Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

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.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:02, 30 April 2007 view sourceBen (talk | contribs)3,731 editsm →Proposed community ban on []: fix wikilink← Previous edit Revision as of 07:05, 30 April 2007 view source Cleo123 (talk | contribs)1,494 edits →[]Next edit →
Line 121: Line 121:


::We are making changes based on what the sources state clearly, and yet Bus stop has accused myself and others from making unwarranted suppositions from the text. --] 08:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC) ::We are making changes based on what the sources state clearly, and yet Bus stop has accused myself and others from making unwarranted suppositions from the text. --] 08:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

: You are proving my point. There is no concensus. Many editors disagree with your "team's" view, yet, you continue to single out ]. I understand that he can be a bit verbose and sometimes his logic my seem a bit circuitous, but having worked with this editor extensively in the past, I know him to be well meaning. He can be very long-winded and responding to his comments can be a real chore. However, that's what Misplaced Pages is all about - working with a diverse group of people to reach a concensus. I have no doubt that he isn't enjoying the current debate any more than you are. I believe him when he says his primary focus is ] concerns. It's disturbing to see an editor like ] openly propose a conspiracy of sorts to get an established editor blocked, just because "we don't have time for this". I'm glad you do not condone his remarks. ] is not an unreasonable person. If you all stop "ganging up" on him and setting up scenarios where he is forced to "defend" himself - you may get better results. As a group, you seem so angry with him that you may not be "hearing" what he's saying any more. From what I've read, it looks like he's backed off of and conceded to discussion of the "conversion" in the ] article. It seems that the list is his primary focus. At least that's how I read it. ] 07:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


== ] == == ] ==

Revision as of 07:05, 30 April 2007

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Header



Lovelight

Lovelight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has gone from being mildly disruptive to engaging in edit warring (4 3RR blocks in two months) and now egregious insults."Well, fuck you, you little piece of shit" His contributions are those of a Single purpose account, working almost exclusively on articles related to trying to add oftentimes ridiculiously silly conspiracy theory misinformation to articles related to the events of September 11, 2001. I believe the community has had enough of this kind of behavior and an indefinite ban or similar sanction is mandatory. An Rfc has been filed on Lovelight here, but I think this is a waste of time.--MONGO 18:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I believe a community ban is warranted. His contribution is limited to repeated WP:POINT violations, 3RR violations as well as just general disruption in addition to the issues cited above. --Tbeatty 19:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I also believe it is warranted. He takes up far more time from editors and admins than his contributions warrant. Unfortunately, based on his behavior and what he has implied in his talk postings, I fear he will come come back as a vandal of similar quality to Cplot. --StuffOfInterest 19:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Statement from Lovelight, posted here by request
    "Please note that noticeboard is not a replacement for requests for comment, and should not be used as a type of dispute resolution: community ban requests should be a last resort. Complex or ambiguous cases should go to dispute resolution."
  • Another statement from Lovelight: (--StuffOfInterest 20:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC))
    Well Tony, you are wrong, have you visited related talk page, have you checked related history, are you aware of the issue(s) here or did you just took a look at my "representative" talk space? Please, if you are to endorse this, then at least find some good will and time to go through the history which led to this point. Thanks. Lovelight 20:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Lovelight asked to have his previous two statements replaced with the following: (--StuffOfInterest 21:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC))
    Please note also that this noticeboard is not a replacement for requests for comment, and should not be used as a type of dispute resolution: community ban requests should be a last resort. Complex or ambiguous cases should go to dispute resolution. Please check related history I'm afraid my talk space is not "representative", at least, if you don't take a closer look. I'd appreciate, if you would find some time and good will to check the facts. Thanks. Lovelight 20:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Mongo's observation about the complexity and ambiguity of this case may be important: "Lovelight has gone from being only mildly disruptive, to edit warring and down right offensive." I would argue for continuing the RfC in order to better understand this process. I have some experience in this vein and can imagine how someone with Lovelight's views has been received on arrival. Seraphimblade could provide examples of his attempts to reason with Lovelight, and other opportunities to go from mildly disruptive to mildly constructive could be examined. It does seem to me that Lovelight is no longer capable of taking even his own struggle here seriously. I'm just not at all sure that's his fault alone.--Thomas Basboll 21:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
This is what oftentimes happens when POV pushers meet continued resistance against their efforts. They can either work with the consensus, become an edit warrior, or file frivilous Rfc's and arbcom cases to try and get their way...impuning the integrity of those that have worked hard to keep Misplaced Pages a respectable and reliable referece base.--MONGO 21:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree in part: the way POV pushers are treated these days often turns them into edit warriors at an early age, if you will, instead of just going away. Banning them without an RfC may well turn them into vandals. This same treatment, however, also causes people who are not POV pushers to either leave or file RfC's with the hope of improving the rhetorical climate. It is possible to work hard doing the wrong thing, even with good intentions.--Thomas Basboll 22:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
My attempts to work with Lovelight are on User talk:Lovelight, if you'd like to look at them. Seraphimblade 22:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I support an indefinite ban. Crum375 22:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Since we have seen no expression of guilt or fault whatsoever from Lovelight, I am forced to support a community ban. (I started the RfC moments before he was blocked for 3RR. Again.) --Golbez 23:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • With the qualification that Lovelight is entitled to attempt some defence if possible, I support the indefinite ban. This is simply not a "complex or ambiguous" case - the evidence clearly demonstrates that he (she) is not merely disagreeing in good faith, but is intentionally disrupting Misplaced Pages with no constructive purpose. He promotes edits that he himself knows to be incorrect or misleading (at times even providing sources that contradict his own assertions), holds the contrary contributions of other editors to a completely different standard than his own, and wilfully violates WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Peter Grey 02:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I would observe that there are two questions here:
    1. has this fellow been blocked correctly?
      • If so then could whoever keeps broadcasting this fellow's pleas for an RFC please stop? It'd gone beyond Requests for comment if we're discussing a fellow who has already been correctly blocked for one week for egregious edit warring, came out of that and got himself correctly blocked for another two weeks.
    2. Do we call it a day with this editor?
      • If the answer to the first question is "yes", I would suggest that it's going to take a very, very big counter-argument to make this fellow appear worth expending even more effort on.
So we should pay a lot of attention to the answer to question 1. For upon that question hinges the future of this fellow. --Tony Sidaway 03:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Looking at his block log and talk page, the answer to 1) is, 'Yes, certainly.' Lovelight's defense for persistent edit warring has always been that he is telling The Truth about What Really Happened on 9/11, and so should not be limited by the three-revert rule. Tom Harrison 13:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Bye bye Lovelight. --Tony Sidaway 00:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Re:Tom Harrison: Indeed, that's exactly what I found when I blocked him a couple weeks ago. I'm not going to comment on the whether or not to community-ban him; however, his attitude suggests strongly that he has no interest in functioning as a member of our community. Heimstern Läufer 00:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

So, can we permablock him already? --Golbez 00:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

He is currently under a 2 week block. It appears there is consensus to community ban Lovelight but there is no rush as he can't do anything disruptive with the 2 week block. I don't anticipate any more comments or exonerations but keeping it open does no harm. --Tbeatty 06:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Bus stop

Maybe this doesn't belong here, but I don't know where else to take this. The above user above has been blocked from editing three or four times now for three reversions of content on pages related to Bob Dylan, specifically regarding his conversion to Christianity in the late 1970's-early 1980's. Sources for that conversion include the Encyclopedia Britannica and New York Times and a published book of his own Christian statements from the stage. He cites "absence of a high profile publication is clear proof that no conversion took place." Evidently none of the above qualify, and in his eyes absence of evidence is clear prove nothing happened. User seeks to see some evidence of a formal sacramental initiation into Christianity, evidently not knowing or caring that several branches of Christianity do not use such practices, or perhaps believing that those Christians should not be classified as such. User has also questioned the good faith of editors seeking to insert such sourced material, using phrases such as "His Jewish heritage doesn't go out the window because he felt like exploring Christianity in 1979", Request user be blocked from editing the pages Bob Dylan, List of converts to Christianity, and List of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians, as those three pages would seem to contain the only content which causes him to engage in these repeated reversions and other POV matters, that being questions about Dylan's conversion to some form of Christianity. John Carter 19:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

According to his block log, he is currently in the middle of his second 1-day block for 3RR. Addhoc 19:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not an admin, and simply counted the number of times he had notices of blocks on his user page. I didn't think to check the block record. My apologies. John Carter 20:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Reading his talk page, I'm not impressed.. "Religious conversion" is a meaningless term in the hands of proselytizers pushing their point of view. is just one quote that makes me think that he's become an edit warrior on this, and will not improve. I'd support a community topic ban to the three pages mentioned above. SirFozzie 19:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat alarmed to see Bus stop's name in this conversation, since I first encountered him voting for the same side as me in an AfD debate, so this immediately marked him out as a person of good sense. Then I went and looked at his contribution history in this Dylan matter, and it was quite scary. Also I checked the submitter (above), John Carter and he looks to have a very good record on Misplaced Pages. So there you have my two 'ad hominem' arguments, and they point in opposite directions. I'm going to leave a Talk message for Bus stop, and see if he will come down momentarily from his pillar of rectitude (with which I agree, but 3RR is pretty serious, so he ought to pay attention). EdJohnston 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe User:Warlordjohncarter account of events is somewhat misleading. For the most part, I have merely been watching this dispute from the sidelines. I, myself, also questioned the information in the article a few days back because the primary source for this information appeared to be a blog. The New York Times reference has only recently been added (after Bus stop's 1st block) thanks to his persistent requests for citations. It seems that User:Bus stop is legitimately concerned with WP:BLP issues. Editors on the "converted Christian" side of the fence seem to be perpetuating a possible misconception in the article, which seems to have struck a nerve with User:Bus stop. He seems to feel that he is addressing a libel issue that is exempt from 3RR. Regardless, he has behaved improperly and I do not defend him on that. I will say, however, that this is shockingly out of character.
I am concerned by User:Warlordjohncarter's statements above. Having followed these discussions, I find it very implausible that JohnCarter accidentally misrepresented User:Bus stop's block history. User:Bus stop has created a lot of work for the other editors by challenging their position. I can understand why they might want him - or his view - blocked from the page. I do not see User:Bus stop's request for evidence of a formal sacramental initiation as at all unreasonable. I'd like to see some myself! I know of no branches of Christianity that do not require converts to be formally baptized in Christ. It is a fundamental part of Christianity required by all denominations. User:Warlordjohncarter has taken User:Bus stop's statements out of context portraying him in the most unreasonable light possible. I know User:Bus stop to be a very rational and civil editor by and large. He was a significant contributor on the highly contentious Michael Richards article and is most capable of working productively and positively within the community's guidelines and policies. Hopefully, he will take advantage of this block as an opportunity to calm down. Cleo123 01:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
You are free to be "concerned" as you like. However, I note that there are four blue boxed on Bus stop's talk page. It did not occur to me that they were not all for individual blocks, as I myself have no direct knowledge of the protocols in place. And, for what it's worth, I'm not entirely sure how saying the New York Times and Encyclopedia Britannica are not reliable sources can be portrayed positively. I did present the argument against his position, as it did not occur to me that I had to present both sides of an argument when requesting the possible review of behavior to consider sanction. If so, it is somewhat amusing to me that the police officer (or prosecutor, whichever title you prefer) who reports such incidents has to function as defense attorney as well. John Carter 21:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Cleo, besides non-denominational Christian communities and individuals (which lack any visible structure and are heterogeneous in their beliefs), one such denomination which does not practice baptism is the Salvation Army. The Baptism page also notes that "a few Christian groups assert that water-based baptism has been supplanted by the promised baptism of the Holy Spirit, and water baptism was unnecessarily carried over from the early Jewish Christian practice."
In regards to the listing on this page, I can say a few things. I've gone far out of my way to list and summarize each of the sources used. In fact, Bus stop and I were at one point in agreement: the original reference was slightly ambiguous. So, I sought out 8 more sources, which were all apparently insufficient- in his view (feel free to come to your own conclusions here). I've added yet another source, a lengthy article from a Jewish newsletter, which is actually quite fair and even sometimes apologetic about the nature of his religious beliefs (this has also been summarized, and quotes have been noted at the above link). According to Bus stop, none of these sources are sufficient. Bus stop has said that he is acting in a neutral manner in his edits, and others seem to agree that he is a reliable and helpful editor, but I'm unsure if the same can be said in this instance, considering certain things he has said. I don't mean to villainize him, but at the same time, I'm truly surprised that he persists with his argument, and I'm puzzled as to why he really hasn't made an attempt to provide sources which support his viewpoint.--C.Logan 02:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, your own sources argue User:Bus stop's point as much as they do your own. When you quote Dylan as saying things like: "Well, religion is repressive to a certain degree. Religion is another form of bondage which man invents to to get himself to God." It seems pretty implausible that he formally converted to some denomination of Christinity. One does not convert to a non-denominational community - they informally join one. (and I'm not saying he didn't for a time.) I wouldn't expect anyone to be "baptized" into the Salvation Army as it is not a religion. Use of the word conversion is applicable to organized religions and specifically implies formally, and publically, abandoning a former faith. I'm inclined to agree with User:Bus stop that your sources are shaky for statements that have such sweeping implications. The sources you have provided in the link above indicate that his conversion is the subject of longterm and widespread dispute, yet you all behave as if User:Bus stop is utterly alone in his "irrational" view. I am not sure that the burden of proof is on User:Bus stop here. He is not asserting anything other than the status quo.Cleo123 04:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Cleo, I'm unsure how familiar you are with the scope of Christian belief, so bear with me. It's common to hear many non-ritualistic Christians say that "Christianity is not a religion. (It's a relationship with Christ/God)". This sort of idea is common among most non-denominational Christians, but also extends to Christians of all denominations. It's essentially a saying which elevates the belief in Christ above standard religions. You can even see it as a slogan of sorts- I've heard it from many street-side proselytizers. When I used this quote in the summary, it seemed clear to me that this is what Dylan is expressing. Many Christians do not see Christianity as merely "a religion".
Additionally, the Salvation Army is an organization, but it is also a separate denomination in and of itself. From Christian denomination: "The Salvation Army is often, albeit incorrectly, understood to be a social relief organization. It is, in fact, a denomination which does extensive social relief work."
Dylan was listed with a source. The original source was insufficient, so I provided several more. The sources lean more towards conversion with terms like "Dylan's conversion". I've always been fine with adding a "(conversion disputed)" note next to his name on the list, but as the sources are generally clear that he did convert, despite doubts from many, I feel it's up to Bus stop to provide sources for his argument. Is there really a problem with this? I mean, one of the sources for Dylan even says he was actually baptised- whether you find this reliable or not is another story. The people match up, as several sources and a documentary relate Dylan with the Vineyard Church and Kenn Gulliksen. It seems that the book "Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades" supports this version of events as well, or so this review/summary states. --C.Logan 04:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I see that two article RFCs have been opened up, as listed in the main RFC list for biographies. One of them is at Talk:List_of_converts_to_Christianity, and the other is at Talk:Bob_Dylan#Request_for_Comment. There is also a whole bunch of discussion of this under other headings at Talk:Bob Dylan. Can User:Warlordjohncarter comment as to whether there is a Talk page consensus yet at either of these pages? If he believes so, it might be appropriate for John to write a summary section on at least one of those pages, stating what he believes is the consensus, and asking for further comment. Note that WP's procedure for dealing with disruptive editors involves going through six steps, in which 'editor ignores consensus' is step #5. Before the editor can ignore it, there has to be a generally-agreed consensus for him to ignore. If you read that list of steps, you'll see the present noticeboard listed as one of the options for step #6. (Mere 3RR violations are one thing, but a formal verdict of disruptive editing is another). I don't think it will be quick or easy to discern the consensus on either of those pages. EdJohnston 03:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
At the Talk:Bob_Dylan#Request_for_Comment editors provide a citation connecting Dylan to the Assembly of God, a fundamentalist, pentecostal, evangelical denomination. According to Misplaced Pages, formal baptism by water is a required ritual in the Assembly of God denomination. There should be verifiable documentation of this religious ritual to back up claims of conversion. User:Bus stop is not off base in requesting it. Cleo123 04:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
All the sources I've found, and this documentary, associate Dylan with the Vineyard Fellowship Church; from what I can see, they don't require water baptism... but this source seems to say Bob was actually baptized one of the assistant pastors at this church. It seems that the book "Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades" supports this version of events as well, or so this review/summary states. Notice how I copied and pasted the last sentence from the above paragraph, because I'm lazy. --C.Logan 04:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I do not see these sources as sufficiently credible. There is a very transparent adgenda for the pastor's statements - which do not strike me as entirely believable. Other sources are affiliating Dylan with yet another denomination. The issue is plagued with a history of controversy. Misplaced Pages must heir on the side of caution when it comes to biographies of living people. Regardless, this is an inappropriate forum for extended discussion on the issue. I have remarked on the appropriate RFC page. Cleo123 04:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the book by John Bauldie, "Wanted Man: In Search of Bob Dylan", also supports his study within Vineyard, and his conversion (pgs. 141-142, or pgs. 128-134, which contain excepts from an article by Clinton Heylin). I'll have check out the book to get a direct excerpt from the text. Additionally, googling Bob Dylan and Vineyard yields 103,000 results (many of these results could be referring to a 'vineyard'... adding 'church' into the search yields 41,900); searching Bob Dylan and Assemblies of God yields only 2090 (and many of these are AoG sites quoting Dylan, it seems). Don't think that was meant to be scientific, it's just worth noting. I'll take a look at the sources you've mentioned. --C.Logan 05:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty, on my own, of reprinting the following current comment from User:Bus stop's talk page. Being blocked, he cannot comment here. It should be noted that despite his block, he is now reasonably discussing the editorial issues with others on his own talk page.Cleo123 05:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"Thanks, Cleo. My primary objection is that Dylan should not be on the List of converts to Christianity. I do not know if the alleged conversion is valid. But neither does anyone else. The impression one gets when one sees a name on such a list in an encyclopedia is of veracity. Truth. A list is an either/or type of thing. You are either on the list. Or you are off the list. That is what a list is. It is black and white. I have seen no one come up with a shred of evidence that any transition from Jewish to Christian took place. I've heard the lyrics on Slow Train Coming cited as "proof" of conversion. I've heard a dictionary definition brought forward as similar proof. I've heard Dylan's "sermonettes" between songs cited as constituting conversion. This is what people do not come to Misplaced Pages for. In fact, all of that is original research. As soon as Misplaced Pages goes out on a limb and speculates about something that it is not sure of, all of it's principles go out the window. Neutral point of view is immediately gone when you speculate about things that you simply have no way of knowing. A list implies truth. An article can include shades of grey. A list can not. In the article on Bob Dylan there is much more leeway to deal with the "Christian" period in Dylan's professional career, and maybe even in his life. But without a subject meeting a fairly high standard of verifiability for conversion, inclusion on a list is unwarranted. There are really lots of reasons to believe no valid conversion took place. One of which is that there was no Christian life lived. Is there any indication Christianity had any bearing on his life after the supposed conversion? But I am admitting I don't know. To me it is clear that the editors arguing for the validity of conversion don't know either. What I hear in the guise of arguments is mere conjecture. That argues for removal from the list. Bus stop 03:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)"
For the sake of complete representation in the discussion, I'll move my response to the above text here:
I'm sorry, that's incorrect. As we are citing secondary sources which claim that he converted, this is not Original Research. Secondary sources are almost universally preferred on Misplaced Pages, as the usage of primary sources often leads to OR.
Also, it's interesting that one of you arguments against an actual conversion as that there is no real change in lifestyle, in the long term anyway. Let's go through the list then, and assess the lives of each person. We should remove each person who's lifestyle doesn't seem to reflect their change in religion. Oh wait, that's absurd. This is List of converts to Christianity, not List of converts to Christianity who actively practice their newfound religion.
It is indisputable that at least some of these people (if not many) included in this list don't actually live lives which reflect their religious change. Some may have only converted for marriage reasons, or for political reasons (as is supposed with Carlos Menem). That's not the point of this list. If someone has at one time professed belief in Christ as their savior, and/or has gone through a conversion ceremony, they are considered 'converts to Christianity and will be listed here, regardless of whether they converted out of the religion a week later, and regardless if they are still practicing. The same applies to all other religious pages listing converts.
I hate to be involved in this dispute. It's quite lame, but I must insist on my viewpoint until you can convince me otherwise. Show me sources, and hope that I don't reject their reliability as you have for the sources we've presented. Unfortunately, though, even if you do provide sources for insincerity of conversion, he'll likely remain on the list as a disputed conversion. After all, we're only supposed to express what the sources themselves say- not make judgments about them. If we have sources that say he did convert, and you actually bring sources that say that it was just an entertainer's act, that simply means we'll have to compromise. --C.Logan 03:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Actually, I copied the comment, not so much for it's content - but to demonstrate User:Bus stop's rational tone. This forum is dedicated to discussing a request that User:Bus stop be blocked from editing the articles. His comments above were directed, specifically, to me and you responded. Perhaps, your own tone will give others some insight as to the level of passion that exists on each side of the fence in this situation. To my mind there appears to be a bit of a "gang mentality" aimed at quashing a vocal dissenting minority. As more editors become aware of the debate, User:Bus stop's view appears to be picking up support in the RFC discussion. Blocking him from editing the articles will not end the debate, as there is no consensus. Cleo123 05:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I think sanctions are probably a bit premature right now, especially since there is evidently some dispute still concerning the warrantedness of Bus stop's edits. Remember, he's onlt been blocked twice so far. It's true, his comments aren't exactly promising, but let's give some time to cool down; maybe with time he'll cease edit warring; if not, we can try heading for dispute resolution. Heimstern Läufer 05:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't feel he should really be blocked either. As far as I know, he's not a vandal. I obviously disagree with him, and I feel that he may misunderstand the point of the List of converts to Christianity; I also feel that he may misunderstand the idea of 'conversion' itself. My stance is partly based on the fact that we do have several sources, on the internet, in books and publications, and in documentaries, that seem to attest to the fact that he converted- maybe not officially, even though at least one of the books claims so- at least nominally, and at least for a short time. It's hard to read the Jewsweek source without sensing that he is clearly considered a Christian in the article (specifically, a Jewish Christian). My stance is also partly based on the fact that I've never gone through a formal conversion ceremony, and yet I claim Christian faith; Dylan seems to say things which validate Christian beliefs much more than I do... for this reason, I don't feel that official conversion ceremonies are explicitly necessary, even if they are very common (This is more of a personal reason, as it should be clear to see; I'm simply explaining my looseness with the whole "conversion ceremony" business).
We are encouraged to use secondary sources here. Obviously, primary sources can be ambiguous- as the quote you mentioned above was seen by you one way, and by myself in another. I'm proclaiming what is reported in the sources which have been found. If a source says "conversion to Christianity", then the source has contributed something to warrant him to be included in the list. I have yet to see any sources which explicitly claim Bus stops point of view, but I'm definitely open to them. On the List of converts to Christianity talk page, I've tried to propose a compromise. As it says there, we have several sources which explicitly claim conversion- internet sources, at least 2 book sources, and a documentary. I think Dylan should be on the list, with a disclaimer that his conversion is disputed. Is this not fair? If a source can be found, then I hope that will be able to resolve things.--C.Logan 06:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I see that Talk:List_of_converts_to_Christianity#Request_for_comment is churning away collecting a lot of opinions and reflective discussion. Respectfully, I suggest that no more comments be added to this thread until that article RFC reaches an agreed consensus. In particular, arguments about sourcing don't belong here, but in an article RFC. EdJohnston 15:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The following comment concerning User:Bus stop was recently posted to theTalk:List_of_converts_to_Christianity#Request_for_comment page :
Suggestion, stop wasting our energies arguing with someone who for whatever reason, appears to be in a state of extreme denial over this issue. Get him blocked again and again using the 3RR rule until he either provides sane supporting citations for his argument, or he tires of this. If he continues for a sixth block, get his user id permanently blocked. We do not have time for this. -Scott P. 21:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that at present there are an equal number of editors on each side of the argument, yet the "pro-Christain" side continue to target User:Bus stop. There is a gang mentality on the page and a troubling lack of civilty that is not coming from User:Bus stop. He appears to be offering a rational argument. Cleo123 07:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you seem to think we're targeting Bus stop. I don't believe that anyone from the "Pro-Christian" side condones Scott's statement above.
We currently have 10 internet sites, 2 (or more, I'm unsure of Mick Gold's contribution) published books which not only mention conversion, but provide details about Dylan's baptism and involvement in church. Additionally, we have the New York Times article, which mentions his "widely-publicized conversion", and and Encyclopedia Britannica entry (although this shouldn't be used as a source). All these sources state in clear terms that "he converted", several relay details of his conversion and the people involved, with corroborating details. This is why is becoming understandably frustrating that he continues to claim there is "insufficient evidence for conversion".
Interestingly, I've attempted to compromise with Bus stop quite a long time ago by including Bob Dylan on the list with a note that it is "disputed by some as to whether he actually converted" (in more or less words). However, he refuses to accept this, and continues to insist on complete removal. How can this be considered reasonable. We have compiled at least 12 sources which state 'conversion'. Several of these verify this with further details. Where is the strong argument against the reality of this conversion. The fact is that Bus stop has never even presented one.
We are making changes based on what the sources state clearly, and yet Bus stop has accused myself and others from making unwarranted suppositions from the text. --C.Logan 08:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You are proving my point. There is no concensus. Many editors disagree with your "team's" view, yet, you continue to single out User:Bus stop. I understand that he can be a bit verbose and sometimes his logic my seem a bit circuitous, but having worked with this editor extensively in the past, I know him to be well meaning. He can be very long-winded and responding to his comments can be a real chore. However, that's what Misplaced Pages is all about - working with a diverse group of people to reach a concensus. I have no doubt that he isn't enjoying the current debate any more than you are. I believe him when he says his primary focus is WP:LIVING concerns. It's disturbing to see an editor like User:Scott P. openly propose a conspiracy of sorts to get an established editor blocked, just because "we don't have time for this". I'm glad you do not condone his remarks. User:Bus stop is not an unreasonable person. If you all stop "ganging up" on him and setting up scenarios where he is forced to "defend" himself - you may get better results. As a group, you seem so angry with him that you may not be "hearing" what he's saying any more. From what I've read, it looks like he's backed off of and conceded to discussion of the "conversion" in the Bob Dylan article. It seems that the list is his primary focus. At least that's how I read it. Cleo123 07:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Gen. von Klinkerhoffen

User:Eagle_101 has unilaterally unblocked this community banned sockpuppeteer in violation of Misplaced Pages policy that states community bans are reviewed by the Arbcom. See Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Gen. von Klinkerhoffen and previous ban. I ask the community to decide whether the ban stands, rather than letting a single admin override consensus. Nardman1 03:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, I supported the unblock too. Give a good reason not to unblock. John Reaves (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Holy something, Batman. This user used 13 different socks while banned. That shows a total disregard for our policies. Nardman1 03:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Do have anything substantive to say? This information was known by the unblocking admin, and blocking a user account is not going to prevent him from making socks. If by "total disregard for our policies" you mean "danger to the encyclopedia", why do you not just say that? or is that not what you mean? —Centrx→talk • 03:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't have to show damage to the encylopedia. This user has done enough prior damage. That's the point of a WP:BAN. It means the community revokes an editor's ability to edit Misplaced Pages, period. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nardman1 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
The community has no such power as long as Misplaced Pages is openly editable. This person is perfectly capable of editing Misplaced Pages whether this user account is blocked or not. Blocking an account only severs the history of the user and the associated trust. Banning a user only means that if his sockpuppets are encountered they are blocked, but in this case any sockpuppets encountered would be ipso facto reason to ban this probationarily unblocked user. —Centrx→talk • 03:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Did you even read WP:BAN? Where does it say an administrator can decide to grant them probation? Nardman1 03:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
And what are you advocating? That we reblock because some rouge admin did it "out of process"? —physicq (c) 04:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
He also violated WP:BLOCK#If_an_administrator_disagrees_with_a_block, specifically by not contacting the blocking admin first and discussing it. I am advocating the community consensus be respected, yes, considering two different policies were violated here. Any unban should be conducted only after a community decision or an arbcom ruling. Nardman1 04:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
You have not answered my question. I asked what should we do now, not what should have been done. —physicq (c) 04:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be formally submitted to the community whether to give this user a second chance. If the outcome is negative, then yes, reblock. I am a firm believer in consensus, I've been a lone voter at DRV several times arguing that the consensus should be respected no matter what, and I'm here now arguing the same. Nardman1 04:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm still waiting an answer to my question. You are giving me grandstanding ideals, not practical solutions. —physicq (c) 04:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Your time would be better spent arguing for what would improve the encyclopedia, which is the sole purpose of consensus. Also, community bans are not done by voting. —Centrx→talk • 04:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
How about: he or she was banned by consensus among several members of the community. If you want to propose that the community reexamine its decision in light of new information or expressions of contrition on the part of the banned editor, please do so. But don't simply ignore or override the community ban. --ElKevbo 03:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
A user that is not blocked is not community banned. A ban is not a result of a trial and an unban is not a result of appeals to some community tribunal. In practice, the block or unblock of a user account has no actual effect against someone who intends to harm Misplaced Pages, but it does if they want to improve it. —Centrx→talk • 03:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Semantic smoke. The issue is that something was submitted to the Community sanction noticeboard and now the actions of the community are being undone by a small number of administrators. Is it any wonder that some editors distrust administrators and throw around accusations of admin abuse when administrators feel free to ignore editors' individual and collective voices, even those editors' opinions when formally asked for, offered, and accepted?
C'mon - just throw this back out there for the community to examine again. Assume good faith and that we'll reach the right decision instead of ignoring us or making a decision for us. --ElKevbo 03:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
By "community" and "us" it looks like you mean you yourself. The person who made this decision is part of the community, as are the people who agree with it, as are the people discussing it on both of these noticeboards. Misplaced Pages is not based on ratification processes. —Centrx→talk • 04:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
This discussion clearly isn't going anywhere and I'm withdrawing from it. If admins want to ignore the good faith actions and discussion of others on this noticeboard then there's nothing editors can do or say to stop them. But rest assured that I won't waste my time on this noticeboard any longer. --ElKevbo 04:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Throwing around the word "unilateral" is meaningless on Misplaced Pages. Every action is prima facie unilateral until you recognize that the action was done for some good reason and that others support it. If an action is unreasonable and ultimately unsupported, it would make no difference if it were done by committee "multilaterally". —Centrx→talk • 03:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I support the unblock as well. If the project benefits, we've done the right thing. If the user returns to previous behavior, a block isn't hard to place. - auburnpilot talk 03:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I do NOT support the unblock (considering the amount of times in a row he sent in a sockpuppet to AN/ANI to ask if we would just leave him alone so he could go back to censoring images he thought were inappropriate, but I also do not support a re-run through CN which would just neuter this board more then it's already been, because it will be very hard to find an administrator to wheel-war on the re-block. I guess the best we can hope for is that he does NOT misbehave again, or is quickly reblocked the second he steps off the beam. SirFozzie 03:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well that would be exactly what would happen. Effectively, you could make any community ban decision be "stay in line perfectly or you will be blocked"; the reason the account is blocked is that a user has been shown to be incorrigible, but in this case he appears not to be. —Centrx→talk • 04:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
(EC times 5) I've seen that bandied about a lot, Nardman1, but consider it this way.. read that section again. According to that, the only way a person was truly Banned if NONE of the over one thousand admins on Misplaced Pages thought they deserved another chance, so if Eagle thought he deserved a 2nd chance, he really wasn't "Banned", so to speak, right? I do wish that Eagle had looked at the amount of disruption that Gen had caused, and the unanimous discussion here at CN, or even discussing it here, but it's done. I'm pretty sure if he breaks the rules again, there won't be warnings or short blocks, he'll be gone, again, this time for good. He's gotten a last chance. Let's see what he does with it. SirFozzie 04:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sad that so much credence is placed in blind following of policy to the extent that we prevent positive contribution to the encyclopedia and immediately shun second chances. John Reaves (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Says the guy who blocked a few of those socks. Funny. I'll give on the "tradition" argument though, seems I was wrong. Nardman1 04:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
No one has said anything about "shunning second chances" and I'm angry that you would misrepresent my position in such a manner. I'm sure that many, like myself, would be happy to consider a second chance for an editor blocked by the community. But to ask us to review a block and then lift that block without even asking for our opinion is demeaning and disrespectful.
If this is how things are going to work, then it's clear that this noticeboard needs to be deleted as discussions here are meaningless. --ElKevbo 04:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to Nardman1, he seems inflexible to offering a second chance. John Reaves (talk) 04:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
By "offer second chance" you mean "undo community ban". Nardman1 04:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure, why not. Although, if a community ban is something any administrator won't undo, seems like this isn't a community ban. John Reaves (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong venue A community ban is simply a ban that no one is willing to undue, it always has been. This is simply a board those can come to before hand to judge that consensus. Jimbo has even remarked on the wiki-en mailing list about these assumptions of the power of this board some users have. He was community banned, an admin was found who was willing to unblock. Thats all there is to it. ---M 04:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

More formal venues require discussion and an attempt to work it out before taking the dispute there. And this is the "forum for the discussion of community bans" according to the top of the page. I think this is the perfect place to discuss this. Nardman1 04:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I want to make it clear, I have unblocked the main account, but the IP still remains with account creation disabled. Meaning that unless he has access to a second IP he cannot create anymore socks. He seems to have reformed, and understands the errors that he committed. If he returns to his prior behavior, then by all means reblock, but as long as he has only one IP the potential damage is limited only to that one account. I ask that we see if he has reformed, he has already created one article :) —— Eagle101 04:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There's effectively nothing to discuss here. He's already been unblocked, apparently with a significant degree of support, so there isn't any way we can say that the will of the community is to ban him. It obviously is not. Probation is already in place, so no real need to discuss that either. Seraphimblade 04:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If anything, just let this guy have a second chance. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 00:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

JJay

In the edit at the bottom, I do not like being told to: stop wasting our time. --JJay 17:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This would be an irrelevant incident. But I feel he is on a mission to be abusive and provoke me and then use his superior knowledge of how Misplaced Pages works to report me for an infraction. I am trying to keep my cool. But I am not unaware of what I believe are his intentions to provoke me. I am not asking for any sanction to be taken against him. Clearly what he said, above, is minor. But I want to register this problem somewhere, with someone. Just in preparation for a continuation of this. It is found here. Below is the entirety of his post:

Considering every statement you have made on this page or elsewhere is based on your subjective opinion, emotional interpretation of events and an apparent personal agenda regarding Jews and Christianity, you are extremely poorly placed to use words such as "evidence" or phrases such as "wikipedia's purpose". We build articles here based on references. There are many pointing to Dylan's conversion including the Encyclopedia Britanica. Until you can indicate contradictory "evidence", i.e. printed sources, stop wasting our time. --JJay 17:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

My User name is: Bus stop 19:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I would simply point out that the evidence pointed out above, and several other pieces of evidence, have been supplied, which were sufficient at the time to have almost all printed sources found stating what the above editor has repeatedly said is non-verifiable. I too would contend that his insistence on asserting what is clearly a POV which has no substantiation, and actually runs contrary to, several printed sources which went without documented dispute from the subject (again, the above editor has refused to provide any documentation whatever of his own position), and a subsequent book of the subject's own words as delivered in public from stage could reasonably be interpreted by many people as "a waste of time." Perhaps the language is a bit harsh, but adamantly continuing to say that we have to abide by a standard of evidence which the majority of the larger, more prosperous news media in the country did not abide by at the time the incidents in question occurred, and that they have (apparently; again, no contrary evidence has been put forward) not been criticized for their own crossing their own, generally stricter, guidelines for such content can be seen by many people, and has been seen by many people, as being probably at least a bit excessive. Particularly when the person raising the post above has clearly and explicitly stated that his own point of view on the subject is so pronounced that his objectivity in these matters can be at least questioned. John Carter 20:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed.--C.Logan 20:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The above report, which was opened by User:Bus stop, does not appear to be a well-formed request for a community sanction. Any needed discussion should take place elsewhere. I suggest that this thread be closed. EdJohnston 20:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.--C.Logan 20:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruption by User:Miaers

User:Miaers is engaged in a long term edit war that has disrupted pages relating to University of Wisconsin. They have gamed the system to disrupt wikipedia. They have abused WP:AN and WP:AN/3RR. They have already been blocked 3 times in March 2007 for disruption (the latest ban was for Continued violation of 3RR, now on University of Wisconsin System). They haven't learned from these blocks . They have launched personal attacks against the admin User:Akhilleus and have misrepresented comments by User:Orangemike as personal attacks.

The report page is here. Requesting site ban, gaming the system from RfCs to WP:AN is totally unacceptable. Disruptive behaiour is quite serious and is escalating--Cailil 01:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Cosign and agree. I haven't been involved in the majority of the debate, but the degree to which this user has been shown to be willing to waste admin's time is shocking. Continually disruptive and unhelpful. JuJube 02:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A slight clarification: To be fair, my block in March was in error as I misread diffs, and I reversed it as such. Seraphimblade 02:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
If the data in User:Cailil/Miaers_disruptive_behaviour represents a fair summary, then this is indeed a serious case. Miaers's editing and aggressive style of argument seem to have caused a big waste of time for other editors. I trust that input will be sought from several of the admins who have dealt with User:Miaers and that Miaers will have a chance to respond. EdJohnston 02:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong support. The community simply can't tolerate a user who creates such a poisonous atmosphere. Blueboy96 02:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per blueboy--TREYWiki 03:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Please read the header on this page again: this is not a vote. "+1 ~~~~" style comments without contributing to the discussion are unnecessary since we don't count numbers to determine consensus. Dmcdevit·t 08:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any compelling reason to think that there's any hope for a constructive turnaround. And plenty of compelling reasons in Cailil's evidence page to go ahead and ban. The pattern here exemplifies an intent to waste everyone else's time and simply draw attention to one's self. Frankly, the complaint today about John Reaves was absurd. And while I am not at this time an egg, I used to be one, so I can speak with some authority on the matter. ··coelacan 03:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that Miaers is currently blocked for 3RR, and so cannot participate in this discussion. S/he should probably be given a chance to speak in self-defense. I also think we might want to explore the possibility of a topical ban; Miaers has some constructive edits, and might still be a valuable editor if we can keep the problem area off-limits. So perhaps we can just ban Miaers from articles that have to do with the University of Wisconsin. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree, Miaers needs the opportunity to speak here or to have their defence posted here. Personally I think their abuse of AN is extraordinary bad faith and warrants more than a topic ban. If their behaviour was limited to the edit war alone I wouldn't have made this report. That said you do have more expeience of their behviour Akhilleus--Cailil 14:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Interesting...I was just about to add a new entry for Miaers here, when I noticed this one! I have been involved in many of his disputes since January 2007, and I support a topic ban. Please note that he has been suspected of using anon edits during previous bans, and I see no reason that he would stop doing so if banned again. It is very hard to assume good faith in his case. – Lordmontu (talk) • (contribs) 03:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Apparently Lordmontu just fixed a couple of pointy page moves by Miaers, who moved University of Wisconsin Law School to University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School; Lordmontu reverted the move, and Miaers moved it back. A similar thing happened on University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed community ban on User:Kdkatpir2

Kdkatpir2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Since 2006, has engaged in bad faith editing, primarily on KDKA-TV and other television-related articles. Most of his crimes have been committed as Kd lvr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom User:Orangemonster2k1 and User:TREYWiki discovered was a sockpuppet of Kdkatpir2. Among this person's offenses:

  • Numerous bad image uploads, either of poor quality or lacking copyright/sourcing information
  • Uploading a gigantic version of KDKA-TV's logo (I shrank it down)
  • Trolling on Orangemonster2k1 and TREYWiki's talk pages once exposed as a sockpuppet.
  • Rude comments and reverts to anyone who adds or retracts anything on KDKA-TV or any other of the pages he trolls. (ie: "DO NOT UNDO, you'll be wasting your time if you do")
  • removing whole sections of talk pages or readding sections that have been moved or deleted by others.

His copyright violations by themselves pose a direct threat to the project, and it is well-established that users who create a poisonous atmosphere are shown the door. I propose we do so with a community ban. Blueboy96 03:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

He has been violating The Manual of Style for quite some time, assuming ownership of KDKA anchor articles, and blatantly changing ones views on a AfD debate. His socking is extremely obvious and evidence can be had on my talk page as well as the trolling he has done. He is completely denying the sock puppetry, although it is almost set in stone. Him ( Kd lvr and Kdkatpir2) create a hostile enviroment on wikipedia, and disrupt AfD debates by double voting and excessive amounts of big, bold, and italic words.--TREYWiki 03:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support I strongly support getting this sock/vandal off the project. --TREYWiki 03:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support User:Kdkatpir2/User:Kd lvr edited primarlly just KDKA-TV and engage in the worst violation of WP:OWN I have seen. To me, this almost borders on obsession. Saying in a since deleted entry on his/her userpage, "If you have done harm to any of these pages, DO NOT DO IT AGAIN!!!!!". It was found by User:TREYWiki and I that User:Kdkatpir2/User:Kd lvr were socks, something that the user denies, but it is more than obvious. Edits never happen at the same time, always within a couple minutes of each other (signing in and out of seperate accounts).
A slip-up came today when the user, under the User:Kdkatpir2 account, posted "Commenting on KDKATPIR2's comments" comment on User:TREYWiki's talk page. Immediately above this post is a post by User:Kd lvr. The header "Commenting on KDKATPIR2's comments" was quickly changed to 'Commenting on my comments", though while still under the User:Kdkatpir2 account . This is sockpuppetry at it's worst and I do mean worst.
a QUICK LOOK at ] shows that it as tpir2 who made that change, NOT me. Kd lvr 13:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't insult our intelligence. You and kdkatpir2 have made several edits in the time it takes to edit as one, sign out, sign in as the other and post again. I was a moderator in political sims once, and I've seen sockpuppets post in similar fashion. That change of header is, in my opinion, the most blatant instance of sockpuppetry I've ever seen. Do yourself a favor and invoke your right to vanish ... your denial of your actions in the face of the evidence isn't doing you any favors. And even without the sockpuppetry, your copyvios and incivility are enough by themselves to get you booted.Blueboy96 13:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
It is the recommendation of this editor that community ban be put in place for User:Kdkatpir2/User:Kd lvr. - SVRTVDude 03:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Hello. This is Thomas aka User:Kd lvr. I am outraged that User:TREYWiki has accused me of sockpuppeting, as this is simply a rumor. David aka User:Kdkatpir2, and I are nearby neighbors and longtime friends, and though it may seem we are one person, we are not. Because we frequently talk on the internet, and are often on at the same time, we discuss the edits that are made to pages. Just because we make similar edits in the same period of time, some users think we are sockpuppeting. This makes absolutely no sense. What would be the reason that I would make a change, log out on my name, log in on David's name, make a change, log out of that, log back in to my name, and so on. I don't see the point. Also, one can't say that we are scamming simply because we make similar comments. There were at least six or seven other users that shared the same or similar views on each page. Does this mean that I logged out of my name, logged into all of those other users' names, made changes, and repeated that pattern: that I am behind those views as well? I think not. As far as the images go, I honestly did not realize that some of the images were low quality, and I sincerely apoligize for any inconveniences caused by their poor quality. I would like, perhaps with the help of another user, to replace those images with ones of higher quality. And finnally, I would also like to apoligize for any problems brought about by the format of some of my posts. I did not realize this was a problem, but now that I know, I will not do that any more. In conclusion, I hope that you realize that David and I are not lying: we are two different people with two different times. Thank you in advance for you cooperation; it is greatly appreciated. Kd lvr 13:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Puh-lease. I'd have a lot less trouble believing you if this "friend" didn't change the header. And even if you two really are two different people (which is very unlikely given that you have made edits in the time it takes to post, sign out, sign in as someone else and post again), your massive copyvios cannot and will not be tolerated. Your talk page is filled with warnings about the images you've uploaded--I've seen people banned for fewer copyvios. Blueboy96 13:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I AM NOT going to say this again; he made the change NOT me. Kd lvr 13:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Even if you are two different people, you should both be out the door for (in your case) massive copyvios which put the project in legal danger, as well as gross incivility.Blueboy96 13:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
What I would like to know is why can't more information be gathered on these journalists so their pages can be expanded? That way it would not all come from one source.Kd lvr 14:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Everytime I hear his "story" it has changed a little. Why would a user logged in as themsevles talk in the third person when making a comment. This is getting out of hand. He is severly disrupting wikipedia. --TREYWiki 15:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
If you look at my Talk Page, you will see how they "both" use bold words alot. This farther proves that kd lvr is a sock of kdkatpir2. Notice how he does his kd lvr comments, then signs out to do kdkatpir2 comments. That is not a coincidence. This is an awful case of socking.
It seems that User:Blueboy96 and User:TREYWiki are the editors who have provided the most details for this report. Could I request that each of you cite one or two article Talk pages where you have interacted with this user? Otherwise there are not quite enough diffs here to really look at the problem in detail. I didn't see any blocks in the block log for either User:Kd lvr or User:Kdkatpir2. Even if you succeed in proving sockpuppetry, I'm not aware that this would lead to anything more than an indefinite block on one of the accounts, unless multiple voting is shown. I still would like to see more specifics on multiple voting or disruptive editing. EdJohnston 18:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I've only interacted with this guy once--a stern warning on his talk page about his gigantic version of KDKA-TV's logo. But here are some diffs to show his disruptive editing:
  • Multiple voting on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stacy Smith in a timeframe that would allow one to post, sign out, sign in as someone else and post again ,
  • Kd lvr makes a statement that borders on assertion of ownership of Stacy Smith
  • Kd lvr votes to keep Ken Rice, followed one minute later by a "keep" vote from Kdkatpir2. That's not physically possible, unless you're a bot.
  • Kd lvr makes a statement that borders on assertion of ownership of Ken Rice

More to come ... Blueboy96 19:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment It appears that these three editors are all playing games on Misplaced Pages, Ed. Possibly along with User:Write_On_1983 and user User:Mermaid from the Baltic Sea they have variously nominated for deletion and opposed the deletion of articles about newscasters for a Pittsburg television station for reasons such as, "Local television anchors do not warrant individual Wiki pages." User:Write_On_1983, and User:TREYWiki argues, for some unknown reason, that it should be deleted because "only KDKA's people have wiki pages." It appears that Misplaced Pages editors are being played and their time is being wasted by a group of kids having some fun. KP Botany 18:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Do continue. I do not know Write on or anyone else. We met after we ALL independently came to the conclusion that he is a sockpuppeteer. We are not playing a game. We are uncovering a sock. I do think that Kd lvr is playing a game. We are not. I think you are a friend of Kv lvr and trying to defend him. Who is playing games now?--TREYWiki 18:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Personal attacks on the Community sanction noticeboard are not a smart move. Please try to answer my substantive question above. If your only concern is the possible sockpuppetry, then close down this request and take your issue to WP:RFCU. EdJohnston 18:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
1. He attacked me first, and I wasnt trying to attack him; sorry if I did. 2. Im concered about his constent trolling and vandalism as well, so this request stays. --TREYWiki 18:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) No, this is not the place for accusations of sock puppetry. See Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry and WP:RFCU as Ed pointed out. This board is for processes that have reached a certain point as contained in the information at Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing.
Dealing with disruptive editors
Following is a model for remedies: 1. First unencyclopedic entry.

Assume good faith. Do not attack the author whom you suspect is disruptive. However, revert uncited or unencyclopedic material. Use an edit summary which describes the problem in non-inflammatory terms.

2. If editor unreverts.

Post to talk page asking for discussion and/or sources. Revert again if no response, along with edit summary.

3. Problems continue.

Attempt to engage new editor in dialog. Refer to policies and guidelines as appropriate.

4. Talk page discussion fails to resolve the problem.

Request a Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct or other impartial dispute resolution.

5. Editor ignores consensus.

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents administrator intervention: warning or temporary block as appropriate.

6. Blocks fail to solve the problem.

Possible community ban (siteban or topic ban) via the Misplaced Pages:Community sanction noticeboard or other remedies, including probation.

There are no listed blocks, and you don't include the RFCU results link. Your sock puppetry accusations fail as much as this posting to follow policies and procedures. Please cut it out. Make correct accusations in the correct locations, with diffs, and follow the procedures given instead of engaging these folks you suspect of being sock puppets. KP Botany 19:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I seriously considered going to the sock page with this ... but the examples I saw after a sanity check of what was going on (provided in my response to Ed) were as blatant as I've seen in a long time. The fact that one made a vote in an AfD one minute after the other was the clincher. I could be wrong here, but my feeling is that if you see a case that blatant, that's an exception to filing a formal complaint. And if you look at kd lvr's talk page, it's filled with complaints about image uploads--most of them automated. On that note, I'd be willing to support an indefblock on one or both of them, if there is not enough for a community ban. Either way, something needs to be done.Blueboy96 19:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
It's easy to see that at least the two are sock puppets, but there is a straight-forward procedure in place for instances of sock puppetry of this nature that doesn't require any community input or resources. Why involve so many people? All these users, not just the socks, seem intent on engaging as many Wikipedians and resources as possible. Please don't encourage it, just let them go the sock puppetry route. However, I have posted on AN/I asking an admin to look into all of these users. KP Botany 19:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ban unnecessary. Like what KP Botany said (and I don't remember the last time I agreed with her :)), take this to WP:SSP or a similar forum. This disruption and sockpuppetry is minor in comparison to others I have seen, and hence a community ban is unneeded. An indefblock, if warranted, will suffice unless there is massive disruption and/or sockpuppetry. —physicq (c) 19:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that this thread be closed, because no clear answer has been given as to why it should not go directly to WP:RFCU. The diffs provided do suggest a real sockpuppetry issue involving User:Kd lvr and User:Kdkatpir2 and the chances of that prevailing seem to warrant a real checkuser investigation. However the rest of the presentation here is sufficiently unconvincing that I don't believe a community ban is justified at this time. Come back if you get a positive answer from checkuser, and can persuade an administrator to take action on the results of that finding. EdJohnston 19:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
That sounds fair ... the case has been filed. I have no objection to closing the thread--and I do apologize if I took up anyone's time unnecessarily. As I mentioned before, this was as blatant an instance of sockpuppetry as I've seen, and I thought this merited an exception. Again, I apologize.Blueboy96 20:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I was going to ask what the blocking administrators had to say, but in examining the two usernames given at the top of this section, I see no blocks whatever.

How do you account for the discrepancy? And if this editor is a threat to Misplaced Pages why is he not blocked right now? --Tony Sidaway 21:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question that I tried asking, without getting an answer, although the various users appear to have agreed to withdraw the community ban request in exchange for a sock puppetry ban request based upon the accused users have once voted within a minute of each other, then voted within enough time to have signed out and resigned on--I kid you not. Apparently voting close together makes them sock puppets and voting far appart proves it. No idea what is going on here, Tony, but I think it is more than just the two accused socks.KP Botany 21:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me clarify ... the fact that they voted within enough time to post, sign out, sign back in as someone else and post again is suspicious, but voting within a minute of each other is a dead giveaway. Like I said, I was a moderator in sims, so when I saw this, it was an immediate red flag. I do apologize if I made a mistake in coming here first, but I felt the evidence of sockpuppetry was so blatant that it merited escalation. Just to clarify ... Blueboy96 22:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Two people posting on the same page within one minute of each other is not evidence of sock puppetry. User:TREYWiki has now reported one of these to Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism for deleting a bot comment on their own user page. Please, instead of posting about these violations by these socks all over Misplaced Pages read some of the Misplaced Pages policies you are quoting and are being given to you! I'm done with this, as I'm not helping any, for which I apologize to other Wikipedians. KP Botany 22:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Side-by-side posts don't happen just once in a blue moon, this is a daily occurance. This happens everyday. - SVRTVDude 23:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Edits that are made close together don't prove anything. What reason would I have for having two identities? There was no accusations (before yours) that would provide a need for me to maintain two accounts. The same can be said for the fact that our accounts were made in a close period of time. Why would I need two names that "early in the game"? It sounds just that these people have realized that I am not a sockpuppeteer and now they need to resort to stating rumors like these. I'm really getting tired of this nonsense. Kd lvr 00:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This is directed towards User:TREYWiki: None of my comments are in third person, thank you very much! Kd lvr 00:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

RFCU Returned Negative The Request for Check User was returned as a negative for sock puppetry--the accounts are unrelated. KP Botany 01:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know where to begin to leave comments on this. So I'll just do it here. Please do not assume that I am part of some childish game on Misplaced Pages. If you glace at what I've edited on this site, you'll that I take the work here very seriously. I'm not 100 percent up on all the guidelines and such of Wiki but I learn as I go -- like everyone else that edits Wiki. However, Kd lvr and Kdkatpir2 do consistently prove to be obstacles in keeping the KDKA-TV page in accordance with the Wiki guidelines. Many of the edits that come from this individual (or two) is unreferenced and bias. Additionally, when new information is added or old information updated, the individual (or individuals) takes complete ownership of such information. There is no ownership of any page on Misplaced Pages -- that is both a good and bad thing as I'm learning. I've found that this user is very difficult to work with and I do believe the user(s) should be banned from Misplaced Pages. Please contact me via a message if you'd like to know more. And again, do not assume I am part of some childish game. I'm quite offended at that comment. Thank you. --Write_On_1983 talk | contribs 02:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Scott P.

This complaint needs to be registered; I wont stand for intimidation.

Talk:List of converts to Christianity#Request for comment

Suggestion, stop wasting our energies arguing with someone who for whatever reason, appears to be in a state of extreme denial over this issue. Get him blocked again and again using the 3RR rule until he either provides sane supporting citations for his argument, or he tires of this. If he continues for a sixth block, get his user id permanently blocked. We do not have time for this. -Scott P. 21:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Posted by Bus stop 02:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And what issue do you have with this? —physicq (c) 03:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This is the noticeboard for requesting community bans. Is that what you're asking for? Since User:Scottperry has never even been blocked, that seems unlikely. Any disputes about lists of affiliations can turn very messy. (Lists of affiliations annoy me as well). Unfortunately this is a case where tons of patience and diplomacy are needed, and I imagine yours is probably exhausted by now, since you keep coming back here. Respectfully, I suggest that you take a couple of days off from fighting this one. You're probably right, but it's a no-win situation for you at the moment. EdJohnston 03:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)



Lovelight

Lovelight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has gone from being mildly disruptive to engaging in edit warring (4 3RR blocks in two months) and now egregious insults."Well, fuck you, you little piece of shit" His contributions are those of a Single purpose account, working almost exclusively on articles related to trying to add oftentimes ridiculiously silly conspiracy theory misinformation to articles related to the events of September 11, 2001. I believe the community has had enough of this kind of behavior and an indefinite ban or similar sanction is mandatory. An Rfc has been filed on Lovelight here, but I think this is a waste of time.--MONGO 18:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I believe a community ban is warranted. His contribution is limited to repeated WP:POINT violations, 3RR violations as well as just general disruption in addition to the issues cited above. --Tbeatty 19:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I also believe it is warranted. He takes up far more time from editors and admins than his contributions warrant. Unfortunately, based on his behavior and what he has implied in his talk postings, I fear he will come come back as a vandal of similar quality to Cplot. --StuffOfInterest 19:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Statement from Lovelight, posted here by request
    "Please note that noticeboard is not a replacement for requests for comment, and should not be used as a type of dispute resolution: community ban requests should be a last resort. Complex or ambiguous cases should go to dispute resolution."
  • Another statement from Lovelight: (--StuffOfInterest 20:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC))
    Well Tony, you are wrong, have you visited related talk page, have you checked related history, are you aware of the issue(s) here or did you just took a look at my "representative" talk space? Please, if you are to endorse this, then at least find some good will and time to go through the history which led to this point. Thanks. Lovelight 20:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Lovelight asked to have his previous two statements replaced with the following: (--StuffOfInterest 21:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC))
    Please note also that this noticeboard is not a replacement for requests for comment, and should not be used as a type of dispute resolution: community ban requests should be a last resort. Complex or ambiguous cases should go to dispute resolution. Please check related history I'm afraid my talk space is not "representative", at least, if you don't take a closer look. I'd appreciate, if you would find some time and good will to check the facts. Thanks. Lovelight 20:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Mongo's observation about the complexity and ambiguity of this case may be important: "Lovelight has gone from being only mildly disruptive, to edit warring and down right offensive." I would argue for continuing the RfC in order to better understand this process. I have some experience in this vein and can imagine how someone with Lovelight's views has been received on arrival. Seraphimblade could provide examples of his attempts to reason with Lovelight, and other opportunities to go from mildly disruptive to mildly constructive could be examined. It does seem to me that Lovelight is no longer capable of taking even his own struggle here seriously. I'm just not at all sure that's his fault alone.--Thomas Basboll 21:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
This is what oftentimes happens when POV pushers meet continued resistance against their efforts. They can either work with the consensus, become an edit warrior, or file frivilous Rfc's and arbcom cases to try and get their way...impuning the integrity of those that have worked hard to keep Misplaced Pages a respectable and reliable referece base.--MONGO 21:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree in part: the way POV pushers are treated these days often turns them into edit warriors at an early age, if you will, instead of just going away. Banning them without an RfC may well turn them into vandals. This same treatment, however, also causes people who are not POV pushers to either leave or file RfC's with the hope of improving the rhetorical climate. It is possible to work hard doing the wrong thing, even with good intentions.--Thomas Basboll 22:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
My attempts to work with Lovelight are on User talk:Lovelight, if you'd like to look at them. Seraphimblade 22:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I support an indefinite ban. Crum375 22:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Since we have seen no expression of guilt or fault whatsoever from Lovelight, I am forced to support a community ban. (I started the RfC moments before he was blocked for 3RR. Again.) --Golbez 23:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • With the qualification that Lovelight is entitled to attempt some defence if possible, I support the indefinite ban. This is simply not a "complex or ambiguous" case - the evidence clearly demonstrates that he (she) is not merely disagreeing in good faith, but is intentionally disrupting Misplaced Pages with no constructive purpose. He promotes edits that he himself knows to be incorrect or misleading (at times even providing sources that contradict his own assertions), holds the contrary contributions of other editors to a completely different standard than his own, and wilfully violates WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Peter Grey 02:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I would observe that there are two questions here:
    1. has this fellow been blocked correctly?
      • If so then could whoever keeps broadcasting this fellow's pleas for an RFC please stop? It'd gone beyond Requests for comment if we're discussing a fellow who has already been correctly blocked for one week for egregious edit warring, came out of that and got himself correctly blocked for another two weeks.
    2. Do we call it a day with this editor?
      • If the answer to the first question is "yes", I would suggest that it's going to take a very, very big counter-argument to make this fellow appear worth expending even more effort on.
So we should pay a lot of attention to the answer to question 1. For upon that question hinges the future of this fellow. --Tony Sidaway 03:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Looking at his block log and talk page, the answer to 1) is, 'Yes, certainly.' Lovelight's defense for persistent edit warring has always been that he is telling The Truth about What Really Happened on 9/11, and so should not be limited by the three-revert rule. Tom Harrison 13:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Bye bye Lovelight. --Tony Sidaway 00:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Re:Tom Harrison: Indeed, that's exactly what I found when I blocked him a couple weeks ago. I'm not going to comment on the whether or not to community-ban him; however, his attitude suggests strongly that he has no interest in functioning as a member of our community. Heimstern Läufer 00:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

So, can we permablock him already? --Golbez 00:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

He is currently under a 2 week block. It appears there is consensus to community ban Lovelight but there is no rush as he can't do anything disruptive with the 2 week block. I don't anticipate any more comments or exonerations but keeping it open does no harm. --Tbeatty 06:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Bus stop

Maybe this doesn't belong here, but I don't know where else to take this. The above user above has been blocked from editing three or four times now for three reversions of content on pages related to Bob Dylan, specifically regarding his conversion to Christianity in the late 1970's-early 1980's. Sources for that conversion include the Encyclopedia Britannica and New York Times and a published book of his own Christian statements from the stage. He cites "absence of a high profile publication is clear proof that no conversion took place." Evidently none of the above qualify, and in his eyes absence of evidence is clear prove nothing happened. User seeks to see some evidence of a formal sacramental initiation into Christianity, evidently not knowing or caring that several branches of Christianity do not use such practices, or perhaps believing that those Christians should not be classified as such. User has also questioned the good faith of editors seeking to insert such sourced material, using phrases such as "His Jewish heritage doesn't go out the window because he felt like exploring Christianity in 1979", Request user be blocked from editing the pages Bob Dylan, List of converts to Christianity, and List of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians, as those three pages would seem to contain the only content which causes him to engage in these repeated reversions and other POV matters, that being questions about Dylan's conversion to some form of Christianity. John Carter 19:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

According to his block log, he is currently in the middle of his second 1-day block for 3RR. Addhoc 19:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not an admin, and simply counted the number of times he had notices of blocks on his user page. I didn't think to check the block record. My apologies. John Carter 20:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Reading his talk page, I'm not impressed.. "Religious conversion" is a meaningless term in the hands of proselytizers pushing their point of view. is just one quote that makes me think that he's become an edit warrior on this, and will not improve. I'd support a community topic ban to the three pages mentioned above. SirFozzie 19:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat alarmed to see Bus stop's name in this conversation, since I first encountered him voting for the same side as me in an AfD debate, so this immediately marked him out as a person of good sense. Then I went and looked at his contribution history in this Dylan matter, and it was quite scary. Also I checked the submitter (above), John Carter and he looks to have a very good record on Misplaced Pages. So there you have my two 'ad hominem' arguments, and they point in opposite directions. I'm going to leave a Talk message for Bus stop, and see if he will come down momentarily from his pillar of rectitude (with which I agree, but 3RR is pretty serious, so he ought to pay attention). EdJohnston 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe User:Warlordjohncarter account of events is somewhat misleading. For the most part, I have merely been watching this dispute from the sidelines. I, myself, also questioned the information in the article a few days back because the primary source for this information appeared to be a blog. The New York Times reference has only recently been added (after Bus stop's 1st block) thanks to his persistent requests for citations. It seems that User:Bus stop is legitimately concerned with WP:BLP issues. Editors on the "converted Christian" side of the fence seem to be perpetuating a possible misconception in the article, which seems to have struck a nerve with User:Bus stop. He seems to feel that he is addressing a libel issue that is exempt from 3RR. Regardless, he has behaved improperly and I do not defend him on that. I will say, however, that this is shockingly out of character.
I am concerned by User:Warlordjohncarter's statements above. Having followed these discussions, I find it very implausible that JohnCarter accidentally misrepresented User:Bus stop's block history. User:Bus stop has created a lot of work for the other editors by challenging their position. I can understand why they might want him - or his view - blocked from the page. I do not see User:Bus stop's request for evidence of a formal sacramental initiation as at all unreasonable. I'd like to see some myself! I know of no branches of Christianity that do not require converts to be formally baptized in Christ. It is a fundamental part of Christianity required by all denominations. User:Warlordjohncarter has taken User:Bus stop's statements out of context portraying him in the most unreasonable light possible. I know User:Bus stop to be a very rational and civil editor by and large. He was a significant contributor on the highly contentious Michael Richards article and is most capable of working productively and positively within the community's guidelines and policies. Hopefully, he will take advantage of this block as an opportunity to calm down. Cleo123 01:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
You are free to be "concerned" as you like. However, I note that there are four blue boxed on Bus stop's talk page. It did not occur to me that they were not all for individual blocks, as I myself have no direct knowledge of the protocols in place. And, for what it's worth, I'm not entirely sure how saying the New York Times and Encyclopedia Britannica are not reliable sources can be portrayed positively. I did present the argument against his position, as it did not occur to me that I had to present both sides of an argument when requesting the possible review of behavior to consider sanction. If so, it is somewhat amusing to me that the police officer (or prosecutor, whichever title you prefer) who reports such incidents has to function as defense attorney as well. John Carter 21:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Cleo, besides non-denominational Christian communities and individuals (which lack any visible structure and are heterogeneous in their beliefs), one such denomination which does not practice baptism is the Salvation Army. The Baptism page also notes that "a few Christian groups assert that water-based baptism has been supplanted by the promised baptism of the Holy Spirit, and water baptism was unnecessarily carried over from the early Jewish Christian practice."
In regards to the listing on this page, I can say a few things. I've gone far out of my way to list and summarize each of the sources used. In fact, Bus stop and I were at one point in agreement: the original reference was slightly ambiguous. So, I sought out 8 more sources, which were all apparently insufficient- in his view (feel free to come to your own conclusions here). I've added yet another source, a lengthy article from a Jewish newsletter, which is actually quite fair and even sometimes apologetic about the nature of his religious beliefs (this has also been summarized, and quotes have been noted at the above link). According to Bus stop, none of these sources are sufficient. Bus stop has said that he is acting in a neutral manner in his edits, and others seem to agree that he is a reliable and helpful editor, but I'm unsure if the same can be said in this instance, considering certain things he has said. I don't mean to villainize him, but at the same time, I'm truly surprised that he persists with his argument, and I'm puzzled as to why he really hasn't made an attempt to provide sources which support his viewpoint.--C.Logan 02:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, your own sources argue User:Bus stop's point as much as they do your own. When you quote Dylan as saying things like: "Well, religion is repressive to a certain degree. Religion is another form of bondage which man invents to to get himself to God." It seems pretty implausible that he formally converted to some denomination of Christinity. One does not convert to a non-denominational community - they informally join one. (and I'm not saying he didn't for a time.) I wouldn't expect anyone to be "baptized" into the Salvation Army as it is not a religion. Use of the word conversion is applicable to organized religions and specifically implies formally, and publically, abandoning a former faith. I'm inclined to agree with User:Bus stop that your sources are shaky for statements that have such sweeping implications. The sources you have provided in the link above indicate that his conversion is the subject of longterm and widespread dispute, yet you all behave as if User:Bus stop is utterly alone in his "irrational" view. I am not sure that the burden of proof is on User:Bus stop here. He is not asserting anything other than the status quo.Cleo123 04:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Cleo, I'm unsure how familiar you are with the scope of Christian belief, so bear with me. It's common to hear many non-ritualistic Christians say that "Christianity is not a religion. (It's a relationship with Christ/God)". This sort of idea is common among most non-denominational Christians, but also extends to Christians of all denominations. It's essentially a saying which elevates the belief in Christ above standard religions. You can even see it as a slogan of sorts- I've heard it from many street-side proselytizers. When I used this quote in the summary, it seemed clear to me that this is what Dylan is expressing. Many Christians do not see Christianity as merely "a religion".
Additionally, the Salvation Army is an organization, but it is also a separate denomination in and of itself. From Christian denomination: "The Salvation Army is often, albeit incorrectly, understood to be a social relief organization. It is, in fact, a denomination which does extensive social relief work."
Dylan was listed with a source. The original source was insufficient, so I provided several more. The sources lean more towards conversion with terms like "Dylan's conversion". I've always been fine with adding a "(conversion disputed)" note next to his name on the list, but as the sources are generally clear that he did convert, despite doubts from many, I feel it's up to Bus stop to provide sources for his argument. Is there really a problem with this? I mean, one of the sources for Dylan even says he was actually baptised- whether you find this reliable or not is another story. The people match up, as several sources and a documentary relate Dylan with the Vineyard Church and Kenn Gulliksen. It seems that the book "Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades" supports this version of events as well, or so this review/summary states. --C.Logan 04:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I see that two article RFCs have been opened up, as listed in the main RFC list for biographies. One of them is at Talk:List_of_converts_to_Christianity, and the other is at Talk:Bob_Dylan#Request_for_Comment. There is also a whole bunch of discussion of this under other headings at Talk:Bob Dylan. Can User:Warlordjohncarter comment as to whether there is a Talk page consensus yet at either of these pages? If he believes so, it might be appropriate for John to write a summary section on at least one of those pages, stating what he believes is the consensus, and asking for further comment. Note that WP's procedure for dealing with disruptive editors involves going through six steps, in which 'editor ignores consensus' is step #5. Before the editor can ignore it, there has to be a generally-agreed consensus for him to ignore. If you read that list of steps, you'll see the present noticeboard listed as one of the options for step #6. (Mere 3RR violations are one thing, but a formal verdict of disruptive editing is another). I don't think it will be quick or easy to discern the consensus on either of those pages. EdJohnston 03:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
At the Talk:Bob_Dylan#Request_for_Comment editors provide a citation connecting Dylan to the Assembly of God, a fundamentalist, pentecostal, evangelical denomination. According to Misplaced Pages, formal baptism by water is a required ritual in the Assembly of God denomination. There should be verifiable documentation of this religious ritual to back up claims of conversion. User:Bus stop is not off base in requesting it. Cleo123 04:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
All the sources I've found, and this documentary, associate Dylan with the Vineyard Fellowship Church; from what I can see, they don't require water baptism... but this source seems to say Bob was actually baptized one of the assistant pastors at this church. It seems that the book "Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades" supports this version of events as well, or so this review/summary states. Notice how I copied and pasted the last sentence from the above paragraph, because I'm lazy. --C.Logan 04:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I do not see these sources as sufficiently credible. There is a very transparent adgenda for the pastor's statements - which do not strike me as entirely believable. Other sources are affiliating Dylan with yet another denomination. The issue is plagued with a history of controversy. Misplaced Pages must heir on the side of caution when it comes to biographies of living people. Regardless, this is an inappropriate forum for extended discussion on the issue. I have remarked on the appropriate RFC page. Cleo123 04:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the book by John Bauldie, "Wanted Man: In Search of Bob Dylan", also supports his study within Vineyard, and his conversion (pgs. 141-142, or pgs. 128-134, which contain excepts from an article by Clinton Heylin). I'll have check out the book to get a direct excerpt from the text. Additionally, googling Bob Dylan and Vineyard yields 103,000 results (many of these results could be referring to a 'vineyard'... adding 'church' into the search yields 41,900); searching Bob Dylan and Assemblies of God yields only 2090 (and many of these are AoG sites quoting Dylan, it seems). Don't think that was meant to be scientific, it's just worth noting. I'll take a look at the sources you've mentioned. --C.Logan 05:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty, on my own, of reprinting the following current comment from User:Bus stop's talk page. Being blocked, he cannot comment here. It should be noted that despite his block, he is now reasonably discussing the editorial issues with others on his own talk page.Cleo123 05:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"Thanks, Cleo. My primary objection is that Dylan should not be on the List of converts to Christianity. I do not know if the alleged conversion is valid. But neither does anyone else. The impression one gets when one sees a name on such a list in an encyclopedia is of veracity. Truth. A list is an either/or type of thing. You are either on the list. Or you are off the list. That is what a list is. It is black and white. I have seen no one come up with a shred of evidence that any transition from Jewish to Christian took place. I've heard the lyrics on Slow Train Coming cited as "proof" of conversion. I've heard a dictionary definition brought forward as similar proof. I've heard Dylan's "sermonettes" between songs cited as constituting conversion. This is what people do not come to Misplaced Pages for. In fact, all of that is original research. As soon as Misplaced Pages goes out on a limb and speculates about something that it is not sure of, all of it's principles go out the window. Neutral point of view is immediately gone when you speculate about things that you simply have no way of knowing. A list implies truth. An article can include shades of grey. A list can not. In the article on Bob Dylan there is much more leeway to deal with the "Christian" period in Dylan's professional career, and maybe even in his life. But without a subject meeting a fairly high standard of verifiability for conversion, inclusion on a list is unwarranted. There are really lots of reasons to believe no valid conversion took place. One of which is that there was no Christian life lived. Is there any indication Christianity had any bearing on his life after the supposed conversion? But I am admitting I don't know. To me it is clear that the editors arguing for the validity of conversion don't know either. What I hear in the guise of arguments is mere conjecture. That argues for removal from the list. Bus stop 03:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)"
For the sake of complete representation in the discussion, I'll move my response to the above text here:
I'm sorry, that's incorrect. As we are citing secondary sources which claim that he converted, this is not Original Research. Secondary sources are almost universally preferred on Misplaced Pages, as the usage of primary sources often leads to OR.
Also, it's interesting that one of you arguments against an actual conversion as that there is no real change in lifestyle, in the long term anyway. Let's go through the list then, and assess the lives of each person. We should remove each person who's lifestyle doesn't seem to reflect their change in religion. Oh wait, that's absurd. This is List of converts to Christianity, not List of converts to Christianity who actively practice their newfound religion.
It is indisputable that at least some of these people (if not many) included in this list don't actually live lives which reflect their religious change. Some may have only converted for marriage reasons, or for political reasons (as is supposed with Carlos Menem). That's not the point of this list. If someone has at one time professed belief in Christ as their savior, and/or has gone through a conversion ceremony, they are considered 'converts to Christianity and will be listed here, regardless of whether they converted out of the religion a week later, and regardless if they are still practicing. The same applies to all other religious pages listing converts.
I hate to be involved in this dispute. It's quite lame, but I must insist on my viewpoint until you can convince me otherwise. Show me sources, and hope that I don't reject their reliability as you have for the sources we've presented. Unfortunately, though, even if you do provide sources for insincerity of conversion, he'll likely remain on the list as a disputed conversion. After all, we're only supposed to express what the sources themselves say- not make judgments about them. If we have sources that say he did convert, and you actually bring sources that say that it was just an entertainer's act, that simply means we'll have to compromise. --C.Logan 03:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Actually, I copied the comment, not so much for it's content - but to demonstrate User:Bus stop's rational tone. This forum is dedicated to discussing a request that User:Bus stop be blocked from editing the articles. His comments above were directed, specifically, to me and you responded. Perhaps, your own tone will give others some insight as to the level of passion that exists on each side of the fence in this situation. To my mind there appears to be a bit of a "gang mentality" aimed at quashing a vocal dissenting minority. As more editors become aware of the debate, User:Bus stop's view appears to be picking up support in the RFC discussion. Blocking him from editing the articles will not end the debate, as there is no consensus. Cleo123 05:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I think sanctions are probably a bit premature right now, especially since there is evidently some dispute still concerning the warrantedness of Bus stop's edits. Remember, he's onlt been blocked twice so far. It's true, his comments aren't exactly promising, but let's give some time to cool down; maybe with time he'll cease edit warring; if not, we can try heading for dispute resolution. Heimstern Läufer 05:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't feel he should really be blocked either. As far as I know, he's not a vandal. I obviously disagree with him, and I feel that he may misunderstand the point of the List of converts to Christianity; I also feel that he may misunderstand the idea of 'conversion' itself. My stance is partly based on the fact that we do have several sources, on the internet, in books and publications, and in documentaries, that seem to attest to the fact that he converted- maybe not officially, even though at least one of the books claims so- at least nominally, and at least for a short time. It's hard to read the Jewsweek source without sensing that he is clearly considered a Christian in the article (specifically, a Jewish Christian). My stance is also partly based on the fact that I've never gone through a formal conversion ceremony, and yet I claim Christian faith; Dylan seems to say things which validate Christian beliefs much more than I do... for this reason, I don't feel that official conversion ceremonies are explicitly necessary, even if they are very common (This is more of a personal reason, as it should be clear to see; I'm simply explaining my looseness with the whole "conversion ceremony" business).
We are encouraged to use secondary sources here. Obviously, primary sources can be ambiguous- as the quote you mentioned above was seen by you one way, and by myself in another. I'm proclaiming what is reported in the sources which have been found. If a source says "conversion to Christianity", then the source has contributed something to warrant him to be included in the list. I have yet to see any sources which explicitly claim Bus stops point of view, but I'm definitely open to them. On the List of converts to Christianity talk page, I've tried to propose a compromise. As it says there, we have several sources which explicitly claim conversion- internet sources, at least 2 book sources, and a documentary. I think Dylan should be on the list, with a disclaimer that his conversion is disputed. Is this not fair? If a source can be found, then I hope that will be able to resolve things.--C.Logan 06:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I see that Talk:List_of_converts_to_Christianity#Request_for_comment is churning away collecting a lot of opinions and reflective discussion. Respectfully, I suggest that no more comments be added to this thread until that article RFC reaches an agreed consensus. In particular, arguments about sourcing don't belong here, but in an article RFC. EdJohnston 15:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The following comment concerning User:Bus stop was recently posted to theTalk:List_of_converts_to_Christianity#Request_for_comment page :
Suggestion, stop wasting our energies arguing with someone who for whatever reason, appears to be in a state of extreme denial over this issue. Get him blocked again and again using the 3RR rule until he either provides sane supporting citations for his argument, or he tires of this. If he continues for a sixth block, get his user id permanently blocked. We do not have time for this. -Scott P. 21:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that at present there are an equal number of editors on each side of the argument, yet the "pro-Christain" side continue to target User:Bus stop. There is a gang mentality on the page and a troubling lack of civilty that is not coming from User:Bus stop. He appears to be offering a rational argument. Cleo123 07:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you seem to think we're targeting Bus stop. I don't believe that anyone from the "Pro-Christian" side condones Scott's statement above.
We currently have 10 internet sites, 2 (or more, I'm unsure of Mick Gold's contribution) published books which not only mention conversion, but provide details about Dylan's baptism and involvement in church. Additionally, we have the New York Times article, which mentions his "widely-publicized conversion", and and Encyclopedia Britannica entry (although this shouldn't be used as a source). All these sources state in clear terms that "he converted", several relay details of his conversion and the people involved, with corroborating details. This is why is becoming understandably frustrating that he continues to claim there is "insufficient evidence for conversion".
Interestingly, I've attempted to compromise with Bus stop quite a long time ago by including Bob Dylan on the list with a note that it is "disputed by some as to whether he actually converted" (in more or less words). However, he refuses to accept this, and continues to insist on complete removal. How can this be considered reasonable. We have compiled at least 12 sources which state 'conversion'. Several of these verify this with further details. Where is the strong argument against the reality of this conversion. The fact is that Bus stop has never even presented one.
We are making changes based on what the sources state clearly, and yet Bus stop has accused myself and others from making unwarranted suppositions from the text. --C.Logan 08:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You are proving my point. There is no concensus. Many editors disagree with your "team's" view, yet, you continue to single out User:Bus stop. I understand that he can be a bit verbose and sometimes his logic my seem a bit circuitous, but having worked with this editor extensively in the past, I know him to be well meaning. He can be very long-winded and responding to his comments can be a real chore. However, that's what Misplaced Pages is all about - working with a diverse group of people to reach a concensus. I have no doubt that he isn't enjoying the current debate any more than you are. I believe him when he says his primary focus is WP:LIVING concerns. It's disturbing to see an editor like User:Scott P. openly propose a conspiracy of sorts to get an established editor blocked, just because "we don't have time for this". I'm glad you do not condone his remarks. User:Bus stop is not an unreasonable person. If you all stop "ganging up" on him and setting up scenarios where he is forced to "defend" himself - you may get better results. As a group, you seem so angry with him that you may not be "hearing" what he's saying any more. From what I've read, it looks like he's backed off of and conceded to discussion of the "conversion" in the Bob Dylan article. It seems that the list is his primary focus. At least that's how I read it. Cleo123 07:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Gen. von Klinkerhoffen

User:Eagle_101 has unilaterally unblocked this community banned sockpuppeteer in violation of Misplaced Pages policy that states community bans are reviewed by the Arbcom. See Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Gen. von Klinkerhoffen and previous ban. I ask the community to decide whether the ban stands, rather than letting a single admin override consensus. Nardman1 03:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, I supported the unblock too. Give a good reason not to unblock. John Reaves (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Holy something, Batman. This user used 13 different socks while banned. That shows a total disregard for our policies. Nardman1 03:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Do have anything substantive to say? This information was known by the unblocking admin, and blocking a user account is not going to prevent him from making socks. If by "total disregard for our policies" you mean "danger to the encyclopedia", why do you not just say that? or is that not what you mean? —Centrx→talk • 03:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't have to show damage to the encylopedia. This user has done enough prior damage. That's the point of a WP:BAN. It means the community revokes an editor's ability to edit Misplaced Pages, period. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nardman1 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
The community has no such power as long as Misplaced Pages is openly editable. This person is perfectly capable of editing Misplaced Pages whether this user account is blocked or not. Blocking an account only severs the history of the user and the associated trust. Banning a user only means that if his sockpuppets are encountered they are blocked, but in this case any sockpuppets encountered would be ipso facto reason to ban this probationarily unblocked user. —Centrx→talk • 03:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Did you even read WP:BAN? Where does it say an administrator can decide to grant them probation? Nardman1 03:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
And what are you advocating? That we reblock because some rouge admin did it "out of process"? —physicq (c) 04:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
He also violated WP:BLOCK#If_an_administrator_disagrees_with_a_block, specifically by not contacting the blocking admin first and discussing it. I am advocating the community consensus be respected, yes, considering two different policies were violated here. Any unban should be conducted only after a community decision or an arbcom ruling. Nardman1 04:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
You have not answered my question. I asked what should we do now, not what should have been done. —physicq (c) 04:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be formally submitted to the community whether to give this user a second chance. If the outcome is negative, then yes, reblock. I am a firm believer in consensus, I've been a lone voter at DRV several times arguing that the consensus should be respected no matter what, and I'm here now arguing the same. Nardman1 04:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm still waiting an answer to my question. You are giving me grandstanding ideals, not practical solutions. —physicq (c) 04:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Your time would be better spent arguing for what would improve the encyclopedia, which is the sole purpose of consensus. Also, community bans are not done by voting. —Centrx→talk • 04:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
How about: he or she was banned by consensus among several members of the community. If you want to propose that the community reexamine its decision in light of new information or expressions of contrition on the part of the banned editor, please do so. But don't simply ignore or override the community ban. --ElKevbo 03:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
A user that is not blocked is not community banned. A ban is not a result of a trial and an unban is not a result of appeals to some community tribunal. In practice, the block or unblock of a user account has no actual effect against someone who intends to harm Misplaced Pages, but it does if they want to improve it. —Centrx→talk • 03:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Semantic smoke. The issue is that something was submitted to the Community sanction noticeboard and now the actions of the community are being undone by a small number of administrators. Is it any wonder that some editors distrust administrators and throw around accusations of admin abuse when administrators feel free to ignore editors' individual and collective voices, even those editors' opinions when formally asked for, offered, and accepted?
C'mon - just throw this back out there for the community to examine again. Assume good faith and that we'll reach the right decision instead of ignoring us or making a decision for us. --ElKevbo 03:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
By "community" and "us" it looks like you mean you yourself. The person who made this decision is part of the community, as are the people who agree with it, as are the people discussing it on both of these noticeboards. Misplaced Pages is not based on ratification processes. —Centrx→talk • 04:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
This discussion clearly isn't going anywhere and I'm withdrawing from it. If admins want to ignore the good faith actions and discussion of others on this noticeboard then there's nothing editors can do or say to stop them. But rest assured that I won't waste my time on this noticeboard any longer. --ElKevbo 04:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Throwing around the word "unilateral" is meaningless on Misplaced Pages. Every action is prima facie unilateral until you recognize that the action was done for some good reason and that others support it. If an action is unreasonable and ultimately unsupported, it would make no difference if it were done by committee "multilaterally". —Centrx→talk • 03:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I support the unblock as well. If the project benefits, we've done the right thing. If the user returns to previous behavior, a block isn't hard to place. - auburnpilot talk 03:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I do NOT support the unblock (considering the amount of times in a row he sent in a sockpuppet to AN/ANI to ask if we would just leave him alone so he could go back to censoring images he thought were inappropriate, but I also do not support a re-run through CN which would just neuter this board more then it's already been, because it will be very hard to find an administrator to wheel-war on the re-block. I guess the best we can hope for is that he does NOT misbehave again, or is quickly reblocked the second he steps off the beam. SirFozzie 03:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well that would be exactly what would happen. Effectively, you could make any community ban decision be "stay in line perfectly or you will be blocked"; the reason the account is blocked is that a user has been shown to be incorrigible, but in this case he appears not to be. —Centrx→talk • 04:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
(EC times 5) I've seen that bandied about a lot, Nardman1, but consider it this way.. read that section again. According to that, the only way a person was truly Banned if NONE of the over one thousand admins on Misplaced Pages thought they deserved another chance, so if Eagle thought he deserved a 2nd chance, he really wasn't "Banned", so to speak, right? I do wish that Eagle had looked at the amount of disruption that Gen had caused, and the unanimous discussion here at CN, or even discussing it here, but it's done. I'm pretty sure if he breaks the rules again, there won't be warnings or short blocks, he'll be gone, again, this time for good. He's gotten a last chance. Let's see what he does with it. SirFozzie 04:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sad that so much credence is placed in blind following of policy to the extent that we prevent positive contribution to the encyclopedia and immediately shun second chances. John Reaves (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Says the guy who blocked a few of those socks. Funny. I'll give on the "tradition" argument though, seems I was wrong. Nardman1 04:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
No one has said anything about "shunning second chances" and I'm angry that you would misrepresent my position in such a manner. I'm sure that many, like myself, would be happy to consider a second chance for an editor blocked by the community. But to ask us to review a block and then lift that block without even asking for our opinion is demeaning and disrespectful.
If this is how things are going to work, then it's clear that this noticeboard needs to be deleted as discussions here are meaningless. --ElKevbo 04:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to Nardman1, he seems inflexible to offering a second chance. John Reaves (talk) 04:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
By "offer second chance" you mean "undo community ban". Nardman1 04:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure, why not. Although, if a community ban is something any administrator won't undo, seems like this isn't a community ban. John Reaves (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong venue A community ban is simply a ban that no one is willing to undue, it always has been. This is simply a board those can come to before hand to judge that consensus. Jimbo has even remarked on the wiki-en mailing list about these assumptions of the power of this board some users have. He was community banned, an admin was found who was willing to unblock. Thats all there is to it. ---M 04:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

More formal venues require discussion and an attempt to work it out before taking the dispute there. And this is the "forum for the discussion of community bans" according to the top of the page. I think this is the perfect place to discuss this. Nardman1 04:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I want to make it clear, I have unblocked the main account, but the IP still remains with account creation disabled. Meaning that unless he has access to a second IP he cannot create anymore socks. He seems to have reformed, and understands the errors that he committed. If he returns to his prior behavior, then by all means reblock, but as long as he has only one IP the potential damage is limited only to that one account. I ask that we see if he has reformed, he has already created one article :) —— Eagle101 04:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There's effectively nothing to discuss here. He's already been unblocked, apparently with a significant degree of support, so there isn't any way we can say that the will of the community is to ban him. It obviously is not. Probation is already in place, so no real need to discuss that either. Seraphimblade 04:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If anything, just let this guy have a second chance. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 00:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

JJay

In the edit at the bottom, I do not like being told to: stop wasting our time. --JJay 17:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This would be an irrelevant incident. But I feel he is on a mission to be abusive and provoke me and then use his superior knowledge of how Misplaced Pages works to report me for an infraction. I am trying to keep my cool. But I am not unaware of what I believe are his intentions to provoke me. I am not asking for any sanction to be taken against him. Clearly what he said, above, is minor. But I want to register this problem somewhere, with someone. Just in preparation for a continuation of this. It is found here. Below is the entirety of his post:

Considering every statement you have made on this page or elsewhere is based on your subjective opinion, emotional interpretation of events and an apparent personal agenda regarding Jews and Christianity, you are extremely poorly placed to use words such as "evidence" or phrases such as "wikipedia's purpose". We build articles here based on references. There are many pointing to Dylan's conversion including the Encyclopedia Britanica. Until you can indicate contradictory "evidence", i.e. printed sources, stop wasting our time. --JJay 17:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

My User name is: Bus stop 19:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I would simply point out that the evidence pointed out above, and several other pieces of evidence, have been supplied, which were sufficient at the time to have almost all printed sources found stating what the above editor has repeatedly said is non-verifiable. I too would contend that his insistence on asserting what is clearly a POV which has no substantiation, and actually runs contrary to, several printed sources which went without documented dispute from the subject (again, the above editor has refused to provide any documentation whatever of his own position), and a subsequent book of the subject's own words as delivered in public from stage could reasonably be interpreted by many people as "a waste of time." Perhaps the language is a bit harsh, but adamantly continuing to say that we have to abide by a standard of evidence which the majority of the larger, more prosperous news media in the country did not abide by at the time the incidents in question occurred, and that they have (apparently; again, no contrary evidence has been put forward) not been criticized for their own crossing their own, generally stricter, guidelines for such content can be seen by many people, and has been seen by many people, as being probably at least a bit excessive. Particularly when the person raising the post above has clearly and explicitly stated that his own point of view on the subject is so pronounced that his objectivity in these matters can be at least questioned. John Carter 20:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed.--C.Logan 20:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The above report, which was opened by User:Bus stop, does not appear to be a well-formed request for a community sanction. Any needed discussion should take place elsewhere. I suggest that this thread be closed. EdJohnston 20:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.--C.Logan 20:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruption by User:Miaers

User:Miaers is engaged in a long term edit war that has disrupted pages relating to University of Wisconsin. They have gamed the system to disrupt wikipedia. They have abused WP:AN and WP:AN/3RR. They have already been blocked 3 times in March 2007 for disruption (the latest ban was for Continued violation of 3RR, now on University of Wisconsin System). They haven't learned from these blocks . They have launched personal attacks against the admin User:Akhilleus and have misrepresented comments by User:Orangemike as personal attacks.

The report page is here. Requesting site ban, gaming the system from RfCs to WP:AN is totally unacceptable. Disruptive behaiour is quite serious and is escalating--Cailil 01:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Cosign and agree. I haven't been involved in the majority of the debate, but the degree to which this user has been shown to be willing to waste admin's time is shocking. Continually disruptive and unhelpful. JuJube 02:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A slight clarification: To be fair, my block in March was in error as I misread diffs, and I reversed it as such. Seraphimblade 02:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
If the data in User:Cailil/Miaers_disruptive_behaviour represents a fair summary, then this is indeed a serious case. Miaers's editing and aggressive style of argument seem to have caused a big waste of time for other editors. I trust that input will be sought from several of the admins who have dealt with User:Miaers and that Miaers will have a chance to respond. EdJohnston 02:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong support. The community simply can't tolerate a user who creates such a poisonous atmosphere. Blueboy96 02:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per blueboy--TREYWiki 03:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Please read the header on this page again: this is not a vote. "+1 ~~~~" style comments without contributing to the discussion are unnecessary since we don't count numbers to determine consensus. Dmcdevit·t 08:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any compelling reason to think that there's any hope for a constructive turnaround. And plenty of compelling reasons in Cailil's evidence page to go ahead and ban. The pattern here exemplifies an intent to waste everyone else's time and simply draw attention to one's self. Frankly, the complaint today about John Reaves was absurd. And while I am not at this time an egg, I used to be one, so I can speak with some authority on the matter. ··coelacan 03:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that Miaers is currently blocked for 3RR, and so cannot participate in this discussion. S/he should probably be given a chance to speak in self-defense. I also think we might want to explore the possibility of a topical ban; Miaers has some constructive edits, and might still be a valuable editor if we can keep the problem area off-limits. So perhaps we can just ban Miaers from articles that have to do with the University of Wisconsin. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree, Miaers needs the opportunity to speak here or to have their defence posted here. Personally I think their abuse of AN is extraordinary bad faith and warrants more than a topic ban. If their behaviour was limited to the edit war alone I wouldn't have made this report. That said you do have more expeience of their behviour Akhilleus--Cailil 14:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Interesting...I was just about to add a new entry for Miaers here, when I noticed this one! I have been involved in many of his disputes since January 2007, and I support a topic ban. Please note that he has been suspected of using anon edits during previous bans, and I see no reason that he would stop doing so if banned again. It is very hard to assume good faith in his case. – Lordmontu (talk) • (contribs) 03:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Apparently Lordmontu just fixed a couple of pointy page moves by Miaers, who moved University of Wisconsin Law School to University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School; Lordmontu reverted the move, and Miaers moved it back. A similar thing happened on University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed community ban on User:Kdkatpir2

Kdkatpir2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Since 2006, has engaged in bad faith editing, primarily on KDKA-TV and other television-related articles. Most of his crimes have been committed as Kd lvr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom User:Orangemonster2k1 and User:TREYWiki discovered was a sockpuppet of Kdkatpir2. Among this person's offenses:

  • Numerous bad image uploads, either of poor quality or lacking copyright/sourcing information
  • Uploading a gigantic version of KDKA-TV's logo (I shrank it down)
  • Trolling on Orangemonster2k1 and TREYWiki's talk pages once exposed as a sockpuppet.
  • Rude comments and reverts to anyone who adds or retracts anything on KDKA-TV or any other of the pages he trolls. (ie: "DO NOT UNDO, you'll be wasting your time if you do")
  • removing whole sections of talk pages or readding sections that have been moved or deleted by others.

His copyright violations by themselves pose a direct threat to the project, and it is well-established that users who create a poisonous atmosphere are shown the door. I propose we do so with a community ban. Blueboy96 03:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

He has been violating The Manual of Style for quite some time, assuming ownership of KDKA anchor articles, and blatantly changing ones views on a AfD debate. His socking is extremely obvious and evidence can be had on my talk page as well as the trolling he has done. He is completely denying the sock puppetry, although it is almost set in stone. Him ( Kd lvr and Kdkatpir2) create a hostile enviroment on wikipedia, and disrupt AfD debates by double voting and excessive amounts of big, bold, and italic words.--TREYWiki 03:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support I strongly support getting this sock/vandal off the project. --TREYWiki 03:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support User:Kdkatpir2/User:Kd lvr edited primarlly just KDKA-TV and engage in the worst violation of WP:OWN I have seen. To me, this almost borders on obsession. Saying in a since deleted entry on his/her userpage, "If you have done harm to any of these pages, DO NOT DO IT AGAIN!!!!!". It was found by User:TREYWiki and I that User:Kdkatpir2/User:Kd lvr were socks, something that the user denies, but it is more than obvious. Edits never happen at the same time, always within a couple minutes of each other (signing in and out of seperate accounts).
A slip-up came today when the user, under the User:Kdkatpir2 account, posted "Commenting on KDKATPIR2's comments" comment on User:TREYWiki's talk page. Immediately above this post is a post by User:Kd lvr. The header "Commenting on KDKATPIR2's comments" was quickly changed to 'Commenting on my comments", though while still under the User:Kdkatpir2 account . This is sockpuppetry at it's worst and I do mean worst.
a QUICK LOOK at ] shows that it as tpir2 who made that change, NOT me. Kd lvr 13:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't insult our intelligence. You and kdkatpir2 have made several edits in the time it takes to edit as one, sign out, sign in as the other and post again. I was a moderator in political sims once, and I've seen sockpuppets post in similar fashion. That change of header is, in my opinion, the most blatant instance of sockpuppetry I've ever seen. Do yourself a favor and invoke your right to vanish ... your denial of your actions in the face of the evidence isn't doing you any favors. And even without the sockpuppetry, your copyvios and incivility are enough by themselves to get you booted.Blueboy96 13:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
It is the recommendation of this editor that community ban be put in place for User:Kdkatpir2/User:Kd lvr. - SVRTVDude 03:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Hello. This is Thomas aka User:Kd lvr. I am outraged that User:TREYWiki has accused me of sockpuppeting, as this is simply a rumor. David aka User:Kdkatpir2, and I are nearby neighbors and longtime friends, and though it may seem we are one person, we are not. Because we frequently talk on the internet, and are often on at the same time, we discuss the edits that are made to pages. Just because we make similar edits in the same period of time, some users think we are sockpuppeting. This makes absolutely no sense. What would be the reason that I would make a change, log out on my name, log in on David's name, make a change, log out of that, log back in to my name, and so on. I don't see the point. Also, one can't say that we are scamming simply because we make similar comments. There were at least six or seven other users that shared the same or similar views on each page. Does this mean that I logged out of my name, logged into all of those other users' names, made changes, and repeated that pattern: that I am behind those views as well? I think not. As far as the images go, I honestly did not realize that some of the images were low quality, and I sincerely apoligize for any inconveniences caused by their poor quality. I would like, perhaps with the help of another user, to replace those images with ones of higher quality. And finnally, I would also like to apoligize for any problems brought about by the format of some of my posts. I did not realize this was a problem, but now that I know, I will not do that any more. In conclusion, I hope that you realize that David and I are not lying: we are two different people with two different times. Thank you in advance for you cooperation; it is greatly appreciated. Kd lvr 13:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Puh-lease. I'd have a lot less trouble believing you if this "friend" didn't change the header. And even if you two really are two different people (which is very unlikely given that you have made edits in the time it takes to post, sign out, sign in as someone else and post again), your massive copyvios cannot and will not be tolerated. Your talk page is filled with warnings about the images you've uploaded--I've seen people banned for fewer copyvios. Blueboy96 13:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I AM NOT going to say this again; he made the change NOT me. Kd lvr 13:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Even if you are two different people, you should both be out the door for (in your case) massive copyvios which put the project in legal danger, as well as gross incivility.Blueboy96 13:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
What I would like to know is why can't more information be gathered on these journalists so their pages can be expanded? That way it would not all come from one source.Kd lvr 14:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Everytime I hear his "story" it has changed a little. Why would a user logged in as themsevles talk in the third person when making a comment. This is getting out of hand. He is severly disrupting wikipedia. --TREYWiki 15:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
If you look at my Talk Page, you will see how they "both" use bold words alot. This farther proves that kd lvr is a sock of kdkatpir2. Notice how he does his kd lvr comments, then signs out to do kdkatpir2 comments. That is not a coincidence. This is an awful case of socking.
It seems that User:Blueboy96 and User:TREYWiki are the editors who have provided the most details for this report. Could I request that each of you cite one or two article Talk pages where you have interacted with this user? Otherwise there are not quite enough diffs here to really look at the problem in detail. I didn't see any blocks in the block log for either User:Kd lvr or User:Kdkatpir2. Even if you succeed in proving sockpuppetry, I'm not aware that this would lead to anything more than an indefinite block on one of the accounts, unless multiple voting is shown. I still would like to see more specifics on multiple voting or disruptive editing. EdJohnston 18:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I've only interacted with this guy once--a stern warning on his talk page about his gigantic version of KDKA-TV's logo. But here are some diffs to show his disruptive editing:
  • Multiple voting on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stacy Smith in a timeframe that would allow one to post, sign out, sign in as someone else and post again ,
  • Kd lvr makes a statement that borders on assertion of ownership of Stacy Smith
  • Kd lvr votes to keep Ken Rice, followed one minute later by a "keep" vote from Kdkatpir2. That's not physically possible, unless you're a bot.
  • Kd lvr makes a statement that borders on assertion of ownership of Ken Rice

More to come ... Blueboy96 19:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment It appears that these three editors are all playing games on Misplaced Pages, Ed. Possibly along with User:Write_On_1983 and user User:Mermaid from the Baltic Sea they have variously nominated for deletion and opposed the deletion of articles about newscasters for a Pittsburg television station for reasons such as, "Local television anchors do not warrant individual Wiki pages." User:Write_On_1983, and User:TREYWiki argues, for some unknown reason, that it should be deleted because "only KDKA's people have wiki pages." It appears that Misplaced Pages editors are being played and their time is being wasted by a group of kids having some fun. KP Botany 18:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Do continue. I do not know Write on or anyone else. We met after we ALL independently came to the conclusion that he is a sockpuppeteer. We are not playing a game. We are uncovering a sock. I do think that Kd lvr is playing a game. We are not. I think you are a friend of Kv lvr and trying to defend him. Who is playing games now?--TREYWiki 18:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Personal attacks on the Community sanction noticeboard are not a smart move. Please try to answer my substantive question above. If your only concern is the possible sockpuppetry, then close down this request and take your issue to WP:RFCU. EdJohnston 18:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
1. He attacked me first, and I wasnt trying to attack him; sorry if I did. 2. Im concered about his constent trolling and vandalism as well, so this request stays. --TREYWiki 18:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) No, this is not the place for accusations of sock puppetry. See Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry and WP:RFCU as Ed pointed out. This board is for processes that have reached a certain point as contained in the information at Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing.
Dealing with disruptive editors
Following is a model for remedies: 1. First unencyclopedic entry.

Assume good faith. Do not attack the author whom you suspect is disruptive. However, revert uncited or unencyclopedic material. Use an edit summary which describes the problem in non-inflammatory terms.

2. If editor unreverts.

Post to talk page asking for discussion and/or sources. Revert again if no response, along with edit summary.

3. Problems continue.

Attempt to engage new editor in dialog. Refer to policies and guidelines as appropriate.

4. Talk page discussion fails to resolve the problem.

Request a Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct or other impartial dispute resolution.

5. Editor ignores consensus.

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents administrator intervention: warning or temporary block as appropriate.

6. Blocks fail to solve the problem.

Possible community ban (siteban or topic ban) via the Misplaced Pages:Community sanction noticeboard or other remedies, including probation.

There are no listed blocks, and you don't include the RFCU results link. Your sock puppetry accusations fail as much as this posting to follow policies and procedures. Please cut it out. Make correct accusations in the correct locations, with diffs, and follow the procedures given instead of engaging these folks you suspect of being sock puppets. KP Botany 19:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I seriously considered going to the sock page with this ... but the examples I saw after a sanity check of what was going on (provided in my response to Ed) were as blatant as I've seen in a long time. The fact that one made a vote in an AfD one minute after the other was the clincher. I could be wrong here, but my feeling is that if you see a case that blatant, that's an exception to filing a formal complaint. And if you look at kd lvr's talk page, it's filled with complaints about image uploads--most of them automated. On that note, I'd be willing to support an indefblock on one or both of them, if there is not enough for a community ban. Either way, something needs to be done.Blueboy96 19:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
It's easy to see that at least the two are sock puppets, but there is a straight-forward procedure in place for instances of sock puppetry of this nature that doesn't require any community input or resources. Why involve so many people? All these users, not just the socks, seem intent on engaging as many Wikipedians and resources as possible. Please don't encourage it, just let them go the sock puppetry route. However, I have posted on AN/I asking an admin to look into all of these users. KP Botany 19:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ban unnecessary. Like what KP Botany said (and I don't remember the last time I agreed with her :)), take this to WP:SSP or a similar forum. This disruption and sockpuppetry is minor in comparison to others I have seen, and hence a community ban is unneeded. An indefblock, if warranted, will suffice unless there is massive disruption and/or sockpuppetry. —physicq (c) 19:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that this thread be closed, because no clear answer has been given as to why it should not go directly to WP:RFCU. The diffs provided do suggest a real sockpuppetry issue involving User:Kd lvr and User:Kdkatpir2 and the chances of that prevailing seem to warrant a real checkuser investigation. However the rest of the presentation here is sufficiently unconvincing that I don't believe a community ban is justified at this time. Come back if you get a positive answer from checkuser, and can persuade an administrator to take action on the results of that finding. EdJohnston 19:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
That sounds fair ... the case has been filed. I have no objection to closing the thread--and I do apologize if I took up anyone's time unnecessarily. As I mentioned before, this was as blatant an instance of sockpuppetry as I've seen, and I thought this merited an exception. Again, I apologize.Blueboy96 20:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I was going to ask what the blocking administrators had to say, but in examining the two usernames given at the top of this section, I see no blocks whatever.

How do you account for the discrepancy? And if this editor is a threat to Misplaced Pages why is he not blocked right now? --Tony Sidaway 21:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question that I tried asking, without getting an answer, although the various users appear to have agreed to withdraw the community ban request in exchange for a sock puppetry ban request based upon the accused users have once voted within a minute of each other, then voted within enough time to have signed out and resigned on--I kid you not. Apparently voting close together makes them sock puppets and voting far appart proves it. No idea what is going on here, Tony, but I think it is more than just the two accused socks.KP Botany 21:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me clarify ... the fact that they voted within enough time to post, sign out, sign back in as someone else and post again is suspicious, but voting within a minute of each other is a dead giveaway. Like I said, I was a moderator in sims, so when I saw this, it was an immediate red flag. I do apologize if I made a mistake in coming here first, but I felt the evidence of sockpuppetry was so blatant that it merited escalation. Just to clarify ... Blueboy96 22:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Two people posting on the same page within one minute of each other is not evidence of sock puppetry. User:TREYWiki has now reported one of these to Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism for deleting a bot comment on their own user page. Please, instead of posting about these violations by these socks all over Misplaced Pages read some of the Misplaced Pages policies you are quoting and are being given to you! I'm done with this, as I'm not helping any, for which I apologize to other Wikipedians. KP Botany 22:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Side-by-side posts don't happen just once in a blue moon, this is a daily occurance. This happens everyday. - SVRTVDude 23:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Edits that are made close together don't prove anything. What reason would I have for having two identities? There was no accusations (before yours) that would provide a need for me to maintain two accounts. The same can be said for the fact that our accounts were made in a close period of time. Why would I need two names that "early in the game"? It sounds just that these people have realized that I am not a sockpuppeteer and now they need to resort to stating rumors like these. I'm really getting tired of this nonsense. Kd lvr 00:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This is directed towards User:TREYWiki: None of my comments are in third person, thank you very much! Kd lvr 00:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

RFCU Returned Negative The Request for Check User was returned as a negative for sock puppetry--the accounts are unrelated. KP Botany 01:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know where to begin to leave comments on this. So I'll just do it here. Please do not assume that I am part of some childish game on Misplaced Pages. If you glace at what I've edited on this site, you'll that I take the work here very seriously. I'm not 100 percent up on all the guidelines and such of Wiki but I learn as I go -- like everyone else that edits Wiki. However, Kd lvr and Kdkatpir2 do consistently prove to be obstacles in keeping the KDKA-TV page in accordance with the Wiki guidelines. Many of the edits that come from this individual (or two) is unreferenced and bias. Additionally, when new information is added or old information updated, the individual (or individuals) takes complete ownership of such information. There is no ownership of any page on Misplaced Pages -- that is both a good and bad thing as I'm learning. I've found that this user is very difficult to work with and I do believe the user(s) should be banned from Misplaced Pages. Please contact me via a message if you'd like to know more. And again, do not assume I am part of some childish game. I'm quite offended at that comment. Thank you. --Write_On_1983 talk | contribs 02:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Scott P.

This complaint needs to be registered; I wont stand for intimidation.

Talk:List of converts to Christianity#Request for comment

Suggestion, stop wasting our energies arguing with someone who for whatever reason, appears to be in a state of extreme denial over this issue. Get him blocked again and again using the 3RR rule until he either provides sane supporting citations for his argument, or he tires of this. If he continues for a sixth block, get his user id permanently blocked. We do not have time for this. -Scott P. 21:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Posted by Bus stop 02:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And what issue do you have with this? —physicq (c) 03:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This is the noticeboard for requesting community bans. Is that what you're asking for? Since User:Scottperry has never even been blocked, that seems unlikely. Any disputes about lists of affiliations can turn very messy. (Lists of affiliations annoy me as well). Unfortunately this is a case where tons of patience and diplomacy are needed, and I imagine yours is probably exhausted by now, since you keep coming back here. Respectfully, I suggest that you take a couple of days off from fighting this one. You're probably right, but it's a no-win situation for you at the moment. EdJohnston 03:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)