Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:17, 25 May 2009

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Lock down of Objectivism article

Why did you lock down and therefore protect the edits of the IP you were supposedly protecting the article against? And why was I (Damian) blocked instead? 86.132.248.254 (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You're evading your block. Make a proper unblock request on your own Talk page. (Admins may sanction you for the evasion). I really don't understand your apparent request to get Connolly to block you for 3RR, and boldly announcing you had made six reverts. This is a strange crusade you are on. And the article: Objectivism (Ayn Rand) is only semi-protected. The Rand articles seem to be a twilight zone that encourage strange behavior by otherwise normal people. EdJohnston (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ed, since you've semi-protected the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) from the anon IP 160, can you please semi-protect the Ayn Rand, too? The IP 160 refuses to talk about any of his contentious edits on the talk page, preferring disruption and drama to collegial editing. Semi-protection would go a long way towards getting the IP to the discussion table. If not, at least 160 will be forced to register an account and follow the rules of editing. Please consider it. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There is at least one good-faith IP working at Ayn Rand, and semiprotection would shut down their activities as well. How would you feel about a thread at WP:AN to impose a topic ban of the IP 160 from articles relating to Ayn Rand? It seems that the Arbcom decision is worded so as to make this possible. I would participate in this thread, but have to rely on others to supply diffs of past behavior who are familiar with this IP's record. I know little besides what I have read lately on ANI. And I *do* notice that this guy doesn't join in on Talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'm in the middle of my day-job right now. (I shouldn't even be typing this message from the office). If you're okay holding off for a few hours, I can come back to this situation tonight at my home, sift through the edits, and demonstrate what the problems are. There are incivility and bad-faith issues; Inability to discuss edits or participate on the talk page despite numerous requests; Contentious edits, followed by contentious reverts, followed by BOLD CASE SHOUTING AT EDITORS WHO DISAGREE; and let's not forget the almost undeniable single-purpose account aspect of anon IP 160's editing, which, to be fair, would not be a problem if it were not for other abovementioned issues. I'll come back to this issue tonight. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Over the last couple of months, a number of editors have been working to sort out the problems on the Rand articles. There are disagreements, but considerable progress has been made. The problem which can't be resolved on the talk page is the work of the IP editor who has consistently refused to discuss his/her work either there on personal talk pages for an extended period of time. I urge that IP editor (160) should again be warned and blocked for refusing to edit collaboratively. (Obviously blocking Peter Damian doesn't help at all, but that's a whole other issue).KD Tries Again (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Since the IP has been doing his thing on the Rand articles for *five months* already, and never talks to people no matter what, a short block will probably have little effect on his behavior. (It seems that you can't reason with him). It would be necessary to apply to WP:AN for a long block, like a month. That might not be approved. It is easier to get support for semiprotection than a block. EdJohnston (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The IP in question, while without doubt engaging in disruptive editing, has added more quality content to Objectivist articles than any other editor I have seen in three years. Please, if you intend on taking action, review the full extent of contributions to the relevant articles since WP:RANDARB. Scapegoating the silent to mollify editors of Damian's bent will not result in improved articles. On another note, I don't think user talkpages are the best places to be discussing these issues and suggest this be moved to a central forum. Regards, Skomorokh 21:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ed, I filed a complaint against anon IP 160 at WP:ANI. You can view it here. J Readings (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Please restate the rationale for semi-protecting Objectivism (Ayn Rand). I don't see any need for it in relation to IP 160. --Karbinski (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the semiprotection, since the disruptive IP has been topic-banned, and can't edit the article for six months. EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

TharsHammar Abuse

EdJohnston, thanks for the information. I am concerned about the conduct of TharsHammar. He has been pretty aggressive towards the situation and would revert changes that were against the consensus reached in the discussion area (even on points that he himself agreed with in the discusion). Then, he went on some tirade against me in another forum. Want to act in good faith, seeking your advice on how to handle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.204.115 (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the note on my talk page about AWB. I have reapplied as 7. I knew that the CHUU would end up conflicting with something. (I would normally reply on my own talk page but I am trying to let the old history of my proper name clear out of there).    7       22:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Please revisit Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Damiens.rf reported by Allstarecho (Result: Both editors warned) as more info has been added. Also see this ANI thread. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 06:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Tomdobb

I realize we generally require users to bear their misfortunes like a scarlet letter, but if this user is truly leaving I don't see any harm in going ahead and letting him blank his talk page. I even told him he was free to do so when I declined his request to have the page completely deleted. I've spoken with the user by email and have blanked his talk page at his request. --auburnpilot talk 18:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. If I'd noticed your comment in his Talk page history, I'd have left it alone. He added a bunch of nonsense revisions to his page for some reason and I didn't see your discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yasis

Looks like he's changed service providers (at home rather than the cafe/library?), and I'm almost proud that he's evolved a little to using "-in life". Only one vandalism this time, but I'll let you know if it picks up. NJGW (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Whitefish Mountain Resort serves alcohol to minors intentionally

Hi EdJohnson, We are about ready for another edit war over the mountain being cited TWICE last season for serving alcohol to underage patrons. This is a very big problem here in Montana where the majority of roadway fatalities involve alcohol and frequently, minors in possession of alcohol. If barek does not believe that there's a concensus, or even a problem, he must not be from the area and should not dictate what goes on here.

Please do not let him protect the page again as threatened.

We have already endured a single purpose account on the Whitefish Mountain payroll doing the sanitization on the page, please don't let more editors in collusion with the mountain do the cleanup any more. Thanks72.160.4.98 (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello--Quicksand Survivor (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

This user Ixtapl is possibly a new Corticopia sockpuppet. He was kinda retired, then after all the problems with Corticopia and anonymous IP users, he "went back" just to edit the articles the anon and Corticopia used to edit. Check please. Somebody has to stop this, cause it has been going for years. AlexCovarrubias 02:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems possible. But can you find any diffs showing Ixtapl making the same edits as Corticopia, or having the same POV? EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ixtapl and Corticopia share pretty much the same edit pattern. Personally and knowing very well the way Corticopia works, he created that account to make weight in a past debate in the talk page Mexico, then he abbandoned the account, until recently, to make it appear like it has "some history". And yes it does has history, the same edit pattern as Corticopia's.

Here some diff with his POV push (Ixtapl/Corticopia):

• Middle America - (In this one another proved Corticopia sock E Pluribus Anthony also contribuited )
• Geography of Mexico - (Here the "anonymous IP 69.158.150.169" did the same POV push )
• Geography of Mesoamerica - (diff of another "anon IP 69.158.144.231" from Toronto . This anon was blocked for edit warring in Mexico related articles)

Here other contribuitions that make both account's edit pattern consistent:

• Dominion - (E Pluribus Anthony )
• Europe -
• Asia -
• Northern America -
• Lieutenant-Governor (Canada) (Cogito Ergo Sumo, another proved sock )
• Additional anonymous IP showing consistent edit pattern: 69.158.150.170

All of Corticopia's past accounts and evidence can be already found in my user talk. Hope you can help out here. I have a request to do. He got the templates Countries of Central America and Central American topic blocked for his edit warring. Sadly, the Admin did not follow the rule to revert the article to its previous state, BEFORE the new undiscussed changes were implemented. Could you please restore the article to its previous state? This is the main reason Corticopia and his anon. accounts have not been online a lot, because he got what he wanted, templates blocked with his POV. AlexCovarrubias 21:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Anon 69.158.145.150, also from Toronto, Canada just reverted a map in Central America article. Again, the same behaviourial pattern and modus operandi. AlexCovarrubias 21:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Now it is more than obvious. Ixtpl just reverted Geography of Mexico at 18:00, 19 May 2009 and the anon. IP 206.53.153.21 reverted Central America at 18:07, 19 May 2009 . This clearly is now out of control, he is willing to disrupt every article no matter what. He needs to be stopped. AlexCovarrubias 05:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The 'reporter' just decides to revert without comment every now and then, seems to only do this now, and hurls accusations. So, who needs to be stopped? Ixtapl (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for collecting this info. I have asked Spacepotato if he has any suggestions for calming down the various edit wars. The options are blocks, protections or persuasion. I find the Central America stuff confusing, and except for some possible IP abuse by Corticopia, and strange 3RR reports, there is not much other than a straight content dispute so far. The sockery probably would not get a lot of traction at WP:SPI unless there was other bad behavior. So the result is, I don't know what to do yet. EdJohnston (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Given their contributions and stylistic traits, I agree that User:Ixtapl and User:Corticopia are probably the same editor. However, I don't think the term sockpuppet is appropriate as I don't see any violation of our policy on alternative accounts.

These edit wars on the extent of Central America and the importance of Middle America have been going on for over two years now. The combatants are User:AlexCovarrubias, User:Jcmenal and User:Supaman89 on one side, and User:Corticopia (and now his alternative account User:Ixtapl) on the other. Spacepotato (talk) 07:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks to Spacepotato for the reply.
• I've left a comment in the Jcmenal SPI case which points to this sock data. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

More PAs even

a couple of hours, Ratel still has not had the cup of tea. I find his continued remarks made on a personal basis about me to be tiring indeed. shows he does this to others as well. lecture mode accusing a person of COI. ec. If I go back more then 3 days, I find much more -- including his WQA at . I hope this will help you. Thanks! Collect (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments like this aren't very charming but might not be judged to be personal attacks. Conflict of interest complaints can be raised at WP:COIN. Editors should not be warned for COI without some credible basis for a COI, either a known connection to the article subject or at the very least a pattern of promotional editing in favor of the subject. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Try "If you cannot grasp all that, ask for help somewhere else." " you really need to learn", accuses another editor of PA for his edit which is a stement of seeking more eyes on the article. accusing an editor of seekimng to "suppress" material, accusing me of a campaign against him *as though changing a pound sign to a dollar sign is a campaign?), direct PA (and I had just suggested a cip of tea), and yet another at (he actually got remostrated with at fpr his COI claims, and by Blueboar for his continued PAs on me at etc. I only went back 3 days -- do you need more examples? Many thanks! Collect (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

jimgaconcept

Concerning this block that you made, a request has been received on unblock-en-l to create an account jimgaconcept (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have created it, and will monitor it, but any help you can offer will be appreciated. Fred Talk 19:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, that sounds reasonable. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Pararubbas 12

Hi there ED, VASCO here,

This is getting personal, he will get tired before of me, this i guarantee you (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas). Drop a word if you can please.

Attentively, VASCO AMARAL, PORTUGAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter Symonds already took care of this. EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Copperfield

• David Copperfield (illusionist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You might wish to see if this qualifies as "inserting negative material" in the article. removing mention of countersuit by Copperfield, removing expository material, extending material about plaintiff's case, eliminating any accidental mention of a counter-suit, reintroducing "sexual assault allegations". Mpme of these edits were mentioned in Talk, and most certainly have no consensus for them. Collect (talk) 01:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything that could be defamatory in this sequence of edits by Ratel. The sexual assault investigation comes from a CNN article by Katherine Barrett, so it is OK to include. Am I missing something? I am only watching for BLP-sensitive material at this point and the nuances of the various lawsuits are not my concern. EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I had thought Ratel had been instructed to seek consensus for any substantial edits here? is now a revert of an attempt to make the claims fit the actual cite (SFGate.com) which does not support his claim as to what the plaintiffs say. If he reverts minor stuff, I think he is back in full-fldged edit-mode.Collect (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

My WP:AN3 warning said: I've told Ratel that he may be blocked without further notice if he inserts negative material about Copperfield without first getting consensus on the article Talk page that is OK under WP:BLP. At present the relevant BLP material is "targeting women" and "secret family," which are the topics covered by the RFC. Note that the RFC started on 18 May and is still running. When enough time passes you could ask for an admin to close it. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(out) 00:25 20 May 01:45 20 May 02:26 20 May 02:29 20 May (not consecutive) making 4RR in 2 hours and four minutes. At this rate, he could hit 50RR in a day. For sure Ratel is in major edit-mode. Collect (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see four reverts. If you object to some of these changes, open a specific discussion on the article Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm keeping an eye on this section. I'm being very careful in my editing of the page, and I am open to correction on any error I make. ► RATEL ◄ 05:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I hoped you were watching the page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I am supposedly the bad boy du jour, please note that Cameron Scott (talk · contribs · count) is wreaking mayhem in the article by removing sourced material willy-nilly, including pro-Copperfield data added by Karelin7, and making clear errors, e.g. claiming that sources are misquoted and removing material on that basis. Note also the use of profanity in the edit summaries. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 07:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ed, please also consider this Talk page edit by this editor. I would have thought this would earn a permanent ban diff ► RATEL ◄ 07:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

When you report that he was sued for $16 million and the sources actually says "reportedly" then yes you are misquoting it. We write about subjects of BLP articles in a conservative manner - a single two paragraph article that uses "reportedly" three times and is not supported by any RS source to suggest this actually happened does not cut it. The problem with that article is that we have two camps - the DC supporters lead by themagicofDC who wants a PR piece and Ratal who (for reasons that escape me) want us to highlight every negative incident involving DC. I was alerted to this article via the BLP board and my only interest is ensuring that it conforms to WP:BLP. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If you did some homework yourself on the issue of the subcontractor liens (work! heaven forbid, it's more fun to delete, hey?), or learned how to tag facts you felt to be shaky, you would have found this . I might add that you have fouled up the order of the article with your reorg, and it doesn't read well to me at all now. ► RATEL ◄ 08:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

04:55 30 May - clear revert. 05:30 20 May clear revert. Have we hit 3RR for sure yet in only five hours? Collect (talk) 10:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I counted four reverts at 3:03, 4:21, 4:55 and 5:30 (UTC), so I've blocked Ratel for a 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality control and genetic algorithms

Hi Ed, could you express your opinion about the ongoing issues at the Quality control and genetic algorithms article. Thanks you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand, IP 160, and a New Allegation

Ed, you might want to take a look into this latest allegation by a new user. The user claims that IP 160/James Valliant/Pelargius1 are all one in the same person. I have no idea if it's true. All I know is that a new user (Pelargius1) appeared today wanting all James Valliant's material put back everywhere on Misplaced Pages. It prompted a welcome, albeit lengthy, discussion. If the user is IP 160, the user is evading its block by way of a new account without notifying anyone. If it's Valliant, it's a conflict of interest and someone needs to be notified. And if they're all one in the same, I don't know what needs to be done. Should a checkuser report be filed on Pelargius1 to see if the user is IP 160? J Readings (talk) 10:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

