Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:52, 21 September 2015

Archives:

2005 - 17th April

2006 - 4th April - 22nd May - 11th June - 23rd June - 15th July

2007 - 3rd February - 10th March - 31st August - 8th September - 7th November

2008 - 14th February - 4th May - 10th October

2009 - 16th May

2011 - 15th December

2015 - 12th May

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. –xeno 04:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back

) Kuru (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

180.234... vandal

I do hope that a range block is possible. That idea has been raised in the past, such as at User talk:GiantSnowman/2015#2018 FIFA World Cup and at this message at AIV. Some of the other IPs within this seemingly endless list were mentioned in those messages. If there were to be some collateral effect from a range block, it might make the ISP wake up and control the behaviour of its irresponsible customer. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I will have a look and see if there is anything that I can do. TigerShark (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You can add 180.234.43.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to the list. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

page locking

Hi! I'm wondering exactly which unblock requests at User talk:Robert at Citizens for Freedom of Information were sufficiently disruptive to edit-protect that page; nobody besides the editor himself, the blocking admin, you, and me has edited that page, and though his requests are awfully whiny, they are hardly disruptive. Also, there's no need to protect the page anyway; if his requests were sufficiently disruptive to warrant slamming the door shut, we simply change the block to disallow user talk page editing (that way, nobody but the blocked user is affected.) --jpgordon 18:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a better idea. I unprotected the page, but did change the user's block to prevent talk page editing. Personally I feel that they are not seriously asking for an unblock, but just aiming to waste more time. That said, if you feel that I've misjudged, please feel free to change the block to allow them to edit. Thanks for contacting me with your concerns. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

124.181.101.68

Can you indef block this IP for making death threats, such as the one they made on their talk page? This is a long term problem from a sock and I'm worried the vandalism and threats will resume as soon as their block expires. Thanks, Rubbish computer 21:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Rubbish computer 21:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC) It's mentioned at Misplaced Pages:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#Telstra.2C Australian IP vandalism. Sorry if I'm telling you stuff you already know. Thanks, Rubbish computer 21:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/89.205.38.24

Can you please block him/her? Because he/she removed source citation many times on God Hates Us All. 123.136.112.178 (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@123.136.112.178: They claim that they are removing a dead link. I checked it and it does seem to be dead. TigerShark (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/205.155.20.107

I actually just opened up an SPI case for the IPs you blocked here. I just wanted to inform you; I mentioned your name/pinged you in the report with a request for closing the case. --JustBerry (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@JustBerry: Yes, I just noticed your report, but thanks for letting me know. I will try to keep an eye on the article, and if there is more vandalism from the same range, then we may need to consider a range block. Let's see how it goes. TigerShark (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I just wanted to get you on the same page. I'd appreciate if you could ping/yo me or leave me a talkback on my talk page to get my attention, as you did just now. --JustBerry (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Please check Talk:Mudar Zahran. --Makeandtoss (talk) 04:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss:. Hi. Yes I did see that you tried to start a discussion on the talk page, and I can see that not everyone have engaged yet. Is everybody involved, aware of the discussion? Perhaps you can try to find out the specific concerns that the other editor(s) might have and directly address them. I understand that is more work for you, but because the information being added is potentially libelous, there is a burden on the person adding it to show that the sources are reliable. Because I have protected the page (and will keep protecting it until the issue is resolved), I should probably take a step back from the discussion and let you guys thrash it out, but I will keep an eye on it. Thanks. TigerShark (talk) 09:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@TigerShark: I pinged them and I also sent them a message on their talk pages, as you can see they chose to ignore it. I can not see why the information is 'potentially libelous', the information are not cursing him or invading his privacy. The content is found on several sites and are completely sourced and verifiable especially content from Ammon News.. If you don't mind sharing your opinion on this? --Makeandtoss (talk) 09:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: Hi again. As I mentioned I would rather observe the discussion than get involved. However, you asked how any of the information could be potentially libelous. Is it not fairly obvious that (for example) the claim regarding the HSBC is potentially libelous? It is not about cursing or invading privacy, it is about making (or repeating) claims that could potentially lead to legal action for defamation. If it isn't clear, and if you haven't already done so, you might want to read WP:BLP. TigerShark (talk) 10:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@TigerShark: I read that about 5 times before contacting you so that Iam 100% sure of my position, defamation is based on false information which is not the case here. The HSBC content, two of the three sources have an entire picture of his requisition to trial in a newspaper!! What I was trying to say is, that there is obviously no discussion to observe since they ignored me.. --Makeandtoss (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: I understand that there has been no real discussion so far. Could you try again to engage the other editors? Also, are you able to provide any sources in English? That might perhaps help to convince the other editors. TigerShark (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@TigerShark: Considering this is a Jordan related news, all the sources are in Arabic. But if authenticity concerns you, here's the story from a 4th source which is Ammon News http://www.ammonnews.net/article.aspx?articleno=97499 The article has a picture too, I know a couple of users who speak Arabic or you can try to translate it via google. --Makeandtoss (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Madeandtoss: Thanks. Could you please consider posting this on the article's talk page and trying again to engage with the other editors. It is really them that you need to convince, although I will monitor the discussion so that I can decide when it is OK to unprotect the page. You may want to consider asking them what would address their concerns. Thanks TigerShark (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)