Misplaced Pages

User talk:TigerShark

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SQL (talk | contribs) at 01:36, 27 November 2017 (indefs). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:36, 27 November 2017 by SQL (talk | contribs) (indefs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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

Information icon 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)
@Makeandtoss: 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)
@TigerShark: I pinged him again, well even if he did reply... Considering his behavior, I doubt he will settle with anything other than complete removal of all the content I posted. Much thanks. --Makeandtoss (talk) 12:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@TigerShark: I hope you are watching the discussion. --Makeandtoss (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi

User (User:DebarupaBhattacharjee) Hi!I had given two articles for the further reading section which I think are good enough. Would you please at least read and consider them. My friend's article from the same website was used for another celebrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debarupa Bhattacharjee (talk • contribs) 13:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Your hard work is highly appreciated, esp. at AIV and ANI! JustBerry (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, TigerShark. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi TigerShark.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, TigerShark. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Misplaced Pages, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Misplaced Pages seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


IP's blocked indef

Would you mind reviewing a few IP's that you had blocked indef to see if that length of block is still required please? The list is:

  1. 90.217.133.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) blocked by User:TigerShark for Long-term pattern of vandalism
  2. 194.83.8.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) blocked by User:TigerShark for Long-term pattern of vandalism
  3. 194.83.164.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) blocked by User:TigerShark for Long-term pattern of vandalism
  4. 217.23.228.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) blocked by User:TigerShark for Long-term pattern of vandalism
  5. 65.18.58.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) blocked by User:TigerShark for Long-term pattern of vandalism
  6. 168.11.15.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) blocked by User:TigerShark for Vandalism
  7. 65.182.127.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) blocked by User:TigerShark for Long-term pattern of vandalism
  8. 207.106.153.252 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) blocked by User:TigerShark for Spam / advertising-only account
  9. 64.193.88.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) blocked by User:TigerShark for Long-term pattern of vandalism
  10. 152.26.71.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) blocked by User:TigerShark for Long-term pattern of vandalism
  11. 199.185.67.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) blocked by User:TigerShark for Long-term pattern of vandalism:
  12. 117.90.240.73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) blocked by User:TigerShark for Edit warring: Hong Kong related

Thanks! SQL 01:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)