See my comment on the article Talk. He should be welcome to participate on talk, since his original block expired, and his topic ban does not include the talk page. If he chooses to edit the article directly to promote his own work, and won't obey consensus, further sanctions are possible. The rules of WP:COI still apply. EdJohnston (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue has attracted attention across a number of objectivist websites. Worth scrolling down here.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I found the link by inserting 'www' in front of your version. Be aware that we are limited in how we can use off-wiki information in any WP:COI cases. If there is an Ayn Rand editor who is truly motivated to follow up, and if there is an admin who is willing to block Pelagius1 for violating the IP's topic ban, then a filing at WP:SPI may be considered. (That would allow a checkuser to investigate). Meanwhile, it is still proper to observe that Pelagius1 is promoting the ideas of James Valliant in our articles. We can also ask him to self-disclose. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as self-disclosure goes, it is all getting a bit too weird today.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Ed, Pelagius1 has now identified himself as James Valliant's "book agent" (taking the statement literally, no doubt). He claims that he lives with James Valliant (???) and therefore any checkuser on him will yield a result showing James Valliant's internet IP. He also states categorically on the Misplaced Pages page that he is an "avid and shameless" promoter of James Valliant's work. Am I alone in thinking this situation is getting a little weird? If that's not conflict of interest, what is? J Readings (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a little weird. You're the editor who originally opened the topic ban discussion for the IP 160 at WP:ANI. Do you want to propose to Pelagius1 that, since they are editing through the topic-banned IP, they are an alternate account of that editor and should also observe the topic ban? (Otherwise, their edits might be considered ban evasion). If they won't agree voluntarily someone could propose it on a noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Do we have the technology to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Pelagius1 is IP 160? If so, I would recommend taking that last final step before doing anything else. So far, we have Pelagius1 confirming that he is deeply associated with James Valliant (that's a conflict). Whether or not he is James Valliant, I do not know. Then, we have another editor claiming that his personal correspondence with James Valliant matches topic-banned editor IP 160. If a checkuser matches them, it makes sense to then approach Pelagius1 to politely point out that he's been editing in breach of his topic ban. What do you think? J Readings (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a checkuser is needed. (It is not easy to get checkusers to run an IP check these days). The person lives with Valliant, the latter has a static IP, so we should assume they use the same IP address. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but is it IP 160? That's the issue. This outside WIki comment posts information alleging that it is.. I don't recall Pelagius1 actually stating that he's IP 160, hence the problem. He *has* categorically stated that he lives with James Valliant, uses the same internet account, and he is Valliant's book agent for the shameless promotion of Valliant's work (which apparently includes Misplaced Pages). J Readings (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Pelagius makes a number of statements, e.g. "You will notice that I have added many, many other sources, as well. The citations for Rand-related articles have been radically improved with numerous sources, thanks to me" and "He is one my expert advisers and sometimes uses this account too. But never about himself. Misplaced Pages -- if you check the changes -- is the much better for it" which clearly imply a quantity of edits from either the same account or two computers in the same house which must pre-date Pelagius's account. Pelagius has only been around as Pelagius since May 19, and doesn't have that kind of edit history. Either Pelagius is referring to a pre-Pelagius account other than IP 160, or is acknowledging that he/she and/or Valliant was editing as IP 160. Only the latter makes sense to me. For what it's worth, one of the participants also disclosed what he claims to be an e-mail from Valliant with that IP number at another site KD Tries Again (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Since the Ayn Rand articles have caused plenty of trouble, if Pelagius1 resumes editing the articles directly there is a very strong possibility of admin intervention. What happens after that is probably up to the wisdom of WP:AN, but I think Pelagius1 can avoid trouble (that may include blocks) if they will stay on the Talk pages. I do not see a sockpuppet filing as necessary. Pelagius1 would probably be judged to be a meatpuppet of Valliant if the case were studied over at WP:SPI. If we filed a case at SPI, the clerks there would probably give us all a lecture about admins being able to use the WP:DUCK test to figure things out without any checkusering being needed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I am the 'one of the participants' who corresponded with James Valliant as noted above. I had been in discussion with James, bringing him up to date on the talk pages and Misplaced Pages review Valliant/book controversy, letting him know some scuttlebutt that he himself was posting as IP 160.

I did not assume that Valliant was posting using the IP 160 account at the time. I considered it somewhat unlikely, and wrote to James to that effect, also directing him to a link to a 'What's my IP' site, so he could see if the IPs matched. To check my own doubts, I consulted earlier emails from his address, and carefully checked the IP addresses in the headers. They matched exactly to the IP 160 address.

I wrote back to James again, letting him know that he as IP 160 was now subject to a six month topic ban. He wrote back that a topic ban was news to him, since he had just added a reference to David Kelley's 'Evidence of the Senses' to the Objectivism article. I checked the article, and a fresh reference had been made as he had stated. . . by Pelagius 1.

I then posted to Misplaced Pages and contacted the editor of the off-Misplaced Pages site noted above. It was clear to me that IP 160 and Pelagius were one and the same.

I followed the links provided to me that suggested a sockpuppet investigation and a checkuser request. At the same time, I figured that the evidence I had provided James privately would encourage him to own up to posting as both IP 160 and Pelagius.

Then came the claims that Pelagius is a Valliant 'book agent' -- along with some rather unclear "my roommate did it" half-explanations. Obviously no one can prove one way or another that two or several people used the IP 160 account since last October, and similarly -- no one can prove that two or several people have been using the Pelagius account.

I am not convinced that any real sockpuppetry has been attempted: with the exception of the Kelley reference, Pelagius has made no edits, and has broken no Misplaced Pages policy that I can tell. I would suggest to Pelagius and IP 160 and to the various householders that someone make a clear report of the shared account, or at least acknowledge clearly what has been demonstrated privately.

To my last suggestion to James that he clear the air about shared accounts, I received an expletive-laced reply and a request to never write him again. Wsscherk (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that Valliant and his book agent are two different people, and approach WP editing differently. It seems that we could work with Pelagius1 in the future. I hope they will continue to participate. WP:NOSHARE is a concern, but need not be the highest priority. So long as Pelagius1 will continue to negotiate, I would hold off on a sockpuppet filing. If, after things are well sorted out, we learn that both accounts are still being used in a shared manner, I'd suggest a block. It does not seem that we need to request any checkuser data for the moment: I'd give 80% probability that the underlying IP of Pelagius1 is what you would expect. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

QuotationMan

This user is being very troublesome still and removing sources see and . As the user is removing good WP:RS I think something should be done. Catapla (talk) 10:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

See User talk:QuotationMan for the follow-up. EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to attract your attention to the following: Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard —Preceding unsigned comment added by QuotationMan (talk • contribs) 09:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

reply to unblock

Correct - I will not edit any of the pages you just named. I hope that you will also take a tough stance towards users such as Catalpa, Anameofmyveryown and Truthinirishpolitics' if you judge that they are in any way attacking the reputation/privacy of Ganley and Libertas on Misplaced Pages. They are all related to a blog called PeopleKorps - which is a semi-professional campaign against Libertas.

Misplaced Pages pages about living persons must be written conservatively and in favour of the persons reputation and privacy. WP:BLP I do not believe the current Declan Ganley article lives up to this. --QuotationMan (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Your response at AN/I

Hi Ed, i'd like to know why you decided to only bring up my mistake when commenting here. I don't mind people pointing out my mistakes, its the only way to learn and move forward. But the links I provided clearly showed the trolling Rirunmot was doing! Did you only read as far as the first two diffs before deciding I was the guilty party? Because it was quite clear to everyone else that Rirunmot was trolling my talk page (with a sock puppet as well)! I'm not looking for any action from you, as far as i'm concerned the matter is settled as long as Rirunmot remains clear of my talk page. All I want is some clarification! Cheers. John Sloan @ 14:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Each person who comments at ANI does what they can. Your report of the situation seemed incomplete, so I did a small amount of investigation. You were objecting to an IP voting in the AfD who could have been a sock, but the visible AfD did not contain any IP votes. Then I found the IP's vote had already been removed, and I stopped looking into it at that point. Somebody else finished the job by blocking the actual sock who edited your Talk age. Since you supplied so many diffs, I figured you were an experienced editor, and so I was baffled that you were over-reacting to the vote by the throwaway IP. We normally just tag them with {{subst:spa}} and then go on about our business. You *do* know that IPs are allowed to vote in AfDs, right? Voters, whether IP or registered, who have very few edits besides those in the AfD are typically discounted by the closing admin. But, IPs with a track record should be taken seriously. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I do know IP's can !vote at AfD and fully support it. I didn't start the AN/I case because of the IP !vote that appeared to be !vote stacking. I made it because of the trolling on my talk page by the user I accused (his puppeteering at my talk page just advances my suspicion that he was indeed !vote stacking with his IP). I'm a semi-experienced editor, been here about a year and a half. I am still learning, and will use {{subst:spa}} next time I come across this situation. Thanks for the explanation! John Sloan @ 16:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sora Kake Girl vandal block

You blocked 121.185.26.0/24 in response to my filing on AIV. However, I originally asked for a rangeblock of 121.185.26.0/16; this was later "corrected" by a user who doesn't seem to use the CDIR range script/gadget. The wider IP range shows 16 different addresses, the one you blocked only catches 12 of them. I've reviewed all of the edits in the reported range; they all consist of the same type of vandalism, with the earliest in 2007 and most of them occurring since April. 「ダイノガイ千？！」 16:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not easy to justify such a large block as /16. The vandalism needs to be quite horrible. If the /24 leaves four addresses open, could those IPs be blocked individually? A /16 could be justified if you have the patience to study the whole /16 range and don't see any good-faith editors working there. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I've reviewed all edits coming from the /16 range, and they all consist of the same type of vandalism. If there are some IP addresses that have been missed in my review that the rangeblock would hit, it's a problem with MediaWiki:Gadget-contribsrange.js, not with my review. That being said, of the four IP addresses outside the /24 range, only 121.185.135.149 has made any edits since the beginning of the year, so I would be fine with a "wait-and-see" mentality with them. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」 17:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

OK for now. Let me know if further problems occur. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN3

Hi Ed, I have 'replied' to you at WP:AN3. What would you like to know about this situation? JulieSpaulding (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Extended-range bass has been protected for three days. I hope the warring editors will use the time to search for a compromise on the Talk page. Thank you for adding a comment at AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

H hath no fury

See appears to want to get even with me. I consider his acts to be objectionable. Collect (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Since he is talking in front of Arbcom, he may believe that he can't be censured for personal attacks. I would be surprised if this is true. The committee can review the behavior of *all* participants in a case. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If I can count, the case will not be taken up (the ostensible purpose is to stop me edit warring long after my last conceivable edit war and where I took full blame and apologized (to too many people, it appears, as one was angry at me apologizing to him))). He also posted on my UT page material which may also be a PA (to wit, an article saying collectors are brain damaged) see "But in my professional life I deal with people who have disorders in the anxiety spectrum (OCD, social phobia, GAD, depression, etc), and a remarkably high number of them are packrats who love collecting things. Watching you over the last few months provokes a sense of deja vu in me." and "Enjoy: " which you might read and see if it is in any way disparaging of collecting. Many thanks. I do not know precisely what Ratel intends, but it does not appear to coincide with AGF by a teeny bit. Collect (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

PARARUBBAS

Hi there ED, i have a request for you,

Don't know if it is possible, but if it is, could you block these two anonymous addresses (http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/92.3.133.156) (http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/92.6.253.152)? Rest assured both are PARARUBBAS. Furthermore, he has already worked with 5, 6 others (all starting with 92) in several other pages i visited (can't remember which or when), take my honest word for it, it's him, 100% sure!

Thank you very much in advance, good weekend,

VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I can well believe that they are Pararubbas, but each one has only edited for a single day (one on May 12, the other on May 15). If they are dynamic IPs, he is unlikely to return to use them again. Let me know if you see any new edits from either one, and a block can be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ed, another tip i need from you, mate: is it possible (i think it is) to determine from which country the person is editing by the "code" in the anonymous address? I am very positive PARARUBBAS is Portuguese, or at least speaks the language due to the years spent in the country, due to the field in which he chose to "contribute" (this case, Portuguese soccer), but there is a (VERY) small chance i am wrong, your answer will surely enlighten me further (but how much more "enlightenment" do we need with 11 sock accounts?).

Attentively, and again ty very much in advance,

VASCO AMARAL, PORTUGAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Open up the IP editor's 'Contributions' page. At the lower left you will see a 'WHOIS' link. Click on that. Sometimes 'Geolocate' will also help. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• This is extremely odd: both addresses hailed from...ENGLAND!! To confirm it, i did the same proceedings with my anon IP, and it showed PORTUGAL. Of course it could be he lives in England and does not speak the language (thus ignoring the messages), but i find that very hard to believe.

Again ty, have a good week - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

waring by Slp1 and WLU to attack the canadian Children's Rights Council

WLU and Slp1 and their fr8iends have destroyed the permnanent linbs and content of the article about the Canadian Children's Rights Council. They have falsely stated that it is a father's right organization rather than a child rights organization.

They use some female supremacist reference as an authority.

Thhey have also attacked wevery entry in Misplaced Pages thaqt contains a refernce to the Canadian Children's Rights Council. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.52.160 (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You would have more influence here if you would express a willingness to follow Misplaced Pages policy. After violating our guideline on WP:Conflict of interest and removing well-sourced material from the CCRC article, you guys have apparently threatened WP:OUTING against an editor. Were you hoping to convince us to take you seriously? EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

We disagree with the above statements. The edits were done for the sole purpose of taking off links to the CanadianCRC.com on all Wiki articles that have links into the website of the Canadian Children's Rights Council and to provide incorrect information about us. No one from the Canadian Children's Rights Council made any changes to the Misplaced Pages articles. Apparently, if one feminist can be quoted someplace as calling us a "men's rights" organisation, then that person must be right.... No discussion is needed,. Just have 2 people Slp1 and WSU agree and it must be the truth.....right. Only on Misplaced Pages is there such dribble. The Canadian Children's Rights Council doesn't edit anything on Misplaced Pages anymore. We do show the content about us on Wikpedia to potential donors and it impresses them that totalitairian feminists are against us. It also is good for recruiting young men and women volunteers. We don't encourage any of our volunteers to write on Misplaced Pages. WLU and Slp1 attack the CanadianCRC at their own risk of constant editing by others and not by us. It has nothing to do with us. Sheila M. VP Canadian Children's Rights CouncilS-MorrisVP (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

And we've justified every single edit in our summaries and talk page postings, I agree that one of my purposes was to remove convenience links to the CCRC website for a variety of reasons (copyvio, partisan links, highlighting "important bits" and spamming CCRC's work and POV). And saying "no-one from CCRC made any changes to the Misplaced Pages articles" seems to be a blatant lie given, say, this diff. I don't identify as a feminist, Slp1 doesn't seem to, but we both agree that Routledge is a reliable publisher and there are few other sources to verify text about CCRC. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 12:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Central America

Could you please semi protect the page Central America? This anon IP, that we all know who might be, is reverting a map. He is using his IP to avoid scrutinity. Make it semi protected so only registered users can change it. No body has objected the new map but Corticopia. AlexCovarrubias 15:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. I am open to suggestions how to address the overall dispute. One idea is to do semiprotection of all the affected articles, and then have a focused SPI case on any registered accounts that appear to be socks. A solution has to be in mind before going to WP:SPI, because if not it is likely that the complaint will be rejected. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and willingness to slove this problem. Yes, I think that semi protection is the way to go now. Althought several articles in which Corticopia used to edit-war were protected, not following the Misplaced Pages rule of reverting the article to its previous state, before the controversial changes were introduced. AlexCovarrubias 10:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Bloomex

A "competitors" section that lists other companies which have no connection to the article topic other than happening to provide the same service is never appropriate content in any Misplaced Pages article. Bearcat (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You would be OK with it if sources were found to show that those companies provide a similar service? Competitive information is often found in articles about companies. What do you think about Verizon#Competitors? EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

2 questions: 1. Controvercy page is created by upset customer.in my opinion it must be removed.online forums are not credible sources in my opinion. The fact that bloomex company is Canadian partner for all Canadian orders for two largest floral companies Proflowers and 1800flowers is way stronger indication on company credentials. 2. Why I could not edit the article?Floralexpert (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Please make your arguments at Talk:Bloomex. If the company is the Canadian partner for other companies, that might be mentioned if a third-party source can be found to prove the fact. You may not be able to edit the article due to the semiprotection. Please read WP:Conflict of interest before trying to edit the article directly, and wait and see if you can persuade the other editors on the Talk page. If others are convinced, they will change the article themselves. EdJohnston (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

PARARUBBAS

Hi there ED,

speaking of the devil, he has returned, with the 12th sock account (sick individual), called Wsa08. I did not file a report because, from what i have seen, he has not removed anything (http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Wsa08), in fact he has added, but he did just that in a couple of accounts, maybe he was in a hurry: i don't know if he was the one creating the templates, but he added both the PORTUGUESE GOALKEEPER OF THE YEAR AWARD and PORTUGUESE LEAGUE TOP SCORER templates to several articles, removing nothing. I told him, in Portuguese and English, such additions were highly appreciated, but that he was not to remove stuff (obviously you know his answer :()

This account has already been warned by me, the minute i see something is removed, the report will be filed. Also, check this (i guess i will have to go back on that "no stuff removed" statement about him): in João Pereira's article, he, once again, removed loan signs in INFOBOX (sometimes, it is habitual for a soccer team to have a player only on loan before buying him permanently), thus displaying his habitual pattern of "i don't care, i do it my way, you can go suck on a lemon".

Hope something can be done, if a block emerged just from this message it would be BEAUTIFUL, have a nice week yourself,

VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Paranormal State