Misplaced Pages

If it worries you, show him . I doubt it is harmful. x42bn6 Talk 00:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd probably ask them why first. Note that they were blocked 1 week in January for 'abusive sockpuppetry', so hmmm .... - Alison 00:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's not the sekret page :P The page is released under the same licensing as all the rest, I do believe. Users without the flag just can't see the page because to access it would be for its use. I see no problem. It's something I've never considered before so I add the "I might be wrong." Teke 05:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Plus, the page used to list the AOL proxy blocks and others, which it no longer does. It only lists the ranges of the Canadian, UK, and US government IP blocks. Furthermore in my it's no big deal. Teke 05:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It's GPL'd, so it's not even secret - he can go to any other site that runs MediaWiki 1.10alpha and request it there. There's no issue here. Titoxd 05:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, he's not asking for checkuser results or real names or something. I have a small wiki on Mediawiki running on the machine next to me for some collaborative projects with a few friends, anyone else could do the same and find out exactly what it looks like. Seraphimblade 08:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Just show the appropriate mediawiki page. Viridae 00:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, everyone. After some thought, I decided that it was harmless and uploaded Image:Admin's toolbox and Image:Block user.png, and answered his question at Talk:King Lopez#Re: Question. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

A query with some images tagged for deletion "no source"

• I started to have a go at images in Category:Images with unknown source as of 8 April 2007 "Images in this category are potential candidates for speedy deletion under criterion I4 once this category is seven days old.". I soon found in there a succession of images that were declared by their uploaders as "I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. ..." that User:Aksi great tagged for deletion {{no source}}. On looking in his user-talk page I found a discussion about images in User talk:Aksi great#Images uploaded by you, which seems to be becoming acrimonious. Anthony Appleyard 15:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems in order to me. Aksi feels s/he has reason to not trust the licences, has asked for further clarification and has been met by User:ParthianShot not answering the question, rather squirming out of it. The question is simple enough: " add proper image descriptions?", but the answer is a long diatribe about why the question is improper, rather than providing the information or asking for clarification. If you don't want to delete the images based on the conversation, then leave it for somebody else or ask Aksi for clarification.

You did at least contact Aksi after bringing this here, didn't you? It's common courtesy to do so.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  19:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Finally I understand the strange message you left me on my talk page. There are 2 issues here. The images I tagged on 8 April, and the images uploaded by ParthianShot. As Redvers has said I have a reason to doubt the images uploaded which I tagged on the 8th. Those images look like really professional images to me. They are of a very respected politician of India and it is difficult to get such good images of a person like that. Hence I asked for a source for the images. No source has been provided by the uploader even though it is now 12 days since I tagged the images which leads me to suspect that the images were taken from some other source and are not free images. Hence we should err on the side of caution and delete those images. They can always be retrieved later if the uploader comes with proof of source. About ParthianShot, it is a different issue. The website from which he has taken the images has commited copyvios and hence all images taken from that website should be removed from wikipedia. I haven't tagged any of those images yet. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. My problem with Aksi is not the deletion of the images, but his misuse of his admin privileges. I believe that he has blocked me on basis of a private request by another user (FullStop). The matter was originally raised by another contributor (, ), , , , ). However, I would greatly appreciate if someone look into this matter. Regards ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 10:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

PS. Images tagged for deletion "no source", by Aksi, is in continuation of his wrongdoings, possibly under Fullstop instruction. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 10:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again.- Aksi_great (talk) 10:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again? When the above issue was resolved, that you believe it has been brought up again unjustly? ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 10:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Images must have a source. Images without source information may be deleted 7 days after being tagged. That's policy. Regarding images uploaded by ParthianShot, the dituation should be discussed at Possibly unfree images to determine whether they are reliable. Regarding ParthianShot's images, he uploads images sourced to a web site that has a prominent GFDL license posted. However, that web site has been proven to post textual copyvios, therefore the accuracy of the GFDL release for the photos is also in question. Thatcher131 18:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Thatcher131: ...However, that web site has been proven to post textual copyvios..! May I ask how and when it was proven? Can I see the evidence for this claim? Thanks. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 08:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

blocked range 77.182.0.0/16

hi there!

