Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dfrg.msc (talk | contribs) at 07:12, 3 August 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Visual archive cue: 52


    Tasks

    The following backlogs require the attention of one or more editors.
    NPOV disputes, Images on Commons and Overpopulated categories

    General

    Philadelphia and other places by User:Kramden4700

    Kramden4700 (talk · contribs) seems to have decided that the longstanding redirect Philadelphia (with over 4000 links to it) should be changed from pointing to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Philadelphia (disambiguation). Several users (including me) have reverted the edits and attempted to reason with the user. The result has been to expand his/her edits to do the same thing to all the articles that have been used as examples, with no attempt to clean up the thousands of articles that did point (via redirect) to the right article, but would now point to a disambig instead. I have reverted many of these, but seek confirmation if I'm doing the right thing, and what more should be done (by me or others) if it continues. I think the user did not start with intent to vandalise or disrupt, but does not seem to accept reasoned discussion. --Scott Davis Talk 08:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The user definitely has an axe to grind with the USA for some reason. I have watchlisted all the redirects mentioned and will revert until a consensus against their current redirect is reached. --mboverload@ 11:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou. I got involved trying to reason with him before I discovered the extent of the issue. --Scott Davis Talk 13:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This user has also been putting speedy deletion tags on articles to which they obviously don't apply. It's a bit of a grey area, though, because some of them do seem to be used appropriately. Ardric47 23:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The changing of links is continuing at a rapid-fire pace. Also, his or her talk page has been moved to User talk:Kramden4700/1, and a new one started. Ardric47 23:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish I had learned about this post sooner. At Talk:Philadelphia, I suggested the links that he should look at, to try to get him to look at the consequences of changing those links, and to get him to think that it's a bigger issue than he thought. He saw the consequences with his editing, and thought that others were vandalizing his edits (in my view), so the edit war escalated. Because I saw similar behavior from another user, User:Wrath of Roth, I (wrongfully) opened a sockpuppet case against him (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kramden4700). It apparently scared him enough that he stopped editing for a while. Then I offered an apology, and he accepted. (his response) I think he's acting in good faith now, but only time will tell if I feel that way in the future. I'm not happy with my own behavior in this incident, but I want to put this issue to rest. Tinlinkin 12:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the user page User:Kramden4700, he or she is not only the same as Wrath of Roth, but also more than 30 others (Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Spotteddogsdotorg). Ardric47 19:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ahrarara = Panairjdde

    User:Panairjdde has returned now in the form of User:Ahrarara. He or she is stalking every single article from my contribs list right now and deleting AD anywhere and everywhere. Please stop or warn him or her. Thanks. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He was blocked again, thanks, but note that he is currently wreaking havoc yet again with an edit warring anon, User:151.44.81.169, on the very same articles stalked from my July contribs, multiple 3RRs here ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Loath I am to do it, I have blocked the entire 151.44. range for an hour -- which affects not only the editor formerly known as Panairjdde (TEFKAP) but some 65,000-odd other people. However, he has been stalking or edit-warring not only with Codex Sinaiticus, but at leat 2 other editors. I'm gambling on the fact that the users of an Italian ISP aren't interested in editting an English Wikipedia, & as long as no one complains, we can repeat this until TEFKAP gives up. (He has also used the 151.47. range -- but let's wait until we see what kind of trouble I've caused before blocking that one also.) I won't protest if another Admin reverts the block. -- llywrch 23:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Very funny

    ok, you've had your laughs--AOL account 14:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Son of a Peach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    When I welcomed this user to wikipedia, I warned him about his username, as it may be easily confused with the powerful insult son of a b*tch. Since then, this user has been blocked for trolling, and has since been warned becuase he has continued. Ixfd64 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) also has an inquiry about his username, what do you think? Myrtone (☏) 14:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Username's fine with me. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Username's perfectly fine (and actually quite witty), the trolling is not. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The username is related to a crappy animation showing mario (from nintendo) having sex with princess peach, the filename is usually names son of a peach) -- Drini 21:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, User:Ixfd64 asked; the response was only a sig. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    That realtion itself is exactly what Ixfd64 more or less pointed out and is itself another reason why he should change it here. Myrtone (☏) 00:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the username's altogether fine and concur in Deathphoenix' formulation. Another relevant question, though, is whether the username is likely to impair the user's cordial collaboration with others and by extension to disrupt the project; notwithstanding that two users have expresed being off-put by the username (although perhaps only in view of policy), there doesn't seem to be anything to suggest that those users or any others have refrained from working/corresponding with Peach in view of his name. Joe 19:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Organised POV-pushing on Israel/Hezbollah articles?

    I noticed a story in today's London Times which I thought would be of interest to people here:

    Israel’s Government has thrown its weight behind efforts by supporters to counter what it believes to be negative bias and a tide of pro-Arab propaganda. The Foreign Ministry has ordered trainee diplomats to track websites and chatrooms so that networks of US and European groups with hundreds of thousands of Jewish activists can place supportive messages.
    In the past week nearly 5,000 members of the World Union of Jewish Students (WUJS) have downloaded special “megaphone” software that alerts them to anti-Israeli chatrooms or internet polls to enable them to post contrary viewpoints. A student team in Jerusalem combs the web in a host of different languages to flag the sites so that those who have signed up can influence an opinion survey or the course of a debate. [1]

    I've no idea if this effort has had any impact on Wikipedia yet, but I would think it would be pretty easy to spot - i.e. a sudden influx of new/anonymous editors pushing one side's line on articles related to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. We should certainly expect to be targeted given Wikipedia's high profile these days. At any rate, it might be worth putting 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict and related articles (Hezbollah, Lebanon, Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, Timeline of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, Military operations of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict and others?) on our watchlists for the next few weeks. -- ChrisO 21:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've no idea if it's intentional. but the article's opener is already hopelessly unbalanced, referring to "attacks on civilian population centers and infrastructure by both sides in this conflict" without referring to the massive population movements in Lebanon and the extremely high collateral damage sustained by the Lebanese civilians under Israeli bombardment. --Tony Sidaway 00:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bias alert: No mention by Tony of massive population movements in Israel and the extremely high collateral damage sustained by the israeli civilians under Hezbula bombardment" Zeq 04:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If we have a reliable source for "massive population movements" within Israel as a result of the Hezbollah missile bombardment, then we should write about them. If we have a reliable source for "extremely high collateral damage" sustained by the Israeli population, we should write about it. I certainly don't want to start debating that here; just giving my impression of the article's principal fault: that in equivocating the effects of the conflict on the populations, it unduly distorts the relative scale of the conflict. --Tony Sidaway
    • We're not here to put our own views into articles, but to report what reliable sources are reporting. The death ratios as neither here nor there: if Israel were suddenly today to have more killed, would it score extra points on some equality scale? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not that this is the place to argue this, but a roughly 10-to-1 ratio of Lebanese to Israeli civilians -- as well as the similiar ratio for civilians displaced -- should strike an objective observer as being wildly unbalanced enough to not require the automatic utterances of exact equivalency when bringing up the events to avoid actual claims of bias. --Calton | Talk 06:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Although reporting that Hezbollah's missiles are full of metal pellets designed to do maximum damage to human bodies would apparently be POV? User:Zoe|(talk) 01:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Who suggested it would be? POV can be where emphasis is laid (and not laid). Perhaps if the design of these missiles is described along side the capabilities of some of Israel's weaponry, it would be perfectly NPOV... --Oldak Quill 02:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be biased to say this if it were to imply that Israeli armaments (and indeed the armaments of most nations) are not also designed to distribute shrapnel. --Tony Sidaway 11:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    ..sudden influx of new/anonymous editors pushing one side's line on articles related to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. We should certainly expect to be targeted... As Zeq's bit of screaming axe-grinding above ought to remind anyone, there's no need to watch for a "sudden influx", since Zeq and his cohorts are already here and have been for a long time. --Calton | Talk 06:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is very unfair to the majority of editors who, while sympathetic to Israeli interests, nevertheless edit in good faith. Zeq is not typical. On another point, I have seen no influx of POV editors with a pro-Israeli viewpoint. I simply see editors who are concerned that Israel not be trashed. Fred Bauder 11:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean to go off-topic, but what makes you think the majority of editors are "sympathetic to Israeli interests"? Or are you saying that the majority of editors who are "sympathetic to the Israeli interests", edit in good faith? Just want some clarification. --Oldak Quill 11:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The latter. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As the above conversation suggests, we're quite capable as Wikipedia editors of holding quite broad views on this conflict. Some of us view Hezbollah as intrinsically terrorist, others as a primarily defensive force. Some of us are sympathetic to Israel, others are not. As long as we recognise our biases and work to minimise them, working with Verifiability and Reliable sources should see us through. Interlopers should be easy enough to recognise and deal with. --Tony Sidaway 12:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The Israel-related articles are under constant attack from anti-Israel POV pushers and usually poor editors. If the Israeli Foreign Ministry has indeed helped to organize "networks of US and European groups with hundreds of thousands of Jewish activists" they have overlooked Wikipedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    A few days ago, I created an article about the Megaphone desktop tool mentioned in the article. You can see what blogs and polls are being targeted; there's a web page for that.. Also an RSS feed. Today's target blogs include the Drudge Report and Salon. Wikipedia isn't listed. So we can relax for now. --John Nagle 17:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:TFD

    Someone needsd to close and archive a lot of TfD entries. Most of the ones from July 12 are still active! I've closed the TfD on one userbox which had already been WP:GUS'ed, but I can't help on the others, since I don't have admin rights. If there is a clear consensus for keep I will close the TfD, but I doubt I'll find many of those. User:Fredil Yupigo/signature 03:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

    I'll do it tomorrow later today (Stupid UTC!) RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 06:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Both July 19 and 20 are now fully closed, but I have to go to work soon. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 19:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    TfDs are now closed back to July 15. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Closed and removed from TfD mainpage dating back to July 12. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Easily detecting copyvios

    I thought it might be of interest to some people who frequent this board that Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations is now being updated with an automated bot that attempts to identify copyright violations from newly created articles.

    (Note: if this is not the appropriate place to announce this, feel free to remove this message). -- Where 23:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No, this is very interesting. Please do keep us up-to-date on how this works out. Jkelly 23:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded. I've only ever found a few copyvios, and I suspect we have many more that haven't been caught. A copyvio bot would be really cool. :)--Firsfron of Ronchester 05:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This bot has a high false-alarm rate, because it's picking up copies of US Government-created material, which is not copyrightable. Bios of government officials are being rejected as copyvios, for example. I've put a note on the bot's talk page. --John Nagle 18:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I am creating a doppleganger account

    Shortly, I am creating User:WikiTeke, which will redirect to User:Teke. WikiTeke is my IRC handle, so it's to make lookups a bit easier. Just a friendly heads up that both accounts are mine. Teke 01:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    More for future reference than this specific case, you can make this notification by putting {{doppleganger|YourUsername}} on the userpage before or shortly after creating the account. Make sure you do it from your main account so it doesn't look like an imposter trying not to get blocked. Essjay (Talk) 06:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]



    Dealing with user talk erasure and incivility

    (Moved from the help desk.)

    I'm having some issues with users who are removing messages and warnings from their talk pages, and either deleting them altogether, or putting them into an archive immediately. In both cases, the user has also been uncivil in his or her response, and both have engaged in personal attacks. Because Wikipedia:Removing warnings is only proposed policy, I'm afraid to push too hard in telling the users that they shouldn't be removing legitimate warnings from their talk pages, and I'm also having difficulties finding the best way to deal with their other misbehavior, much of which seems to be trolling. A request for comment might seem applicable in both cases, but I know I'm supposed to try to find a better solution first, and would like to. Neither user seems cooperative, however, so I'm somewhat at a loss in terms of how to proceed. --Emufarmers(T/C) 06:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at your contribs in user talk space, it's not obvious to me which user you are referring to. Just zis Guy you know? 20:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright: The first individual is User:Snake Liquid; his current user page alone is reason enough for some concern, but more troubling is his treatment of his talk page: He has routinely removed warnings from his talk page (search back through the history if you want to see the sequence of things), and has made numerous personal attacks on User:RandyWang and User:A Man In Black, referring to each as "robots," among other things; someone else has posted a Wikiquette alert regarding him already. He has also made personal attacks against User:Ptkfgs, despite Ptkfgs's apparent attempts to steer the conversation towards civility.
    The other person is User:Cshay; I posted a Wikiquette alert on him already. He has made several personal attacks and threats against User:AbsolutDan, such as here, here, here, and when Dan moved in to try to reconcile matters most recently, he erased the message from his talk page, and moved it to Dan's. He removes or archives messages and warnings almost immediately, and has done so several times, and appears to have some problems with leaving any messages which he doesn't like on his talk page. He also refers to other editors as "rogue". I don't really know what more to say. ----Emufarmers(T/C) 05:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm. There was a fight going on there but it may well be over by now. Just zis Guy you know? 11:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Cshay seems to have calmed down a bit, although he is still removing messages from his talk page without even archiving them. Snake Liquid appears to be trying to escalate things further. --Emufarmers(T/C) 20:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is now an RfC relating to Snake Liquid. --Emufarmers(T/C) 05:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Mama's Family

    Doesn't appear to be still going. WP:3RR would have been appropriate. Left {{3RR}} warnings on both their pages. ViridaeTalk 09:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Pegasus1138

    Should we indefblock this user? - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I really don't think that's a good idea. User:Fredil Yupigo/signature 16:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    Do you mean block the account Pegasus1138 in case it is cracked and abused in the future (also Pegasusbot should be blocked becuase it has a bot flag)? Or to block the person behind the account because they are setting up a new account to possibly circumvent Requests for adminship? --Commander Keane 21:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't be ridiculous. There is no problem whatsoever in a user deciding to leave and start a new account. If they get adminship on the new account, more power to them. JoshuaZ 22:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocking me or my bot is probably not really needed, I'm not an admin or bureaucrat or developer so it would be easier for someone to create a new account than try to crack mine (and more effective) I have requested on IRC and if a bureaucrat sees this here please also remove the bot status on User:Pegasusbot and/or indef. block it (without autoblocker preferably). Also I am not creating a sockpuppet in violation of policy and I don't think it's possible to "circumvent RFA" so that as well would be unecessary and against blocking policy. Pegasus1138 22:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree that there is no reason for a block here. We don't block admins who leave, and there would be more risk there. Nor is there any abusive sockpuppetry here. And you never know, just this morening a user who had not posted in 8 months suddenly returned. NoSeptember 22:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

    The only thing Peg is doing is closing those accounts, which have no discipline problems or anything, and moving to a new account which he would like to keep private. --mboverload@ 22:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed bot status as requested above; as the others have already stated, there is no policy against leaving one account for another, it's only when you have two accounts and use them against policy (voting in the same RfA with both, having two that are admins, etc.) that is prohibited. Essjay (Talk) 22:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Has there even been a case where someone was caught with more than one sysop account? Now that would be something- build community trust and recognition with two accounts. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know of a case where anyone had two at the same time, though I believe there have been cases of a sysop's second account being nominated for adminship. The proper course would be to either decline the nomination or request desysopping on the second account. Essjay (Talk) 00:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jim Shapiro

    All debate now consolidated at WP:DRV, these discussion sin the linked document at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 31/Shapiro

    Did you know?

    Could an admin please update Did you know, its not been updated in 22 hours. Cheers, Highway Return to Oz... 22:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Updated -- Samir धर्म 01:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers, Highway Return to Oz... 10:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

    Can someone protect Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and inform User:PaulWicks how to deal sock puppets? -Ravedave 23:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Long term abuse/General Tojo

    Due to long term vandalism, sockpuppetry, threats, stalking, and release of personal information I have blocked the IP Range of Tiscali UK Limited for one week for IP editing. Details on Wikipedia:Long term abuse/General Tojo and Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/General Tojo -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Tiscali are a pretty mayjor ISP. A weel block is likely to have some serious colateral.Geni 01:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like he blocked anons and account creation but not registered users. Might work without too much collateral. Thatcher131 (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, registered users can continue to work as usual. Has anybody experience in contacting the provider to report abuse? -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have undone the blocks. A user called "robertbfc" requested the unblock on behalf of himself and others, as Tiscali is a major ISP in the UK. Active users in #wikipedia agreed that this was a good idea. I will help watch for General Tojo-related vandalism; I understand the problem, but blocking an entire ISP is, in my opinion, a bit heavy-handed. --Slowking Man 13:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes - There are thousands of Tiscali UK members, it's the 3rd largest ISP in Europe. To be honest, I am peeved at Chris 73's tactics:
    •He didn't discuss such a major block before carrying it out.
    •He doesn't appear to know who Tiscali are - he says Has anybody experience in contacting the provider to report abuse? on the Administrators' noticeboard.
    •But anyway, no matter how big the ISP, he is ignoring the principle and punishing the majority for the immature actions of the few.
    •He leaves legitimate editors with no way to continue editing, as he has blocked new account creations.
    •He did not show the length of the block on the page that the blocked IPs recieve.
    In short, it is not what I would expect of an admin. 88.105.35.203 14:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    How would we go about making a formal complaint regarding this action? - 15:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

    I understand and to a large extent agree with the complaints from Tiscali users. However, we have a very persistent and frequent vandal in General Tojo (take a look at the history of user PaulWicks personal pages and contributions), and it appears our tools for dealing with such vindictiveness and spite are limited. The results will be that editors such as Paul and myself will grow discouraged; the amount of time and tediousness of trotting around scooping feces behind General Tojo ensures that. It appears that a time honored tactic is to wait for the vandal to move on to other things & grow bored, but in the few cases where that doesn't apply, it looks as though there's very little in the way of tactics in the Wikipedia administrative toolbox. Chris 73 has inconvenienced a large number of people apparently, although I'm not understanding why ability to edit anonymously or for long term editors to create new accounts is necessary. Nevertheless, if you Tiscali subscribers would take a moment to take a look at the nature of our problem and suggest solutions, we would appreciate it. --Dan 16:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, why should one stupid user from an ISP be held against all legitimate editors from the same ISP? In Chris 73's actions, he was holding majority accountable to the actions of the minority.
    In reply to Dan, this was a great inconvience - it affected people who wished to edit anonymously, of which their are many, as he should take note of. Also may I point out that the ban on account creation meant legitimate editors who hadn't got an account were prevented from carrying out any more of their work. Finally, perhaps he should consider that Tiscali members know no more about this vandal than he does, and that in the statement if you Tiscali subscribers would take a moment to take a look at the nature of our problem and suggest solutions he himself is holding the majority accountable for actions which they have no control over. 88.105.35.203 17:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    My apologies to the anonymous editors of Tiscali for their inconvenience. As for my reason and defense:

    • General Tojo is by now a bigger problem on Wikipedia
    • Another admin also initiated a block of the Tiscali range before to address this problem, and only for technical reasons the block did not come into effect (See Wikipedia:Long term abuse/General Tojo#Range Blocks if you want to know the details)
    • The Tojo problem and the block was discussed extensively before
    • I added a range block only after other options did not work
    • The block was also announced on the WP:AN, where it drew only minor response. I do not know a way of contacting the anonymous IP'S of Tscali, as some users above suggested.
    • The block blocked only anonymous users and account creation, and had no effect on logged in users.
    • I was monitoring my Wikipedia email, but up to date have not received any comments regarding the block. The first feedback I received was by User:Victor Greenstreet on my talk page.

    Overall, this obviously did not work, and I will not block the range again. I would welcome suggestions on how to handle the General Tojo problem on Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/General Tojo. Thanks, and again my apologies -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible WP:OWN problem

    User:KMEG has proclaimed themselves "The OFFICIAL editor of KMEG", along with it being a WP:OWN problem, it could lead to NPOV disputes. --CFIF (talk to me) 00:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible vandal only account

    BobbyBoulders Rules (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as seen by the proclamations on User talk:BobbyBoulders Rules. Might bear watching. ViridaeTalk 01:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for Help

    Could an administrator please complete the merge requested by the consensus of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animals in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. CrazyRussian was the closing admin but he refuses to implement the consensus reached. Thanks. --Hetar 01:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Trees!!!!!

    If you block this user it will block me. I have the same Ip. As user ??.???.???.??

    We got thee same compute. same time. same retailer. same harddrive. same ip. same duplex. enjoy! Your Friends,

    --Qho·(talk)·(contribs) 19:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC) --70.233.181.36 Wikipedia:Doppelganger account --QH0[reply]

    Coordinates on Infobox_stadium

    Hello, A few days ago, I discovered a neat way to add coordinates to the stadium infobox. I added it to the infobox and it worked well. I have spent the last 5 days of my life adding coordinates to all the psorts arenas. Now, someone has found a way to add coordinates to the top (such as PETCO Park) and tehy have found a way to disable the coordiante settings I have put in the infobox. They did this without an audit trail. I feel this was the wrong way to go about things for the following reasons...

    1. It has been the standard way that coordinates show up in the infobox for other types of infoboxes.

    2. The new coordinates on the pages work differenly than the coordinates that (were) in the sports arena infoboxs. For instance they do not pull up links to googel maps.

    3. Some stadiums that I had added coordinates to in the info box (such as Giants Stadium now have no coordinates for them what so ever.

    4. Nobody cared about coordinates until I added this and nobody contacted me before adding the coordinates the other way. I have spent 5 days of my life working on this and strongly feel I should have at least been consulted. Somehow they have screwed up my ability to even add it back to the stadium infobox even though infoboxes such as the "protect areas" infobox have coordinate settings. They have stifled my innovation.

