Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:54, 5 November 2006

Instructions

Choose one of three sections to make a report: Watchlist, IP addresses, or Registered users. Follow the recommended format for each section including the heading markup. Place the request at the top of the New requests subsection or the top of the watchlist. 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:

1. Articles being hit with a very high level of vandalism or that are repeatedly vandalised with an extended time before reverts.
2. Registered users or IPs that have carried out clear vandalism but have currently stopped.

• Do not report here:

1. Articles featured on the front page, or very high profile articles - these will already be watched
2. Vandals needing to be blocked - see WP:AIV instead.
3. Users needing investigation - see one of the sections below.

• Use the following format:

* {{article|article name}} - brief explanation // ~~~~ or

* {{vandal|username}} - brief explanation // ~~~~ or

* {{IPvandal|Ip_Address}} - brief explanation //~~~~

• Reports will be removed from the list and watched by users in #vandalism-en-wp.

Watchlist requests

• Jim Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Editors and Admins alike should keep an eye on this article. It is subject to vandalism by a block-evading puppetmaster. Article is currently semi-protected, but more people keeping an eye on it would be helpful. // Zsinj 04:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggest WP:DE. Durova 06:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

IP addresses

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

Please use this format at the top of this section:

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

Brief Description. ~~~~

New requests

Under investigation

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

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. —Cswrye 23:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 6 weeks. Durova 01:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:12.218.128.125#Stop_adding_unsourced_claims constantly inserting unsourced OR to historic articles. Arminius and Hannibal Barca for example Wandalstouring 20:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No activity since 2 November. Post if problems resume. Durova 23:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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

edits in Military history of ancient Rome and Second Punic WarWandalstouring 20:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month for continued vandalism after final warning. Durova 23:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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

67.140.86.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 67.140.88.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 67.140.82.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 67.140.91.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 67.140.92.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 68.41.133.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 162.40.19.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 162.40.57.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 172.167.144.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 205.139.10.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 205.188.116.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

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 1 03:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page. Durova 02:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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.

Grateful for advice! 4u1e 17:15 20 October 2006

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, Durova 15:53, 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. Durova 16:10, 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.

Know anyone who can write in Japanese? :) --4u1e 06:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Further reversions of my reversions from the alternate address of 220.221.17.213 in the last few hours. --4u1e 12:24, 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. --4u1e 15:18, 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. --4u1e 15:31, 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. Durova 21:43, 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

If it happens again, then post here and I'll issue a block. Durova 15:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

One more so far this morning from 222.225.117.108 - another reversal of an already reverted change. --4u1e 06:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And a shed load more. --4u1e 12:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. If this continues future blocks will be longer. Durova 02:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

More edits ongoing from the address now. --4u1e 08:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

48 hour block. I wish this person would discuss this with us, but maybe they can't. Durova 19:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

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! --4u1e 19:56, 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. Durova 21:49, 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 martini 00:57, 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. Durova 02:02, 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:

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

Brief Description. ~~~~

Usernames are case sensitive.

New requests

Under investigation

Freedom skies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Addhoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Freedom skies

User:Addhoc

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.

Freedom skies 16:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Answering in bullet points for clarity:

• 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.

Post again with confirmation of sockpuppets or new problems. Meanwhile, recommend the editors open a request for comment on the page. Durova 20:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

DannyBoi969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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. Durova 01:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Myspace13 This user has been vandalising the population figures for articles about Arizona and Arizonan cities. Examples include Tucson, Arizona, Scottsdale, Arizona, Arizona, and Phoenix, Arizona. --ABQCat 06:09, 3 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. Durova 16:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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. KittenKlub 19:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• See also block log. At the very least, it is very low-quality editing that is not wanted. —Centrx→talk • 17:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• It continues; blocked for 1 week. To be banned if user continues. —Centrx→talk • 17:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

User:J intela

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. CRCulver 00:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

May be trolling; no one could actually be that bad at spelling and no worthwhile contributions. —Centrx→talk • 17:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No new edits in several days. Report if problems resume. Durova 16:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Mathewignash continues to add copyrighted text to Transformers articles, despite being warned multiple times not to do so. Examples include:

You can see several warnings on his talk page about this ranging the year. Interrobamf 12:54, 21 September 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. Durova 16:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Hello everyone,

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.

Thank you. Rememberkigali 15:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• 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. TheronJ 02:26, 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. Durova 04:40, 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, TheronJ 15:50, 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. Durova 16:13, 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. GoodDay 19:15, 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. Durova 04:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

El Jique, has no talk page, there's no way to contact him. His IP address isn't shown. GoodDay 23:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

His IP address shows in the edit histories. Here's his talk page: User talk:208.65.190.194. Best wishes, Durova 04:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Nathaniel Tarn

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.--Poetlister 22:47, 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. Durova 23:52, 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. LuckyLouie 19:18, 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. Durova 00:40, 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. LuckyLouie 19:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:VANITY also applies. Durova 21:05, 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. Durova 21:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

See also

• /Archives
• Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse
• Misplaced Pages:Vandalism contains information about vandalism, antivandalism methods and tools, and links to other relevant pages.
• Meta:Finding network abuse contacts

• Misplaced Pages requests for investigation