Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Timotheus Canens (talk | contribs) at 15:55, 10 November 2011 (→Falun Gong blocks: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This administrator has volunteered for an administrator review. You may comment on his or her administrative actions at Misplaced Pages:Administrator review/Timotheus Canens.

If you are interested in trying Kissle, edit the dedicated "requests" section below. If I don't respond in a couple of days, feel free to ask another admin or drop a note on my talk page. Please leave bug reports and feature requests on this page. Thanks.

My off-wiki communications policy: I prefer, to the extent possible, that all communications regarding a Wikimedia matter be done on-wiki for the sake of transparency. If there is a compelling reason why it should be done off-wiki, you may email me or talk to me on IRC, but: For IRC, timely, prompt, or indeed any response is not guaranteed. I stay on IRC even if I am away. If you do not get a response, you may simply send your entire inquiry (i.e., instead of "may I ask a question", ask the question!), in which case I'll treat it like emails when I come back to my computer. For emails, I will try to respond as soon as I can, but real-life work obviously must take precedence, and it is easy for incoming emails to get lost after a few days. If you don't get a response within a few days, try leaving me a message on my talk page. In all cases, I will respond on-wiki unless there is a compelling reason not to or you explicitly request that I keep it off-wiki. In the latter case, I reserve the right to not respond at all to the message. Please do not send private or confidential information; those should be directed to the Arbitration Committee.

Notes

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)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=
=oCnW
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

Possible rangeblock

Some time ago you were kind enough to lay down a rangeblock for me; 166.216.130.0/24 was blocked 1 year in March. In all of this time I still have not become any more proficient in calculating or performing rangeblocks, so I am setting myself at your feet once again. The same type of disruptive WP:BLPCAT/WP:EGRS edits are now being made within the 166.137 range. Examples include 166.137.139.73, 166.137.139.205, 166.137.139.134, 166.137.139.95, and 166.137.139.73. I've been playing whack-a-mole, but it's become tiresome. Is a rangeblock feasible in this case? --Jezebel'sPonyo 15:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That's another /24 - 166.137.139.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Blocked for one year. You can use this tool to calculate the range. Technically, the largest range that can be directly blocked is a /16. Simple rules for eyeballing:

• If the first number of two IP addresses are the same, they are in the same /8:
  • 1.2.3.4 and 1.135.6.7 are in the same /8.
• If the first two numbers of two IP addresses are the same, they are in the same /16:
  • 1.2.3.4 and 1.2.135.6 are in the same /16 (and the same /8).
• If the first three numbers in the IP addresses are the same, they are in the same /24:
  • 1.2.3.4 and 1.2.3.135 are in the same /24 (and the same /16 and /8).

It's harder to figure out the smallest range that includes both addresses just from looking at them, but you can get a good sense of whether a rangeblock is feasible from just looking at the IP addresses and deciding if all of them are in the same /16. T. Canens (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You're a star. --Jezebel'sPonyo 16:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Ugh - they're back under 166.137.136.140 and 166.137.136.227. --Jezebel'sPonyo 20:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

166.137.136.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked for one year. T. Canens (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sweet relief :) --Jezebel'sPonyo 22:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011

• Special report: A post-mortem on the Indian Education Program pilot

• News and notes: Wikimedia Norway awarded, Halloween on the Main Page, Wikimedia UK recognised

• In the news: The Economist assays the encyclopaedia's challenges, Jimbo speaks on net future, and an inclusionist alternative emerges.

• Discussion report: Special report on the ArbCom Elections steering RfC

• WikiProject report: Booting up with WikiProject Computer Science

• Featured content: Slow week for Featured content

• Arbitration report: Δ saga returns to arbitration, while the Abortion case stalls for another week

• Technology report: Full steam ahead on Visual Editor, the avoidance of lock-breaking and 1.18b1 release

Kissle

Can you stop by the requests page please? My request has sat there for a little over a week --Guerillero | My Talk 04:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Apologies for missing it. T. Canens (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

MKuCR

Regarding this your post, could you please explain me what is the mechanism that would allow me to request the last stable version (the version before the violation has occurred) to be restored? Note, if this mechanism implies the usage of the editprotect template, then the last illegitimate additions acquire a status of legitimately added content, therefore, this admins' decision is de facto an endorsement of the illegitimately added content.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You can ask exactly one uninvolved admin, point them to the AE thread, and ask for a PREFER revert. Any decision made by that admin is final. T. Canens (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Should I chose an admin by myself, or I need to go to some noticeboard?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Falun Gong blocks

Personally, I still have reservations about the blanket blocks, particularly of HappyInGeneral, as per some of my comments at the AE thread. I was wondering what, if any, action you might deem appropriate for me to possibly have the ban on that editor lifted. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• I also expressed some misgivings at AE. I still feel that the case against his particular user is totally different from Olaf, Dilip and PCPP, who very much had it coming to them. --Ohconfucius 02:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • My biggest concern is how this user popped out of nowhere to participate in an ongoing editing dispute. Maybe I'm being cynical, but that just screams "off-wiki coordination" to me. T. Canens (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Bleeckie Streetie

Bleeckie Streetie was originally uploaded and then deleted and then re-uploaded under Bleeckie once the sources were correctly cited. The page was visible and then deemed "promotional". It's not promotional but vey valid and in fact correctly cited. How can this be appealed with additional sources added?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.110.125.12 (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

...

T Cannes, I just read the note on my talk. I just want to mention that I have been open to change, been always contributing with quality academic material, and western press, and had been attempting to even extend a hand of friendship to editors on the other side, am not sure why the ban on me comes at this moment of time. Please let me know what the concerns are and if I may be given a process in which I can defend myself, or the accussations made against me on which apprently the ban has been made. Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)