather paraphrasing) and I made what I believe to be a good justification for this characterization of the source. While you may disagree with this characterization, I hope you will understand that I wasn't intending to lie or certainly not "reverse the meaning of the quote". ScienceApologist (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Assumptions of bad faith

and assumptions of bad faith This is simply me asking to add Anthon01 to the list of problematic editors that have been at different articles causing problems. How is this assuming bad faith exactly? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the same as above except for User:TheDoctorIsIn. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Your attacks against me were unfounded. . . warnings, insults and false accusations. . . how much more bad faith can one assume in another?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I presented the evidence above. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This is me asking PeterStJohn where he heard about the Quackwatch controversy. How is this an assumption of bad faith? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be viewed as positive when new editors enter a heated and deadlocked controversy. By the way, ScienceApologist only asks insinuating questions when editors that don't push the pro-Quackwacth agenda enters the discusion. Why is that? MaxPont (talk) 08:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is me commenting on my suspicions of meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry, in particular I'm explaining why I have the suspicions. How is this an assumption of bad faith? I had evidence for why I had my suspicions. I was not assuming bad faith because I had evidence to the contrary. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? Because you present no evidence here. . . just an assumption of bad faith. . . and you have yet to present me with anything the shape of evidence. . . all I got was a warning and antagonistic message from you.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I presented the evidence above. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus conclusion

We were very close to a consensus with a long-running issue at Quackwatch, a consensus which ScienceApologist has ignored and trampled.

I don't think that we were close to a "consensus" at all. In fact, most of the people who aren't active alt-med POV-pushers hadn't commented at the time that Levine declared consensus to exist. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think ScienceApologist's characterization of the consensus claim is accurate here. Certainly, less than a day is not enough time to claim consensus if disputants haven't weighed in yet. Antelan 21:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

How can one speak of civility but then go on to blindly brand editors as "alt-med POV-pushers"? Also please note that Levine said we were close to a consensus which. . . thanks to editors like Levine. . . we were. He did not "declare" it as ScienceApologist is characterizing. . . to my knowledge Levine was the one the most helpful and instrumental editors in trying to acheive consenus. . . and where ScienceApologist was the most detrimental. I don't know but I have had a bad taste in my mouth for ScienceApologist ever since this guy editting my userpage and labeled me "a true believer in chiropractic". I don't like him. . . I think he is trouble. . . and I now I find out that he is calling me a sockpuppet. . . This is simply not true. . . Where does this guy get off?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not speaking of civility. I'm speaking of consensus. You're addressing a different issue. Antelan 02:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically any editors not worshipping QW have been made to feel pretty unwelcome over the past 1-2 years, a very artificial consensus.--I'clast (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipeda is unpleasant

Can something be done as he/she is making Misplaced Pages a very unpleasant experience for many? Thanks. -- Levine2112 19:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish that Misplaced Pages could be an enjoyable place: but I don't like to see people with obvious agendas push their fringe beliefs into articles in order to advance a POV. That is contrary to what I believe to be one of the major aims of Misplaced Pages. I believe we are here to write an encyclopedia. Is it possible that sometimes people who have other agendas may find that aim unpleasant? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In the specific example familiar to me, citing a (evidently qualified) reviewer stating (in an evidently reputable professional journal) that he believed (at that time, 8 years ago) that QW would be improved by insitituting peer-review for it's own publication, does not constitute pushing a fringe belief. In fact, I consider the utility of peer-review to be conventional science; QW also advocates peer-review. It may not be applicable to QW's web site itself, but it's a legitimate critique which by no means implies that QW is itself unscientific or fraudulent. Witness that QW openly answers questions about it. I'm sure some of us have fringe beliefs; for example, the belief that Science is Holy and Above Criticism would be a fringe (but not unheard of) belief. For all I know, Levine did terrible editting on many pages. But in the 3 days (or so) since the RFC (on the 11th), he has been cooperative about seeking a compromise, and you, ScienceApologist, have not been (as per here, in progress). So in terms of my responding to an RFC, this ANI is premature and, IMO, disruptive to the consensus building process. Pete St.John (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I am getting a little uncomfortable with some of the characterizations that you are making which seem to be bordering closer and closer on personal attacks of myself. You are certainly entitled to your opinions on the matter, but I don't think that your advocacy is exactly helping in this situation, especially considering that this incident report isn't about you. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: I posted this "An Idea" yesterday. Antelan posted this "Crohnie you've got a great point." Then deleted the section. I think IMHO that this section is not notable nor necessary in the article. I seem though to be getting a lot of comments about my idea. I am one of the regular editors who left this article do to arguements like this. --CrohnieGal 13:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Pete, the major problem here is one of context. Levine and his friends have been trying since forever to insert "QW is not peer reviewed" in order to undermine its credibility. This is just the latest salvo in a long-running battle. A comment that it might be improved by peer-review is a comment that applies to just about every activist website that exists; I am on the editorial board of a website that has a process of informal peer review and even there we feel that more rigour would be helpful. It's not really a valid criticism of QW as QW, it's a criticism of most if not all activist websites. The fact remains that QW is widely cited and considered at least reasonably reliable by as lot of people. Levine and his friends don't like that, because very often it's their pet topics that QW debunks. We can't really fix the fact that they like fringe subjects and QW doesn't, nor should we allow the views of True Believers to distort what we say about those who debunk fringe and pseudo science. It is also likely that these editors are deliberately trying to wind ScienceApologist up in the hope of getting him into trouble. They are very inclined to spit in his soup. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I find this remark from Guy to be extremely hostile and untrue. It violates WP:AGF and WP:NPA and I don't think it is befitting behavior of an admin. For the record, I am NOT trying to undermine Quackwatch's credibility, but rather get the article right by including information which is completely verified by reliable sources. It seems rock-solid for inclusion, but, as in the past, the more solid the ground for inclusions stands upon becomes, the more the arguments against inclusion shift into the form of personal attack and assumptions of bad faith. Essentially, it plays out like this: 1) I want to include some material. 2) Someone tells me I can't because it isn't sourced. 3) I find a source. 4) Someone tells me that the source isn't reliable. 5) I find a reliable source. 6) Someone tells me that I am misrepresenting what the source says. 7) I offer to quote the source word-for-word. 8) Someone tells me that I have a pro-Quackery agenda and that I am being disruptive. 9) I deny it and say that isn't a valid reason to exclude the reliably sourced information. 10) And here we are. -- Levine2112 21:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Levine, you are exhausting any good faith assumption. As someone who has been occasionally involved in these articles, Guy's above comment seems completely accurate. Frankly, I think you are close to exhausting community patience. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Please follow my 1-10 assessment, tell me if it is an unfair depiction of what is going on currently at Quackwatch and then let's see whose patience should be exhausted. Again, I feel like the "other side" on this issue have realized that inclusion is imminent due to the quality of sources I have provided and now that they can no longer argue policy for the content, they have regrettable chosen to attack me personally. Yet, my patience is unwavering. Now you have joined in here JoshuaZ and JzG and I give you this challenge. Spend some time and go through my past months of edits and comments. Show me where I have tried to undermine QW's credibility, where I have acted uncivilly or without good faith. Really take you time and look at it. Honestly. Show me how it is justified for two admins to come here and misrepresent me as a True Believer of the fringe. I take great offense to these personal attacks and if you think they are justified then you are going to have show me the justification or else I am considering a gross abuse of admin privilege and a demonstration of egregious incivility. -- Levine2112 01:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

QW is, of course, a magnet for controversy. Levine's point is that the article grossly favors QW - without significant provision on independent, credible descriptions or criticisms (e.g. tenured academic and scientific researchers in relevant fields at mainstream or name brand universities) that QW has significant weaknesses in technical accuracy, reliability, fairness. The article has gone from a stable article with criticism in Sept-Oct 2006 from diverse editors to a virtual QW monoculture with pretty much only promotional statements again. (In most of 2006, earlier, the article had not-subtle-links for subscriptions and donation QW webpages until diverse editors agreed on a stabilized for about 4-5 months with criticism setting the stage for the past year's controversy). The current summary sentence on Hufford's review of QW(and SB) is totally inaccurate, where the academic, Hufford, has a V RS paper and he directly quotes Kauffman when stating that QW site is an outstanding example of systematic bias, but that aspect of Hufford's paper is totally suppressed now. The problem is the promotional monoculture here around QW that admits that *no* legitimate criticisms even exist. The article is quite promotional POV in the face of academic papers that do present multiple examples of highly flawed QW articles where the " "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo" (Kauffman) and severe...systematic biases (Hufford) can be verified independently, sometimes even from highly rated research med school sites. I think this article is getting close to exhausting WP's credibility.--I'clast (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112 motivations

Levine2112 claims Stephen Barrett is a crook! Personally I find Bolen's site much more reliable than anything a crook such as Barrett has ever put out there.

False allegations by Levine2112. - make no mistake about it - he is also a paid attack-dog.

More false allegations. Talk about a scam.

Libel and personal attack by Levine2112. Very interesting. The more you dig, the dirtier Barrett gets.

What are the motivations of Levine2112 who is a chiropractor. I too have noted an excessive use of links to Barrett's sites all around Misplaced Pages. I would like to see this minimized too.

Levine2112 has admitted his motivations for his editong behaviour on various Quackwatch related articles. Is a ban the next step?  Mr.Guru  talk  23:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru, thanks for pointing to my writings from over a year and half ago. In addition to these being ancient, you will also note that much of the time when you are claiming that I am making allegations (false or not - that's all POV), I am merely quoting or paraphrasing a critical source. For instance, in the King Bio case, it was the judge (not me) who thought it was deceptive that Barrett was paying himself from his nonprofit organization's fund to act as his own expert witness. I am not alleging this. I am just stating what a judge stated and saying that I agree that it is fishy. I find it interesting that you assert that I am chiropractor. I am not. I have said this many times. I do not work in or for the health profession in any way, shape or form. I am not a supporter all alternative medicine or of allopathic medicine. I am merely a scientific skeptic in the most true sense of the words. I demand rational scientific proof to meet my satisfaction. I am also a Wikipedian. And as a Wikipedian, I demand that we get the article right. Often times this means arguing to include material which a few demand to leave out but otherwise is completely in line with Misplaced Pages policy. Other times this means arguing to exclude material which a few demand to include but specifically are problematic with a number of policies or guidelines. I think I am fair, but tough. I am quick to admit when I am wrong and despite being the object of much ridicule and baiting, I think that I remain calm and civil and try my best to assume good faith in others. -- Levine2112 01:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112 assumes bad faith in others. For example, after a warning he accused QuackGuru of being a troll. Review his talk page history for more details. It speaks volumes. He has recently added gross BLP violations to the Stephen Barrett article which led to protection. The same type of POV editing blockworthy disruption is happening at the Quackwatch article. I recommend an indef-block in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy.  Mr.Guru  talk  03:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Please look at the evidence and note that when he/she says I am adding BLP violations, I am actually adding the opinions of critics and a judge and providing citations to reliable sources. When will these personal attacks and false accusations end? -- Levine2112 04:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably shortly after you stop your crusade against those individuals with whose opinion you so passionately disagree. Guy (Help!) 17:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sock harassment

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

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

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

User:Aranherunar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

False accusation of vandalism on Mr. Children

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:hopiakuta

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

User:Larry Lurkington and User:Betacommand

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

Subsequent confusion over the relocation archived below.

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

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

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

user name used without permission

the user name snideology was signed to a post without authorization. ] the post did not show up on my (snideology's) contribs, and i am unsure how someone could use my name without it being recorded. post's IP addy is 69.156.179.180. how can one prevent their name from being used without authorization? thank you--Snideology (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• You can't, unfortunately; all we can do is warn, revert and block anyone trying this trick, which is what happened to the IP in this case. BLACKKITE 18:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It's done by hand typing the sig vice using the tilde's, just as one can hand type a fake email, header and all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlevse (talk • contribs) 20:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, any user could easily copy any signature and use it as their own. All that we can do is revert the edit and warn/block the user. For example, I can put your signature right here: --Snideology (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC) — Wenli  04:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

24.61.9.215 POV and 3RR violations

The IP 24.61.9.215 is being disruptive in his editing of the three Blood+ articles: Blood+, List of Blood+ characters and List of Blood+ episodes. He appears to believe that one of the character's names should be spelled Hagi instead of Haji. On December 15, 21:29, he changed the spelling on the Blood+ article. I reverted and noted in the edit summary that we were using the official English anime spelling. He went on to the episode list, and over a series of 3 edits changed the spelling there along with some other NPOV issues, so they were reverted as having too many inaccuracies. He changed the spelling again on the episode list and I again reverting, asking him to stop and noting which spelling we were using in the edit summary..

The IP continued changing the spelling on both the episode and main page repeatedly, and as he continued to ignore the edit summaries and left no edit summaries of his own, I started considering his actions vandalism. He also began doing the same on the List of characters pages. I left ascending levels of warnings on his page, first for failing NPOV, and finally for pure vandalism. In an attempt to deal with the issue, I started a conversation on the talk page (Talk:Blood+#Haji/Hagi) so editors could come to a consensus, since both spellings are valid though the articles have consistently been using Haji. He ignored the talk page topic and continued to just change and change without remark. I finally reported to ARV and an admin left him a 3RR warning. A second editor pointed him to the conversation. His response was to just continue to change.

He has now changed the 3 articles 15 times, despite the warnings, requests, reverts, etc. He refuses to dialog or even acknowledge others at all. At first I presumed good faith because during his November appearance, he made good faith, though NPOV violating, edits. However, at this point he seems to just intend to just keep changing the spelling no matter what anyone else says, and it is getting very disruptive. Collectonian (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The same edits are now being done by a new IP, 172.194.5.183, which are close enough that I suspect the user just changed IPs in light of the notice here. Collectonian (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR allegations at Animal testing

TimVickers has just been accused of a 3RR violation in the Animal testing article on his talk page by an admin involved in a content dispute with him in the same article. The admin also warned him that "he would be reported" if he continued. . Looking at the revision history, it doesn't appear that Tim, as good faith an editor as I've ever seen in the project, has violated the 3RR policy. I'm requesting that a neutral admin review the article's revision history to see if the 3RR warning was appropriate, and, if so, to confirm the warning for Tim, and, if not, to take appropriate action with the admin that issued the warning and the "you will be reported" threat. Cla68 (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind being reminded about policies on my talk page, however I must admit that I was a little puzzled about this. The talk page of the article gives some background about the discussions. Anyway, I'm off home to cook dinner and feed my cats. This isn't any kind of emergency. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

To make a review easier, here are the diffs of Tim's "offending" edits: , , and . In each case he appears to make a good faith effort to add additional references to back up his edits, which are then reverted by two other involved editors/admins. Cla68 (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see this as 3RR. He was even providing sources when requested, and still reverted. This looks like an editorial dispute rather than breach of policy. the_undertow 01:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for taking the time to review it. Do you mind placing your opinion on the talk page of the editor who issued the 3RR warning? Cla68 (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Normally a 3RR vio requires a 4th revert, where is it? (Please remember that the 3RR applies to reverts after the third within a 24 hour period (not calendar day);) — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Actually, SlimVirgin is correct, she said if he does it again.... — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The only other edit by Tim within the 24 hour period is this one: and it isn't a revert, but the addition of more info. Cla68 (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing three reverts, Rlevse. Am I overlooking something? the_undertow 01:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the three links above, they don't have to be letter-for-letter reverts/matches each time. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The first seems a simple addition, not a reversion. the_undertow 02:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The last comment on Talk:Animal testing suggests that these editors may have worked out the content dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hope that the 3RR warning wasn't a tactic used by one of the involved editors to try to "win" the dispute. Cla68 (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Although SlimVirgin and I have quite robust discussions, like Talk:Animal_testing#Editing, we tend to work quite productively together. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope that I can learn to be as calm and patient as you are. Cla68 (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Its impossible to get angry when you have a kitten sitting, purring on your lap. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR warnings are frequently given when soeone has made a third revert. That said, if he was making edits and further sources were being requested, it certainly strays into not 3RR territory, something kind of moot because it appears that Tim does not intend to continue editing that section. Viridae 04:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll certainly edit that section in the future, but since the material is now incorporated in a way everybody seems happy with, with three independent reliable sources, I think we can all relax a little. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Err, sorry. Not forever. In the 24 hour period. Good to see it resolved amicably. Viridae 05:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to me by e-mail that I had better respond on the record to the accusations by SlimVirgin that I am "stalking" her eg diff. To be honest I have always just ignored the rare personal attacks, diff and implied threats diff that arise in these discussions and waited for everybody to calm down, before re-engaging in discussion of the issues. I am not particularly concerned by this, since in an emotive subject and I suppose it is normal for tempers to get a bit frayed. However, if people are curious about these allegations I suggest you compare SV and my contributions to assess the overlap, and see if the contributions on the rare pages where our interests we do overlap are good-faith attempts to improve the text or not. Anyway, its probably best to note this in an open way so that the community can review the matter. People with any questions or comments are welcome to discuss this on my talk page, but I'm going to be catching a plane in a few hours so I'll probably get back to you after the jet-lag wears off. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Tim has been personally attacked by the editor in question before and, as far as I know, has never responded in kind in spite of that editor's efforts to bully, bait, and belittle him. Cla68 (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(Found WiFi at airport) While I appreciate your support Cla68, let's not get back into that drama again. While wider community involvement might be necessary if problems continue, as I said I don't take these attacks too seriously and consider the matter closed. More eyes on the Animal testing article, and a wider variety of contributors to the talk page would of course be helpful, particularly from some of the administrators who have more experience of dealing with controversial subjects than I do. The past posts on the talk page are particularly interesting, since discussions on how best how to apply policy have been common. Anyway, let's minimise the drama and gt on with contributing. Hope you all have a good Christmas. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV POV edits by User:Pimpbrutha

Destroyerofthewiki (talk · contribs), blocked indefinitely on account of their username (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Destroyerofthewiki) has reappeared as Pimpbrutha (talk · contribs), editing the same articles and inserting the same NPOV POV material. He also seems inordinately focused on Marcus Einfeld's Jewishness and continues to want to insert NPOV POV material into Aboriginal politician Geoff Clark's article. -- Mattinbgn\ 03:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh that's good, if he's putting in NPOV edits. It's the POV edits we don't care for. ;) Maser 05:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I need to read what I am writing! Cheers, Mattinbgn\ 12:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I was just kidding. We know what you're talking about, Matt. You'll make a fantastic administrator. Maser 06:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

May I recommend an IP check? Maser 05:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

They're both blocked for disruption and bad behaviour anyway. No need. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wanted: User:DavidYork71-familiar admins for more on this. -- Mattinbgn\ 21:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

LukeHoC creating autoforwards to dates

User:LukeHoC has been creating dozens of new article redirects from individual dates (i.e., 23 February 2008 to February 23) for many, many dates today; is this something that should be condoned, or is it an issue that should be addressed? I'm reluctant to suggest otherwise, not knowing current WP policy in this regard... --Mhking (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I, personally, would delete all of the pages he created like this. It is absolutely an unreasonable thing to do (creating redirect pages for every day of every year). - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Totally unnecessary... That's going to take some time to clean up. — Edokter • Talk • 16:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've put a note on his talk page asking him to stop, and alerting him to this conversation. Hopefully, he'll come on over to discuss this and how best to clean it up. --Mhking (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop and think before criticising other user's contributions. I am doing this because at the moment the way the date formats work in Misplaced Pages is U.S. centric, in breach of the long standing policy that all variants of English have equality in Misplaced Pages. The redirects will allow people to use British English dates in auto-generated footnotes without creating red links. If you check you will note that such red links exist for most days in 2007, and for some dates in other years. They will proliferate in the future. I have asked the user who has made a false and hurtful attack on me for this constructive contribution to Misplaced Pages to make an unreserved apology to me. LukeHoC (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If these links are deleted, that will be a deliberate restoration of hundreds of red links. In my opinion, that would be premeditated vandalism. LukeHoC (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What red links are you talking about? The date formats work so that any correctly linked date, e.g. 23 February 2010, should show up in the format set in user preferences. There shouldn't be any links to individual dates such as 23 February 2010. JPD (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

But the fact is that there are hundreds of these red links. Just click on almost any of the redirects I have created for dates in 2007. LukeHoC (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that {{cite web}} requires ISO date formatting (which is not that commnon in the U.S.!) to work optimally. If the date is entered in ISO format, then it will appear like this: 2010-02-23. If it is entered in some other format, it will give a link to a particular day, which in general will be a redlink even if it is U.S. format. It would be good to make the template easier to use, but in the meantime fixing the formats would be better than creating redirects. The user date preferences will do the rest. JPD (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

2010-02-23 is what you want it to show? Can you not see that that is a completely unsatisfactory format. If the last number was 12 of less, no-one would know whether the day or month was appearing first. (In the real world, where people have never heard of ISO format that is). LukeHoC (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Luke, Your actions are completely pointless; Mediawiki's automatic date formatting already takes care of what you are trying to accomplish... ie, dates formatted like ] (citing format) result in 2006-09-25, depending on how you set your dating preference in Special:Preferences. Notice the year is linked seperately, as it should. You redirects do not accomplish anything, except loose the link to the year. — Edokter • Talk • 18:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(adding additional portion of conversation)

I'm sorry, but I cannot apologize. I don't see this as constructive in any way, shape or form, despite the North American-centricity of many WP articles. Those that have a more worldly-focus cite internationally formatted dates. This appears to me to be a complete waste of resources and counter to the standards previously established for Misplaced Pages. --Mhking (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious that you just don't understand the issue. There should not be any restriction on use of British date formats on British articles, but American users have created a systemic bias in the way the standard citation notes work. The so called use of resources issue is a complete red herring, as the resources required are minimal (and a great deal less than my own contribution the fund raising drive, which will not be repeated, if you drive me away). I am appalled by the horrible way you are treating me. LukeHoC (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is it a waste of resources to clear red links that have been created by a great variety of users? How many red links have you cleared today? This is good tidy editing work, pure and simple. On the other hand, deleting the redirects would be premeditated vandalism. LukeHoC (talk)

I am a bit of a BrEn zealot in the appropriate places and I believe I understand the issue here. I have to concur that LukeHoC is misguided; the links are completely unneccesary and will be a maintenance nightmare. If a fix is needed, this isn't the way to do it. Ros0709 (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I also agree, and think it is unnecessary. It would be ideal for you to add {{db-userreq}} to each of the pages, as that will make things easier. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this just creates a bulk of unnecessary redirects. I appreciate the thought behind the action, but it is misguided.--Atlan (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? It is a fact that I have cleared hundreds of red links. Please explain why wikipedia was better when they were still in place. LukeHoC (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It is also important to mention that the users reasoning behind all of this (changing redlinks to blue) is unfounded. I've checked several pages that he's created and nothing links to them, except his own talk page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That is absolutely false. There are hundreds of red links. Look again. LukeHoC (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You miss the point. What he means is, that most redirects are orphaned. No articles link to them (to be expected, really).--Atlan (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a bit unnecessary, and the user shows no sign of letting up, as the edits are going on at this moment. Perhaps this should be brought to WP:RFD for discussion, and as a show of good faith, LukeHoC would cease to create new redirects until the matter is discussed there? Tarc (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody here is in favor of keeping these. Why take to RfD? IMO, they qualify for speedy deletion per WP:SNOW. And if the user continues to be disruptive, perhaps a block is in order. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did find one with a link, and fixed that. Note also that {{citeweb}} does already allow for entering dates for the access date in either "British" or U.S. format without links using the accessmonthday/accessdaymonth and accessyear parameters. (I think there shouldn't even need to be separate DM and MD parameters, really - the template doesn't treat them differently.) These efforts are simply misguided. JPD (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Solution?

It is been established that these redirects are a problem, and should probably be deleted. Now, I ask, what would be the best venue? RfD or just delete them per SNOW? - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are they a problem? Are they somehow doing harm? Redirects are extremely cheap and ones like these can have some use. east.718 at 18:51, December 17, 2007

They are clutter, and prone to abuse because no one has these on their watchlists. — Edokter • Talk • 18:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that as long as something isn't "doing harm", the are acceptable under our inclusion guidelines? - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The standards of inclusion for redirects are different than articles. We've also got some tens of thousands of unwatched pages, but don't delete those just because they are at risk of vandalism. east.718 at 21:16, December 17, 2007

Delete per CSD R3. — Edokter • Talk • 18:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thought so. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

David D. is stalking me

David D. (Talk) has been continuously stalking WP:STALKING the articles I contribute to for more then one year, I have made several requests to him not to stalk me on wikipedia and make his contributions randomly but he keeps it up (check my talk page archive 5), now its been more then a year since he has been stalking me, his behavior has started to cause considerable stress now and I loose my motivation to contribute to wikipedia, I think an Administrator should look into it and advise him not to track and stalk me. Completely unacceptable behavior. Atulsnischal (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record i posted the comment above from Atulsnischal, it was originally posted on my talk page and at Talk:Genetic pollution. Since this has been an ongoing complaint from this user there is clearly a need for an outside opinion. David D. (Talk) 05:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hidden text below is off topic

By the way, this has drifted away from the stalking issue to the content dispute. Should I just move this discussion to the genetic pollution page? This might be more relevant there. David D. (Talk) 15:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That would probably be best, as there doesn't appear to be any substance to the "stalking" charge and no clear need for urgent administrative action. MastCell 16:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello who are the guys sitting here making decisions, I am saying this user is consistently stalking the articles I edit for over a year and is a regular bother to me, is more then ONE YEAR!!! of harassment not enough for you guys. Atulsnischal (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Format for clarity" indeed. David's actions appear to fall under the portion of WP:STALK which states that: "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." MastCell 20:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, no interest in the case, but you appear to have accidentally removed comments here, that I put back here. Lawrence Cohen 20:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please someone who knows his responsibility as a admin tell above mentioned user to stop WP:STALKING me, this has been going on for more then one year now. Atulsnischal (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hidden text below is off topic

User:Johnbod

First, I'd like to point out that I took this to Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Johnbod without any response at all. Now to the dispute: During what is otherwise a perfectly normal dispute over content on Domestic sheep, Johnbod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been especially snide and abusive. He has made unhelpful comments such as "Perhaps someone who actually knows about sheep will happen on the article." and called me an idiot. So far the argument has cooled, mostly due to other editors joining in. I would simply like someone from outside the discussion to make it clear to him that name calling and such is not acceptable. Immediately before calling me an idiot, I reminded him to please not be rude. Any help would be appreciated, VanTucky 05:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If VanTucky makes a habit of reverting and rereverting changes en masse without, as subsequent discussion has revealed, making even the most cursory checks on whether link corrections are valid etc, then for him I expect it is "a perfectly normal content dispute". Personally I can't remember when I last encountered a ruder WP:OWNER, but I am not going to continue in view of his attitude. Anyone with the patience to read the "discussion" will be able to make their own judgement on the matter. Johnbod (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

To say that I have ownership problems with the article is patently absurd if you look at the history. More than four other editors have made multiple edits in the past week to the article without any objections from me, and one (LaraLove) was even at my invitation. VanTucky 07:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of any other issue (which may hopefully be resolved by other methods of dispute resolution); what I have to say to the original request by VanTucky is that any editor saying that another editor is being "an idiot" leaves themselves liable to warning and eventually sanction if the language persists. WP:NPA. I ask Johnbod to please avoid such language in future. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to recommend to everyone - even in the midst of an incident - that people not walk further down the path of confrontation by characterizing other editors actions, no matter how seemingly justifiable the comment. A passive voice, even used to actively report an incident, will let any offensive wording speak for itself. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If we are are going into grammatical subtleties, I would point out I didn't 'call him an idiot', but asked him "Please don't be an idiot" when he asked for the second time for details on how to find an entry in a dictionary. Johnbod (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Subtleties notwithstanding (I never said 'call him an idiot', I said 'any editor saying that another editor is being "an idiot"'). What you said published your opinion that he was actively being an idiot. That is unacceptable and has to stop. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Loud and clear. VanTucky 23:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this has run its course...am marking it resolved. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Pgillman and spamming for Call Reassurance

This user has been repeatedly warned on spamming articles and links by several different users for Call Reassurance. User has previously created an article at Call Reassurance, which was speedy deleted under CSD G11 along with a handful of other articles relating to the company producing the product, Database Systems Corp.. User has recreated this deleted material at Care (Call Reassurance) despite these warnings. User has also uploaded an image which they released under PD-self, though it is doubtful they own the rights. All material ought to be deleted under CSD G11 and some action taken to prevent the user from recreating it. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• User's edit history reflects a single purpose account dedicated to promoting the company Database Systems Corp. and their related products. User ought to be blocked under that criteria. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I have compiled a summary of domains spammed (5), deleted articles/redirects/images (28, some more than once), warnings (6 + block) at User talk:Pgillman#Spam-tracking data. When I get the time, I'll add the domains to the spam blacklist. --A. B. 21:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Muntuwandi and the Origin of Religion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Below are Dbachmann's comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evolutionary theories on the origin of religion, article name

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible spam by Timjowers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:216.68.49.2

The account seems to be a vandalism only account and I ask for blocking or permanent banning. Their edits are here. They have been warned numerous times on their talk page. The most recent edit was this. Your help is appreciated, thanks. Blizzard Beast 17:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Copied to WP:AIV for speedy action. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 18:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the warning, but I don't think that will stop the user in the least. They've made it clear they don't give a crap about people warning them. Blizzard Beast 18:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

They've only made one edit in the last few days. Why do you fear a vandal spree? David D. (Talk) 19:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

They may make edits only every few days, but the user will be back and will repeat the same actions. The user doesn't care abot warnings as you can see from their talk page. Blizzard Beast 19:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Twsx

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

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

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

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

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

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

User talk:149.254.192.195

Take a look at that. Amazing. Another vandalism only account on steroids. I'm gonna ask for a permanent ban. Look through the user's contributions and almost all their edits have been reverted by other users (I rv one edit that the user did today). I realize you guys usually go for a warning first, but in this case (per the numerous numerous warnings and blovks on the user's talk page) a warning won't do anything as the user clearly doesn't care what others do or say. After all it's vandalism only account. Blizzard Beast 18:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A number of people (incl administrators) have also noted that the account may be a sockpuppet account

"In my opinion, after reviewing the recent contributions of this IP, this IP is at this time being used only by User:Homoman11. For that reason, it should remain blocked in order to prevent further vandalism."

It seems in fact, that the only reason this account has not been permanently banned is because it's a roaming IP address so it might only be one user using that IP address doing the vandalism. However, if you look at the talk page it seems the account is being used only for vandalism by one user who keeps getting away with it by claiming it was another user per the account being a roaming IP address. It should be banned, though, and I think wikipedia should have a policy against all roaming IP addresses as this only creates a problem with vandals it seems. If someone wants to edit wikipedia that bad, they can make an account or not use a roaming IP address. Blizzard Beast 18:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot of ISPs use dynamic IPs, and that adds up to millions of IP addresses which potentially lock out millions of users. There are alternative strategies to deal with dynamic IP vandals: Semi-protection of their targeted pages, autoblocks, and as a last resort, range-blocks. Long-term disruption can be dealt with reports to the ISP, see WP:LTA. x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a wildly dynamic/shared IP assigned to T-Mobile's users. east.718 at 18:52, December 17, 2007

