User talk:Makyen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Brian T Thompson[edit]

Thanks for your very clear and detailed report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism on the "Brian T Thompson" vandal. I found that the vandal was using a much wider range of IP addresses in the 74.82.64.x range than you reported, going not just from to, but to I have placed a range block covering all those, and also reset the original block on to its original length of 3 months. Please let me know if you see any more from the same vandal. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Thank you for doing the research to find out that the person is using a wider range of IP addresses and for putting in the range block. I must admit that I have gotten tired of reverting and warning this one.
You said you wanted to know more addresses. The other addresses I have for this vandal are between a bit less than a month old to 3 months old. Many of them are IPv6 address in the 2600:1003:B0xx range. Given the age for the others that I have, my assumption is that you want to know only addresses that are used in the future or recent past (e.g. in May). If you do want the old ones, tell me and I will provide what I have.
Just FYI: On April 30 and a few days before that, I had AWB scan through about 20k articles related to the ones I knew to have been vandalized and found/fixed a few more of these changes. They are easy to spot and he/she stays in related articles. One of the blocks you placed was due to May 1 & 4 edits on Hhgregg which was on the list of those I checked. Looks like he started up again the day after I finished that pass. I'll run it again when I go to sleep.
If I see more vandalism by this person I will let you know. Thanks again. — Makyen (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson: He is at it again:
You do not appear to be on-wiki at the moment, so I am also going to report the user to WP:ANV. Thanks. — Makyen (talk) 05:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I have blocked the IP address you mentioned. I have also found two more IP addresses used recently, one of them more recently than the one you mentioned, and I have blocked those and reverted edits that had so far escaped. (Those two are 2600:1003:B006:8085:0:0:0:103 and 2600:1003:b001:3c64:0:0:0:103). Unfortunately, range-blocking IP version 6 addresses is difficult, because as far as I know there is no tool to check all the edits from a range, so it is impossible to be sure that there aren't good editors using the range too. All the IPv6 addresses that I have seen this vandal use are of the form 2600:1003:B00x:xxxx:0:0:0:103, but there is no way of selectively blocking all IP addresses of that form. However, I will keep blocking any that I get to know about, so do ping me when you see more. I was intrigued to see this pair of edits: [1] [2], where the vandal did his/her usual vandalism, but then self-reverted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
That's strange. I guess he did not want to run Lincoln Motors.
Thanks the reverts, blocks and all the work. I'll run AWB through the list of similar pages tonight. Looks like it has been just a bout a week since I last ran it. I don't expect to find anything, as you are very thorough, but it won't hurt.
It would be nice if the tools made handling IPv6 easier. We definitely don't want to block good editors just to cover this person. Sounds like we will just have to keep an eye out; revert and block (you) when he shows up. I will, of course, keep you informed if I find anything , or when I see him next.
BTW: I known you said that there is not an easy way to look through a range of IPv6 addresses for good edits (negative searches are inherently hard to begin with). However, from your finding other IPs, it appears there is a tool to look through an IP range and/or time period to find his edits. Is it an admin only tool, or is there a tool I'm not aware of which I should be using to help find these edits (and to save you time)?
Thanks again. — Makyen (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
There are two tools to show all recent edits from a range of IP addresses: and It is useful having two, because from time to time one or other of toolserver and tools.wmflabs stops working properly, and the other one can then be useful. Unfortunately neither of them works for IPv6. There used to be a toolserver tool for giving the smallest CIDR range covering a given list of IP addresses. That tool is no longer available, but similar tools are available on the internet: a Google search should get one, if you want one. Other than that, I found other IPs just by typing the vandal's favourite expression into the Wikipedia search box and checking the articles that came up. However, that is not a complete solution, as he/she sometimes varies the exact wording used (e.g. including a middle name). The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson:And he's back again, but appears not that active today, yet.
Thanks for the pointer to the tools. Especially thank you for reminding me that the search function is back to working well. When this first started I tried using it to find these, but found it very ineffective. Thus, the AWB search. I had gotten set in my ways of trying to find these. I'll still use the AWB search from time to time mostly because I have set the regular expression such that it finds a fairly wide variation on his favorite expression. The expression is unique enough such that weeding out false positives takes very little time. — Makyen (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I have stuck my neck out and placed a block on a range covering all the IPv6 addresses I have seen the vandal using. I don't like doing that without without being certain that no constructive editors are using the range, so I have limited the block to 48 hours for now. (Actually, from the little I know about how ISPs use IPv6 addresses, I am inclined to think that there probably aren't lots of other users in the range, so it would probably be OK to use a longer range block, but I would prefer to be more certain.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 06:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't want you to get in trouble over this. I also don't want to block constructive editors. On the other hand, my impression about the use of IPv6 addresses is similar to yours both in its lack of detail/depth and belief that there are unlikely to be many others in the range you blocked.
Floating an idea: It appeared that the use of an edit filter might be reasonable, at least to report, the addition of his favorite expression. It appears an edit filter could be quite specific to even the placement of the expression within |key_people= by an IP user. I am unsure if the extra compute delay on every edit is justified for the relatively small problem which this one vandal represents. I am also of two minds as to using an edit filter to block, as opposed to report, this particular edit. Currently the vandalism is very specific text which is easily identifiable. I am unsure if using an edit filter to block such edits from IP users would force him to stop vandalizing, or just cause him to adopt some new way of vandalizing Wikipedia which might not be so easy to detect. — Makyen (talk) 07:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I hadn't thought of an edit filter, but I agree with everything you say about it. Obviously, any edit filter must impose some overhead on the servers, but this one could have a fairly minimal impact on irrelevant edits, as it could start with very specific criteria, which would immediately fail for almost all edits. Of course, there is the risk that the vandal will simply switch to a different form of vandalism that is harder to detect, so perhaps best would be to use an edit filter just to report, as you suggest. That way, the vandal would not be alerted to the filter's existence, and would have no reason to think of changing his/her modus operandi. I agree that it is open to doubt whether the damage by this one vandal is enough to justify even the small overhead, but it is just possible that the increased rate of blocking and reverting might be enough to cause the vandal to give up quite soon, so that the edit filter could be retired very soon, and maybe the small overhead for just a short time would be justified. And of course, if he/she didn't give up soon, we would be free to decide that the edit filter was not succeeding in its aim and retire it anyway. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree on with all the points you made. It seams like it might be reasonable to try it (reporting) for a time to see how it goes, or at least experimenting to see what the overhead cost actually is. As you mentioned, it should be possible to design the filter to immediately fail on the vast majority of edits, thus be of less impact. It seems like something that should at least be explored, if for no other reason than to have better information if something similar ever comes up again.
I question how intelligent/aware of Wikipedia normal practice we should consider this person might be. If I was – for some reason – the one doing the vandalizing, given the number of times my account has placed warnings on IP addresses he/she has been using, I would have certainly gone to this page looking for any discussion about my edits. Given our potential change in tactic and that it could become ineffective with a change in vandalism content, would it be a good idea to remove the portion of this conversation which discusses using the edit filter in order to possibly prevent this person from reading about it? If you feel so, feel free to edit this thread down to prior to my floating the idea. I would not eliminate the thread in its entirety, as the vandal may have already read a portion. Given that just leaving edits in the edit history is an acceptable, but not recommended, thread archiving method I believe doing this would be within policy. — Makyen (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson: He's back again.
Given the level of persistence of this vandal and the complete lack of attention to the warnings previously given, I am thinking that it might be time to Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore. Thus, I am just going to revert and not put any user warnings on his/her pages. — Makyen (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think you are right. I have gone right ahead and placed a range block for three days on a range including the new IP address. The fact that the vandal has had to move to a new IP range indicates that the previous range block has started to put him/her to some inconvenience, so if further range blocks add further inconvenience then there is a chance it will start to discourage him/her. I have no illusion that the vandal will go away very soon, but past experience of similar vandals shows that there is a chance that once they get the message that from now on every IP range they use will be rapidly blocked, they may eventually give up. Perhaps we can keep the edit filter idea in reserve, to try if the vandal doesn't start slowing down soon. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson: He's back again.
— Makyen (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
A few days ago I had a conversation with an experienced editor who knows more about networking issues than I do, and he reckons that it is perfectly safe to block fairly large IPv6 ranges for a long time. I have gone ahead and blocked the range for 2 months. Let's see how it goes from there. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. That sounds good to me. — Makyen (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @JamesBWatson: He's back again.

— Makyen (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: He's back again.
This appears to be the period of the day that you are not active on Wikipedia. If he continues to edit, I will also report it on WP:AVI. However, he only made 3 edits to two articles, and appears to have stopped, or suspended action, an hour and a half before I logged on. Thus, I don't currently consider it urgent to act on this.
