Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard - 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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Balph Eubank (talk | contribs) at 18:58, 8 November 2010 (→Ban proposal: User:Simulation12). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:58, 8 November 2010 by Balph Eubank (talk | contribs) (→Ban proposal: User:Simulation12)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    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)

    Start a new discussion

    Template:Active editnotice


    Ban proposal: User:Simulation12

    Resolved – Simulation12 community banned per consensus of mandatory 48 hour discussion. If he wishes to be unbanned, he must contact ArbCom - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

    Simulation12 (talk · contribs) has been, for the past year blatantly disrupting the above articles, imitating other users and admins, and has recently started creating attack pages and accounts. I propose a full siteban on this user. He is clearly not welcome on this encyclopedia any longer. –MuZemike 00:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

    And I just blocked another sock: BeeBliss16 (talk · contribs). I'm about two seconds away from full-protecting all three pages above; they are really starting to tick me off! –MuZemike 00:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

    See this and this. If there is not going to be discussion, I am considering the person banned myself, due to the implied silence. –MuZemike 21:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

    Done. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
    Nothing from what I can see, so far. Assuming I know how to block users and use checkuser right. –MuZemike 23:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
    I've reported the page as 'targeting a friend'. Oh banhammers, I want to use that on this certain sockmaster who has been a pain in my ass for months. MuZemike knows who it is, but that's another story. --Eaglestorm (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
    It appears that the user has put up a YouTube video asking for help in getting unblocked: . I'd feel sympathetic to their cause, but not after the personal attacks the user posted on his page previously. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    I'm marking this "resolved" as it has run for the mandatory 48 hours and the votes have all been unanimous. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

    Vandalism of Article

    DavidR2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Ott jeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    72.39.98.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Looks like a problem over at the article http://en.wikipedia.org/MonaVie

    some of the sentences are not represented by the source articles. It seems they are twisting facts that the FDA warned the company when it was another website the FDA warned. Some editors are calling it a pyramid scheme. What does it take to call a company that on wikipedia?

    It looks like the past months the article was locked for edit warring twice to keep its content safe. This company was just added to wikiproject companies.

    There are Users saying its a bunch of lies and POV. Because of legal issues and slander and all since it is a company top priority should be the truth. Could we get some new admins to please go over there to check the source articles and look the article over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.98.63 (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

    The article was already fully protected last month and will expire in 5 days. There's not a whole lot more administrators can do. Please use Talk:MonaVie to discuss any content issues you may have with the article. -Atmoz (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

    The user appears to be a forum-shopping / socking SPA, as per discussion at ANI. None of them is currently blocked, though. Another issue is the users semi-veiled legal threats, talking about "libel" and such while failing to provide specifics. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

    Backlog at Category:Misplaced Pages semi-protected edit requests

    Resolved

    Just a note that that page is backlogged. Granted, it's only semi-protected, so any autoconfirmed user could perform the edits themselves (I will be helping right after I post this). Just posting to just to let admins and any other people watching this page know. elektrikSHOOS 04:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

    At 3 requests right now. -Atmoz (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    Looks like a great thing for non-admins who want to be admins someday to go do. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

    Revdel issue?

    Are the contributions from 120.28.64.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) today candidates for revdel? Spanish speaking editors will know what the question means, the rest of you will have to use an online translator. All edits made by that IP today have been reverted, and the IP blocked for a year. Mjroots (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

    Deleted them all. RD3 fits that brand of vulgarity like a glove. Courcelles 08:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    Thank you. Mjroots (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    This gives me an idea. I think we should create a project page for redaction nominees. Minimac (talk) 13:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

    Unblock request by Kalajan

    Resolved – unblocked by T. Canens. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

    Kalajan was blocked indefinitely in January 2009 for abusing multiple accounts (see Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Kalajan, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Kalajan/Archive). They now request to be unblocked, stating:

    "Hi, I was blocked almost two years ago, which has been more than enoughn for me to realize that I was a fool in creating so many socks and acting irresponsibly. In these past two years I have matured greatly; I have been through that stage where you become a man. I am absolutely focused on returning to wikipedia as a helpful and collaborative user. Thanks :)Kalajan (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)"

    Not socking for a long time usually inclines this community to clemency, but the blocking admin has expressed reservations. I therefore recommend that the community discuss whether an unblock is warranted. Normally I would have favored an unblock under these circumstances, but Kalajan's latest comment on his talk page in which he at least partially blames others for his troubles makes me much more cautious. If there is a checkuser in the audience, they may want to check whether Kalajan's claim of no longer socking is correct within the time for which data is available.  Sandstein  18:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

    Oppose Although I am not an admin, it seems that the user has problems interacting with other editors based on his past contributions, and I think it would happen more with other editors around here if he is unblocked. It seems his reason "to crack" is more of just not listening to others and doing what he desires is best. --iGeMiNix 18:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    Tentative AGF support, subject to no evidence being found of undisclosed socking. If this editor really has stayed away for two years without causing disruption then it could be worth a second chance. Any unblock would be on the understanding that the editor is "on probation" for at least six months, and the block could be reapplied at any time should there be further problems. Mjroots (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    Support, per Mjroots; a lot of things can change in two years - and if they haven't where WP is concerned then the block button can be pressed very easily. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    Support I support the unblock as it's been a while and I think s/he is starting if not has already learned their lesson. The socking although was inappropriate, and I don't condone it, minimal effect. I would also like to note though in re to Sandstein is that a CU as far as I can tell would not be able to comment on it, as the socks were blocked as ducks and no CU was done on them. Also, contribs would be  Stale as this data is released after 3 months. So the only thing that would be able to prove this, if a CU actually ran a check on a specific IP (not a user) way back long time ago, and it was found in the logs. -- DQ (t) (e) 21:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    Kalajan posted on his talkpage over the past few days. It would be perfectly possible for a Checkuser to see if the IPs he posted from were making posts to Misplaced Pages elsewhere. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    Support I think it's worth taking the chance. JodyB talk 21:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    Unblock Close to two years since the offending activity? We'd need to have very good reasons to continue the block in those circumstances and I don't see them. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    Support with a close eye. This may be a young user who has grown up a bit, as he seems to suggest. We can always reblock if it doesn't work. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    Support- if this unblock request is declined, one would have to wonder whether it's possible for an indef blocked user to ever return. Reyk YO! 22:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    Support unblock. Two years is a long time. Let him try to contribute constructively if he wants to. If there are further problems, reblocking is just a button click away in any case. Jafeluv (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    Unblock. 2+ years without socking deserves a shot. -Atmoz (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    'Support unblock per standard offer. Basket of Puppies 23:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

    There is an overwhelming consensus to unblock, which I have now implemented. T. Canens (talk) 00:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

    Thanks very much guys, you won't regret this. :D Kalajan (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

    CLose the Sat85 Topic Ban Discussion?

    Next Door on ANI so we can put Talk:Man stuff behind us? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

    I was just about to suggest the same thing myself - contributions have come to a stop, so I think it really would be good for an uninvolved admin to judge consensus and close it, and then we can move forward. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
    It's been archived now, while still marked "Unresolved" - Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive647#Man -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

    User:Heritagesoccerpro, User:Kingdombound

    I want to report again the user connected to Heritage Soccer Agency. He's still creating articles about dubious notable footballers without any sources with false, fictitious information. Link to last report Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive631#Users User:Heritagesoccerpro and User:Zombie433.

    Few weeks ago I corrected this article:Burnel Okana-Stazi, but he's still reverting my edits and insterting unsourced, false information and POV. He's using a multiple accounts User:Heritagesoccerpro, User:Heritagesocceragency, User:Kingdombound and several IPs. Also he doesn't care about the rules, these articles Wassawaly Eric Michel, Siaka Adams Doumbia were deleted previously but he created them again.

    I think that it's time to finally stop the mess he's doing to wikipedia.--Wrwr1 (talk) 03:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

    I did run a CU, and it is  Possible that the two Heritagesoccerpro and Kingdombound are the same user. –MuZemike 04:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
    Looking at the edits, as well as the similar topics and sources there is an grammmatical quirk all 3 share which convinces me they are the same person. I am also concerned that the prime source for players details is invariably the Heritage Soccer Agency site, and the other sources are (often foreign language) "interviews" with the player or a generic website for one of the clubs - which usually do not mention the player concerned.
    I have little idea what the criteria for notability for sportmen/women are, but I should suspect that playing for clubs in the Maltese league or lower divisions in Greece, etc, is pretty marginal (and would be difficult to check against). Perhaps some input from sports/soccer related editors may be of benefit? My instinct would be to block the editors and delete the bio's, unless they are firmly compliant with the notability requirements. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society (2nd nomination) and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sunrunners of Goddess Keep

    Would an admin (or admins) close Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society (2nd nomination) and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sunrunners of Goddess Keep? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

    I've closed The Irving (Iperhaps an unforced error that I'll come to regret); I'll leave the other one. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
    I closed out Sunrunners, so looks like we're good here. Seraphimblade 20:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

    Merger proposal Albanian nationalism with Albanian National Awakening

    Already under discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts#Article Albanian nationalism: WP:POV, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:FORK and Talk:Albanian_nationalism#Merger_proposal.21. DrKiernan (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I proposed to merge parts of Albanian nationalism article with Albanian National Awakening and some content to transfer to Greater Albania article. If you have any opinion on this, please assist us by getting involved in this talk page. —Anna Comnena (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    A section "issues" in the article "Israel Police"

    So before creating it, like in other corresponding articles relating to other countries, I would like to .. I don't know, make sure or maybe give a warn to admins. Because what I'm about to add might be not likable for someones, hence, these someones would try to get rid of this section or simply put spokes in my wheel which will make it impossible for me to add information in this section. Of course we're talking about information which are provided by marginally reliable sources. So can we now, right ahead, make sure that it's possible to create such section there, no matter if it stays empty for some years or gets filled at glance, the fact that it can be created shouldn't be doubtful, right? Clear question, clear answer. Userpd (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

    This is better discussed at the article's talk page. Its inclusion depends on consensus, not the views of one admin. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    Consensus is needed if someone disputes something about a content, but the creation of section "Issues" in that article is non-disputable (WP:DISRUPTPOINT), just like a section "biography" in articles about celebrities. Userpd (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

    Image used to defame

    Resolved – It's jead, Dim! HalfShadow 00:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

    I'm at a loss how to handle this, some admin advice/action would be greatly appreciated. There is an image file recently uploaded to Commons that appears to have been uploaded solely to defame the subject . What should be done here? Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

    Nominated for deletion as copyvio/orphaned on Commons, and flagged on their AN. However, they tend not to react there as quickly as we do here. Rodhullandemu 00:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks Rodhullandemu. 28bytes (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    The user is at least no longer an issue. HalfShadow 00:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    Not here; meanwhile, he remains unblocked on Commons. Rodhullandemu 00:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) BLP violations concerning a minor? Kill it with fire. User blocked indefinitely, filename removed from page history log. Thanks Rodhullandemu for dealing with the Commons side. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    The image falls under the Commons criteria for speedy deletion, so I've added a speedy tag onto it. Physchim62 (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    It's gone from Commons now, and I've advised the deleting admin there that the uploader has been blocked here. Rodhullandemu 00:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

    Side question - that article looks like a good candidate for Misplaced Pages:Pending changes. I have not been keeping up with that debate, though, so I may be wrong. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

    I thought pending changes trial has finished, although I still see articles subject to that level of protection. While we still have, I see no reason why we shouldn't use it, however, and I'll apply it now. Rodhullandemu 00:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

    Should user talk pages be deleted under the right to vanish?

    This is an issue that's raised time and again, with inconsistent application by admins, so it would be good to get it sorted out so that admins know how to proceed. Please comment at Misplaced Pages talk:Right to vanish#RfC on deleting user talk pages. SlimVirgin 06:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

    Rlevse alternative account

    Resolved

    Should User:Dog The Teddy Bear not be blocked also?  pablo 10:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

    Er, but the master account is not blocked. It was a valid alternate account, not a sock. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    The master account is indeed blocked. But don't worry, someone else is on the case.  pablo 13:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    I have blocked it. This is not written into the directions, but I tend to block the vanished accounts as they no longer have any need to edit, and it serves to protect the project from people abusing RtV. I have seen people excercise RtV and then come back in a week; this helps protect against that. It is a purely preventative block; which is what blocks are supposed to be. -- Avi (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    I believe it is a bad block. If a user, who has neither active bans nor blocks history wants to come back and have a fresh start he should be allowed to do it with no questions asked.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    Incorrect. The right to vanish implies a complete and total break from wikipedia, not a clean start. Please review WP:CLEANSTART and WP:RTV; they are different. -- Avi (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

    Peer review requested

    Resolved – Wifione ....... 11:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

    I posted a warning note on talk page. As I have been involved in discussions with him in the recent past, I request an administrator/established editor peer review of the warning. Sincere regards Wifione ....... 10:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

    Arbitration motions regarding Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/PHG

    Resolved by motion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

    The existing topic ban imposed in the PHG arbitration on Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs) is extended indefinitely. Accordingly, this user is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, all broadly defined. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion. Per Honor et Gloria may appeal this sanction no more than once every six months, starting six months from the passing of this motion.

    For the Arbitration Committee,
    NW (Talk) 15:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

    Discuss this

    RPP backlog

    Couple of hours' backlog at WP:RPP if anyone has a mo :) ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 17:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

     Done. -- Cirt (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    Category: