Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:04, 9 November 2008

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

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)

A reminder

Special:UnwatchedPages is still very large. Hard to count, since offset above 1000 does not seem to work. A while back we had a problem with date pages which seems to have been fixed by people watching their birthday, can we each please pick a few tens of pages form this list? Most of them are low traffic, it's unlikely to add much to our overhead, but it might help as a backstop to RC patrollers. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It might be helpful if those of us who aren't admins could find out what pages need watching. I realize that opening Special:UnwatchedPages to all would just give vandals a handy list of targets, but there's no reason why the whole onus of easy stuff like this should be on sysops. Deor (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Special Unwatched pages would be high on my list of tools that could be devolved to users like rollback. I don't understand why people keep trying to push "view deleted", "block" or "delete" to non-admins while smaller, sometimes more useful tools, don't get spun out first. Protonk (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Because those tools aren't as prominent in peoples minds? I agree that allowing non-admins to use this would be a good thing. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't even know this existed. I'd like access... I don't suppose there's a second tier of button-giving possible? That is, users in good standing who were not admins could be given the button on request, but no other buttons. Technically feasible? Desireable? IronDuke 03:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Any established users are welcome to drop me a note asking for 10, 20 or however many unwatched pages they have and I'll give them a list of pages to watch. In fact, maybe someone could create a category similar to the deleted pages category. John Reaves 04:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It would require community consensus and filing a bug report and all that. In the meantime, wasn't your last run for admin about a year ago? Why not run again? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What would be the chances of actually getting the full list to show, rather than only the first 1000 items? We're not even up to "A" yet! (I grabbed a couple of items, but that's one heck of a backlog!)Gladys J Cortez 07:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Could access to this page not be packaged with rollback permission? They seem to be similar in terms of broad function and level of trust required. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I automatically watch every page I edit, I was going to go through and slap a WP:music template on every album, and other appropirate templates but it is after midnight here. I hadn't known about the page before...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course you can always watch pages without editing them. That would be more helpful than further polluting a namespace which is surely already over 90% banners and less than 10% "talk". We should seriously consider asking for a third "banner-space" in which the territorial pissings of each individual wikiproject can be monitored, leaving talk pages to serve their intended purpose. — CharlotteWebb 14:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I find "polluting" and "territorial pissings" offensive. I regularly use the associated categories of WikiProject categories to use Related Changes to watch article changes. They also serve to show editors which project may be consulted for assistance. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? As far as I can tell, the "recentchanges" (for a category containing only talk pages) only shows edits to the talk pages, making it impossible to track article edits with this feature! — CharlotteWebb 05:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, what I meant was I have the recentchanges to project cats bookmarked and I add to my watchlist the articles that show up. I can see that I didn't say that as clearly as possible and am not sure I've done much better now. It would be nice if one could view the article changes at the same time as the talk changes actually. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more useful to use these as hidden categories within the actual article (and delete talk pages which contain no discussion). Or like I said... a third namespace for annexation/assessment notices, etc. Or maybe an software extension to store meta-data associated with each page in a separate table, I don't know, but the current system isn't exactly sliced bread. — CharlotteWebb 19:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Opening it up has been discussed in the past. Jauerback/_dude. 20:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The list is useless. For those who are so eager to view its current state, go crazy! --MZMcBride (talk) 04:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of blatant hoaxes

What's the current position on this? See Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Fruit_don't_talk - patently bollocks about a made up band. Personally I'd like to remove my vote and speedy the bugger under G3 on the basis that it's patent misinformation, but the nominator says that we don't speedy hoaxes...WP:CSD doesn't shed much light on it - anyone got any views? _Gb 20:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G3 includes blatant hoaxes and misinformation. The nominator's wrong, you're right - speedy it. Dendodge Talk 20:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It can be speedied. For those who are rule sticklers, you could 1) remove the dubious claims unsupported by any sources, and then 2) delete the article for having no assertion of significance. This would be allowed under the letter of the law. However, since we're allowed to use common sense, we don't require that editors jump through such silly hoops. Friday (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And the link turns red. Thank you for the clarification. _Gb 20:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If my nomination was wrong, someone needs to rewrite WP:HOAX to clarify the claim that "we genereally don't speedy delete hoaxes". the skomorokh 05:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've made a change to reflect the apparent convention; review welcome. the skomorokh 15:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

A Simple Question

First off, I am not advocating for anything, pushing for anything, or trying to start an argument/push a POV. I say this due to a couple articles I watch/re-occuring arguments I and others keep on seeing. I am also asking this not about any specific article, but a variety of articles across Misplaced Pages.

Now on to my question: My question is about people of Mixed Race. I've noticed throughout the project, editors have been pushing the mixed race card on a lot on people who identify as one race or another. While a variety of very respectable reliable sources report the person as one race (the same race that the person self identifies as) and not as mixed race, these same editors come in and change that to mixed race or push that mixed race be placed in the same sentence as the race the person identifies as. What I would like to know is if a person has multiple races in their background and does have a chance to identify as mixed race, yet chooses to identify as one of those races, should Misplaced Pages stick to the race the person chose and not try to push any labels/races on them that they do not label themselves? Would it be a NPOV issue to not include the label mixed race? Also, would it be a BLP violation to push the label of mixed race on a person who does not primarily identify as mixed race? Thanks for taking the time to read this and respond. Brothejr (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the Admin noticeboard, for cases where admin action is required. You should bring this to the Reference Desk. Everyme 21:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I did look there before but this is a policy question, not a general help question. If there is some specific policy place to ask it, then I'll remove this and add it there. Brothejr (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:Reference desk wouldn't make any sense; perhaps Everyme meant WP:Help desk, but this (I think) is more an attempt to start a discussion than to ask a simple question. I don't actually see anything terrible about asking here, but if you want to do it by the book, you could try WP:VPP. --barneca (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yea I was just wanting to start a discussion, but do you suggest I move this other there and then close this or just leave it open? Brothejr (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I meant Help Desk, sorry. Everyme 21:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Technically, this should go to the village pump, but I'll answer it here. I assume the main background to this is Obama, whom one would usually call mixed-race, but self-identifies as black. I guess we go with self-identification. "Race" is usually viewed these days as a social construct, and I guess if someone's mixed race but views themselves culturally as black well, then, we should just call them black (perhaps with an additional note on their parentage, and guided by reliable sources as well, of course). Although under this social construct view, as Obama was largely raised by his white grandparents, I really would call him mixed-race - but shrug. Ultimately it doesn't matter much anyway. Moreschi (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

  Well... he just called himself a "mutt"... Everyme 21:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

  • The principle of self-identification is the only reasonable one. Race is a nebulous idea; it is defined only by the context of place and time, and the ultimate context is the personal one. If a person uses a term to describe themselves, use it as well... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Yep! Race is considered a question of self-identification by the United States Census. A respondent may choose one or more races that he/she identifies with. For the US government, you are whatever you say you are, basically. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• There are few simple questions about race, and no one size fits all way to categorize race or ethnicity. Some involve legal distinctions (Native American), some nationality (Japanese), some religion or lineage (Jewish), some external perception (white), etc. Self-identification is not sufficient. We should not accept without proof or some formal evidence, for example, a person's calling themselves Native American. There are far too many impostors, pretenders, wishful thinkers, etc., plus the definition of that race is very unclear. If a person who would by most people's definitions be a minority wishes to deny his minority status (e.g. a person with two Jewish parents refusing to consider himself Jewish) we should for BLP and other purposes not try to "out" them or force the societal mores down their throat. So the bottom line I think is that it's a case-by-case thing, with certain principles we can pick up and perhaps generalize. In the Obama case, he self-identifies regularly as AA, the definition is reasonable given the current thinking about race in America, and most reliable sources call him AA. If you took any of those three out of the equation then we should seriously reconsider calling him AA. But with those three aligned, it would be unreasonable not to accept this identification. In thinking about it we should not forget: (1) that race is largely a social construct, even though it touches on issues of physiology and circumstances of heritage / birth; (2) that definitions of race change, vary from one place (or group) to another; (3) that there are issues of both self and external identification; (4) that nearly all people are of mixed race if one goes by genetics, and that races have changed over time - we all come from Africa at some point; and (5) the criteria for being in one ethnic class may be different than those for being in another. (above edit by User:Wikidemon )

excellent summary by Wikidemon just above for cases like this -- but perhaps when things are not controversial, 2 of the 3 are enough if there's no contradiction? If someone self identifies and RSs accept it, it should be enough for us. And for earlier historical people there's no alternative but accepting consensus of RSs alone as the standard. DGG (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Statistical and numerical vandalism

Here's a big problem. What, if anything, can be done to prevent statistical and numerical data being vandalised by IP users? Having spent a good while today cleaning up after Special:Contributions/190.77.46.202 and Special:Contributions/190.77.43.70 - obviously the same person; do please take a moment to have a good close eye-opening look at what this person is doing to us - I have become aware that the most basic information (population figures and so on) that the encyclopedia carries can easily be made garbage. Ergo, our reputation follows it. We become a joke "encyclopedia". And these things are the easiest to vandalise, and the hardest to detect. If an IP or anyone else changes data, and then a short time later someone makes another edit, who is to notice on their watchlist what has happened? This is not in the same category as writing that "x is gay" or "i like pie". This is much more difficult. Here are some sample diffs from the IP's I've cleaned up after that were not fixed until today: . Of course the first step is - if possible without too much collateral damage - an IP block to take this particular funster (who has not a single decent contribution from either address) out of the equation. He/she is currently sitting out a punitive block (yes, they exist, as slaps on the wrist) : This should become permanent. But the central question for us to consider is how we can protect our most elementary factual content from random tomfoolery that could render us, in terms of how we are perceived, utterly unreliable. For example, could infoboxes be permanently semi protected? I'm appealing for thoughts here. Thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to note that this guy has previously edited as 190.77.34.12 (talk · contribs) as well—the IPs seem stable over a period of a month or more. I've been keeping an eye on him sporadically for a while. At first I thought he might be making good-faith attempts to update population information, even though he wasn't providing sources for his figures and was, in effect, contradicting the sources cited in the articles. But when he started doing stuff like switching the positions of New York and Düsseldorf in a sourced list, I knew he was just your basic number vandal. I've watchlisted some of his favorite articles related to Venezuelan places to try to keep on top of the changes in IPs, but I don't really know what else can be done unless the range he operates from is small enough for a block. Deor (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Time to forbid unsourced numerical changes by IPs ? Kpjas (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That's largely what I do in practice. Tom Harrison 01:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

For a very long time I've always reverted those on sight unless there was a fix of an utterly glaring mistake . Gwen Gale (talk) 01:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• This is a big problem; it's subtle and not only hard to detect, but also hard to determine whether a change is justified, and Gwen Gale's approach is correct per WP:V. Bring on "approved revisions", I say, and I am trying as time permits, to see how it's working on de:wp. Meanwhile, a separate protection capability for infoboxes would be useful, but technically tricky because it would require a major restructuring of the database if my understanding is correct. Same argument applies to particular sections within articles; wouldn't it be wonderful to say "OK, this part is well-sourced, well-written, and complete, so let's freeze it until some overriding reason to change it comes along". Having upset Brion, I'll now shut up for the evening. Regards. --Rodhullandemu 01:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Perhaps antivandal tools should be extended to recognize numerical changes in edits just as they recognize bad words. That would make finding suspect edits a lot easier and from there, we can take all sorts of actions. - Mgm| 10:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea if possible. Right now, I do what Gwen Gale etc to, revert on sight unless I'm convinced there is a good reason for a change. dougweller (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've lost track of the number of times I've typed in "rv unsourced numerical alteration" to an edit summary. Personally I revert on sight unless either the edit is obviously correct at a glance, or there's an edit summary providing a plausible rationale - in which case I try to check the source. But if there is any way an automated tool could help dealing with this - even just flagging suspicious changes for human inspection - I'd welcome it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Thereturned

I'm not sure how to take the contributions of User:Thereturned. Apparently, we blocked this user under a different name at some point, and now they want to "clear their name" by registering this new screen name, and have posted three times to my user talk page to this effect, as well as putting a message on their own userpage to the same effect. I smell a potential sockpuppet of a banned user, but I am hesitant to take any action about it because I have no clue who's socking or the rest of the backstory, or what the deal is otherwise. Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it would depend on who it was and why they were blocked. If their time limit is up, then we should probably AGF--but let the user know that people will be keeping a sharp eye for a bit. I'd be much happier if the editor used their original name, though; it's all well and good to make a break with the past and come back under a new name, but that's sort of made pointless when the person is saying "I used to be a jerk here!"   01:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

See, considering that three of their four posts have been directed at me, I'm wondering if it's a sock of User:Johnjoecavanagh, who targeted me with nonsense posts for a long time, and who was community-banned for off-wiki harrassment. So that's why I see this as this a little more than just some wackadoodle. I wonder if it's this banned user coming back for more. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there enough evidence for a CU? I think harassment is a good reason to say "No, you can't ever edit here again." Something like vandalism, maybe not; depends if they can prove themselves.   05:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The last time I was banned, I was told to contact Schumin about getting back in. It is unfair, the man has no social skills, he just keeps reverting me. If a guy behaved like that in a bar he'd be punched, to say the least Thereturned (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What was the name of the account that you were banned as, plus who told you yo contact Schumin? Theresa Knott | token threats 15:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember. I was corresponding with user:Bozothescary before I left. Thereturned (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Johnjoecavanagh, aka User:Orrelon, aka several IP addresses. A full accounting of the exchange between BtS and this user (operating under several IP addresses) is at User talk:BozoTheScary/Johnjoecavanagh. I don't think we want this editor back. Horologium (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, wow... and I somehow doubt that s/he couldn't remember their old username. 18:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Bambifan101 and his socks

The problems with the Disney Vandal, aka User:Bambifan101, are continuing to be a daily issue, in which he pops in with a new IP, does a mix of "okay" and vandalistic edits to multiple Disney related articles, and talk pages. I report to AI/V as block evasion, and he's blocked, to return again. He is also vandalizing multiple other language Misplaced Pages's, including Simple English, Welsh, and Russian, Albanian, that I know of, and probably others, both under his IPs and his named socks. Attempts to have get help from Meta Misplaced Pages have pretty much been laughed off with the response that the individual Wikis have to handle him since I'm ignorant of the nuances of range blocks and made my request too broad. Frankly, having to deal with him pretty much daily is not something I want to keep having to do and despite what they say, our current method of dealing with him is just not working, much to his amusement. (and yes, before anyone says it, my response was probably a little less than civil, but I'm tired of this brat showing us just how useless blocking really is)

At least 39 IPs socks and 30 named socks have been identified as him (see Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Bambifan101 and Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Bambifan101). He primarily edits from Bell South IPs from Mobile, Alabama. Per a suggestion at RPP, I filed an abuse report to get it handled at his ISP, but its sitting unanswered for weeks while he continues his annoyances. Range blocks have had very limited success, if any at all, due to concerns about collateral damage limiting the ranges to the ones he uses the least rather than those he uses the most. In his laughing at us message above, he claims he's been here even longer than I have been tracking, so he probably has even more that have gone unnoticed.

Some of the earlier reports/discussions: at AN/I, first SSP, second SSP, checkusers. This is getting pretty ridiculous, and at this point its obvious he is continuing to do it because he can, and just because he likes annoying us (and likely specifically me since I'm the main one who spots him and deals with him). He also has made it clear that he finds our current efforts extremely amusing. What else can be done at this point to actually shut this kid down here? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I am deeply interested in the responses to this, due to issues with a similar recurring sock.   02:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I hate to spill the beans here, but he actually went on a somewhat productive streak on the Simple English Misplaced Pages – that is, no discernable easy copyvios, but riddled with typos and complex language (this implies he wrote it himself, as copyvios wouldn't have typos, unless he intentionally did it to throw them off). The admins there assumed good faith until one of the users pointed out that the Touchpath (talk · contribs) account had admitted here (on the talk page, specificaly) that he was the Disney vandal, and at that point Majorly blocked him for it, and AFAIK he hasn't been back since. Are you saying that he's doing this crap on a daily basis? If we're going all Freudian here, I have no idea what turns him on or off, or what. Based on your mainspace reverts, he's striking a pretty large group of articles, and has desisted from his rather idiotic efforts to keep reverting the same articles over and over again. It was this slight change of modus operandi that threw the SEW admins off, as well. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The latest contributions was at simple:Special:Contributions/Touchpath. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

He says he is still editing Simple, though not sure under which named socks and/or IPs (and he may not have hit for awhile, since lately he's been hitting some of the foreign language ones the hardest because he goes mostly unnoticed there). And yes, he is hitting here on an almost daily basis (and every now and then, he hits 2-3 times in a single day). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, he is also now hitting id.wikipedia.org under one of his named socks that is blocked here *sigh* -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is any different from the rest of WP:LTA. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The question is, can he actually be stopped? We know his ISP, so can't he be stopped there? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Without having any idea how we can stop this short of blocking the ISP, I wholeheartedly support Collectonian and this report. This editor has perfected the esoteric mix of "good edits" mixed with vandalism, and I'm convinced it's a game to them. Tan | 39 16:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

And apparently he's bored this weekend...second named sock today has already popped up. *sigh* -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm. This sucks. My guess is that ISP is way too huge to care about this (but that may be wrong). What did the people at abuse reports say about giving bell south a call? Protonk (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There hasn't been a response to the abuse report since I filed it weeks ago. :( -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I just saw Misplaced Pages:Abuse reports/68.220.x.x and 70.146.x.x and 65.0.x.x digging around over there. Protonk (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• The question is; how many productive anon edits are coming from 65.0.160.0/19, 68.220.160.0/19, and 70.146.240.0/20? I know that's 20,000 IP addresses, but I looked at a random /24 from each of those ranges, and almost without exception, every recent edit from that source was from our friend. My inclination would be to put a time-limited anonblock on those ranges, and monitor what (if any) collateral damage is caused. Black Kite 17:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• How did you do that, BTW? I've seen people announce that now and again and I'd be curious to see how you did it. Seems like a cool trick. Protonk (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Have a look in gadgets in your preferences. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• I can't change anything in my gadgets without getting the "your password is 1 character" error that people reported about with the WMF banner gadget change. But I do see the CIDR contribution range thing there. Protonk (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Aaaand fixed. Protonk (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a tool available from User:Franamax as well. It's a little more flexible in terms of what it looks for, but it's slower and doesn't go as far back in time. I find both techniques have their uses.—Kww(talk) 18:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• The other question (now that I can check ranges), is how many of his IP's are outside those blocks? do we know how many named accounts are out there that aren't accounted for in the abuse report (what I'm checking now). Do we know how many other blocks are apportioned to bell south there? Protonk (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

At one time, admin Alison said she had blocked some sleeper socks while doing some rangeblocks, but she never said what those specific ones are. Otherwise, we have the 32 named one in the cat above known of for sure. Most of his IPs are in those three ranges, with a few outliers (possibly when he's editing from school). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Normally I am hesitant to support range blocks as large as this one would be ... but after having blocked a dozen or more Bambifan socks over the past month, I am convinced that a range block is the only thing that will stop this persistent vandal. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

)undent( I concur... The rangeblocks, if they really ARE only this guy, should be instituted ASAP. It would go a long way towards shutting him down, and it appears that despite their size, these would not result in much collateral damage... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Ok. Make sure I didn't mess this up. I concur with Black Kite that there is some, though not large, collateral damage from these blocks. I also concur that long term semi-vandalism (of the sort that won't get caught by RCP) is a danger to the project and a drain on contributors. As such, I think that blocking the three ranges above: 68.220.160.0/19, 65.0.160.0/19, and 70.146.240.0/20 is appropriate. I've blocked those ranges for one month. My suggestion to Collectonian is that you take this time to compile a complete and human-readable abuse report and email bell-south in atlanta. We can let them know that we are trying to deal with the problem but that the current situation (possibly blocking many of their customers without explanation or notice) is not the preferable solution. Protonk (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Good, let's see how it goes. I'd just point out that there appears to be a couple of odd IPs outside that range, but one I've just noticed is User:70.146.212.195 which is another Bellsouth but outside the range that was blocked. If he re-appears from that end of the range though, we can re-consider. I'm just hoping that BellSouth allocates blocks (like the ones blocked) to geographical areas and that they stay static, though, because their entire allocation is massive and effectively unblockable. Black Kite 02:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Warped Tour 2004 - I'm having technical problems

Hi, all. I'm an administrator trying to work out what to do about a situation.

User:Rwiggum nominated a number of pages for deletion here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Warped Tour 2004 (2nd nomination). I trust that he did so in good faith. I closed the debate as 'keep', since I saw no clear consensus to delete the pages.

Rwiggum has since redirected all those pages to List of Warped Tour lineups by year. I believe that he did this in defiance of the AfD consensus, or more precisely, lack of consensus to get rid of those individual articles. He has additionally been editing that page, and perhaps he has done this to merge some of the information that was lost by the redirects. I have no reason to doubt that his subsequent editing was done with the intention of improving the article, and improving the encyclopedia.

You might also benefit from reading my user talk page here: User talk:Richardcavell.

Now, I am trying to examine what he has done, but my poor old computer can't handle the diffs. On my Intel Core 2 Duo MacBook running Firefox with 1 Gig RAM, it takes upwards of 60 seconds for my computer to layout each diff page. It thrashes my virtual memory and sends my CPU usage up to 96%. If I then so much as try to scroll down, it goes into another thrash session. So I find myself basically unable to examine these diffs. It seems to work okay with Safari but for unimportant reasons I have to use Firefox on my puter.

I feel that as the AfD closer I have some obligation toward this dispute, but I'm technically unable to examine what is going on. Can any kind admins look into this for me? - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• wow. That totally crushes FF on my comptuter, too. Safari runs fine. I can see the diffs, but I don't really know what he's doing. I assume that he's merging content because he doesn't seem to have touched the main article before the AfD, but he doesn't use edit summaries, so I don't know exactly. His edits seem to be adding tables and rearranging them (to top off not knowing much about tables, I know squat about music). I'm not sure I can be much help--except to tell you that your computer isn't at fault vis a vis the diffs. Protonk (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

prop 8

I know it a hard topic for some people but I've been trying to improve it and some people have responded by taking out there anger on me.

you might want to ban them. --Mrmcuker (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? Looks like you're pushing a POV and other people are maintaining neutrality at the article. Please correct me if I'm wrong?   08:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I also see that you have broken our three-revert rule on that article. So umm... Not really seeing what your need for admin involvement is?   08:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Ya, I gave you a friendly warning, to leave it alone, and you ignored it 3 times here, here, and here. I also said your edit to The Sheriff of Nottingham in classic stories was not a reliable source, and you ignored that also CTJF83Talk 08:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this user needs a small vacation in order to have the time to find a clue?   08:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could get an admin to block the user CTJF83Talk 08:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Having reviewed all of the recent edits to the article, it does appear that Mrmcuker is attempting to insert non-neutral wording in support of his POV. However those NPOV edits were also reverted as "vandalism" in violation of the official policy on vandalism (WP:VAND#NOT). However, assuming both of the editors take heed of the 3RR warnings I issued (, ), I do not believe any additional admin action is necessary at this time. --Kralizec! (talk) 08:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Mrmcuker, you should stop trying to push a particular point of view. You have broken the three-revert rule. I'm an admin but I did not take action because I have edited controversial parts of this article myself. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, he seems to have stopped it (for now). I suggest reporting to WP:AN3 if he reverts again or at WP:ANI if he continues pushing POV without discussion. Regards SoWhy 11:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Gif images

In the article Belton House, which is an FA, I moved several images to the left because of a problem with formatting on wider screens. Upon saving, most of the images in the article (all those that were gifs) deteriorated badly in quality, breaking into squares. I checked them at their source (Misplaced Pages not Commons), and found they were broken up there too.

I have tried to simulate the problem by uploading a couple of gifs of my own and moving them around in a similar way, and although they are not as bad, one image is also very pixellated at anything other than full resolution. They are at the top of my home page.

Can someone possibly restore these images, or have I wrecked them forever? Amandajm (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

OMG WTF What have you done!??!?!?!

I don't know what's happened there, but it can't be anything you've done - moving images shouldn't break them. It's probably another problem with the image server (we lost loads of images not long ago) that will sort itself in a while. Dendodge Talk 12:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Does seem odd. Once the page loads fully, everything is fine (might consider removing some of the images to lower the page load time), but prior to that, there is a lot of artifacting/other stuff. Protonk (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Compression artefacts. Not your fault. It's the combination of the dithering and compression done when the image was scanned, and the scaling applied in article, that's causing this problem. Try changing the first image's width to 256 or 512 pixels to get rid of the squariness. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Why would someone upload a photograph as a gif anyway? Theresa Knott | token threats 20:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

further; ...because what some folk may be unaware of is that 'gif' isn't a very suitable file format for a photograph - it's really better suited for icon.s and materials which use a smaller no. of colours than your average photo.. 'jpg' is probably the best way to save a photo - the way it saves the image is fundamentally different, and you'll get much better results :-) Tell your friends too, because unfortunately this mistake isn't entirely uncommon :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've converted the first two to jpgs. There are a lot more that need doing though.To do it I opened the files in GIMP. blurred slightly, added a bit of noise then saved as jpg to try and get rid of the regular grid pattern of unnatural looking pixels that saving it as a gif caused. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

GIF thumbnailing has been (hopefully temporarily) disabled due to some overloading of the image servers, suspected to have been caused by large GIF animations. This means that, instead of thumbnails, our image servers are now serving GIFs at full size and letting the browser scale them down. Most browsers don't do a very good job of this, hence the pixelation. It also tends to make the images load very slowly. While I hope that the scaling issues can be fixed soon, I also second Privatemusings' recommendation to convert such images to some (almost any, really) other format. About the only thing GIF is good for these days is inline animation, and, now that we have half-decent support for inline Theora videos, even that niche is shrinking. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Indexed PNG is often the best substitute for GIF. For photos JPG is best, but for drawings or diagrams, PNG often gives crisper results. looie496 (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

So why were they completely fine until Amanda moved them this morning? Giano (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, when the server creates a thumbnail, it caches it. You may have seen this yourself: if you add a large image to an article, it is often slow to render the first time you view it, but fast afterwards. Presumably moving the image invalidated the existing thumbnail. looie496 (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

So what happens now, are the mages wrecked for ever, because they still look pretty horrible on my screen? I deleted the originals off my computer ages ago. More to the point why can't I at least edit any more? I wish people would just leave things alone and stop interfering, who moved the images so they can't be edited?Giano (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

They can still be edited. Try it again and let us know if you still have problems. Theresa Knott | token threats 13:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The full-resolution images have not changed. At this point there are two possible approaches: either (1) get serving-side scaling for gifs turned on again, or (2) download the full-size images, reformat them (preferably as jpegs), and replace the originals with the modified versions. Since this problem is likely to crop up repeatedly in the future, the only really viable solution is (1). looie496 (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What exactly does "get serving-side scaling for gifs turned on again", where is the switch and who turned it off in the first place? Giano (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Read Ilmari Karonen post again as he explians that it was turned off because of overloading of the image server. Hopefully it will be turned back on again but in the meantime converting the gifs to jpgs will solve the problem.Theresa Knott | token threats 13:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Now just look at this Image:HdeR.gif some fool who does not know what he is doing, is going through Hannah de Rothschild tonight moving images to commoons and they are all going squared. I upload these images for a reason I do not want them deleted!Giano (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Now some complete ignoramus has stuck an about to be deleted tag on them, and made them impossible to edit so one can't remonstarte, what the hell is going on here. I upoad images to suit a aprticular page not for some fuckwit to upoad to commonc so they cant be displayed properly. Giano (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Can't edit Southern Song

I was trying to change the Southern Song redirect to ]. However, I got a message saying that the title was blacklisted and could not be changed. Is this there for a reason? rcduggan (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done D.M.N. (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of citation by an IP user 125.54.251.167 (125.54.251.185)

I have to report an anonymous user whose referenced edits did not correspond to the original source. I have detected seven cases of his abusing citations which can be divided into two types.

1. By altering deliberately the original source in favor of her/his purpose, her/his referenced edits are different from the contents of the original source. , (upper one), (the lowerst one)

2. By adding reference, this user intended to support his faulty information, which is in fact not existent in the original source material at all. (lower one)

Basically, this user strongly tends to change, remove and correct her/his previous own edits by her/himself, so that the correctness and accuracy of her/his contributions cannot be guaranteed at all. So I have had to keep constantly an eye on the user, correcting her/his wrong edits. Despite my three times warning allowing plenty time (ca. 6 weeks) of self-correction, this user made no sincere reaction but just tried to cloud the main issue. S/he can not even realize the seriousness of her/his wrongdoing.

Considering her/his attempt to maintain false referenced edits despite my four times warning , , , , this user should be blocked indefinitely from working on this article Goguryeo language in order to prevent her/his further possible distortions of the original source materials for the wrong purpose. Above all, her/his abuse of citations not only degrades the authority of Misplaced Pages, but also affects badly to the academic reputation of the author of the original source material. So this user should be blocked for her/his fabrication from editing Misplaced Pages. Jagello (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the only interaction you have had with this editor, other than edit-warring, is this. Right or wrong, the editor appears to know a lot about the subject, so it would make sense for you to make some attempt to discuss the problem. This topic is far too obscure for any admin to be able to figure out who is right, and in terms of pure behavior, yours is as bad as the editor you are complaining about, so there is really no grounds for helping you at this point. If you can show that you have made a good faith effort to discuss the problem—on the talk page of the article, for example—instead of immediately moving to a "Final Warning", then the situation might be different. looie496 (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not a matter of deciding Right or wrong. Those who makes such a plausible falsehood by distorting and fabricating citations should rather be blocked immediately without any warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagello (talk • contribs) 10:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion 2

Can someone uninvolved speedy close this as Keep? Even though I've commented in favour, and apologies if this looks in anyway bad form, consensus is blatantly evident and we're just wasting time and potentially going to get into pointless drama. Thanks. Pedro :  Chat  16:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Pthbtbt! Rodhullandemu beat me to it and I got an e/c trying to close it.  :-) — Coren  16:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Pedro :  Chat  16:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

118.137.x.x vandal back again

Well, this user's back at it again. Like with this report and this one, this user is back to the same tricks again (vandalizing articles about Japanese animation companies to make it look like they're owned by American companies). Despite a block to the 118.137.x.x range, this user is getting around it. This time, they're on a different IP range:

• 61.247.11.106 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 61.247.11.109 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Further information can be found at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/118.137.20.170. Is there a way to get this new range this person is working from blocked? NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 18:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There are some strange vandals out there; very odd fetishs they do have. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked User:61.247.11.0/24, which blocks the 61.247.11.0 - 61.247.11.255 range for a month. ···日本穣 19:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Now he's back as 125.161.63.195 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 08:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and incivility by and ip

74.234.45.208 (talk · contribs) - removed sourced good quality content, including the inter-wiki links and categories on Poughkeepsie (city), New York . S/he was speedily reverted by JForget - following a warning, the ip proceeded to edit war - attacking editors rather than responding calmly on the article's talk page. In a bout of rage, he responded to the editors that reverted him in a derogatory manner . Despite continues warnings, the editor proceeded to attack me . An admin refused to block at ANI on the grounds that perhaps his original edits **may not be** vandalism, but that still does not excuse the insulting comments and gross violation of WP:CIVILITY and WP:ATTACK --Flewis 00:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The editor was recently blocked for 24 hours - . Would this be considered an appropriate length of time for excessive harassment and vandalism of this nature? --Flewis 00:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages blocks are preventative, not punitive. Also, since IPs may be used by multiple individuals, we tend to just use short blocks on anonymous editors. If the problems continue once the block expires, a longer block will be instituted. --Elonka 00:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

“An admin refused to block at ANI ” - Could you provide a link please? :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 00:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think he meant WP:AIV. --Elonka 00:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. :) Well, with all due respect, such edits (, ) are nothing but blatant vandalism in my opinion. —αἰτίας •discussion• 00:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yes - a number of people tried to engage them on their talk page - with some success - but they continued the baiting. Never mind. Black Kite 00:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, Flewis baited right back. HalfShadow 00:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmph. I hadn't noticed that. Trouts all round, I think. Black Kite 00:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Just letting out a little sarcasm once in a while :) - I'm not sure if you could even consider that borderline WP:DNIV, but then again, if he was WP:RBI'd earlier, none of this would have occurred --Flewis 00:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to take a bit too much enjoyment when someone gets blocked. I find that somewhat worrying. HalfShadow 00:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

We've been through this discussion before, and I'd hate to accuse you of hypocrisy --Flewis 00:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but this guy was at least willing to listen. We might even get an editor out of him if we play our cards right. There's a difference between a random who's just here to piss in the pool and someone who could eventually help. HalfShadow 00:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much of an editor you would get out of someone who resorts to insulting other users. Not to mention a lack of maturity and an overzealous desire to remove content. If "Misplaced Pages God 96" wishes to contribute I suggest that he request immediate adoption and rehash his knowledge of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:VAND and WP:USERNAME --Flewis 01:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• My rationale for declining the AIV report is here; I can only go by the diffs provided, and in my opinion these were not "blatant vandalism" for the reasons noted, and as such the personal attacks - while not condoned - may be seen as expressions of frustration. However, whatever conclusions that a more detailed review here might bring is completely appropriate. It is what the place is for... LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Proxies

Hey. I just received this message at my talk page. Could somebody explain how I can check something like that? :) Thanks. —αἰτίας •discussion• 02:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I usually ask User:Zzuuzz or User:Spellcast. I'm pretty sure they have tools that are capable of finding open ports. I also have a tool, but it is really old and crappy. In this case, it was still able to find two open ports, so I blocked it for 3 years. Just to clear up any possible doubts, I logged out and replaced the IP's talk page with {{blockedproxy}}. J.delanoy_adds 02:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm, what ports did you find open? I just finished an nmap scan and didn't find any. For future reference, you can do a quick check by searching to see if it's listed at WP:OPD. For a slower one, you can post a request at WP:OP. --GraemeL 02:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

3128 is definitely open (I used it to post a blockedproxy notice on its talk page), and my program also reported that port 80 was "likely open". J.delanoy_adds 02:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

With this spammer it is true, so you may want to hardblock for six months anyway (any longer is not normally necessary). If you are not sure how to check if an IP is an open proxy, please list them at WP:OP or on the talk page an admin who knows how to confirm them. Please note that port scanning, having ports open or being listed at WP:OPD does not provide any confirmation in this respect. Just about the only way to properly confirm an open proxy is to make an edit with it. -- zzuuzz 03:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I usually use my tool to find possible open ports. Then I configure Firefox to connect via proxy, and try to view webpages. If I can see pages, I block with Safari or Chrome and then add the blocked proxy notice to the proxy's talk page with Firefox via the proxy. J.delanoy_adds 03:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I usually do as well. Interestingly, port 3128 is definitely closed for me, though I don't doubt it's open for you. Some firewall magic going on somewhere. --GraemeL 03:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The spammer uses a bot to quickly switch IPs and make fast successive edits, so I skip portscans and simply block on sight. A Google search of suspected IPs should show them on proxy sites. A six month hardblock should be adequate. Spellcast (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:ZenCopain

I blocked User:ZenCopain 24 hours for disruption after he reverted List of United States Presidents by time in office with the edit summary I can do this all week. This seems like a clear case to me but since I've been involved with the article I felt that I should post the block here for review. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Endorse the block. We don't need people announcing intentions to disrupt. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

As a minor, should some of that information on his User page be removed? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please block User:Æåm Fætsøn

I want to block myself for 24 hours because I am leaving Misplaced Pages and I don't want to cause any more trouble here that I have inadvertently caused. And please do not edit my user page or talk page when blocking. Thanks. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 05:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't do self-blocks. There's a tool, I think. I'm more curious why your talk page was deleted. I'll ask. It seems out of policy in my view. If you want to leave, there's the right to vanish. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of the talkpage seemed a reasonable request, as he had also been systematically working through all his user subpages and tagging them for deletion as well (check his deleted contribs: Æåm Fætsøn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)). However, I have no objection if someone wishes to restore the page. --Elonka 06:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue. I just want to make sure this is actually a right to vanish situation and not "please empty my talk page and I'll be free and clear in a little while when memories fade." A 24-hour block is not anywhere near the right to vanish. Maybe I'm just being a jerk about this, since it's not like he was ever blocked or anything serious. By the way, there's nothing stopping you from just creating a new login and starting over that way. We'd probably never find out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)This is the tool you need, with directions: Wikibreak Enforcer 06:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Failcyclopedia.com

The article Failcyclopedia.com was just recently created by User:Carbide20. I sent the article to AfD based on lack of notability, but when I went to google the website I found that google had removed the site from its listings, presumably because of complaints of child pornography! I went back and removed all direct links to the site and made a comment on the AfD. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to let the AfD run its course, or if this article needs to be deleted ASAP because of the child porn allegations, so I'm posting here for decisive action to be taken one way or another by an administrator. Thank you. Themfromspace (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the site. It's a wiki with a bunch of copyvio material on it, but having browsed all ~80 images that have been uploaded to it, I saw no indication of child pornography (and only a small amount of regular pornography). I don't see any reason to treat this differently from any other non-notable website. Dragons flight (talk) 09:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to search for the child porn too. (That sounds a bit wrong, but... anyway...) I can't see any, but remember that Carbide20 and his mate probably have oversight privileges... they can probably remove it and have it deleted from the edit history. The entire content of the 'pedia is thoroughly objectionable, and some of it could be illegal in Australia (where we have laws against racial vilification). I think that the article is destined to fail on the basis of notability, regardless of the child-porn allegations. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The article was just speedied under criteria G7, but thanks for your input. Themfromspace (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like an Encyclopedia Dramatica wannabe, but not as notable. Deletion on non-notability basis seems proper. It does concern me that Google apparently de-indexes sites based on mere accusations of child porn, even when they may be unfounded; can anybody get their enemies' sites deleted that way? If the McCain campaign reported Obama's site as "child porn", would Google de-index it first and ask questions later? *Dan T.* (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No. Abtract (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Archiving talk page discussion

Does anyone know how to archive discussions on one's talk page? My talk page is getting quite full so I just wanted to know...

Thanks for your help in advance.

Topology Expert (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Go here: Misplaced Pages:Archiving_talk_pages. I use the 'permanent link' method myself. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You can also add the {{archiveme}} template, and someone else will be along in short order to help.  :) --Elonka 16:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Vincenzo Manno

The deleted text has just been released under the terms of GFDL by OTRS (ticket 2008110810019494) please check if the deleted text is the same as this and, if matches, undelete it, thanks--Vituzzu (talk) 10:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It is the same, so I've undeleted it and restored it back to the version prior to the copyvio issue being raised. _Gb 11:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I've re-un-deleted it, making sure to mention in the log that the text is now properly GFDL and the OTRS ticket number; it had been deleted again as copyvio (presumably because the redeleting admin hadn't seen this conversation and no mention of the release was in the log or on the talk page). — Coren  15:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Deucalionite

The User:Deucalionite account is listed in Categories: Compromised accounts | Banned Misplaced Pages users | Misplaced Pages sockpuppeteers, but the account still is active. -- Suntag ☼ 16:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the user himself has put his userpage into these categories. This edit put the user into Category:Banned Misplaced Pages users, this edit into Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppeteers, and this edit put the user in Category:Compromised accounts. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

According to Misplaced Pages:ARBMAC, he is limited to using one account and was blocked for 1 month per Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Deucalionite. According to this page, a checkuser was done and came out inconclusive. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Unable to edit Classical Rock.

if you search "Classical Rock", it is redirected to "Classic Rock", which isn't the same thing - a closer definition would be Symphonic Rock. I tried to change the redirect to redirect to symphonic rock and got this message:

"The page title that you have attempted to create has been included on the local title blacklist, which prevents it from being used due to abuse. If you have a good reason for creating a page with this title, or if you receive this message when attempting to edit an existing page, please let us know at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard. Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, as well as a brief explanation of what you were trying to do. Thank you."

Although I'm not trying to create a page in it's place.

Thanks ^_^ Chris (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it would be better to redirect to Crossover_(music)#Classical_crossover, at least in the interim. I've gone ahead and done that. --GraemeL 19:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me as though the incoming wlinks to "Classical rock" are referring to classical crossover. Want to change those too? Deor (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Gah, I forgot to check that. Feel free to change it again if you want. I have no strong feelings on the matter. --GraemeL 19:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not conversant enough with the distinctions involved to try to change anything, or I would have done it myself. Deor (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

User:PromoProductions Block

When can I have my account back? I promise I won't try to push my POV User:PromoProductions 71.57.155.159 (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bidgee2 and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IP bloke whose question was rv'ed. Given this attitude, I suspect that the answer to your question is 'Never'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC) (updated 19:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC))

Which is to say, the worries about sockpuppetry will need to be thoroughly dealt with first. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's even the overriding issue. We tend not to unblock people who do things like this. Black Kite 19:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Goodbye, User:PromoProductions. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards