Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Continous unnoticed reverts of referenced datas. , , , . Stated clear hatred against me several times also. I guess his sockpuppet or meatpuppet is ] also. <small>(Or a friend of his, ]'s.)</small> (Both) has ultra agressive behaivour, and nonsense statements about me or the history. --] 09:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
:I reverted his edits because he spaming these articles with stuff that has nothing to do with the subject. Fof example he posted into ] article stuff that has nothing to do with Novi Sad and he also deleted relevant information for the article. He is also known ultra-nationalistic POV pusher (which other users could confirm) and he posted this here only to hide the nature of his own edits. He was engaged in revert wars with several users trying to impement his POV into several articles. His edits are hence disruptive because he editing only several specific articles where he constantly engage in revert wars with other users. It is not only that he done nothing usefull for Misplaced Pages but he also forcing other users to revert his disruptive edits and preventing them to do something usefull instead. ] ] 12:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
::By the way, you can also notice that User:VinceB removed warnings from his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AVinceB&diff=82385988&oldid=81848492 And not only that, as a kind of "revenge" for these warnings, he also posted similar warning on my talk page as well as on the ]'s talk page with no proper reason. ] ] 12:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
:This request is ridiculous. If there is someone being disruptive and uncivil, that's VinceB. Panonian is an established editor with whom I disagree sometimes, but certainly not a vandal nor someone who would repeatedly violate policies; the same holds true for Tankred. ]] 12:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
::I've issued a 48 hour block on ] for edit warring after a previous block and subsequent warnings. In light of the cut-and-paste warning to ]'s talk page and the complaint here that's probably a lenient block. Please refocus on productive contributions. ''']''' 22:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
:::On second thought, per ] I've removed the vandalism warning from ]'s talk page. This was a content dispute, not vandalism, and the template appears to have been posted in retaliation. ''']''' 21:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
::::Follow-up: I issued a second one week block when ]'s problem behavior resumed. He agreed to enter the mentorship program and file a formal mediation request so I shortened that block to 48 hours. ''']''' 23:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
This page allows users to request administrator investigation of certain types of abuse only. Do not use this page until you read the policies, guidelines, and procedures. For obvious vandalism, see Administrator intervention against vandalism. Alerts that do not belong on this page may be removed without action or notice.
Choose one of three sections to make a report: Watchlist, IP addresses, or Registered users. Follow the recommended format for each section including the heading markup. Place the request at the top of the New requests subsection or the top of the watchlist. Inappropriate presentation could delay investigation.
Provide page diffs from edit histories if appropriate and links to specific problem pages. Investigators may request more information or recommend additional action such as checkuser. In some cases investigators might determine that little or no administrative action is initially warranted by the first report, but issue user blocks and other measures as new circumstances arise. In such instances the responsibility rests with the involved editors to follow up as requested; failure to do so indicates lack of desire for further investigation.
A request for investigation is not part of the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution process although it can sometimes be a useful supplement if substantial editor misconduct is suspected. Investigation concerns applicable site policies and guidelines rather than article content. Various involved users will be subject to study so sometimes the editor who requests an investigation gets blocked. Administrative actions that may be taken by an investigator such as page protections and user blocks do not necessarily relate to the merits of a content dispute. Please do not ask an investigator to act as a partisan ally because that may prompt the investigator to recuse himself or herself and there might be no other available investigator.
Watchlist
Report in this section:
Articles being hit with a very high level of vandalism or that are repeatedly vandalised with an extended time before reverts.
Registered users or IPs that have carried out clear vandalism but have currently stopped.
Do not report here:
Articles featured on the front page, or very high profile articles - these will already be watched
Vandals needing to be blocked - see WP:AIV instead.
Users needing investigation - see one of the sections below.
Although this is a shared IP, all edits from it have been made by the same person as far as I can tell. He is registered as User:Partrib, but he rarely uses that account (although he did use it to get around a block). He has been editing several religous-themed articles since January. His edits include placing spam links to his personal web site, making false and unverified accusations against certain individuals and organizations (some of them in violation of WP:BLP), using article talk pages (and sometimes the articles themselves) as soapboxes, copying large amounts of material from his personal web site onto article talk pages, changing or deleting other editors' comments, and circumventing blocks by using his registered account. Here are a few examples of his behavior: , , , , , , , , , . I believe that it is clear that his appearance on Misplaced Pages is only criticize others and promote his viewpoint, not to improve the encyclopedia or further its goals. —Cswrye23:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
All above IPs involved in deceptive edits, continue to revert templates for article dispute, have removed requests for dispute negotiation and revert templates for article context and NPOV dispute. Have removed references in favor of promotional links to interviews on self. Believed to be one or two persons using several IPs. None will discuss on talk page. Multiple warnings posted. All reverts point back to a deceptive history and self-promotion/propaganda. Oroboros 103:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Not really sure about this one. IP address has been making a large number of minor changes to Formula One race result tables over the last few weeks. The changes do not match the official results at www.formula1.com.
I've been reverting them, albeit perhaps not as fast as they are being done and have left several messages on the IP talk page asking for contact or explanation of the changes. I only hesitate on the vandalism front because the changes are so minor ('Collision' > 'Accident' seems to be favourite) and because I am aware that the 'official' results also contain errors.
However, there are so many changes and the editor seems to be ignoring all requests to explain them (some changes I have reverted several times now) that I think this must be a subtle attempt at vandalism. Changes in an identical style are being made by 220.221.17.213.