    Please let me know. I put a lot of mental energy into figuring this out and feel I have a lot more to contribute along these lines to wikipedia. If somebody had only contacted me before doing it I would have been open minded to it. But I won't contribute any more if people don't talk to me before messing with something I did.--Dr who1975 02:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • If I understand you correctly, the template you are looking for is Template:Coor title dms. PETCO Park has the template tag near the bottom of the page, next to the Template:MLB tag. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, like Zzyzx11 said, it's part of that template. If you look at the history of the PETCO Park article, for example, you'll see it was added on July 10th with the edit summary "Adding geographical coordinates" [2]. I can't speak for why it was removed from the other template, but I would assume that it's because whoever removed it thinks it is redundant to have them both in the top corner and in the infobox. Metros232 02:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotect my page

    I don't see any reason for my page to continue to be semi-protected. Could someone please remove the protection. Thanks. Paul Cyr 05:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected, next time use WP:RPP. Yanksox 05:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    CapnCrack socks

    A little while ago, CJ Izzy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (most likely a CapnCrack sock) made an edit to WP:CK introducing a long list of what were supposedly CapnCrack sockpuppets that had not yet been blocked, which read as follows:

    Recently, I received a message on my talk page from a CapnCrack sock stating that these accounts had not been blocked and had made vandal edits and created bogus pages that had not yet been delt with. I'm not completely sure whether or not all of this is authentic, but I still recommend blocking these accounts (and also CJ Izzy) and checking their contributions just in case.--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 05:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Good catch, Count. This will keep us busy for a while. I'm going thru each one, starting at the bottom. --Firsfron of Ronchester 05:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked CJIzzy as a probable sockpuppet, and the ones on the bottom of the list (bottom 12 or so) I also blocked for vandalism-only accounts. However, the rest appear to have already been blocked by Curps and others. I didn't catch any further up the list that weren't already blocked. Feel free to go thru these with a fine-toothed comb, but these were almost all blocked right away.--Firsfron of Ronchester 07:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Crown corporations of Canada

    Category:Crown corporations of Canada Subcategories :BC Ferries

    This is incorrect as BC Ferries is no longer a CC, please remove.

    --Cahk

    Removed. In the near future, here is what you can do to remove subcategories from categories. Click the category name, then press the edit button. Delete the entry and press save. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    First Aider

    Please delete the page First Aider [or redirect it to First Aid]. I created it wanting it to redirect but I can't get it to.

    --Cahk

    It's redirecting fine. Don't worry — it looks like you figured it out. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Bad Nenndorf

    please see [3] thanx in advance I like Burke's Peerage 14:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    All 3RR violations should go here. And is it just me, or does this situation smack of the ANI troll? --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Fatalserpent

    Can someone take a look at the copyright notice on the userpage of Fatalserpent (talk • contribs). It sounds vaguely GFDL compliant, but does not mention it explicitly. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 20:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bobby Boulders

    See WP:LTA and Wikipedia talk:CVU for information about this vandal. I reported two Spam links that he likes to post to the Spam Blacklist at Meta-Wiki, but they have remained unblacklisted. Could someone who is a Meta-Wiki administrator please blacklist them, as this might help prevent his vandalism?--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 22:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If you'll list them here with some difflinks, sure. I'm not going to go hunt them down though. Essjay (Talk) 00:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is a diff that is an example of him spamming pages with weblinks. I have reported two links to the Spam Blacklist, (imwithbobby@yahoo.com) and (myspace.com/bobbyboulders).--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 01:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    confusing TFD

    At WP:TFD, on the holding cell (where templates that have been orphaned and are ready for deletion wait for their final day, Template:Njt-sta is marked as untranscluded and on the final row. However, this shows otherwise and the tfd log is VERY confusing (the result is

    The result of the debate wasOut of process Delete by SPUI (already subst'd and replaced) --William Allen Simpson 00:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    which I can't really parse (and it's not substed and replaced anyway). So, what's going on here? -- Drini 23:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    How can SPUI delete anything? He isn't an admin, and hopefully, never will be. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that the meaning of that close was that the debate was closed because SPUI did not follow proper process in the nomination. And no, SPUI is not an admin. I sincerely doubt that that would happen. alphaChimp laudare 05:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sealy

    F00P (talk · contribs) recently made a little mess out of the Sealy Mattress Company article by preforming a Copy/paste move to Sealy Corporation. I was hoping I could get an admin to delete the new article and revert the old one and then do a proper move? I don't think the move is correct, but thats not the point:) ---J.S (t|c) 00:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've fixed the cut-and-paste and done a proper move. The article is currently at Sealy Corporation, but if the title is in question it should probably be discussed before re-moving it again. -- Natalya 02:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    My Game

    Hi. I'm wondering if my new game Wikipedia:Sandbox/The Or Game can be added to the list of 4 or 5 games on the sandbox template. (sandbox heading) Thanks. QuizQuick 01:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Hassan Abbasi

    Can an administrator please help this mess I created. After reading comments that confirmed my belief that I may have confused two people, I moved Hassan Abbasi to Mohammad-Hassan Abbasi then realized I moved the article to the wrong person's name. Can you please move Mohammad-Hassan Abbasi back to Hassan Abbasi. Thank you very much and sorry for the confusion. --HResearcher 10:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Taken care of. :) -- Natalya 11:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice! Thanks Natalya. --HResearcher 20:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you please move the talk page also, it is still at the wrong place. Talk:Mohammad-Hassan Abbasi needs to be moved to Talk:Hassan Abbasi. --HResearcher 20:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. -- JLaTondre 22:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha... oops. Thanks for taking care of that, JLaTondre. -- Natalya 22:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you!! :D --HResearcher 08:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Alerts

    Elephant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)will someone please protect this article, if the elephant population keeps tripling there won't be any room left on wikipedia [sic] sprotection hasn't done much of anything, as registered users are now doing it too. And it doesn't help much that RUs are being allowed to vandalize an article and only getting 1 hour blocks for it--64.12.116.200 15:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Why has vprot been repeatedly downgraded to sprot? I spy a wheel war! Just zis Guy you know? 09:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: It was started by Stephen Colbert, who invited people to vandalise wikipedia on television. - Richardcavell 03:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Then it's a good thing we already blocked Stephen Colbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)--152.163.100.200 03:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WikiWoo

    WikiWoo (talk • contribs) has been making a bit of a name for himself; having gone through the accounts WikiRoo (talk · contribs) and WikiDoo (talk · contribs) he finally settled on WikiWoo and is now intent on publicising how corrupt the government of Peel, Ontario is. Worse than the Nazis, apparently (or so he implies on his Talk page today). After numerous warnings and attempts by several people to get him to calm down and stop creating (and re-creating) articles with little other than original research I finally blocked him for 24h, but it seems likely that he might carry on and possibly get worse. No action needed here and now, just letting everybody know and inviting other sets of eyes. Just zis Guy you know? 17:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Block that should probably be lifted

    While User:Mattisse may have accidentally broken some rules, it seems pretty clear to me that she has not had any bad intentions; part of the problem, as can easily be seen from her talk page and from her interactions with my on my user talk page, is that she's not very savvy on Web culture (she says she's a woman in her mid 60s, and I am inclined to believe that is true). She's apparently been accused of operating sockpuppets; she wrote to me saying that User:Orangehead is not a sockpuppet but is her junior-high-school aged granddaughter, who is staying at her house. Either that is true, and something is being blown far out of proportion, or that is not, and she is perpetrating fraud. I'd be inclined to presume good faith: I don't see any evidence that she is out there wreaking havoc. (It is possible that she was at times "coaching" her granddaughter; I don't think that is necessarily out of line, unless it is an ongoing pattern over time, especially insofar as it becomes a doubling up on votes.)

    I have a feeling a lot of this had to do with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent-Meridian High School, where Mattisse, operating under her former account name KarenAnn, made what seems to me to have been a reasobable nomination for deletion; someone definitely spammed to get a rush of inclusionists into the discussion; several people then improved the article, making edits that demonstrated notability; then several people, notably User:Capit, made ad hominem attacks on her for nominating it in the first place. User:Metros232 appropriately cut the discussion short, since with the changes the article was a clear keep and the AFD had no further use other than mudslinging.

    Wikipedia needs to be a welcoming environment for people other than just 20-something geekboys (BTW, I'm not by any means a 20-something, and not particularly a geekboy). I think some benefit of the doubt needs to be extended here, and possibly some mentoring, but I think there has been an overreaction and some "piling on". - Jmabel | Talk 17:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It is worth noting that Capit is also a sockpuppet of KarenAnn/Mattisse. This apparently puzzled Mackensen as well and he spent more time than usual checking it, plus he asked for review from another checkuser, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Listerin. If KarenAnn created a persona to attack herself, it is not out of the realm of possibility that she also created a teenaged granddaughter. Also note that Orangehead has about 120 contribs, mostly to AfD, which hardly seems like typical behavior for a teenager. At this point, Mattisse is editing again. If she wants to create a second account to keep AfD separate from her edits, that's permissable as long as the streams don't cross (quoting Mackensen). Her granddaughter can create a new account, same principle applies. Thatcher131 (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Good block?

    blocked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.200 (talk • contribs)

    Looks fine to me. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Patchouli

    This article was copied from forbes website (All rights reserved!). I used copyvio template on that page but User:Patchouli did this. Caliming that I'm an agent of Islamid republic... I can't tolerate this way of editing wikipedia. This is not the first time I see this user use these words for whatever he don't like. Please consider that copyright violation and the way that user treats others. (sorry for my poor english) Hessam 08:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The Akbar Mohammadi article looks different from the Forbes story. I can't see that it's a copyright violation. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please take a look at this diff. Article was a cut & paste from forbes (recheck it. first four paragraph). I don't say anything about new revisions. I want you consider that old version and what this user says about any kind of activity that he don't like. Hessam 09:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It was close to being so at first but it's not now. Also I removed the inflammatory and incorrect tag. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    this is another example. Please warn that user for Assuming good faith policy and accusing other contributers. Thanks again for your attention. Hessam 11:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Merging of two talk pages

    User:Fabartus has asked for my help regarding a talkpage (Talk:United States Armed Forces) but this is not my area of expertise. I'm not really sure if United States Armed Forces was originally moved to Military of the United States or if two articles existed and later merged. Anyhow we have one article and two talk pages, one of them inactive. What is the correct procedure for material like this? Should this talkpage have been moved or merged with the other page or it such a page normally left behind? Regards. Valentinian (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    back up at aiv

    Is anyone available, the vandals are overwhelming. Thanks :) Dlohcierekim 21:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Was going to say the same thing. ViridaeTalk 00:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No more preteen category/userbox

    Following the CFD on "Category:Preteen Wikipedian" Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 25 , I nuked the category. But by common sense, and being bold, I also killed Template:User pre-teen due to the same arguments used to kill the category. Just so people know and don't accuse of me being rogue. -- Drini 23:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Page histories need merging

    Hey, I've already talked abit to JD_UK (I thought he was an admin, heh!) about this, but User:Kaisuan had copied, redirected, and renamed Wikipedia:Searching to a vanity article about himself, Kaisuan. I've since put all the data back into place (including talk page), but there are a few lingering redirects to Kaisuan from Wikipedia Searching (or was it the other way around? I dunno). The other problem is that the user created the Kaisuan page from a double redirect (or something that used to be good redirected to a new page)(Which either I failed to notice or was something crazy impossible), and now the history for Wikipedia:Searching is on the Kaisuan page. Someone with oversight or deletion abilities (Administrators in general) might need to take a look at this in the near future (There are huge vandalism backlogs right now, so I'm probably really low on the list...)

    I should give out barnstars for this one... Sincerely, Logical2u 00:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Admins working on untagged images: Please read this

    A user has been making POV insertions of {{unknown}} into 2 images of the Nanking Massacre, which caused one of them to be deleted by an unsuspecting admin. The two images are Image:Body everywhere.jpg and Image:Nanjing ditch.jpg. Fortunately I discovered that recently media file undeletion has been enabled, so there was no permanent damage. If you are working on untagged/unsourced images, please keep these 2 in mind and refrain from deleting them. Thanks. -- Миборовский 01:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Homepage error...

    The israeli airstrike still has at least 57 dead listed, where only 28 have been verified and most likely the final number...inside the article it is correct, but right on homepage a statistical error shows bad credibility,,,,and i love wiki— Preceding unsigned comment added by Teddyhaarz (talk • contribs)

    Male Domination?

    During my time on English Wikipedia, I’ve come to realize just how male dominated it is (I myself am male). Seriously, how many Wikipedians are female? If these legendary creatures do exist, they would be classified as “rare and endangered”. But perhaps they are more common than I think, as it is difficult to tell and we tend to assume the user is male. But I digress; Female Wikipedians are few and far between. Unfortunately - we need Female Wikipedians, to continue effectively as an encyclopedia, as they can offer insights that males cannot. Male/female insights and interest differ radically. Compare:

    The truth lies within the Article quality. How can we overcome this?

    If I am wrong, and every second editor is female – correct me. I also apologize for stereotyping and generalizing. I am also unsure of how Wikipedia’s Homosexual community rates in this.

    User:Dfrg.msc File:DFRG. MSC.jpg 07:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=67395921"