User talk:TigerShark/Talk Archive 19th April 2021

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 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 talk 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 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 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:==( o ) 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 Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents. 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * . 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (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.

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)

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
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news
 * A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
 * Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
 * Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

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 Wikipedia, 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
 * The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries
 * JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia 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)  blocked by User:TigerShark for Long-term pattern of vandalism
 * 2)  blocked by User:TigerShark for Long-term pattern of vandalism
 * 3)  blocked by User:TigerShark for Long-term pattern of vandalism
 * 4)  blocked by User:TigerShark for Long-term pattern of vandalism
 * 5)  blocked by User:TigerShark for Long-term pattern of vandalism
 * 6)  blocked by User:TigerShark for Vandalism
 * 7)  blocked by User:TigerShark for Long-term pattern of vandalism
 * 8)  blocked by User:TigerShark for Spam / advertising-only account
 * 9)  blocked by User:TigerShark for Long-term pattern of vandalism
 * 10)  blocked by User:TigerShark for Long-term pattern of vandalism
 * 11)  blocked by User:TigerShark for Long-term pattern of vandalism:
 * 12)  blocked by User:TigerShark for Edit warring: Hong Kong related

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

Notification of pending 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 more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the 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. — xaosflux  Talk 14:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular
   

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed&#32;if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. —&thinsp;JJMC89 bot 00:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject on open proxies discussion
Hello, you are receiving this message because you have either contributed to WikiProject on open proxies/Requests in the past six months or are an active editor listed on WikiProject on open proxies/verified users. I have started a discussion regarding the project's current status at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject on open proxies, you are invited to participate in the discussion. If you are not interested in the project, no action is required on your part; this is a one-time notification and you will not receive any further messages. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC) (on behalf of User:GeneralNotability)

Proposed deletion of File:TigerSharkYesterday3.JPG


The file File:TigerSharkYesterday3.JPG has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Orphaned image without obvious encyclopedic value."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ★ Bigr   Tex  23:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)