There is one strange thing though. Across the top of the contributions page is a banner that says " is a student in Intellectual Freedom - LIS 493". I would not consider this to be strange, except that it is for a different IP address. Hmmm... now the banner is gone. I'm chalking it up as a glitch of some sort. — Makyen (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Usually I'm not active at this time, but as it happens today I logged on and saw this. I have blocked the IP address, but it's a dynamic IP address, and I don't know how much effect the block will have. Just three edits in a short time and then stopping may well mean that it was a computer the vandal just had brief access to, and he or she wasn't going to come back to it again anyway. Who knows? If so, the fact that he/she is having to resort to such short-term measures does suggests that the existing blocks are having an effect in obstructing him/her.
The banner about does seem odd, especially as that IP address has never edited Wikipedia. As you say, probably a glitch of some sort. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson: He's back again.
This, again, looks like your normal time off-wiki. The edits took place a few/several hours ago (and one yesterday) but do not appear to be ongoing at the moment. Thus, I don't consider this urgent. These look like they are back to being with the same ISP as the original IP addresses (ISP has the range 74.82.64/95, in May the edits were on
BTW: the banner I mentioned last time was an intermittent issue that was seen by others, reported on WP:VPT and resolved. — Makyen (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
What kind of mind must someone have to put so much work into endlessly repeating such a silly, childish bit of nonsense? I have blocked an IP range covering all the IPs you listed for a month. I am happy doing that, as there have been no other edits from the range since May, and going back further than that most of the edits are unconstructive in one way or another, so risk of collateral damage is minimal. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson:, What kind of mind? Not sure, but I think you calling it childish is likely on the money, or at least adolescent (due to understanding the need and having the ability to change IPs); certainly persistent. Yet another from a short time ago:
Yep, definitely persistent. — Makyen (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Sigh... [3] The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson: Within a day of the 3 month block expiring on, the person made the typical vandalism edit on 18, or so, pages.
I've been taking a bit of a wiki-break for a while so I have not been keeping up with any other IPs which might have been making this change. I did not find any obvious matches when trying a search today. In addition, I did run my AWB set for this person a few days ago (a week?) and found no matches. Thus, if such changes have been made they were either on new, unassociated pages, or were corrected by that time. — Makyen (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
As you may know, by the time I got here, another administrator had already blocked the IP address for three months. However, in view of the fact that past experience shows that the vandal is not deterred by three month blocks, I have increased that to six months. Since it is clear that the IP address is used only by the vandal, I think there is a case for blocking for far longer than that, but I decided to settle for six months. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

M. A. G. Osmani References[edit]

"Misrokothon" by Maj. Gen. Ibrahim has the ISBN Number 984-70105-0434-7. can be verified by e-mailing - the publisher. I will post on the ISBN of the other book as soon I can verify.Maglorbd (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Maglorbd: I appreciate your verifying both ISBNs. Thank you for doing so.
It is possible that the publisher used 984-70105-0434-7 for the ISBN number in the Misrokothon book. If that is what is actually printed in the book, then it certainly is what we should use. While emailing the publisher is reasonable, verification might be more appropriately done by looking in the book to see what is actually printed in it. The ISBN is usually located on the page with publisher/publication information. This is most commonly on the back of the title page.
The reasons I question the ISBN are related to the fact that it is an invalid format:
  • As a 13-digit ISBN, it is invalid. 13-digit ISBNs are currently defined only to start with 978 (almost all) or 979 (small number of ISBN ranges defined). For 13 digit ISBNs, any other first 3 digits are invalid.
  • 984 is the registration group element for Bangladesh. This would normally be the 1st portion of a 10 digit ISBN.
  • 7 (from 70105, assuming that 984 was really the prefix) would indicate that it was published in China and would be hyphenated 978-7-.
  • If 984 is really the registration group element then the hyphenation would be 984-701- as the 400 to 799 range for the registrant element (assigned to the publisher) only contains 3 digits for the 984 registration group element.
Interestingly, the check digit is valid for a 13-digit ISBN. This may indicate that someone actually did intend it to be used in this manner. It is also possible that it was intended to be used for a different purpose. There are multiple other identifiers which use similar numbers of digits and identical of check digit calculations. One example of such is International Article Number (EAN)s. It is quite possible that this is the EAN that was assigned to the book and is, perhaps, printed as a barcode on the book. However, that would not be the ISBN. ISBNs are usually printed on the back of the title page along with other publisher/publication information. It is not unreasonable for us to include the EAN to identify the book. The point of the information in a reference is, after all, supposed to permit the reader to find the reference in order to verify the information.
Another time, it would be helpful to have the publisher and date of publication in the reference. It would have permitted me to find a bit more information. For example, the date of publication could indicate if 13 digit ISBNs even existed at the time of publication.
Now having the publisher, Anannya, tends to indicate that the 984-70105-0434-7 ISBN is somehow not from that publisher. The other ISBNs issued by that publisher appear to use the 412 registrant element. Normally, only one registrant element is assigned per publisher and the registrant element is unique to that publisher. It is possible for the publisher to have multiple registrant elements if it runs out of ISBNs in the range within the registrant element originally assigned. The 412 registrant element would have permitted 1,000 ISBNs available for that publisher. A brief search shows nothing even close to that number of books. However, it is quite possible that there are many more books than show up in an English centric search.
Ultimately, in contacting you regarding these ISBNs – as the person who entered them in as references in the M. A. G. Osmani article – I had hoped that you still had access to the books. Ultimately, what is actually printed in the book as the ISBN is the number that we should use. If you do have access to the books, could you look inside the books (usually on the back of the title page, probably not a barcode printed on the book) to determine the ISBN that is actually printed in each book?
Thanks again for checking on these ISBNs. — Makyen (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Midi Mist[edit]

I note that in the last four months or so you entered an anchor on the table element "Midi Mist", an atomic test on the page Operation Latchkey. This is not a problem, though I would like to inquire as to what depends upon the anchor. The page (and all atomic test list pages) are generated by a database program, which has no way to generate the anchor code automatically at this point. The question is whether I need to program it in, or was it only temporarily in use? Thanks for your help. SkoreKeep (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@SkoreKeep:The anchor was, and is, used as a target for a link from Lookout Mountain Air Force Station#Productions.
I am surprised that these are updated in a semi-automatic process from a database. I can certainly understand initially creating such pages from a database, but having them updated from a database has the inherent issue of making it such that any changes made by other editors are either discarded or have to be back-ported to the method of generation. While I don't want to make an issue of it, having such pages updated from a database appears to have some significant Wikipedia policy based issues. This is particularly true when it is not stated in the page, not even in a Wiki-comment, that the page is generated in that manner. Without having it disclosed, and both the database and process for generation available for others to edit, it effectively makes the pages WP:OWNED by the person who has charge of the database and process.
I appreciate your asking me about the anchor rather than just overwriting the contents of the page. One solution would be to have an anchor for each test rather than just a special case for Midi Mist. If there is an anchor for each test then individual tests could be linked when referred to elsewhere instead of having to link to just the page. The longer the list, the more benefit there is to being able to link to individual tests. — Makyen (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. To answer your posting...
No, I was not aware that the generation of the data from a database was against any policy, but I take your point, now that it's made. I have made it a practice to assure that all changes made to the pages since the last regeneration are expressed and incorporated, it is that process that I'm doing now, and which detected your anchor. While I haven't made a specific note on the pages themselves about it since I started this effort last October, I can see as how it might be a very good idea, and I'll see to it.
I certainly don't believe that I own the pages. I've had several knowledgeable people give me suggestions, and I've in all cases, I believe, informed them about the source of the data. I am by all means receptive to criticism, corrections, and crave information that I don't have. However, in the collection there are about 220 pages, and hand-editing them would seem to be a pretty error-prone trade-off. Finally, I've gone through several generations of formatting the data for uniform content and appearance.
So, I like your idea about anchoring all the tests; that makes the change required easily done, and useful. I'll also place some kind of notice about the automatic generation of the pages - an article in each talk page would be the best way, I think. In the long run, I'm also attempting to find others who might be interested in the database itself, and I hoped that perhaps this would be one vehicle for that. Rest assured your link won't be dropped. If you have any further suggestions or comments, please feel no hesitation to contact me. Thanks again for your message.
Oh, one thing you can tell me, I think - to whom should I address an inquiry in a policy-determining position about this? I'm not uncomfortable doing so, and if they determine that I'm out of bounds, or care to make suggestions themselves, I'd be all ears. SkoreKeep (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Makyen, I'm performing the due diligence you mentioned above and I had neglected. Please see Talk:List of nuclear weapons. I'd appreciate any comments you have either there publicly, here, or on Talk:SkoreKeep. Thanks. SkoreKeep (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I've commented on the ISBN:Talk page on your removal of my edit to the ISBN article page. Would appreciate if you could read & respond. Many thanks Mmitchell10 (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)