UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archive 3

Image Deletion Request
Could I get a sysop to delete the three images archived here. I was unable to have the amended image loaded over the current copy, continually being greeted with that which had a mistaken date. This was resolved by uploading the proper image under a new title (SLC), however, as these images no longer are necessary, I believe a deletion is in order. Thank you. -- Booyah boy 09:25, 27 September 2006 (EDT)
:Done --Nephele 11:15, 27 September 2006 (EDT)
::My apologies for the late reply, and my thanks for acting so swiftly. -- Booyah boy 07:17, 3 October 2006 (EDT)

 
 
 

Irc Discussion

While there was an irc conference a couple of days ago, no summary of the discussion or conclusions has been posted. From that lack I had assumed that nothing of consequence was decided or discussed. But dipping through the history I see some indication that's not true. (Revoking admin privileges??) 

If there was something of consequence discussed or concluded, then please summarize the results here and then let the discussion continue on this page. While Irc can be useful for fast discussion, any significant discussion of wiki management should take place on the wiki (i.e., here), where a more prolonged, thought-out discussion, with more participants can take place. --Wrye 14:06, 19 November 2006 (EST)

: The IRC room is good for fast and informal discussions, which allows us to filter out the good ideas from the bad ones. We were discussing if administrative inactivity was grounds for de-adminship. That was thrown out as a bad idea. If it would have gained support as a good idea, then whoever proposed the idea would ask the wiki what they think. It's silly and disruptive to knowingly propose bad ideas to the community. --Aristeo | Talk 16:12, 19 November 2006 (EST)

64.150.0.1 - Requesting Unblocking

 , who has been blocked from editing indefinitely by Daveh, requests unblocking. He was warned after vandalising eight pages on November 29th with profanity, and spamming an apology message on fifty-five pages. His edits were administratively reverted by Daveh and then he was blocked from editing. The editor requested to be unblocked on his talk page, leaving the following messages on his talk page: 

:Sorry for everything I did, and the comments were harsh. Sorry again. Is there still a chance for redemption?

:''I am truely sorry. I was trying to appologize, but did not know where to do this. Even now that I know of this page's existance, I still find it hard to find. Thanks''

All blocks can be appealed if the blocked user feels that they are unjust, and the users can be paroled if they apologize and promise to edit constructively. (I think.) Of course, the decision to unblock is up to the community, or Daveh if he says that his block is final. Therefore, I'm proposing to the community whether or not we should temporarily unblock and give him the chance to apologize to the community and request parole under the following conditions:

The user would be banned from editing anything except his talk page and these proceedings.
All edits made by him should only be made to address this case.

If the editor breaches either one of these criteria, even if he only fixes a typo, the user would be blocked again, his edits would bre reverted, and he would possibly be reported to his ISP. "Support", "Support, but", "Oppose", and "Comment" as necessary. I'm neutral until otherwise stated. I will contact Daveh and the anonymous editor after I have posted this message. --Aristeo | Talk 01:08, 7 December 2006 (EST)

Oppose, this guy has been blocked nine times on Wikipedia. See  for the information I compiled on this guy. --Aristeo | Talk 02:19, 7 December 2006 (EST)

Oppose,  I think the reasoning is self explanatory.  Nice work Aristeo. --Hoggwild5 02:21, 7 December 2006 (EST)
Thanks! I was about to upload a close up satellite image of the ISP building from Google Maps (pretty detailic) as well as a hybrid zoomed-out image to show how to drive there from the nearest interstate, but I felt like that would've been too much. --Aristeo | Talk 02:37, 7 December 2006 (EST)

Oppose, The Wikipedia thing seals the deal for me.  This is a long-term repeat offender (over 6 months on WP), and not likely to provide any constructive edits in the future from what I can see.  Shut it down. --TheRealLurlock   09:41, 7 December 2006 (EST)

Oppose, After seeing his history, I don't see any reason to unblock him. --Ratwar 09:57, 7 December 2006 (EST)

Oppose. For me, too, the wikipedia history says it's not worth giving this person the benefit of the doubt.  I would instead propose unprotecting the user talk page.  That way, if this user (or anyone else at this IP address) wants to contribute to the wiki, he/she can post suggestions on the talk page.  Until there is some concrete evidence that the user has an interest in making constructive contributions to the wiki, I say leave the account blocked. --Nephele 11:50, 7 December 2006 (EST)

