Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 113:
Line 113:
===New requests===
===New requests===
<!-- Report new alerts below this line (at the top of the list) -->
<!-- Report new alerts below this line (at the top of the list) -->
==={{Vandal|Tecmobowl}}===
This problem user has a history of abuse and vandalism, along with some ] violations mainly in baseball related articles. One of his favorite tactics is removing information or reinserting deleted information. His attacks drove ] from Misplaced Pages. Tecmobowl has a history of removing warning notices from his talk page and of incivility with several users. I also suspect he makes similar edits from anon ips, and has vandalized my user page using this tactic. My first thought was that the user was part of the ] sockpuppet ring, but he seems as if he is a new case all together despite using many of the same tactics such as attempting to get admin intervention against those who he feel is wrong. The user is now harassing me. I firmly am convinced that this user may be part of the Spotteddogsdotorg/Scott Brown vandalism/sockpuppet ring. ] ] 08:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
===={{vandal|PANONIAN}}====
===={{vandal|PANONIAN}}====
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)
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)
Line 226:
Line 229:
::::::::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 ] of this topic. -- ] ] ] 19:07, 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 ] of this topic. -- ] ] ] 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 ] 19:27, 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 ] 19:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
===Under investigation===
===Under investigation===
Line 291:
Line 293:
:Warrants further monitoring. User has repeatedly added copyrighted text to articles. The ''Transformers'' articles he created may be completely tainted. —]→] • 18:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
:Warrants further monitoring. User has repeatedly added copyrighted text to articles. The ''Transformers'' articles he created may be completely tainted. —]→] • 18:40, 9 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.
Flavor_Flav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Muppetmower1989, TeslaDeathRay, 67.165.164.80 and 72.132.230.219 are all members of a Counter-Strike Clan and they continue to vandalize the Flavor Flav page with pointless stats and info about their clan "Team Flav". All resquests to discuss on the Flavor Flave talkpage are ignored and a revert war has begun. I request an investigation to resolve this situation.Gamer8302:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Freakazoid! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): The section on Enemies has been repeatedly vandalized by a series of IPs to cut a section on one character, Candle Jack, off short. It's a joke, as a quick reading of the character's entry will make clear, but it's obvious whoever it is will keep doing it. I don't know what's appropriate, but a semi-protect seems in order. // Jay Maynard17:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Food (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): A whole host of accounts and IPs (probably the same person) have been vandalizing the food article several times a day over the past week. I have no idea why. I issue short-term blocks whenever I see the trouble, but any help would be appreciated. If you would keep an eye on it, perhaps he'll give up. – Quadell00:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Weis Markets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been repeatedly vandalized over the past week, multiplie times every day, by an anonymous IP. The user keeps adding the same stuff--something about a black bear, and another paragraph about Weis being voted "best place to fart in." He/she then adds varied other things, all related to the "farting" theme. It's getting irritating. Is it possible to lock this page for a while so that only registered users can edit it? Thanks much. --Captadam02:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Tae Su Jutsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Three single-purpose accounts (two users - TheShodan and FlamingSquirrel, one IP) have been repeatedly editing this article to turn it into a personal attack. I reverted the vandalism once but since then there have been around 40 more edits. I'm not entirely certain the article is notable, but that's a separate issue // Jamoche06:22, 15 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.
An examination of the edit history of this IP address shows subtle, sometimes comical, changes to articles which are not obvious vandalism. It appears this is an individual who wishes to "make a mark" without being obvious. --KeepItClean02:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a shared IP address, and is probably not a user familiar with Misplaced Pages's standards. However, the user is inserting posibly defamatory material into Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology. IP address also has a history of vandalism. I have put a warning on their userpage; hopefully that will stop the behavior (it has already been reverted twice), but if not, further action may be needed. Sorry if I put this in the wrong place. Thesmothete 20:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC) (UPDATE: Use has not immediately re-occurred. I'll withdraw this if there's no improper activity from this IP in the next 24 hours. Thesmothete 03:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)) Withdrawn, per prior comment. Thesmothete13:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
This anonymous user is, apparently in an automatic way, adding and readding the same links to photographs to French and other countries buildings articles. They don't look as vandalism, but they're highly against WP:style in format; I wrote him in his talk, but he anyway ocntinued in the practice. It seems he uses different IPs, as I found the same pseudo-link spam in other articles, added by different IPs.Attilios19:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what to do about this user. Generally, edits from this IP address have been positive. However, I have been reverting some edits made repeatly to the Fahrenheit article, which I find misleading and irrelevant. In a posting on my talk page, 207.194.164.93 also states:
I've done a lot of editing on Misplaced Pages before, but I usually don't like to have a user name, as I don't like to get too invested in ongoing issues.
I do not have sufficient knowledge of Misplaced Pages politics to know if such behaviour consitutes vandalism, is frowned upon, or is accepted. In particular, saying "I don't like to get too invested in ongoing issues" seems to be somewhat at odds with the pattern of edits. I don't want to spend too much time on this, but it seems like something that should be addressed. Michaelbusch01:43, 18 October 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:
This problem user has a history of abuse and vandalism, along with some WP:OWN violations mainly in baseball related articles. One of his favorite tactics is removing information or reinserting deleted information. His attacks drove TBTA from Misplaced Pages. Tecmobowl has a history of removing warning notices from his talk page and of incivility with several users. I also suspect he makes similar edits from anon ips, and has vandalized my user page using this tactic. My first thought was that the user was part of the Spotteddogsdotorg/Scott Brown sockpuppet ring, but he seems as if he is a new case all together despite using many of the same tactics such as attempting to get admin intervention against those who he feel is wrong. The user is now harassing me. I firmly am convinced that this user may be part of the Spotteddogsdotorg/Scott Brown vandalism/sockpuppet ring. TV NewserTipline08:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Continous unnoticed reverts of referenced datas. , , , . Stated clear hatred against me several times also. I guess his sockpuppet or meatpuppet is User:Otu2 also. (Or a friend of his, user:Tankred's.) (Both) has ultra agressive behaivour, and nonsense statements about me or the history. --VinceB09:48, 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 Novi Sad 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. PANONIAN(talk)12:01, 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. KissL12:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I've issued a 48 hour block on User:VinceB for edit warring after a previous block and subsequent warnings. In light of the cut-and-paste warning to User:PANONIAN's talk page and the complaint here that's probably a lenient block. Please refocus on productive contributions. Durova22:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, per WP:IAR I've removed the vandalism warning from User:PANONIAN's talk page. This was a content dispute, not vandalism, and the template appears to have been posted in retaliation. Durova21:31, 20 October 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 wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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)
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)
I can't decide if this is somebody who's playing games with me or just honestly an inexperienced user, but he makes obnoxious edits without citing sources. I'll revert of course, only to find that days, weeks, or months later the same reverted text finds its way back into the article. Please investigate this, I'm so tired of being trigger-happy with the revert button. I wrote a really good article (Knots Landing) which has been since ruined as I've repeatedly given up and incorporated his stupidity into it. I really want him gone (or forbidden to edit Knots Landing) so I can like re-write that article completely. Juppiter02:06, 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)
Strange goings-on at the Barry Marshall page. I can only think of three possibilities, in order of likelihood:
1. Barjammar is a user who has pretended to be Barry Marshall elsewhere on the Internet.
2. Barjammar is Barry Marshall and Dr. Marshall is a victim of identity theft since there is someone on television in the US claiming to be him appearing in infomercials by Bottom Line Health.
3. Barjammar is Barry Marshall and is knowingly reverting true information (i.e. that he appeared in an infomercial in the US).
Update - on Bottom Line Health's webpage there is a slogan "Nobel prize winners join the greatest health team ever assembeled," but it doesn't say which nobel prize winner. I still can't find a clip. Mjk235723:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Info reposted and sourced. If anyone knows how to get a video clip off a DVR and onto the internet I'll post the video evidence. Mjk235709:41, 15 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)