It looks like you've handled this in a polite and appropriate manner. This IP's talk page has repeated warnings and queries over the past week, but no replies or citations. I'll leave a caution on this user's page. The IP hasn't edited since you posted this notice, but you're welcome to follow up if this happens again. I don't think I'd block over the wording collision v. accident, but unsubstantiated changes to finish times and other factual matters would merit blocking. Regards, Durova15:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Having left a note at the IP's talk page, there's one thing I noticed worth mentioning: this address originates in Japan. Since the edits are technical changes to tables and the editor hasn't posted anywhere, there's a chance they don't understand English. Durova16:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. See what you mean. I'll keep changing things back and perhaps they'll gather that something's not right - it seems to happen in bursts every few days, so I'll keep an eye on it. 'Collision' vs 'Accident' is worth changing back (more precise - accident could be almost anything!), but I agree not a blocking matter. A much smaller percentage of the changes are more serious: Changes along the lines of 'Collision' to 'Gear box' (i.e. gearbox failure) are not uncommon and as far as I can see factually inaccurate. On a couple of occasions finishing positions or qualifying positions have been changed. I'd suggest those probably would be blocking type offences, although I'd want to be quite sure that they were wrong before asking that you do so - as I said, the official results also contain errors in a small number of cases.
Further reversions of my reversions from the alternate address of 220.221.17.213 in the last few hours. --4u1e12:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. Hello again. While clearing up after further edits, made in this case by 220.221.17.213 this morning (see F1 recent changes) I found a clear cut case of what I would call more malicious vandalism. In the 1990 Brazilian Grand Prix article the finishing positions of Paolo Barilla and Bertrand Gachot have been swapped. This does not match the results given at www.formula1.com. In this case I am 100% certain that the edited result is wrong - if you go and read the Enzo Coloni Racing Car Systems article you will see why - the edited result states that Gachot got a Coloni car into the race and you can see that Coloni didn't qualify a car all year. I can probably locate more concrete proof of that if you want.
My belief is that the user is just vandalising the F1 results - albeit subtly - several articles have now gone back and forth several times and I'm having trouble believing that there are innocent changes - the editor must have realised that something is wrong by now if they are making the changes in good faith.
This is creating a lot of work in reversing the changes - because I have to check all the changes against the official results before I change them back. I have not yet found one that seems to be justified. Any chance of blocking the two IP addresses that have been doing this? Alternatively, any other ideas for stopping it? Cheers. --4u1e15:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I would also point out that if you look at the recent changes made at 1990 Spanish Grand Prix, that although the changes made on the 14 and 22 October are of the same type, they are not actually the same changes. Presumably if the editor believes that the changes are correct, they would be the same each time he makes them. Cheers. --4u1e15:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
This IP hasn't edited since 19 October. If new problems emerge then post an alert here, but please don't post old news. Durova21:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I should perhaps have been clearer - the alternative IP address identified in my original post (220.221.17.213) has made similar - in many cases identical - edits to 222.225.117.108 over the same time period. The most most recent edits were on the 22. I reported it here because I have assumed that it is the same editor. This is new news, rather than old news. :) I can report the second IP address as a seperate incident if you prefer. --4u1e 23 October 09:07
Makes it difficult, doesn't it? This may take a while to get their attention - they only edit every few days anyway and from two different IPs, so if they can't read what is on their talk page they may not notice they're being blocked for a while! --4u1e19:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've posted requests at Esperanza and WikiProject Japan. If the problem continues on its present trajectory then my third block will be for one week. This seems like the fairest way to go about things. Thanks again for your patience. Durova21:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
As soon as he/she/it returned from their block,they were back doing exactly the same thing-changing Collision to Accident,altering results without reason.If they could provide some sort of evidence or sources to justify their change it would be a start.I left a warning on their talk page-I see User:Durova has now blocked them again--many thanks. Lemon martini00:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Yup, let's hope this editor gets the message this time. My appeals for a Japanese bilingual editor haven't garnered any help and as this continues I really suspect this is someone who doesn't have conversational skills in English. But considering the amount of trouble this causes for productive editors I'm left with no choice other than to treat it as straight vandalism. Post again if the problem resumes next week - and unless something changes the course of this trajectory my next block will be considerably longer. Durova02:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Registered users
Read the policies, guidelines, and procedures before reporting. Do not report content or user disputes here, unless you can provide links demonstrating a strong attempt at dispute resolution. Please use this format at the top of this section:
These two have constantly referred to any editorials made to Buddhism and Hinduism as Vandalism, when their sources and facts are questionable and were questioned by various editors.
They have constantly removed dispute tags and DELETED sourced material by scholars and instead put in POV sources from non-scholars. The edits clearly indicate editorial and factual disputes and say they are vandalism without making appropriate changes and discussion which is OFFICIAL[REDACTED] POLICY.
Please investigate and discipline these two.--Saavak123 15:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC
I put togather a version which I thought would address the presumably legitimate grievances of this User. He seems to bent on attaching "Factual disputes" tags on very well referenced facts provided in this version . Kindly address this problem.
User:Green23, User:Saavak123 and User:216.254.121.169 are sockpuppets of the same person. They have the same patterns (see here and here) and what's worse is that they have started voting in AfD debates (You'll notice that the only two delete votes are given by Green23 and Savak123 here). This is in addition to them having the number 23 common in their ID and the same contribution patterns.
This user has a history of vandalism (see here and here). He has also been blocked for personal attacks and blanking following which he changed his ID and started vandalisng under a new ID, including voting in Afd debates.
Please take appropriate action and ensure the sanctity of the article.
Don't try to reorganize this noticeboard. That's for the admins to do.
User:Saavak123 is an account created today and whose second edit ever is a complaint to this noticeboard about an ongoing situation: obvious sockpuppet.
If User:Green23, User:Saavak123 and User:216.254.121.169 are all the same user then this editor violated WP:SOCK policy on 2 November 2006 by editing on the User:Green23 account while the IP address was blocked and violated WP:3RR today. I consider that probable but not definite: there might be two users here instead of one, in which case those policies might not have been broken. Recommend getting confirmation at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets.
Posting a page protection tag on an unprotected article is inappropriate. I wouldn't block for that as an isolated incident but I would block if it fits with a pattern of problematic behavior.
Most of this problem seems to be a content dispute over WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR.
This noticeboard isn't set up to resolve content disputes. WP:DR is the route to that.
This noticeboard can do something about sockpuppetry and 3RR.
This user occasionally contributes mildly useful edits, but many are disruptive or outright vandalism. (See, for example, , , , ) I suspect it's mostly due to immaturity; he sometimes appears to be trying to makes useful edits and not succeeding, and sometimes just fooling around. I'm not really sure what to do, but I probably don't have the tact to talk to him usefully. Argyriou(talk)00:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I've assumed good faith and left a friendly-ish block warning with a link to Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-User. Frankly, although I see the junior high edit, my misgivings are serious enough to state here. Take a good look at the username and visit the Urban Dictionary: either this editor is very young and naive or you've spotted the species that lives beneath bridges and eats billy goats. Durova01:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree it's vandalism, but only 4 edits total from the account and no activity after receiving a talk page warning. Post again if the problem resumes. Durova16:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
This new user seems to be a socketpuppet of registered and previously investigated and sanctionated user User:Cogito ergo sumo. Take a look at the edit log of Cogito ergo sumo and the recently inaugurated log of User:Ex post factoid and you will see that he is editing the same articles, for example Central America, Data (Star Trek) and Isaac Asimov. Very suspicious. Please check his IP addresses since Cogito ergo sumo used to be under one of the following IP addresses: 142.150.134.57, 142.150.134.58, or any other in the form 142.150.134.XX operating from the University of Toronto. I suggest as primary evidence to check both users contribution pages. If Ex post factoid is a new user... it is very suspicious he's interested in the same topics than Cogito ergo sumo. I also noted the great similarities with User:E Pluribus Anthony who stopped editing with that account because of previously proved use of sockpuppets. Note that the three names uses latin and that, at least, Cogito ergo sumo and E Pluribus Anthony are from Canada. Check their IPs and contribution log.AlexCovarrubias15:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Cogito Ergo Sumo edit on Isaac Asimov - 13:17, 27 August 2006 (hist) (diff) m Isaac Asimov (fix punctuation ... first edit!)
Ex post factoid edit on Issac Asimov - 09:44, 17 October 2006 (hist) (diff) m Isaac Asimov (first edit! add detail about Data)
Cogito Ergo Sumo edit on Data (Star Trek) - 21:43, 19 September 2006 (hist) (diff) m Data (Star Trek) (→Specifications - copyedit: nixing conversion)
Ex post factoid edit on Data (Star Trek) - 09:50, 17 October 2006 (hist) (diff) m Data (Star Trek) (→Biography - adding detail re Data's voice-over cameo in Star Trek: Enterprise)
Some "anonimous" user under the IP 209.105.199.40 added a threat to my User_talk:AlexCovarrubias, writing the following:
I see you are working hard to get me blocked, however let me laugh on your pathetic tries. Let me tell you I know people from down there... ok? that's all I have to say... don't act foolish or well, the mighty God can pay you a visit...20:44, 17 October 2006 209.105.199.40 (Talk)
Comment: Timmins, Ontario (the source of the 'threat' IP) is 688 km north of Toronto -- which is just shy of the distance (697 km) between Monterrey and Mexico City -- leaving plenty of 'anonimous' (sic) editors in between. The threat is apparently from someone uninvolved who observed the reactionism of the accusing editor. I would recommend everyone cool down and that administrators give due consideration to all information and editors (including the actions of the accuser, who has also been sanctioned for edit warring, and dubious accusations of vandalism) before indulging in flamebait and blocking other editors (if applicable) without some process ... which is sure to put any editor off from returning. 67.68.47.22913:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Interesing. However, it has already been proved that E Pluribus Anthony, Cogito ergo sumo and Ex post factoid are the same person. They were blocked, but then unblocked due to a technically. But there's no doubt they are the same person aswell as the same anon under IP 142.150.134.XX the advice of another editor was that we wait and see what happens. Also interesting how another anon from Toronto like you is interested in this very specific issue... AlexCovarrubias15:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes: it is interesting. An aside: the only proofs have apparently been provided by you (though I make no claim about whether they are true or not) and acted upon by administrators that seem to not know precisely what to do (through reversible error in premature blocks, mis-/lack of communication, etc). Anyhow, enough from me. Happy editing! 67.68.47.22916:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I looked into this after receiving a request from AlexCovarrubias at my user talk page. As a very new admin I hesitate to do more than others have deemed appropriate. The activity has died down except for one insult to his user page (from an IP probably the same editor). If objectionable behavior resumes I'd be willing to investigate more and hand out a block. This might well cool down with benign neglect. Durova19:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
user seems to have an agenda against Christian Music, harming (and often subtly vandalising) articles to fit this agenda. Was warned once about NPOV edits. Includes making many non-Christian artists to be Christian (e.g., , , or - just a few among probably dozens), and similarly making Christian music and bands look bad - , , , and - . User page confirms he wants "death to all false metal". -Patstuart20:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I object to these edits being called bad faith. I am doing my best to accuretly and informatively render[REDACTED] a better encyclopedia and a more reliable source of information. Many of these articles contain bias and some may even say propaganda for the christian faith, if some entrenched trolls take exception to my actions they are invited to jump on the nearest long ship and sail off to Niflheim. As for the non christian to christian I based this on the christian list of christian metal bands page from a link on christian metal and also conducted research online to confirm these bands' christianity in some instances. Also I think it is important that if a band identifies itself as being christian that a[REDACTED] entry on the band do similarly. This is for two reasons namely; first, so that the article is as accurate as possible and second to attempt to neatralise insidious attempts at proseletysation on the part of ideologically fanatical parties. Is there not a rule here about assuming good faith, becuase wikepediatrix has tagged many of my honest attempts as being bad faith. What is written on my user page is a line from Manowar.The Crying Orc21:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I accused you of nothing. I said "possible" bad faith, based on this RFI and your contributions. Not only did I give you benefit of the doubt by saying "possible", I abstained from voting in most of your AfD nominations. wikipediatrix22:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
fair enough apologies if I got angry. I amm a bit up tight about all of this. For example; the anonymous person below who wants me 'removed' is making me uncomfertable editing here. He even changed my user page to call me a bastard! The Crying Orc22:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to request the removal of The Crying Orc, he is clearly manipulating and using loopholes in specific rules to remove many Christian band articles. The article in question has already been fixed, but in it he stated " 'Christian metal is an oxymoron.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.23.136.8 (talk • contribs)
Note the above user vandalised my user page and called me a bastard. I wish he would stop houinding me, and calling for me to be 'removed'. The Crying Orc22:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to state that I am certainly not anon user 68.23.136.8. But I would invite anyone wishing to see the issue at hand to look at the history of Crying Orc. I made this nomination because of clear comments like the one 68.xxx pointed out: Christian metal is an oxymoron. If this were the only edit, I would not have a problem, but there are literally hundreds of edits, and I could not revert all of them without making a nomination. And, I am not a troll; I invite you to look at my edit history, and many will know me as a good-faith editor. In any case, I think the contributions history speaks for itself, and clearly another editor agrees with me, even if he didn't necessarily know to go about it the right away (e.g., placing a warning on Orc's user page). I'm not personally attacking you, Orc, but your edits are blatantly biased, and you were asked once to not do as much. Particularly worrisome, in addition to the POV edits, was adding the term "Christian" as a band to many bands, none of which have any such affiliation on their website or anywhere else. -Patstuart01:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do NOT scare away the newcomers.So who 'investigates' me now, and what happens to me? I think that this is sick. I attempted to edit here, but am now being 'investigated' because I am 'biased', and then it looks like I will be 'removed'. Is this how you deal with people with whom you disagree on Misplaced Pages? I would say that I am no more biased than the editors who edit christian 'metal' articles because they like it and want to tell the world about it. I edit those articles because I think it is stupid, and I don't think that some of the things in those articles are appropriate for an encyclopedia. The christian metal article doesn't have any citations at all. Am I biased for pointing this out, and not just shutting up because the people are 'doing the lord's work' and hence should not be questioned? Or pointing out, with a valid reference (to a well-known and respected site on metal culture) what real metalheads think of christian 'metal' (i.e. that it is oxymoronic and poser-like)? The bands whom I classed as christian all self-identify as christian in some form. I have learnt a lot about christian 'metal' in the last couple of days. But if you are unsure that I am accurate about a band being ideologically christian, I invite you to put a tag there, and I shall find a citation. That's the way it is meant to work, from what I understand. The christian 'metal' section here is like a bunch of advertisements, and I think that an encyclopedia should be scholarly, not a community billboard for advertising local band gigs. The external links on the christian 'metal' article all point to ideologically skewed fora, sites designed to proselytise and convert people. Am I wrong to dispute that the purpose of Misplaced Pages is to provide a platform to win souls or deceive people into listening to false metal so that the christians feel fuzzier about the world? In short, I think Patstuart and his friend 68.xxx.xbla are the ideologically skewed ones, who have a problem with me because I have dared to question their comfy little status quo here. And if the proponents of christian 'metal' would rather call me a bastard and run to authority figures to get me removed than actually edit the articles and engage with the subject matter in a meaningful manner, then I think that the moderators or investigators here must think about who is doing more for the encyclopedia. The Crying Orc13:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
As user 6..8..whatever, I would like to formally apologize for vandalising The Crying Orcs page. Having seen an article of a band I enjoy up for deletion when it clearly contains enough information to remain an article, then seeing the certain quote in his profile, I jumped to the conclusion that he was indeed a "bastard" who was vandalising pages, having slightly discussed some issues with him I now see that he was clearing up so called "bandcruft" and initial deletion of Christian Metal due to it being a new term to him, and possibly a prank page.
User seems to have an agenda against Christian Metal. Checking his ], most of his edits directly related to Christian Metal and its respective bands. User claims to go for neutrality (or to make an article neutral) in several instances, but his edits seem to do more harm than good, and have gotten him into conflict with several other editors . As staed above, user has made several non-Christian bands, some with Christian influences, some without, into Christian bands. These are not limited to Christian Metal, but Christianity itself in a few instances .
User uses several policies to back up his points, but does not seem to understand them. Specifically speedy deletion policies (user was warned by a moderator ) and notablitly policies (pointed out in various deletion nominations). User also does not seem to understand that "God" is just as NPOV as "the Christian god". The only religions aside from Christianity to use the term "God" are Judaism and Sikhism and they are all talking about the same being.
User often does not use discussion pages, and when he does, they tend to be discussing the subject, rather than the article . --Limetom23:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
User:The Crying Orc announces his POV very clearly on his user page. He seems to be acting on this announced anti-Christian bias in his very busy first 3 days on Misplaced Pages:
His first edit was to nominate Christian Metal for deletion, saying in part "I have never heard of anything as ridiculous as christian metal": The term has 294,000 Google hits; notability seems self-evident.
He embedded his POV in his signature here, here, here, here; apparently in every talk page posting.
In a single edit to Christian Metal, he embedded 64 {{fact}} tags, apparently at random, as in many cases he inserted several in the middle of a single URL.
With an edit summary of "Various changes and improvements", he added several POV statements which were immediately reverted.
Several hours later, the POV that he had added to Christian metal had been reverted, so he added it back, with a summary of "added citation tags, added balance and neutral point-of-view".
In this edit, among other changes, he changed "God" to "god".
He added {{sermon}} tags to several Christian music articles (, , ).
He nominated another Christian music group for deletion; the result was again speedy keep.
He randomly scattered 52 {fact} tags throughout Christian punk. (Clearly random; in one place he added three in a row; in other places, he inserted them in the middle of links, breaking the links.)
This is not true. Well, it's obviously true that I made those changes to articles. However from what I understand of[REDACTED] rules this doesn't make me a vandal (I have been reading up). This is called a 'content dispute' I think and this page is not for reporting those. JimDouglas is also not necessarily correct when he says that only christianity, judaism and sikhism use the term 'God' and that they are all talking about the same being. That may be his personal point of view, which may be shared by other people with similar theological outlook. But many people would disagree, and say that christians, muslims and jews talk about the same god but sikhs don't. Others may insist that 'god' is a social convention, not a being, and because christians jews and sikhs have different social conventions, the social constructs they worship are hence also different. Surely I cannot be called a vandal because I edited an article in such a way that it doesn't agree with Mr Douglas' and Mr Stuart's personal ideas on theology? Changing 'God' to 'the Christian god' is not a disparaging edit and phrases the facts in a neutral point of view, because whoever's god he is, he is not my god, nor the god of the many people like me. If a band plays christian music, then that music is to glorify the christian god. 'God' is not as NPOV as 'the Christian god', because it assumes the existence of the entity, and that people will believe in the existence of the entity, etc., etc. Please do not call my work vandalism because I believe differentyl to you.
I don't think there should be a problem with me having my POV on my signature or my userpage. I think that is healthy. Patstuart also announces his point of view on his userpage (ie christian). If that is vandalism, why does Misplaced Pages have a facility to do it? But by letting everyone know how I believe, I let them understand a little about who they are dealing with, and my startying assumptions. I think I am being picked on because I have dared to dispute that a christian point of view should be taken as the standard starting point for articles on christian music. This is not very correct, I don't think. Misplaced Pages was not sst up to glorify the Christian god, and the Christians who have thus far had a whale of a time editing their articles in a very biased, preachy manner riddled with church jargon and assuming that the reader is either a christian or wanting to get evangelised must realise that the time has now come when that cosy little environment must change. Either that or therer is a lot of what sociologists call 'systemic bias' here. The Crying Orc08:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Many of your responses above attribute comments to me that were in fact made by someone else.
I'll note in passing that you know nothing at all about my personal point of view or "theological outlook".
The words "Christianity", "Judaism", "Sikhism", "Christian", and "Muslim" are capitalized. This is specifically noted in the Misplaced Pages style guide, and it's a basic rule of the English language. In principle, your lowercase use of these terms could be interpreted as a simple mistake, or as an intentional insult or provocation. Given that you went to the reference desk looking for authorization to mass-change "God" to "the christian god" and you went out of your way here to change "God" to "god", the evidence suggests that your use of lowercase is not a simple mistake.
Advertising your POV on your user page is acceptable. Advertising an aggressive and confrontational POV ("Death to all false metal. Brothers of true metal proud and standing tall, wimps and posers leave the hall.") in your signature is disruptive and uncivil.
This is not a content dispute. Adding clear POV to articles, then reinstating it after it has been reverted, is vandalism. Nominating an established music genre like Christian metal for deletion is malicious vandalism. Scattering 50 or 60 {{fact}} tags randomly through an article is not a useful contribution; it's malicious vandalism.
It demonstrates a willful disregard for Misplaced Pages standards and basic rules of the English language. The clear intention is to provoke a reaction in the Christian-related articles that you have chosen to disrupt. -- Jim Douglas(contribs)16:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
In your head, maybe. I'll grant you that any flaunting of the rules of English orthography (or grammar) on my part is most definitely done with some intent. Maybe it's just not the intent you think it is. Nor do I feel compelled to explain myself to you. Just who the Hell are you, anyway? The Crying Orc17:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I warned Patstuart to assume good faith (using the 'agf' TestTemplate) because I object to having my edits classed as vandalism. The Crying Orc09:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The act of listing me as a vandal when I am a good faith contributor is not civil. Anyway, the bit about incivility is just part of the standard TestTemplate which I applied to his page, since I assume that's how things are done. The Crying Orc15:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
In a sense. I sent him a warning message more because of the way in which he phrased his complaint, and how he has spoken of me on his own talkpage and those of others. The Crying Orc17:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't scatter citation tags randomly. I replaced every full stop with one (that is SYSTEMATIC - there is a difference). The reason for this is that the article is full of statements needing citations (since not a single point of fact was substantiated). I am too lazy to do it manually, because there are so many. Admittedly, this disturbed URLs and things, but at least it draws people's eyes to how badly backed up the article is in reality. The Crying Orc09:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Is that a problem somehow? It has resulted in positive change. Someone rewrote the Christian 'metal' article so that it is maximally cited, by trimming the excessive bollocks which surrounded the few kernels of what could be called 'fact'. The Crying Orc17:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
To whom exactly is "Death to all false metal. Brothers of true metal proud and standing tall wimps and posers leave the hall" uncivil? Sure, if I call a specific person a wimp or a poser, then I can understand it. But as such, I frankly feel that anyone who objects to that is being oversensitive. It certainly isn't vandalism. The Crying Orc09:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
In the context of a pattern of attempting to delete or otherwise disrupt Christian metal and a series of Christian-oriented music articles, starting with your first two edits on Misplaced Pages four days ago, the provocation is very clear. -- Jim Douglas(contribs)15:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
You're being over-sensitive and perpetuating systemic bias. If I had said "yippy-yippy-yippy-yay Christian 'metal' is great!!!!!!!" I would not have been accused of being provocative, even though such a statement would rather annoy and provoke someone like me. Just because I think Christianity is a pathetic waste of life, you insist that I am a vandal.
Moreover, I am accused of having 'an agenda against Christian music'. Would I be here if I had an agenda for Christian music? I don't think so. The Crying Orc15:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
You declared your agenda in your first two edits on Misplaced Pages. And yes, if, for example, a proselytizing Christian included an aggressive pro-Christian message in a signature, then proceeded to disrupt atheism-related articles, the reaction would be precisely the same. -- Jim Douglas(contribs)16:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I rather doubt that. This site is full of entrenched Christian trolls, like those on the 'Historical Jesus' article, who would rather that the criticism of the Testimonium Flavium etc. were left out of the article altogether, and flock together in great bloody swarms to revert the attempts of other editors to restore a bit of balance. I shall be addressing that sham of an article at some other stage; but they aren't blocked. Similarly, with the people who objected to me inserting the paragraph about Cradle of Filth's 'Jesus is a cunt' shirt into the Jesus Christ in popular culture article, even though it was properly sourced and is appropriately notable (having made a number of news stories and been featured in a few books). They gave some specious arguments, of course, but it is obvious that they wanted it removed because it does not agree with their personal point of view; they aren't blocked for this. The bottom line is that it is regarded as acceptable, by the herd, for people to promote a Christian point of view, because to many herd-members that is a 'neutral point of view', one which everyone has, or at least a point of view which everyone should have. However, some of us are neither willing to swallow that sort of indoctrination, nor allow it to be shamelessly touted on an encyclopedia as if it were the truth. The Crying Orc17:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
" This site is full of entrenched Christian trolls" is a rather broad, sweeping -- arguably uncivil -- statement. Would you care to substantiate it? -- Jim Douglas(contribs)17:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Not really. Look for yourself. Try editing an article on a Christianity-related subject from a perspective that is not Christian, and you'll soon experience exactly what I am talking about. The Crying Orc18:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Patstuart asked me to take a look at your contributions because he was frustrated by your ongoing pattern of unconstructive edits. By the way, you neglected to include a link to his request; it's here. -- Jim Douglas(contribs)15:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that was necessary. That's the one where Patstuart is wracking himself over whether I am trolling, isn't it? Well, I'm not a troll. I am The Crying Orc15:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't necessary; it just makes it easier for readers if everything is here. I can certainly see how a pattern of disrupting Christian-related articles and attempting to delete a series of Christian music-related articles and (twice) appending {{fact}} to every "." in an article. can easily be construed as trolling. -- Jim Douglas(contribs)16:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am telling you now, and have told you before, that it isn't, so would you please stop. The fact of the matter is that this is a content dispute, not a dispute over vandalism. This discussion has blown out of all proportion. I suggest that the complainants withdraw their spurious complaints before they start making prats of themselves. It's so easy for that to happen. The Crying Orc17:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I want to be very clear: Indiscriminately scattering several dozen {{fact}} tags throughout an article in a clear attempt to disrupt it will be regarded as vandalism, and will be reverted. -- Jim Douglas(contribs)18:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It was not indiscriminate. The article offered no sources. Every sentence ought to contain a fact, otherwise it should be removed, because statements which are not facts do not, surely, belong in an encyclopedia. And all facts should, in principle, be supportable by a citation. So what I did was not vandalism but an attempt to draw people's attention to the appalling state in which I found the articles. One editor of the Christian metal article took it the way it was meant, and rewrote the article. This brought about positive change. So, I object to it being called vandalism. Now you can either get over it, or we can continue bickering ad nauseam — and I tell you solemnly, I will not capitulate. It would appear that the administrators here have long moved past this little farce, so perhaps we should leave it too. The Crying Orc18:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It was indiscriminate. "I replaced every full stop with one". It was not motivated by a sincere wish to improve the article; it was disruptive vandalism. I want to be very clear that you understand this: That tactic will be regarded as vandalism, and will be reverted. And if there's nothing more, I've really had more than my fill of this topic. -- Jim Douglas(contribs)19:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
You clearly want a war. I have tried to explain my rationale, and you simply seem intent on reiterating the same tired line about vandalism. You clearly have not understood, or have chosen to ignore, what I have written. Your link to the page on trolls is noted and unwelcome. As I said before, I am The Crying Orc19:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow, a flame war between an atheist and moderators! LOL THIS IS FUNNY. Not. Focus on the other ones who should be banne dinstead of causing a flame war. The velociraptor05:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I quite agree. It irks most terribly that this is still here, considering that for nearly a week now no additional comments have been added other than the Velociraptor's concern that this is happening at all. Can this misbegotten request be removed? Am I allowed to 'be bold' and remove it myself? The Crying Orc14:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
It might not be a good idea to remove this yourself. Since you are the subject of the discussion, removing it might seem like vandalism. I'm not quite sure how Requests for investigation works, but I think you might have to wait for an admin to notice this discussion before it can be removed. - Lex04:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
This issue seems much more complex than simple vandalism. Literally dozens of notable bands were nominated as "non-notable" for AFD. All but 1 (at my last count) were VERY notable, with independant reviews, wide release CDs, etc. etc. At issue here is the agenda of this editor. This editor seems to target all bands that HE does not agree are "metal" in their music; his AfD nominations are almost ALL for bands that assert their own notability, and whose notability is easily verified. The only thing these bands have in common is the use of the term "Christian Metal" to describe their music. In addition, he nominated the main article "Christian Metal" for AfD. The evidence of multiple, notable bands as part of this genre makes it a notable genre at face value. Also, his user page blatantly expresses his point of view: Death to all false metal. Brothers of true metal proud and standing tall, wimps and posers leave the hall. A single AfD, or a single edit, or a single quote on a user page of themselves do not an agenda make. However, there is voluminous evidence of some bad-faith editing going on here, and this needs to be addressed. --Jayron3206:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I am being targeted and my position misrepresented because of my personal philosophy. Perhaps, to a devoted fan of Christian metal, all but 1 of the bands I nominated for deletion were 'very notable'; but the Misplaced Pages community at large does not agree because it seems that 7 bands got deleted (I haven't been keeping a tally, but here is the list of Christian metal bands before I edited it: count the red links). So, even if some of the bands I nominated for deletion were well known and got kept, I cannot be expected to know how 'well-known' something is if it has no references and no assertion of notability: I challenge any administrator here is who is not a fan of Christian metal to tell me why the bands I nominated for deletion were 'obviously well-known'. As to the question of agenda: are[REDACTED] editors not allowed agendas? How about all the fans of Christian metal who create articles on minor, non-notable bands because they love the music. Do they not have an agenda? Why is their agenda more acceptable than mine?
No, the reason I am here is entirely because of bigotry and prejudice against my beliefs. They make me an easy 'target' for the politically correct herd, but I don't care. I feel it is better to declare my beliefs than hide them, and I believe that my contributions speak for themselves. I am very disappointed to see that this idiocy is being prolonged here. But whatever, people may do what they wish, I suppose. It must be very convenient for these editors who don't like me to have a page like this where they can gripe about me. Maybe I should open one on them! Since what I am doing here is NOT vandalism... The Crying Orc06:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
What comments have I made to make you think that I am prejudiced against any belief that you have? I am NOT a devoted fan of christian metal. I had NEVER heard of a single one of the bands that ended up getting kept. HOWEVER, I did do some research, and found out about thier notability. They nearly all met the primary notability criteria, and were not even close to questionable. If you had gone through the Christian Metal bands, put the name in google, and ONLY nominated those for deletion that had no wide-release CDS or reviews in reliable press, then we would not be having this discussion. The issue is the attempt to delete an entire genre of music from Misplaced Pages, by deleting all bands who play it, and by deleting the main article relating to that genre as well, without doing any additional research on your own. You yourself admited that your only criterion for deletion was that their names appeared in the Christian Metal list. --Jayron3207:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I have linked User:216.146.109.42 to another account that has been vandalising (requested closure of User:Corey Bryant) - see either user page for details. The vandalism in non-obvious, over months, but I and others have reverted both of these. I must go now, so cannot investigate 216.146.109.42 to revert and warn. Please investigate and block if my suspicion is right. Widefox04:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Request to investigate this user IP addresses log in order to compare it with some anonimous IP users that keep reverting the article North America in the past weeks. It seems possible that these anonimous IP users are in fact the reported registered user, since their edits tend to be always favouring the same POV and because of the same style of writing. IP addresses: 142.150.134.64, 65.92.173.7, 65.94.130.95, 65.94.130.95, 194.158.204.133, 142.150.134.53, 142.150.134.55, 69.156.113.245, 65.95.239.85 . --AlexCovarrubias03:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
This user anonimously edits pages to avoid complaints and blocks, and claims to be a different person. I investigated and his IP range varies always between 142.150.134.49 - 142.150.134.79
Some "anonimous" user under the IP 209.105.199.40 added a threat to my User_talk:AlexCovarrubias, writing the following:
I see you are working hard to get me blocked, however let me laugh on your pathetic tries. Let me tell you I know people from down there... ok? that's all I have to say... don't act foolish or well, the mighty God can pay you a visit...20:44, 17 October 2006 209.105.199.40 (Talk)
The only person I have ever reported in Misplaced Pages is this person I'm reporting right here in this request. Please, investigate! That IP address is also from Ontario, Canada. --AlexCovarrubias04:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Timmins, Ontario (the source of the 'threat' IP) is 688 km north of Toronto -- which is just shy of the distance (697 km) between Monterrey and Mexico City -- leaving plenty of 'anonimous' (sic) editors in between. The threat is apparently from someone uninvolved who observed the reactionism of the accusing editor. I would recommend everyone cool down and that administrators give due consideration to all information and editors (including the actions of the accuser, who has also been sanctioned for edit warring, and dubious accusations of vandalism) before indulging in flamebait and blocking other editors (if applicable) without some process ... which is sure to put any editor off from returning. 67.68.47.22913:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Keeps on pushing for 3RR on several articles inserting biased and non-neutral comments, he claims that comments have been made on Reuters, Fox television etc., however can never provide a functioning link for verification, has not made a single positive contribution to Misplaced Pages. On his user page there is a suggestion that he is a sock puppet of User:MagicKirin and he does not even deny that and he is using his AOL IPs at random as well. KittenKlub19:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
User has been adding incoherent, seemingly original research text (and a copyvio) to various articles. Warned him, he continues. Because of the way he started off (he was doing the same under an IP before), I think this might be more appropriate reported as vandalism than a content dispute. Correct me if I'm wrong. CRCulver00:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Warrants further monitoring. User has repeatedly added copyrighted text to articles. The Transformers articles he created may be completely tainted. —Centrx→talk • 18:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I did a random sampling of recent edits and didn't notice obvious vandalism, but this editor's talk page presents a disturbing pattern. Please post any diffs of new copyright violations and, if confirmed, I will issue blocks. Durova16:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I am editing this page right...so please feel free to re-format.
I have been brought to this forum by the recommendations of others. I am following them today.
TheronJ has repeatedly been vandalizing the Clint Curtis page, including the deletion of well cited sentences, paragraphs, the insertion of obvious bias (including the summary of a Wired news article that was completly skewed in libel to Curtis's biography). This includes, but is not limited to, the deletion of a well cited paragraph with quotes and citations from the Orlando Sentinel.
If you do an intestigation, he is a political activist that vandalizes negativly the profiles of Democrats by deleting information that can be considered positive and adds negative content and does exactly the opposite to Republican profiles. TheronJ insists that this is "balance." If you look on the Curtis page, you will see that Tom Feeney's response to Curtis's allegations has been twice as long as the section that describes the allegations. Under a campaign issues section, he adds Feeney's response to Curtis. It is wrong because the issues do not mention Feeney at all. Not only do these NOT reflect balance, it is a serious violation of Misplaced Pages's standards that requires action.
TheronJ is abusing his power as a Wiki manager and has had repeated warnings in the discussion page of Clint Curtis and now his user talk page. These flagerant abuses deligitimize Misplaced Pages and places it in a difficult position of dealing with slander against a living person.
Please take whatever action you can to take see that these abuses no longer continue.
Please let me know if anyone would like me to respond. Assuming that Remember is the former anonymous user 131.94.*.*, this is the latest stage in a content dispute with regard to Clint Curtis. If anyone has any WP:BLP concerns, I would be happy to respond, and if anyone wants to take a look at the page, I'm sure Remember and I could use an outside opinion. The specific "vandalism" at issue here is a simple typo. I apologize, but I just forgot to close two references -- it was a dumb mistake and not one I normally make. (User:Reinoutr fixed my typos here). I will propose dispute resolution with Remember and see if we get anywhere. TheronJ02:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
1) This should be kept fully civil, yet it is wrong to accuse unverifiably that I am an anonymous user 131.94.*.*. I am not and many people use that IP code. It really is irrelevant.
2) The typo is irrelevant to a long-term libalous actions by TheronJ. Any investagation will find that entire news articles, including "wired," has been taken out of context and made libelous. This must be taken seriously.
3) The site remains vandalized. Entire paragraphs of well-cited and researched material (whom many people have contributed) have been removed. I will not restore it until this reaches the appropriate attention.
Thank you,
Rememberkigali
This is a very serious allegation. Please supply diffs to support it. I did see a cited paragraph missing among recent changes to Clint Curtis. TheronJ claims that this was a typo. I'll take (his?) word that it was an honest mistake unless there's hard evidence that this constitutes a pattern over several articles. Durova04:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, my typo was in forgetting to close two references, which had the result of causing the "Reference" and "See also" sections not to print. User:Reinoutr fixed those typos here. I have apologized for that - it was boneheaded, but I don't normally make that kind of mistake. I did move or rewrite some paragraphs, and I would be happy to discuss any specific paragraphs with you or RememberKigali. For instance, I removed a paragraph citing an Orlando Sentinel article on congessional campaign poll results from theClint_Curtis#Feeney's_response_to_allegations section as not relevant to that specific issue, (i.e. Feeney's response to Curtis's allegations that Feeney conspired to commit vote fraud in 2000) However, as I discussed in my edit summary, I included a section that fully discussed that article under the the (IMHO) more appropriate "Orlando Sentinel" section. As my edit summary stated, I was open to also including a section discussing polls in the section dealing with the Curtis-Feeney congressional campaign.
My understanding is that even actually removing paragraphs (which I don't believe I did) is generally a content issue, and that is why I have been working with the anonymous pro-Curtis POV editor, 131.94.*.*, even when that editor removes sections. For example, 131.94.*.* recently removed a cited and true statement that Curtis alleges that he was fired in 2002 for whistleblowing. I have no idea why he/she removed it, but I let the removal stand and certainly didn't begin screaming vandalism.
In general, this has been maddening. User:RememberKigali denies that he/she is 131.94.*.*. If that's true, he/she is apparently instead some random user who signed on to Misplaced Pages for the sole purpose of initiating some kind of campaign against me, and never made an attempt to contact either me or 131.94.*.* on Wiki prior to initiating his/her campaign. In the spirit of WP:BITE, I attempted to de-escalate, including an offer to mediate and a suggestion that if Remember had libel concerns, they should be posted on the BLP noticeboard,, but Remember has never responded. (I have also bent over backwards to try to work with 134.91.*.*, as you can see from the Clint Curtis talk page). Thanks, TheronJ15:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Based on the edit pattern it does seem possible that this could be the same editor. You might request a checkuser. Try this essay for tips on how to collaborate on a subject where two sides disagree. Post again if problems continue, and best wishes. Durova16:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
El Jique
An anon-user 'El Jique' (perhaps unknowingly), continues to clog up the discussion pages of the articles Cuba, Fidel Castro & Raul Castro with information/personal views that (I believe) best belong in Wiki-Blogs. GoodDay19:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
This IP hasn't edited since 29 October. Please write to the editor's talk page to express your concerns before coming here. This may be someone who edits in good faith and doesn't quite understand site standards. Durova04:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
This article has been completely rewritten by an anon and a brand-new user (probably the same person) who seems to be claiming that he is Nathaniel Tarn. I am not sure whether to revert, in case it really is Mr. Tarn. However, some of the alterations are unacceptable. He has removed the fact that he is anthologised in British Poetry since 1945 and he has deleted all categories, including even Living People. Can someone else have a look please.--Poetlister22:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted to a previous and more encyclopedic version. Please contact this user through the article talk page and/or the editor's user talk page. This might just be a matter of not being familiar with Misplaced Pages's general style and conventions. Durova23:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
68.210.198.125, Joshua P. Warren is editing WP article about himself
68.210.198.125 published permission to use autobiographical information, and signed it Joshua P Warren. 68.210.198.125 continues to edit Joshua P. Warren along with 70.144.94.164, removing users contributions without discussion, and providing biased material. LuckyLouie19:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I've semi-protected the article and removed the unverifiable claim with the e-mail address from the talk page. Having read the history and talk threads, it appears that most of the edits have been from single purpose IP addresses. I suggest you follow up on the possibility that some claims to notability are exaggerated or falsified. The previous nomination for article deletion was a fairly close call. If evidence surfaced that some claims were fraudulent then the discussion might swing the other way. Durova00:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
As it is, the article is a contentious mess of dubious facts, counter claims, and defenses. My attempt to bring it to NPOV by creating a criticism section has failed. Since Mr. Warren has some legitimacy as a mainstream-published author, I propose a revert to a simpler, NPOV version (edited 03:55, 31 October 2006 LuckyLouie) in which all vanity material and inflated/unverified data has been removed. This would provide a foundation for other editors who may wish to expand it at some future date. LuckyLouie19:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I've left block warnings on both IP talk pages. Post as needed with follow-ups. The page protection shouldn't remain in place long term, but I'll block in the future for obvious vanity/puffery. Durova21:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