Oppose For reasons already given on users talk page and elsewhere. --Wrye 17:20, 7 December 2006 (EST)

Page protection
The voting on this matter seems to be fairly clear: there is no support for unblocking this account.  However, I do not see any reason to continue to leave the user talk page protected.  The talk page is supposed to be available even to blocked IP addresses, so that anybody else using that IP address has a mechanism to communicate with the UESP community.  Furthermore, wiki pages are only supposed to be protected under rare circumstances, for example, when not protecting them will leave the wiki as a whole vulnerable to threats.  I do not see why this user talk page qualifies for protection.   Are there any objections to removing the protection from the page ? --Nephele 20:34, 16 December 2006 (EST)
:No objection. --Wrye 21:53, 16 December 2006 (EST)
:I already unprotected it yesterday afternoon. No need for a petition. --Aristeo | Talk 07:20, 19 December 2006 (EST)
::Thanks, Aristeo. --Nephele 11:01, 19 December 2006 (EST)
::: :) --Aristeo | Talk 15:25, 19 December 2006 (EST)

 

Ad Discussion

Feedback on using Ads on the site would be appreciated. -- Daveh 13:53, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Vandalism of shivering isles page

the users 71.251.71.72 and  72.64.227.72 have been vandalising the shivering isles page. 67.142.130.49 21:02, 2 March 2007 (EST)

ShakenMike

I don't believe   is at the right place. I know a couple people here are getting tired of him, so for the sake of the collective sanity here we might want to start trying to redirect him to a place more geared towards what he's looking for. I would appreciate if someone would inform him of what the mission here is and give him some suggestions on places to go where he can get his questions asked. I also suggest that we all stop answering his questions so we can convince him that going somewhere else would be good for him.

If that doesn't work and the user obviously disregards the request, then come back here and we can talk about taking another step towards this rather unique situation.

--Aristeo | Talk 14:43, 3 March 2007 (EST)

I took the initiative and left a note on his talk page, hopefully addressing some of the concerns brought up about him and redirecting him to somewhere more suited for him in response to an e-mail he sent me and what he left on his talk page. (permalink)

I believe this problem is close to being resolved, but I would prefer that you all keep a close eye on him in the mean time. --Aristeo | Talk 17:02, 3 March 2007 (EST)

--Aristeo | Talk 17:02, 3 March 2007 (EST)

My problem of this site hasn't being solve due not understand the format of rules of deleting own user talk page and others.ShakenMike 11:12, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: I'll respond to this on your talk page. --Aristeo | Talk 12:09, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I wonder if he even reads what you guys post on his page because when you look at his long history of deleting, someone already told him he wasn't supposed to delete on and on and then ask questions. TO that, he answers something like "but I didn't know I was doing something bad" (I'm sorry for being vague but all of this is in his contribution page). Count me as one VERY irritated person because of his attitude. --Vartan 12:15, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Deleting your user talk page messages is okay, even if they're warnings. And unless a user is banned, (not blocked,) they have jurisdiction over their user page. I don't know why people are getting so upset, just calm down and try not to take things too seriously. --Aristeo | Talk 13:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Well, I was about to leave a message on your talk page, ShakenMike, but I'm a bit vague on the details. I'd like for someone else to do it if they can leave a message without being hostile. --Aristeo | Talk 13:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

He's being annoying (at least) and seems to be skirting the line of what is actionable (i.e., I haven't seen him delete talk page content again). So, what I've done is add a warning to his user page and protect the user page, while adding an inclusion to a subpage which he can continue to edit. While editing/protecting a user page is an unusual and pretty undesirable action, it's the best solution that I can up with, so long as we're not blocking his account. This means that the warning is still there and can be easily seen by other editors and in a way that he can't delete -- and yet he can still add content to the page. (Other admins, if you think it's not the best approach, feel free to unprotect the page.)

So, short of a more permanent block, ignoring seems to be best approach for now. --Wrye 15:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:That might be a good idea and go ahead. I wish there's a way to delete my whole account and shouldn't joined at the first place.You have very strict rules that I can't follow properlyShakenMike 15:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::Done. (Indefinite block by request of user.) --Wrye 15:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

 
 
 
 

Sorry, my little counsin decided he woudl try and edit "g" of your beastary

Yea, and im not sure on how to fix it. Sorry for the inconvience.  
:Already fixed. --Nephele  17:42, 5 June 2007 (EDT)