So you suggest we do nothing? Is that your solution? Look at the user's talk page. A list of warnings and they've been blocked before. So we should do nothing let them continue? They show no signs of letting up, so let them continue, right? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense... Blizzard Beast 19:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is nowhere near the worst I have ever seen of talk page warnings for an IP. There are two goals that conflict here: (a) being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and (b) protecting the encyclopedia from vandalism. The current way of dealing with IPs - especially dynamic IPs - seeks to balance those two goals. See ] for more info. Add to that that blocks are not punishment, they are prevention. So yes, if you see more vandal-edits from this account, report it at AIV. Pastordavid (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Magnonimous/24.36.201.161

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

Article

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

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

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

Rebuttal Re

Magnonimous

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued edit-warring

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

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

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

Wanted: User:DavidYork71-familiar admins

There have been a series of new editors popping up at Rape making some quite controversial edits to the article that, at first, were changing it to suggest the victims of rape were more at fault than the attackers, and now have moved on to some less emphatic adjustments suggesting that rape is a valid sociobiological selection method. Needless to say, there's a bit of a fuss over these edits.

Several of these accounts have been identified by Checkuser as being related, and associated to User:DavidYork71; however, one, User:MannaOfTheMessiah, was found to be unlikely by this checkuser. This confuses the issue somewhat, and I think we'll have to fall back on the duck test more than checkuser data.

Which brings me to User:Unwhitewasher, the current campaigner there. This editor is using the same MO as previously identified editors - major edits marked minor, passive-aggressive combative style, etc., and even a 3RR report on another editor. I'm not familiar enough to make a specific call saying "yes, this is a sock," and couldn't do anything about it if I was, so I'd ask anyone with knowledge of this editor to please drop by and take a look. This disruption has been running for more than two weeks now on that article, so some added watchlisting would be greatly appreciated. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Quack. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, David was operating from an Australian government IP. I wonder if Alison's finding of "Unlikely" WRT MannaOfTheMessiah encompassed other Aussie IPs (i.e. home, internet cafes, etc). Thatcher131 19:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Lemme just re-run the checkuser again here and go into some more detail. It was a while back .... I'll also check the latest incarnation - Alison 20:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear.  Confirmed for Unwhitewasher (talk · contribs) = DavidYork71 (talk · contribs) - can someone please file a quick RFCU to track this as there are a billion other socks under here. BTW, Destroyerofthewiki (talk · contribs) and Pimpbrutha (talk · contribs) + incarnations are also York socks. Also, to re-iterate, MannaOfTheMessiah (talk · contribs) is not a DavidYork71 sock - Alison 21:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the recheck - I'll bang up a quick report on RFCU for you to work with and refer back to here. (Still surprised Manna isn't the same guy, but there you go. Maybe he's found a friend...) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

DrKiernan (talk · contribs) is familiar with DavidYork; if you still need help, you might contact him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This also exists and could probably be tidied up by those that know how - Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/MostPimpBruthr. -- Mattinbgn\ 22:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they are unrelated. Similar editing patterns, negative checkuser results. Probably just a similar editing pattern, and nothing more. Maser 06:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

edit warring at kwanzaa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User Check

User I.P. Check request for: User:Dc76, User:Suchwings1, User:Constantzeanu, User: TSO1D, User:Moldorubo, User:Nergaal. Thank you --Moldopodo (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

I think you want Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser... — Scientizzle 21:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Many of these are already confirmed DavidYork71 (talk · contribs) socks - Alison 22:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Beh-nam reported by White Cat

I do believe Beh-nam (talk · contribs) is being somewhat honest by making himself more identifiable. Given he is blocked indefinitely, I see a problem. A range block may be necesary. -- Cat 22:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Continued vandalism on Digital_rights_management

On 12th Dec 2007 a number of edits were made to the DRM page, all centered around the assertion that:

However, many sources do not make any distinction between copyright protection for software and for creative works and DRM can often be seen as an umbrella term that covers any implementation of copy protection.

The purpose of this insertion was made in connection to this post on an external forum, and whose purpose was to deliberately falsify sources, rather than to inform the larger public.

As a result, I am firm in the belief that the posts and their subsequent "citation" are in fact, merely a mechanism of deliberately asserting false statements. The "citations" are inconclusive at best, and their purpose is to decieve, rather than to inform. As per the two-revert policy, I have reverted this post twice, and have now forwarded the complaint here.

This is already discussed on the Talk Page of the article, and I have already a warning on the user page of iamacreditcard. This was promptly removed by iamacreditcard.