de:user:Lyzzy got blocked on en.wp for six months, commented to be a "spambot" (see screenshot done by her). i can assure you that she definitely is not a spambot. ;-) the admin who blocked the ip (ip-range?) did not answer her request for an unblock via mail. who can help her? how can she edit here again? --JD de {æ} 17:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

77.182.0.0/16 (#455265) are dynamic IP addresses that belong to 1&1, one of Germany's leading ISPs. Please unblock the range again. -- kh80 19:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Lyzzy (talk · contribs), presumably the same person, has a completely clear block log. Natalie 19:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It's about her IP range (see above). The admin unchecked the box "Block anonymous users only", so she can't edit anymore. -- kh80 19:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have asked the blocking admin to weigh in - they may have had a reason for their actions. Natalie 20:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I fixed should be anon only, I have seen some spam bots recently originating from that range. I did not receive any e-mail. (it might have been spam filtered or junk mailed by accident). If there are any other collateral from this please feel free to unblock. Betacommand 23:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If 77.182.0.0/16 are dynamic IP addreses of one of Germany's leading ISPs, shouldn't the block not be "account creation blocked"? Where are ISP-users supposed to go to create an account? --Iamunknown 23:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, e-mail function is not as unfailing as it should be. --Lyzzy 09:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Block of Reddi

As a result of talk page spamming and forcing people to sign a memberlist at WP:PARANORMAL (which there is another one that he was unaware of), I blocked User:Reddi about 12 minutes ago for 15 minutes.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm blocking him, again, this time for 31 hours in his personal attacks against User:ScienceApologist, which includes trying to remove him from WP:PARANORMAL (I also have reason to believe he was spamming the talk pages of the members to influence this decision or that of the recently opened Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

For his actions, see this diff—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Everything is some sort of conspiracy with him :\. Seems like a valid block. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how related it is but this editor redirected Electrostatic levitation to Electrogravitics which is a completely separate concept... I reverted this and there was nothing more of it but I was rather puzzled/disappointed to find this redirection. (→Netscott) 03:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

A Misplaced Pages software bug: cause found?: a strange effect of a missing template file

(1) In Category:Broken redirects for speedy deletion I found three biochemistry-related pagenames including Carbohydrate metabolism. But they proved to be not redirects and not speedy-delete-tagged. When I went into edit mode with Carbohydrate metabolism, the resulting transclusions list at the bottom included the name Template:Gluconeogenesis, which was red, showing that that template did not exist. I gave Template:Gluconeogenesis the dummy contents {{}} , and after that Carbohydrate metabolism was no longer listed as a speedy-delete-tagged broken redirect. Anthony Appleyard 12:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

(2) This happened again, with User:Wlmaltby3/Depth chart/sandbox, which was listed as {{db-self}} because it transcluded the missing template file User:Wlmaltby3/Depth chart. Anthony Appleyard 20:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

(3) This happened again on 20 April 2007 as I was going through Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user. I found listed there a big bunch of files all in the same user's user space ((e.g. User:xxxxxx/..... or User talk:xxxxxx/.....)). Most of them were "scratch paper" template-type files which he had db-userreq tagged after he had finished work developing something, and accordingly I deleted them. But 4 of them were discussion archives with no speedy-delete tag, but yet they were listed for speedying - because they transcluded (directly or indirectly) a template which contained a speedy-delete tag, as is well known.

But those 4 archive files were still listed in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user after I deleted the speedy-delete-tagged templates. I went into one of them in edit mode, and at the bottom 3 of the names of transcluded templates showed as red = 404, so I recreated those 3 templates with the dummy text {{}} , and after that the 4 archive files no longer listed for speedy-deleting.

Afterwards I contacted the user, and he thanked me.

Cause?

I suspect that, for speed, Misplaced Pages's server accesses templates (or at least commonly used short templates) not straight from the template file but from a copy in a buffer in RAM. That buffer seems to be correctly updated from the template file when the template file is written to. But likely that buffer is not cleared or blanked when the template file is deleted. As a result, accessing a deleted template file (to transclude it) results in Misplaced Pages'a software accessing the template's buffer and thus behaving as if the last version of the template file was still there complete with speedy-delete tag.

In case (1), likely one of his templates contained a #redirect to a file which someone later deleted, and later someone tagged that template as Category:Broken redirects for speedy deletion, and then someone deleted the template.

Anthony Appleyard 05:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes as I pointed out when this was mentioned the other day, it is all to do with the job queue, it doesn't buffer in RAM (though MYSQL might be), just follow the link and read. Any edit to the page (not just removing the now gone template) will resolve it for that page. --pgk 07:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Happened to me yesterday as I was clearing the WP:CSD#G7 category & I reported it here. You just have to be careful that the page for deletion truly is tagged with {{db-owner}}. It seems to be always down to a transclusion that was itself only recently tagged and speedy-deleted - Alison 07:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Problematic external link on galaxy being added by anonymous user

An anonymous user with several different IP addresses (User:62.69.36.240, User:62.69.36.109, User:62.69.37.127, User:62.69.37.217) has been attempting to add a "bad" external link to galaxy. The external link is a problem because it resizes the windows browser, and it annoys those of us who have been maintaining the article. The link may also be spam; I have certainly never heard of the website.

Since the user clearly has multiple IP addresses, contacting him/her is difficult, as the user may not read any messages left at a specific user talk page. The user also has not noticed the note left at Talk:Galaxy or the notes that I now leave in the revert edits.

In the past, I think I encountered something that blocks the addition of external links to websites that are advertisements. Is it possible to institute that for the website that this anonymous user continues to attempt to edit?

Any other suggestions would be welcome. Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 09:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

File a request at WP:RFP to prevent anons from editing. hbdragon88 09:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The meta spam list is a better option than page protection - anyone have the link handy? Spartaz 09:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

m:Talk:Spam blacklist, but they won't list it unless it's a significant problem affecting multiple articles, usually on multiple language Wikipedias. Guy

(Help!) 10:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You can also put something on my talkpage to request that the link be added to Shadowbot, which I've done in case they don't get the idea. Shadow1 (talk) 12:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a week. Hopefully, they'll get bored - Alison 11:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

User:62.69.36.240 has added links to the same "Space and Astronomy News" website (or possibly mirror sites) on other Misplaced Pages pages; see . Some of these other edits have been reverted as spam. Could this be a justification for taking further action? Dr. Submillimeter 12:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I warned the accounts {{uw-spam2}}. If it continues, escalate up through {{uw-spam4}} and then report at WP:AIV to block. If the person evades blocks via dynamic IP after that then we'll consider blacklisting the domain. —Quarl 2007-04-23 10:47Z

User talk:Winona Gone Shopping

This user was blocked July 2006 for various things. I have deleted the talk page several times as they seem to want to use it for a blog and linking to their myspace. Today though they asked for a block review. I declined to unblock based on the fact they said it's a role account and the implied legal threat. Of course I could be reading too much into what they said so others might want to review it as well. I'll advise the blocking admin, Tony Sidaway, about this. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Shared account ("giving passwords away" is shared in my book), edit summaries like "I'm just here to piss on stuff. Particularly, on Jimbo Wales", implied legal threats, regardless of their excuse just now ... I think it should stay declined. - Alison 11:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Username concerns as well. Newyorkbrad 12:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• My inclination would be to delete and salt the talk page (e-mail and myspace links are back). Rklawton 12:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Salt and pepper. --jpgordon 15:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Good block. _InBC 15:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the talk page - given the rant and the links to myspace and email, and I have protected the page. Feel free to revert me, no hard feelings, I just think that this block was very much justified and Misplaced Pages does not have a need for users like these, especially as they state they don't intent to edit ever again. There's always the unblock list if they truly want to have their block reviewed, so that's not a reason to let them edit that talk page in this case. --JoanneB 16:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse - I don't remember all the details of the original blocking - but I do recall this user was bad news.--Doc 16:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse too. Just for background, this was previously a good account (under a different name) until about a year or so ago, when the user suddenly either freaked out or really gave up his access to somebody else. Ever since then it's been only trolling. If the original user ever wished to return to actual editing, he'd have silently created a new account by now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Good deletion, good protection. _InBC 16:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Cambridge Bay Weather and Doc Glasgow encountered the user months after the user was already blocked, when the user was claiming to be multiple users and using the talk page for sundry purposes. However, all this came after the block. The user was never suspected of being "multiple users" till it claimed to be so after being blocked. The user was blocked for two offensive edit summaries, quite simply. I can go back and discuss the details. All this talk of "multiple users" and this morning's "legal threat" (Mark Geragos posting on the talk page) are after the fact. 68.126.248.18 21:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Who here is actually familiar with why the user was blocked almost one year ago? 68.126.248.18 22:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I would support an unblock, if the user promises not to troll or use his userspace inappropriately. As Fut.Perf. pointed out, this was a good user, and I think we should give him another chance. Khoikhoi 22:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm the user :) and I promise not to "Save" any inappropriate edits anywhere in Misplaced Pages if I am unblocked. 98% of the bad edits came after I was blocked. And there was no sockpuppetry (ever) or vandalism of articles (besides my User Page and User Talk Page) since then, and classifying those edits as vandalism is controversial. I have not started a new account since I was blocked on July 26th 2006. I don't need sockpuppet charges. 68.126.248.18 22:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The two offensive edit summaries: the one referring to Jimmy and another one which you will find in the initial User talk:Winona Gone Shopping, an edit summary made on July 24th, 25th, or 26th. For no reason, I stated (addressing no one, and there was no talk of anyone banning me for anything, it was out of the blue): "Here is my death threat: permanently ban me and I will kill you. Your move, tough guy." This was not addressed to anyone. It was a "silly" threat, as noted. Those two edit summaries are the reason why i was blocked. If I hadn't made those edit summaries I would not be blocked now unless I did something else later. 68.126.248.18 23:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

JoanneB, I restored the page for now. I think it's important that others see the odd style that comes from that user or users.

Winona, I knew about you well before your blocking but saw no need to comment at that time. As to what you did in the past that had nothing to do with my declining to unblock you. It was because you said that the password had been passed on to you by Alexander. Who knows how many others he passed that on to. I thought I saw an implied legal threat but I wasn't sure so I brought the matter here.

Take a look at User talk:Winona Gone Shopping. It appears from the comments, all made by 68.123.235.63 that there are, again, more than one person using that page. I really don't think they need to be unblocked. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern better now. If I had passed on the password to a friend, then he could have passed it on to who knows who and the account would be unreliable. 68.126.248.18 00:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a dynamic IP, but they're all the same person. Khoikhoi 00:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they're all the same person. What happened after the block IMO is not as important as what happened to initiate the block (two edit summaries). And what happened after never exceeded some bizarre edits to (my)Userspace. I apologize for claiming to be more than one person, but I have friends/fans in MySpace who want to believe that I'm Winona Ryder (officially I am not, I assure you) and I know they check up on my activity in Misplaced Pages because they have told me so. It's "funny" that in MySpace they believe I'm Winona claiming to be Alex while in Misplaced Pages most believe I'm Alex, perhaps having shared his password. It's all one user. All the edits in my Userspace are not the issue of my block. Unblocked or not I'll refrain from them. My MySpace was quite busy before, the hugest Winona in MySpace till I had to reduce hundreds and hundreds of "friends" because of time constraints. If you search "Winona Ryder" in MySpace, I am the only one. If you search Angelina Jolie, you get like 50 different pages. I'm so unpoopular after the Saks Fifth Avenue scandal :-) gotta go, thanks for your time 68.126.248.18 00:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I know the various IP's are the same person but they talk as if they were different people even when using the same IP. Look at the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk is now protected from being created and deleted. There's no reason to let it go on.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I find the overreactions, belief in multiple users, protectiveness of Jimbo Wales and general ******** here to be very interesting. However, how am I going to change my Username if I am blocked? 68.126.248.18 06:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I want something like User:W.L.H.. 68.126.248.18 06:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested in being unblocked only so I could change my username, then I can be blocked again for those two earth-shattering edit summaries, for which I have already apologized. I mean, what do you think I'm going to do if I get unblocked? I no longer agree with the GFDL license so I don't want to (but I might) edit; I assure you no one has the password except me. If people beyond my control have the password, why would I request the account to be unblocked? 68.126.248.18 06:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Living bios in need of attention

User:Messedrocker/Unreferenced BLPs - go through, give a severe sourcing critique, remove from list (or from Misplaced Pages) - David Gerard 17:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• I can't beliee that Dave Brubeck is unsourced. I think we should take some Time Out to fix that. I'll be Far more Blue if it's not fixed soon... 80.176.82.42 22:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of sockpuppeteer notice

How does one deal with removal of a sockpuppeteer notice? See here. I've reverted that with an edit summary with links to the appropriate sections of WP:USER#ownership... and WP:SSP#reporting.... But I have a strong feeling this won't go away. Otheus 19:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's how you deal with it: Don't put a suspected sockpuppet tag on the userpage of someone who hasn't been banned for abusing sockpuppets. How would you like it if I stuck one of those tags on your page and started edit-warring over it? If you have the PROOF of him using sockpuppets abusively, then he should be banned. If you don't have the proof for that, you shouldn't be tagging him. Frise 21:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually WP:SSP explicitly states that you should. -Amarkov moo! 21:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That's why it's called "suspected" sockpuppet. JuJube 22:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what it states. This is something that needs to be tempered with a little common sense. There might be thirty or forty people I suspect of being sockpuppets, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go around taggging them. There are three or four people I know for a fact are using sockpuppets, but since they aren't abusing the policy I'm not going to tag them either. Edit warring on someone else's user page over a suspected sock tag is incredibly silly. If you KNOW they're abusing socks, then they can be banned. Frise 22:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

But the point of WP:SSP is discussion. That involves getting people who interact with the alleged sockpuppets to comment. And it doesn't say that you can tag everyone who you suspect of being a sockpuppet, it says you can tag people who you suspect of being an abusive sockpuppet, and have a SSP report open on them. -Amarkov moo! 22:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit-warring over a suspected sockpuppet tag is as dumb as edit-warring over the removal of a warning. The community has come down hard on the latter, and the same conclusions reached apply to the former. - Merzbow 04:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but so far, no comment on exactly how to deal with it. Do I report it to AN/I as removal of a warning? Otheus 05:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This has already been dealt with, but in general it might make sense to find out why the tag is supposed to be added. After all, the report is still on WP:SSP and will be dealt with decisively at some point, so a tag is not strictly necessary. —Centrx→talk • 05:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Centrix has a point. I have filed three SSP cases, and in each case, the users got fairly angry. Is that a classic guilt response? I'm not sure. But posting it on their user page didn't seem to "help" encourage "discussion". But at the same time, the community and the accused need to be aware of the suspected puppetry and case. In this case, it was resolved quickly, but in other cases, it might take quite a while. So while there is an ongoing investigation, there should be some kind of notice. Otheus 06:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the notices on the user page are necessary. The suspected master + puppets should receive a notice of the case on their user talk page, which makes sure they're informed. I'll start a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Suspected sock puppets to remove tagging the user pages from the steps in filing a case; anything that makes the procedure simpler and reduces futile edit warring is probably a good thing. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Um... warning removals don't need to be reported, because they are not actionable. If this is like warning removal, then you don't report it at all. -Amarkov moo! 05:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Tonyppe

Thread retitled from "Offensive?".

I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this one... I'm not a terribly big fan of the typical user page on wikipedia, so I decided to put this image (which happens to be featured) on my userspace because I love the artist's work. I hadn't logged in for a while, and then I noticed this edit on my talk page requesting that I remove the image because it offends gay muslims (?). I would normally be quite willing to take down an image that someone found offensive, but I noticed the same user had made several edits tweaking vandalism notices I had placed . Any thoughts? I wanted to get an outside viewpoint before I contact the user with my reply. Rookwood 02:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call this "tweaking". Looks more like vandalism to me. Natalie 02:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

True, but the editor seemed to be making (a few) reasonable edits as well, so I was trying to assume good faith. Rookwood 02:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage is fine. Tonyppe is asking for a sharp warning for personal attacks for this sort of thing. – Riana 02:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no good faith to be assumed about his insulting edits. JuJube 02:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User blocked—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I admire your good faith approach to the user's message, but I'm afraid I'll have to concur with the judgement they were most likely trolling. I know that we have some Muslim editors, if any of them can figure why this image would be offensive, please do point it out. Personally, I like it. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Tor blocking - soft or hard?

Obviously, open proxies are and should be blocked on a regular basis. There seems to be a strong consensus that anonymous editing from Tor nodes should be blocked. I usually see account creation likewise disabled. From what I've seen, though, there doesn't seem to be consensus on the "anon only" block option -- some admins block all users, others block only IP users, and I frequently see Tor blocks reconfigured one way or the other. As a community, do we have any particular preference, here? Blocking anons and registration seem to be unanimously agreed upon, it's only blocking accounts that seems to be a sticking point. I haven't seen any arguments or upset feelings over this, and don't have a particularly strong opinion, myself, but figured it couldn't hurt to discuss. Thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that a lot of good wikipedians use Tor. I am thinking about installing it myself, but I am worried about this. I support soft blocks only, because then a vandal would have to register over a regular connection. If they got blocked, their main IP would be autoed, so I support soft blocks. mrholybrain's talk 12:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser has repeatedly found abusive sockpuppets editing through soft-blocked tor proxies. Anyone smart enough to use tor is smart enough to find an ublocked IP to create a sockfarm and age it, then edit through tor. Hardblocked tor users can edit through the secure server. Thatcher131 15:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As previously, soft blocks aren't so soft and have their own implications for use. These are anonymous open proxies by any other name and should be treated as such. --pgk 18:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think, and have long advocated, that Tor should be anon-only+account creation blocked, but anonymous edits should be permitted. We should also automate this, and for gods-sake we should only block edits from exit nodes, not middle nodes. If you're able to find an unblocked IP to create the sockfarm you'd also be able to find an unblocked IP to use the sock farm. I don't see how we can claim to respect users privacy but we will aggressively block any method a user could use to actually achieve said privacy in a strong way. --Gmaxwell 18:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I block tor exit nodes as a full block (everything on). So NOT anon only, and account creation disabled. I don't believe we don't guarantee privacy, and these are just open proxies. Prodego 20:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Prod backlog

Hasn't gone away. See Category:Proposed deletion as of 15 April 2007, Category:Proposed deletion as of 16 April 2007 and Category:Proposed deletion as of 17 April 2007. Needs some work with a plunger. MER-C 07:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Starting to nab some, but being at work, I can't get into hardcore "psycho admin with a mop of doom" mode. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Another one: Category:Proposed deletion as of 18 April 2007. MER-C 04:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:CtK19, CTK

Thread retitled from "Blanking".

I'm not sure this is the right place to put this, please correct me if it's not. Would someone have a look at this article? The entire contents was replaced by User:CtK19 some twelve hours ago. It seems to me that this user is promoting himself on WP, and also that the article does not meet WP:NPOV. I think this edit is vandalism, be it intentional or not.Cassandra B 10:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it to the previous disamb page and left a notability message to the user. Thanks for spotting it! -- lucasbfr 10:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ampersands on my "command line"

I don't have a clue where to look for the reason for this, but my command line just went from this:

   * Jd2718
   * My talk
   * My preferences
   * My watchlist
   * My contributions
   * Log out

to this:

   * Jd2718
   * My talk
   * My preferences
   * & lt;my-watchlist& gt;
   * My contributions
   * Log out

I think somebody's monkeying around with something they shouldn't be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jd2718 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

• See the village pump. >Radiant< 15:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wayne Crookes suing Wikimedia

According to a whole bunch of news websites, this guy's suing Wikimedia along with pretty much the rest of the internet. Shouldn't his page be office protected or something? Who do we notify if anyone? Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been protected - though not at OFFICE level. x42bn6 Talk 14:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Yamla protected

If I may say, I believe this is inappropriate. I have no way of contacting this user. The idea was that it was protected because of an "edit war", but there were only a few edits over several days in this "war". It is totally inappropriate to fully protect (not just semi) an administrator's talk page. Unfortunately, I can't complain, because his page is protected. Part Deux 15:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In general, your view would be absolutely correct. In this instance, there are other reasons for this protection which unfortunately should not be discussed on-wiki. Please e-mail the user if necessary. Newyorkbrad 15:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Could I have a link to the discussion? I'm not seeing how not letting us know why his page is protected could in any way harm this user.

In any case I wanted to know why on God's green earth he didn't protect User talk:A young n***a from da street for abuse of the unblock template and WP:POINT problems. 15:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It could. Please e-mail Yamla. --Iamunknown 15:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In any event, any administrator can address the issue on the "User:A young..." page. Newyorkbrad 15:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not buying it, do you think he could add a link to the top of his page saying "email me"? Part Deux 15:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not buying what? I don't appreciate that implication. It wasn't even him that protected the page. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 21:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know about this discussion until now. My page was protected as a result of an attack I considered rather serious and the only way to protect myself was to protect my page. The protection expires after a week from the initial incident and I'm seriously hoping this is enough. If it is not, I am not sure what I will do. I considered this protection to be necessary and a last resort. Semi-protection is occasionally necessary in the short term but admins should rarely need to fully protect their page. I note, however, that I am always available via email. As to protecting that user's talk page, I still don't see a need to protect it. My involvement was limited to deciding whether or not to unblock the user. While that username was not acceptable, the word in question was bleeped out (I would not tolerate someone using the full n-word in a username) and a single unblock request only rarely is grounds for protecting the page, even if abusive. --Yamla 21:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:AIV

Just thought you should know. Spartaz 16:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Offensive user name (n*)

User:Knights who say Ni...Grrr who seems to be editing in an "unhelpful or unconstructive" way has a user name that is offensive when it's read out loud.Sjö 16:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

For future refernece, this sort of thing should be filed under WP:AIV. I've indef blocked the user. Rklawton 17:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'm new to the English version.Sjö 17:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Lyude5/monobook.js (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page created by banned user Lyude5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) needs to be deleted. I tried to put {{delete}} on it, but users cannot edit others' monobooks. Please take care of it. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 19:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

 Done – Steel 19:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow unblocked

I have unblocked T-man, the Wise Scarecrow (talk · contribs). T-man was blocked for six months after the moderation imposed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic was deemed to have failed. I increased the block to indefinite after the user used sock puppets to evade the ban and also carried on making personal attacks. However, I have been in email contact with the user and he indicates he will not engage in such behaviour again. He also states he has not created other sock-puppet accounts since I increased the block; something I have not confirmed, taking the user at their word. I am applying good faith here and repealing the extension of the six month ban to an indefinite one. The six month ban itself expired on the 11th March, I believe, being reset after the sock puppetry was exposed. Steve block Talk 20:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate removal of RfArb request

In this edit, an ArbCom member, who had been named as an involved party in a request for arbitration, summarily deleted the request, and is attempting to suppress on-wiki discussion of the matter. Would a block be appropriate? DESiegel 00:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

For you or him? It's been made quite clear how the committee wants it to be handled. One Night In Hackney 00:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am unaware of the circumstances but, judging by the editor's edit summary, I would suggest contacting the arbitration committee. --Iamunknown 00:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Would a block be appropriate? No, of course it wouldn't. The ArbCom seems to like to discuss some things in private, probably so as to minimize disruption onwiki. I think you should write him a note on his talk page about why you think this should be discussed onwiki as opposed to proposing blocks that would be reversed in one minute flat. Picaroon 00:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And I want this discussed on-wiki. it is precisely the attempt to prevent that that I am objecting to. There is no policy providing that the arbcom can simply rule subjects off-limits for discussion on-wiki. That is precisely what I am challenging. I can't see any good reason that a proper discussion in a proper forum, would constitue "disruption". Perhaps someone could explain this to me. I am trying to follow proper steps, and getting nowhere because actions are being taken by fiat. DESiegel00:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I understand that. But why is the question? Why do you think this needs to be discussed on wiki? Similar discussions on wiki just bring arguing and the dredging up of grudges from a certain arbcom case which is around 13 months old by now; this is unnecessary disruption. Furthermore, if the arbcom wants to discuss it on their mailing list, well, why not let them? You did file an arbitration case. I'm sure Fred or another arb would be willing to keep you informed on their mailing list discussion if you asked them to. Picaroon 00:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You should ask the ArbCom to discuss this on wiki, not us. We can't control them. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 00:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that Fred Bauder thinks the Committee should discuss this very sensitive case off-wiki. The Arbitration policy states that:

• Arbitrators take evidence in public, but reserve the right to take some evidence in private in exceptional circumstances.
• Deliberations are often held privately, but Committee will make detailed rationale for all their decisions related to cases public.

So by my reading, and going by prior custom with similar cases, Fred's decision seems to be quite in order. If the other arbitrators disagree with him on this they can discuss their reasons here or on the mailing list, and may decide to overrule him. But it's up to them. They have discretion within the arbitration policy. --Tony Sidaway 00:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, inasmuch as Fred ought to be recused from any case to which he is a (properly) named party, it might have been better had he not made the decision to take the case off-wiki. The committee absolutely, rightly or wrongly, have discretion here, but I can't imagine that any particular harm would have befallen anyone had Fred simply waited for at least one non-recused active arbitrator to have issued the off-wiki directive; ideally, a majority of non-recused active arbitrators would simply have signed the Arbitrators' opinions... section in support of the issue's being directed privately to the mailing list. Tony is quite right that, should other arbitrators disagree with Fred, they will surely make such disagreement public on-wiki and will return the case to WP:RfAr if they think a return to be appropriate, and Picaroon and Deskana are quite right to suggest that this isn't really a matter that requires the attention of administrators; nevertheless, one wonders whether things might not have been handled other-than-optimally here. Joe 03:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

CAT:CSD Backlogged

Just reminding everyone, CSD is getting hopelessly backlogged with image deletions, specifically Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons. If anyone could hop on over, I'd really like some help clearing the backlog. As a reminder, NPWatcher helps a crapload. ^demon 01:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Orange "You have new messages bar" not showing up

This issue hasn't been receiving much attention so I thought I would bring it up here. Whenever you receive a new message the orange "You have new messages bar" should show up but it does not under an IP address or it malfunctions and stays stuck. So for all those who revert vandalism, the warnings being posted on IP talk pages may not be received because the messages bar doesn't show up. To confirm this, just test it out yourself. Send a message to your IP address and see if you receive it logged out. This issue only affects IP addresses. -- _Hdt83 01:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

See for more details:

• Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#Bug_ID_9213
• Bug #9213

I did check it, and it worked perfectly for me. Anchoress 01:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't work for me, and hasn't done so in a while (I've been testing with my uni IP address). What's worse is that I blocked the IP as a test for a few hours, and the orange bar only came up when I looked at the block message. – Riana 01:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I tested it as well, and it didn't come up. I recall an incident early on in my administrative career where I blocked an IP, and then the IP requested unblocking because he/she didn't know that he/she was getting warned on the IP's talk page. Maybe they had the same problem. // Sean William 01:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

CSD

>400. I cleared A and B, but I'm out for the night. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 03:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Cleared two WP:CSD#I8 backlog dates tonight but there are tons more over there. Plenty left! :) - Alison 06:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And don't forget the Tracking Speedies page. At first glance it functions just like the category, but hit the history tab and you get the full benefit of the added dimension of time. --Cyde Weys 06:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for two AFDs to be closed by the same admin

Is there any way I can get two AFDs to be closed by the same administrator? One of the noms is on a single article, while the other nom is on multiple articles. Both of these should've been combined into one AFD, but were not. Both of these have been open for four or five days, so merging the two discussions now would be impractical. Many people cross-posted on both of these, and I don't want the points brought up on one to be missed by the one who closes the other. Regards, Tuxide 06:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Bloomingdales locations
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Parisian locations

Talk:Trans Thane Creek

Recently, while on vandal patrol I noticed that someone from an anonymous IP had created the article Trans Thane Creek in the articles talk space rather than the article space. I assume that the article's creation was in good faith as it seems benign, so I moved the article info to the appropriate spot. Only problem is I could not move the edit history (as found in Talk:Trans Thane Creek), I worry that anyone seeking information on that subject may try to contact me for clarification. I didn't write this article, just did a minor fix and moved it; I don't know anything about the subject. - HammerHeadHuman  07:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You should use the move button, it worked last time when I did this. MER-C 08:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Tried that, but because the correct article exists now it won't let me move the info. But, I have just found Misplaced Pages:Cut and paste move repair holding pen, I will post the same message there and hopefully someone will get to it. - HammerHeadHuman  08:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)