Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:27, 26 September 2007

When I find that the conversations or issues discussed here have either ended or resolved, they will be inserted into my archives at my own discretion.—Ryūlóng

RFPP

FYI: . – Steel 13:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked puppetmaster AFI-PUNK still wreaking havoc

Hello. I originally asked MastCell about this, since they are familiar with the back history behind this person (see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/AFI-PUNK (3rd), although there are multiple cases involving this user under different names) and they recommended I talk to you as you are experienced in range blocking. As the title suggests, there is a puppetmaster at large who is still using multiple ips to vandalise multiple articles. I was wondering whether a range block would be effective against countering this recurring vandal; they vandalise 15-20 different articles on each IP a day and change IPs everyday, sometimes twice in one day. I'm not sure page protection would really be useful in this situation anymore (it has been implemented before to no avail) as they vandalise so many different articles. It's been like this for months and threatened to drive contributors away, who have been sick of dealing with the diatribes the person leaves at their talk pages. What sort of action would be best? Seraphim 09:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I would need a larger set of IPs to put in an effective rangeblock.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Would it be helpful to list all of the ip's that AFI-PUNk has ever used? Will that help detemine the range? Thanks.

Seraphim 12:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

AFI-PUNK's numerous ips

I've tried to create as full a list as I possibly can and put them in numerical order. I can also reformat the list so you can check the contribs if you need to. Seraphim 16:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• 87.167.204.34
• 87.167.207.20
• 87.167.207.84
• 87.167.207.145
• 87.167.210.109
• 87.167.210.141
• 87.167.210.200
• 87.167.211.93
• 87.167.211.197
• 87.167.212.188
• 87.167.213.156
• 87.167.215.209
• 87.167.216.175
• 87.167.219.140
• 87.167.220.165
• 87.167.221.57
• 87.167.221.241
• 87.167.225.43
• 87.167.225.84
• 87.167.226.24
• 87.167.226.119
• 87.167.228.83
• 87.167.230.62
• 87.167.230.242
• 87.167.231.59
• 87.167.235.3
• 87.167.235.7
• 87.167.235.161
• 87.167.236.61
• 87.167.236.109
• 87.161.237.219
• 87.167.240.60
• 87.167.241.160
• 87.167.242.147
• 87.167.242.222
• 87.167.244.183
• 87.167.245.5
• 87.167.245.44
• 87.167.245.103
• 87.167.247.95
• 87.167.249.137
• 87.167.249.151
• 87.167.250.222
• 87.167.252.64
• 87.167.253.249
• 87.167.254.235
• 87.167.255.129

Hi Ryulong

Was your edit summary here a reference to something I did? I hope I didn't screw something up on that page; I posted a new section and it somehow kept getting incorporated into the archived section above. I experimented a little and managed to extricate it. If I did something to your work in the process, many apologies. All best, --G-Dett 21:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it was to edits that Killer Chihuahua did.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I note you follow in your usual practice of not discussing with the editor or admin in question. KillerChihuahua 21:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I simply reinserted tags that I added and a comment that you had removed in the process. I do not think that it required contacting you.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You reverted FeloniousMonk, then? And what did I do to which you object strongly enough to name me here to someone else, while I am kept ignorant of your complaint against me? KillerChihuahua 22:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see where I accidentally removed your post, apologies. Was that the Big Problem? KillerChihuahua 22:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't revert anyone (as far as I know). I originally closed off the AFD/RFA-like vote, then I saw that the user had been blocked by FeloniousMonk, so I closed everything off.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What I saw was that you closed it, then you unclosed it, except for the section Jossi started as an attempt to make sense of the chaos which had developed, and to determine how much support there was for each of the remedies. Since you'd unclosed it except for the proposed remedies, it was an open discussion about sanctions, without anywhere for anyone to place their view on which remedy was most appropriate. That makes no sense. I completed your un-closing, or re-opening, if you will, of the thread, as I had only the three choices: Leave it in that unhappy and confused state, all open except for where people could place their view; Close it all, which I felt was inappropriate for me as the one who started it; or Finish the un-closing which you'd partially done. I chose option 3, as least disruptive and most ethical of the choices available - and I posted my rationale on the thread, in the appropriate section, so anyone who wished could discuss it with me. Later, FeloniousMonk closed it as he had been chastised previously by Banno for not closing it when he blocked Ferrylodge. You reverted his closure and re-closed with a caustic comment directed at no one in particular, changing the format of the closure. I came here to find out why you'd changed FeloniousMonk's closure and what you were talking about in your summary, and Lo and Behold, I am being specified by name as a party against whom you have a grievance, without benefit of having been informed of your grievance. So I am still wondering, what are you aggrieved with me about? And why do you complain of me, without having discussed your grievance with me? And is your complaint about the section Jossi started??? Then perhaps you'd better discuss it with him, rather than naming me to others without benefit of knowing who did what when. KillerChihuahua 22:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

My comment was to the undoing of my closure of the vote and the now accidental removal of my comment to Gatoclass concerning the closure. My only intention was to end the voting section. I then undid the closure of the whole thread, because my only knowledge was that Ferrylodge had been indefinitely blocked. I have many issues with how that board is currently being used as an AFD or RFA for banning an editor, and my initial closure was to get that practice to stop. Consensus is being taken as a supermajority lately, and this mindset should not be applied to bans on editors.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So you thought the section Jossi started was "not helpful" so you closed it, and rather than respond to my reasoning on the talk page you reverted FeloniousMonk's closure in order to make it really clear that you personally don't approve of how Jossi handled that?

And your complaint against me involves an accidental removal of a post, which has happened, I am sure, to a great many of us. I have seen this happen to other editors, and I usually simply replace it with a summary like "restore post accidentally removed in previous edit". I'm wondering why you name me as someone you're pissed off at, for a simple oopsie. KillerChihuahua 22:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

At the time I thought it was intentional.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot express how astonished and offended I am that you would entertain for even a fraction of a second the notion that I would have removed anyone's post on purpose. I've done that for some vandals, I'll grant, such as this gem but it never occured to me that anyone had such a low opinion of me as to think I would remove a good-faith post made by a non-vandal... I am at a complete loss. Do you normally ABF so readily? Is there any reason you have for thinking so incredibly poorly of me? KillerChihuahua 23:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's put all this behind us, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That works.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Mrs random socks

Hi Ryulong. I've added something to the debate on the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Case of abusive sockpuppetry by Mrs random following an e-mail from one of the parties involved. I won't expand here to avoid forking, but thought I'd bring it to your attention. Number 57 21:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Abuse report

Hi! I wanted to let you know that a reply has been received from the ISP regarding the abuse report you filed, and I've marked the case as closed. If this particular abuse pattern should reappear, please file a new abuse report case and reference the old one so we can report it again. Thanks! --Darkwind (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

TfD Tag

If that's how it works, it needs to be fixed. That text is small and sneaky.. if someone wasn't looking for it, they'd miss it and therefore miss the opportunity to way in on discussion of the TfD. AfD isn't like that, why is TfD? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 02:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Templates are used all over. Having a giant massive box saying "this template is up for deletion" will be disruptive to the project.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be giant. A normal 10px size text would suffice, such as the size I used in which you removed. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 02:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Then discuss it at Template talk:Tfd—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Terribly sorry

In a cursory check of your contributions, I mistakenly took you for one of those users who treat Misplaced Pages like a social networking website, and pressed "block" without noticing your administrative duties. I am terribly sorry, and I have undone everything concerning this action.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That's alright! Yeah, I've been away on occasions for the last couple of months, so contributions have been low. Cheers- CattleGirl 09:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

I'm not comfortable with this block. Would you consider unblocking? It seems like the editor has some constructive edits and has a mentor. I'm not so sure the block reason is in line with the policy. Navou 12:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll unblock, and fix this mess that I made.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Unblock of proxy

Hi Ryulong. I see you blocked an IP as an open proxy, and immediately unblocked it: . Did it turn out this wasn't an open proxy? Thanks. The Evil Spartan 17:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the hosting range that the entirety of the proxy was on.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Spam blacklist

Experience on the meta:Spam blacklist has shown that it's important to keep some sort of record as to why sites are blacklisted -- otherwise a whitelisting request comes in a year or two later and the site is removed unless someone can find the original reason for adding it. This has happened with many of the old domains that were added in the early days of the blacklist before admins started logging their additions.

If you don't mind, could you maybe leave a brief note for the record on MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist‎ as to the history (diffs, editors) of the wikicrime.net spam? Thanks, --A. B. 00:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It was someone providing links to her site and she was quite disgruntled about it. There is no reason to have links to her website.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, well could you maybe leave a note about this at the talk page? Otherwise, some future admin will waste a lot of time going through hundreds of edit histories trying to track down who added it and why. Edit histories are not indexed by Google -- talk pages are. Trust me, I've wasted a lot of time trying to figure out undocumented 2005 meta Blacklist entries.

Thanks! --A. B. 00:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: Thanks for fighting spam! —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Definition requested

What does this term 'fork' mean? I've seen it used here a few times and would like it's definition. HalfShadow 03:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Splitting up content into two directions, like a fork in the road.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No longer open to recall?

Just curious - why did you remove yourself from Category:Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall? Videmus Omnia 18:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it is both in my prerogative to include and exclude myself from such a category. I never was able to come up with a decent set of self-chosen criteria for the category, and with my heavier course load at school, I doubted that I would be doing as much on Misplaced Pages as I did when I first became an administrator and did edits over the summer.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's disingenuous of you to remove yourself from the category, as you made the promise to be open to recall in your third RfA, and there were several participants who supported you specifically because of that promise. Especially in light of your numerous blocking problems, I'm requesting that you place yourself back in that category. Videmus Omnia 21:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So you can request for my recall?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't decided yet. You'll remember that in your request for comment, I specifically said that you shouldn't be desysopped at that time, because you promised to be more careful with the block button. I saw the comments here on the talk page about your block of an admin (and others) and improper deletions of userpages, so I looked back through your log. You're still making a lot of improper blocks, for things not based on policy. For example, you've been blocking people for sockpuppetry for which I can find no checkuser, you're blocking people without warning or discussion, you're making username blocks and disabling new account creation when you do it, and you're frequently blocking e-mail as well, for no good reason I can see. I definitely think recall is worth considering. Videmus Omnia 21:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday was a mistake that I immediately caught and undid. I do not plan on placing myself into the recall category again since - as I promised Krimpet - I will not be performing any more blocks as I had on CattleGirl and ILikePikachu. I will focus on image deletions, vandalism blocks, and obvious sockpuppetry cases (administrators can block without a checkuser if it's blatantly obvious). Because the recall process does not distinguish between mistakes learned from and simple controversial and necessary actions for Misplaced Pages, I do not feel that I should go through the recall process, or allow simply disgruntled people to make me want to leave this project entirely.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand you. I do not want to see you leave the project entirely (as I've said before), but I don't want to see you continuing to drive away potentially productive editors either. You've made promises along this line before and haven't kept them. I will probably post something at WP:AN later to request opinions on your self-removal from the recall category, I'll let you know if/when I do. Regards - Videmus Omnia 22:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not imperative that I be in the category. I've agreed to stop blocking first and asking questions later.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, you've promised that before (more than once), and the promises weren't upheld. What's changed? Videmus Omnia 22:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

My judgement after my fuck up yesterday.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No offense intended, but please forgive me if I'm skeptical about that. Your statements in the past have seemed equally sincere, but didn't hold up. I think you're sorry about this instance because you got caught and called on it; I'm not at all convinced that, in the long term, you will cease with the biting and inappropriate blocks. While you addressed the admin-blocking incident (which I am skeptical is a "wrong-button" mistake, as you stated on the unblock, because you also deleted the admin's userpages at the same time), you haven't said anything to explain the instances of account-creation blocking and email-blocking. And I've looked at some of your sockpuppet blocks - I can't find anything to justify the duck test being applied in many instances. You seem to feel that a sockpuppet suspicion on your part is adequate justification for an indef block. You're still not warning before blocking in a huge proportion of instances, and leaving no talk page message to explain the block. You're deleting (not archiving) posts on your talk page that request clarification or criticize your actions. And there are other problems as well - I can cite diffs if I have to, but I'm still scratching my head over your speedy deletion of WP:OFFICIOUS, and your stated position that people who don't do enough mainspace edits are worthy of indefinite blocking and deletion of their userspace material. Where did that come from? Forgive me for being blunt, but it pretty much seems to me that you're occasionally making up blocking policy on the fly, and not communicating with editors when you're doing it. Videmus Omnia 23:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The duck test needn't be thoroughly applied when the user in question links to his edits off-wiki. I know it's not a "wrong button" thing but I clarified my entire reasoning on CattleGirl's talk page, apologized to her, and she accepted it. Most of the other blocks I've been doing are vandalism blocks to blatantly vandalism only accounts (blanking one article three times in a row, or section by section). I also don't think it's imperative to say "I've blocked you because you're a vandal" or "I've blocked you because you are a sock of X" on every user talk page of people I block. E-mail blocking did not occur in the blocks that I performed yesterday, and account creation and autoblock are default.

WP:OFFICIOUS I deleted because I felt it was inappropriate, and then when I couldn't think of anything nice to say in return in that conversation, I eliminated it completely. We also have WP:NOT#MYSPACE which covers anything involving not contributing to the encyclopedia. In extreme situations, I block, and with CattleGirl it was a grey area. I made a mistake. I fixed it. I apologized. There's nothing else I can do in this situation.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"Unproductive" users

Ryulong, in light of some of your recent blocks and deletions, I urge you to recuse yourself from blocking editors and/or deleting their pages on the grounds that they have not contributed to the encyclopedia enough. While it is true that building the encyclopedia is by far our primary goal and that it is firmly established that Misplaced Pages is not MySpace, and there are many cases where warning users of this, deleting their problematic pages, and if all else fails, blocking them, is justified, given some of your incorrect blocks and deletions I really think it would be in the best interest of both you and the community if you left these decisions and actions to other administrators. You perform a lot of useful work for the project, and I would hate to see it all be overshadowed by these mistakes. --krimpet⟲ 20:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Can a sockpuppet have a sockpuppet?

Hi Ryulong, can you walk me through the logical steps by which you concluded that User:Onomato is a sockpuppet of User:Piperdown? Did someone perform a checkuser? Or was it a sort of afterhours duck test? If the latter, are you sure you the light was good enough, and your knowledge of waterfowl sound enough, for you to be certain the flapping thing you just gunned down was what you thought it was? Piperdown was recently perma-banned as a User:WordBomb sockpuppet, though no evidence was provided and the "match" seemed extremely dubious. (At any rate, I don't even know what it means for a sockpuppet to have a sockpuppet. Is it sort of like a play-within-a-play? I keep thinking of Peter Quince's Pyramus and Thisby.)

I am perfectly ignorant of "naked short selling," and perfectly content to remain that way. I am aware of, but not particularly interested in, the ever-metastasizing digital Punch & Judy show built around the topic by Messrs Bagley and Weiss and staged on Misplaced Pages and other online venues. I'll confess to being intrigued and puzzled by the way that Punch's puppets are shot on sight, while Judy's are fêted, but no matter – that's not my business, and I don't want to end up banned myself for inquiring into it. What I am concerned about, and feel I have a right to write you about, is that the shooters seem a bit trigger-happy.--G-Dett 22:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Piperdown was linking to a diff for naked short selling at an external website that contained a revert edit by one of WordBomb's adversaries to which he was accusing said user of reverting someone who was not a sockpuppet. I looked back in the history and saw that it was Onomato making the questionable edits, and saw other related edits in the history, and then blocked based on beliefs that it was Piperdown behind the account. Upon further recent inspection, I've fixed the tag on Onomato's page to reflect who it is more likely to be.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Just so I have this straight: Piperdown opines in an off-wiki forum that Onomato is being unjustly reverted as a "sock"; therefore Onomato is Piperdown's puppet? I.e., Piperdown wouldn't notice or care who Onomato is or what happens to him unless Piperdown was "behind the account"? This doesn't make sense. Piperdown was perma-banned from Misplaced Pages a week or two ago. Of course he's still following the debates that got him banned. With respect, if I've understood your reasoning correctly, it is very flimsy.--G-Dett 22:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No, he opines that someone else who I can't remember is being unjustly reverted as a sock, and then I find the resulting questionable edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And those edits convince you he is Piperdown because...? --G-Dett 22:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

They were referring to the whole reason that said user and friend were banned from Misplaced Pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I see four edits by Onomato to Naked short selling: , , , . In which of these does he "refer to the whole reason that said user and friend were banned"?--G-Dett 23:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Look at his other edits, such as to Patrick Byrne and the like. It's obvious he's related to the whole mess.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say that Misplaced Pages's current working definition of a WordBomb sockpuppet is anyone whose edits focus (either wholly or in part) on naked-short-selling -related articles, and who opposes User:Mantanmoreland and User:Samiharris?--G-Dett 23:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

They would be common traits as far as I know.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course they're common traits; my question was whether they're enough for a positive ID.--G-Dett 23:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say so.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirects mess

Hi, just noticed a mess devloping by this user. the user appears to be creating lots of silly redirects. For example Windows XP now redirects to XP SUCKS. Can you help sort out the mess please, thanks --Zven 23:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)