Unedit (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place to report vandalism typically. You'd get faster results by posting this on the vandalism board. -- Cat 22:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have already done so. It was immediately removed by what I suspect is an automatic vandalism-removing bot or something. No comment was left on either the Talk Page, nor was the edit revoked, nor was my or the offending person's user page changed. As a result, I am posting here for a resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unedit (talk • contribs) 22:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Your report to AIV was removed because the user was already blocked. east.718 at 22:50, December 17, 2007 I should stop drinking while editing. 04:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. The users in question (User:Masterhomer, User:Imacreditcard and User:131.91.80.21 are all still active, have nothing on their user page, and the edits have still not been reverted. Shall I go ahead and revert the article a third time? This seems somewhat pointless, given that the last two times I've done so, the offending content has been put right back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unedit (talk • contribs) 23:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Your report to AIV was invalid; it was removed by User:HBC AIV helperbot3 while it was removing another request. You should use this format for IP addresses: * {{IPvandal|IP address}} brief reason for listing (keep it short) ~~~~ and this format for users: * {{Vandal|useraccount name}} brief reason for listing (keep it short) ~~~~ — Wenli  04:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User repeatedly adding his own blog to external links

On the Theresa Duncan page, there has been an edit war going on regarding which links are acceptable in the External Links section and which are not. I believe we've made progress through discussing it on the article's talk page, but one problem remains: A nonregistered user who has repeatedly added a blog (his own, it seems) back in despite numerous deletions and attempts to discuss with him on the Talk page. So far he is the only Misplaced Pages editor who's spoken up in defense of his blog being included. And when he adds the blog back in, he inserts comments in the link about how Misplaced Pages is censoring him and covering up facts about the "suicide" (his quotes) of Duncan.

When he identified himself (as Alex Constantine) in Talk he was posting from the IP 75.31.79.120. I think it's reasonable to assume the other edits adding his blog back in are his, because he appeared to be saying they were his, but of course I don't have any proof. The edits adding the blog have been made from 75.28.96.143, 75.31.68.46, and 75.28.143.244; as far as I can tell, the IPs all belong to AT&T in the Los Angeles area. (Sorry for not posting "diffs," but I am not quite sure how to do that, plus I think you have to review the editing history for the past few weeks to understand what's been going on.)

Note that I consulted earlier with a Wiki administrator, Pigman, and he offered an opinion on the article's Talk page and also left a friendly message for Mr. Constantine on the Talk page for 75.31.79.120. He suggested that, if this continued to be a problem, I might want to post here, because more admins would see it. Candy (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Attention needed

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

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

Un-semiprotecting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

username issue - second opinion requested

I've engaged a user in a discussion about his username. The user seems to belive that I have a COI, so I feel that it would be inappropriate for me to file a WP:RFCN. Can someone else take a look a the user name Economiccrimesunit (talk · contribs) (signed "Economic Crimes Unit") and determine what (if any) action should be taken. Thanks, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

My first thought when seeing the name — Economic Crime Unit — was neutral. Reading J.smith's first comment on the editor's talk page — " " made sense, but the "official" part was not clear, as it might be a stretch to think that one would interpret this as being a Misplaced Pages "official". However, Economiccrimesunit's note to User talk:Xavier687 here — with "Vandalism Cease & Desist - Official Warning" in the edit summary and on the user talk page: "...this your official warning..." and "You are hereby WARNED that you are to CEASE and DESIST...." makes it sound "official". In addition Economiccrimesunit claims on his userpage to be a State's Attorney General. His response border on crossing the line on WP:CIVIL. — ERcheck (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is the username in tangent with the users attitude. When he talks to vandals and new users, he implies that he has an official position within wikipedia - he certainly talks with an authorative tone - I'd suggest a forced name change, if he doesn't agree, a block may be required. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

And possibly WP:LEGAL, by the sound of things. JFW | T@lk 00:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, legal too. But I didn't want to poison the well by mentioning that in my first comment. There are what appears to be behavior and/or misunderstandings of wikipedia's purpose. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)It doesn't look Misplaced Pages-official, but it certainly looks spuriously "official". Like, say, calling yourself "Police Commissioner" or "ISP Abuse Department". In combination with that kind of "warning" I'd certainly agree with Ryan - change the name (and a strong suggestion to read WP:BITE, the warning template page, WP:CIV and so on. Tonywalton  01:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; especially since he does claim legal authority in the "real world". Username change or username block at his choice. I'm going to notify him to that effect. — Coren  01:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I've taken a look at his contributions. An article that looked a lot like spam, deleted. He then informed the deleting admin that "It seems from your contribution list that your (sic) are a frequent deleter" followed by advice on how to contribute constructively to the article. Article reposted, deleted by a second admin, and the second admin (JS) informed that "It seems from your contribution list that your are a frequent deleter", followed by the same helpful advice. Economiccrimesunit seems not to know what a broom is for. Tonywalton  01:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was going to let WP:DRV take care of that issue, should he decide to push the issue. A discussion is only productive to a certain point in many cases. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree a change or block is in order. Gtstricky 01:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I've notified the user that a rename is required, and will give him some time to ask away. If they edit significantly without requesting the rename, I'll username-block until they do. — Coren  01:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

A Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User names has been filed, if anyone wants to weigh in. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Shishno

This might be me being a bit overcautious, but any concern to the comment left in this article by the creator regarding hunting down someone by their IP? Wildthing61476 (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a physical threat to me. --EoL talk 01:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

And to me. Verging on a CU (code A) to hunt them down and block their IP address. Article speedied as an attack page and {{attack}} placed on their talkpage. Tonywalton  01:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Eleemosynary

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phyllis Chesler

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kevin.Kinchen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block Coren

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Sam coles 1234

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

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

A considerate vandal

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

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

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

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

Requesting indefinite block on IP

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

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

Edit war on David Milband

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

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

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

72.39.110.204

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

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

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

User:Standshown

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vandalism and reverting at La Plata High School

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

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

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

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

User:Lyoshka

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

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

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

Vandalism only IP

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

User:Qworty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:209.62.173.129

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

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

Is this a legal threat?

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

A second set of eyes

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

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards