User talk:Mike.lifeguard/Archive 14

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Mike.lifeguard in topic Regarding [2]

<older newer>

Board elections/2009/en

Hi Mike,

This page should only be edited by election committee members. Please do not unprotect it. Thanks, Yann 23:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? There have been several instances where other users have needed to edit the page.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Which edits? Regards, Yann 11:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
This is all on the talk page, as I noted in the log summary. It's a wiki, so hardly surprising that someone wants to edit the page. If it's so extraordinarily critical that the election rules aren't edited, then put them in a protected template so the rest is open for editing. It's a wiki for a reason.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mike - As you know, I'm sure, the Board of Trustees carries with it significant legal responsibilities. As a result, we are (perhaps even over-) cautious as to the editing of the page. In this case, I think, because of the legalities involved, that's to our benefit. We're happy to make changes that are required that are necessary (and have done so). But our difficulties with keeping folks from editing the page - even sysops! - should serve to demonstrate, I think, that we need to be extraordinarily careful with these pages. --Philippe 00:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't think those difficulties show what you say they do.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


Hello Mike,

I'm one of the initiators of the german Wikibook Soziologische Klassiker wich is a collection of aprox. 170 articles about sociologists and of 7 different introductions into this small "encyclopedia". User Jan Eissfeldt (who I think you know) therefore invited me to contribute to Best_practices_in_using_Wikibooks_in_the_classroom. I've seen that you are by now the only editor of this page. But if you want me to do so, I gonna join in now. Please leave me a short message.

Thanks, Günter --Guenter w 15:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

By all means, please jump right in! I've stalled somewhat due to real-life concerns, so perhaps having someone else contributing will spur me to action :D  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Amazon and spamlist

I added more details as requested (sorry not to have done that first time), but the link is working now, so I don't know that happened there. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It may have been a change on enwiki's blacklist during that time. Also note that there are some referral links that are blacklisted, so if the link contained certain parameters then it'd be blocked, but not if it was a normal link to the domain. Either way, thanks for letting us know it's no longer an issue.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

User Name

Hi Mike.lifeguard, can you block Cairo? — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything at Special:Contributions/Cairo or Special:DeletedContributions/Cairo :\ Why does the account need to be blocked?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia Conference Japan 

Hi, thanks for protection from vandalism at Talk:Wikimedia Conference Japan. We still have same vandalizm fool at Wikimedia Conference Japan. Please apply the same level this page, too. Regards.--Pep5 18:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Done — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

what is the reason to block ? why did you add bad links like back you the sites, which i cleaned.

pedja hadzimanovic

You're spamming the domain. I simply reverted your edits - other editors will make decisions about whether to include other domains like  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Spam black list

Hi Mike,

I'm just wondering if I'm correct about this, I saw your video a while ago but I'm not sure if I am correct, so I don't feel good enough to edit the spam black list.

When I'm on the spam blacklist I see:

  • [close]
This would probbaly mean that I close it ( xD ) without doing anything.
  • [reverted]
This will probally mean I removed all the links globally and close it now.
  • [add]
This means that I add it to the blacklist, but is there no need to remove all uses than?

Best regards, Huib talk 18:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right except that adding a domain to the blacklist implies that linking to it is unwanted, so you should remove all links. --Erwin 18:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there a tool that shows all links? The button that I tested give a error with the message to much links, unable to show. Huib talk 18:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
To see all links on a single wiki there is Special:LinkSearch. To see all links on many Wikipedias (I've long asked for this to be all wikis, but to no avail) there is [1].  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Oversight at Simple Wikipedia

Why did you oversight those edits? None of the edits fit the criteria located here (I know what the edits contained because I saw the diffs before they were oversighted). Griffinofwales 01:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I know the full content but I may have forgotten a few parts. If I was wrong, please tell me. Griffinofwales 01:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
"potentially libellous information"? It certainly does fit that criteria. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Read the description under it. Griffinofwales 02:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The hideruser action is equivalent to oversight, and is appropriate; the rest doesn't fall under the oversight policy, and I therefore didn't oversight it. I'm well aware of what the oversight policy states, thanks. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused. What doesn't fall under oversight policy? Griffinofwales 04:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The stuff you're complaining about. It doesn't fall under the policy. That's why I didn't oversight it.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're aware, but revision deletion has two levels of deletion. One is oversight-like, the other allows sysops to see the content. I used the latter (but this still requires me to add the oversight group).  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Griffinofwales 20:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind

Hi Mike,

I deleted your userpage so I could clean some nasty vandalism out if it, I hope you don't mind.

Best regards, Huib talk 20:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, but there's really no need to do that.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Any Solution?

Hi Mike,

First of all I must thank you for intervening on and posting message on that IP user, he has become manace for alst few days. He uses non-static IP address, so everytime he logs in, there is a different IP, and that makes it worse to block so many. I have been constantly blocking him, but was thinking if there is anyways of blocking the source of all that non-static IP addreses? I have blocked so far,,,, etc.--DhavalTalk 08:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(pardon for the intromission) will stop him but the problem is that this is a pretty big range and some users will probably be affected by it. user:Wutsje, user:J.delanoy and me have been dealing with it today and yesterday. Sorry Mike for usurping your space. df|  14:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Talk page watchers make the world go 'round :D  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
You are right, it will block a broad range, but there is ultimately no alternative to it, so let us try, as anyways, there are not many regular users on, so everyone will be aware of this block, if any existing user is affected, they can anyways email us. I would really like to give it a go for a month and see if this vandal seases his activity.--DhavalTalk 09:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Guys, but he was getting out of control, we all were wasting our energy in reverting that idiot's edits, I have finally blocked the range of IPs using THanks for all of yours efforts.--DhavalTalk 14:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Perfect, I hope that this stops this nonsense. I'll be checking gu.wikipedia RecentChanges to see if the vandal returns. Best regards (and sorry Mike, again, for usurping your space) df|  16:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll run a CU to see if there's unacceptable collateral...  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
No, you can safely block that range (probably with anon-only and blocking account creation).  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding [2]

I honestly cannot actually remember; I asked J.delanoy and he couldn't really remember either. They were cases of simple obscenity/racist language/page blanking-vandalism, I believe, that simply could not be stopped because no steward was around, and there were no active sysops (per stewardry). I might have been mistaken with my timeline; I believe it was around two hours, but it could have been as short as forty-five minutes. On one occasion, as Tim Starling was about to make the block, Lar joined IRC, and kindly made it for him. NW (Talk) 01:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I can remember one specific incident where I actually asked a sysadmin for help regarding simple vandalism. (A steward came on just as he asked me what was up, so he didn't end up blocking the vandal.)
There were no stewards online (none in any public IRC channels that I could think of, none in #wikipedia-en-admins, no logs/edits being made on Meta) for that 45 minute period.
J.delanoygabsadds 01:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if there's any way we could set up a system to summon stewards that doesn't rely on IRC...  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Something similar to the Bat-Signal would be epic :-) J.delanoygabsadds 03:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking more along the lines of an anonymizing pager service  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Administrator of the Web

Hi! I'm the administrator of, and I'm surprised when I saw my web in the blacklist of wikipedia. What can I do for erase mi web from this list?

You should ask on WM:SBL. Thanks  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Spam Black List: Casa Real de Portugal

Hi there, Mike;

about your inciative to block the link , actually it is ineffective, since there were created many other URLs that redirect to the main site. How may we correct this case? If possible, please answer me at WP:PT. Cheers. -- 15:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

We will blacklist all the redirect domains.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Weblinks in de-wp

Hi! You've removed several links to on de-wp. Your comment was (Removing external link: * -- per m:Talk:Spam blacklist). This is a rather poor comment, since i can not find a discussion about this domain on Talk:Spam blacklist, neither an entry on the blacklist itself. So why did you remove those links? --Gnu1742 10:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Spam blacklist would be a fine place to leave questions, as noted above.
This rather looks like someone pushing the link to me. The domain hasn't been blacklisted at this point because the scale is small, however I do think the links should stay removed. If you disagree, the talk pages on those articles are open for editing.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
No, i ask you, because you removed links with a totally misleading and inapropriate editComment. There were 4 links to a website which offers neutral information about numismatics. Those were removed, commented with a link to a website where no one can find anything about this case. We have a OTRS-Ticket about this: The customer has no idea what he did wrong or where he can find any information about your removals. Do you speak german at all and can you judge whether a link meets the WP:WEB-criteria on de-wp. Or did you do this just by looking at the results of some bot? Even if a bot finds evidence of possible spam, this evidence should be interpreted by some human person. So here i'll leave you a message which i leave to anyone who removes information from de-wp without good reason: Stop this or you will be blocked on de-wp. --Gnu1742 15:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure how threats could be considered appropriate. In any case, the edit summary isn't misleading as that page is where you should be asking about this, and the removal of the links is appropriate as I've already explained. You clearly disagree, so please feel free to raise this on the talk pages.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I do not know if this is common sense on other wikis, on de-wp it is not: If someone (you) does changes in an article, it is his (your) liability to give a precise, comprehensible reason for it. A link to some page on a totally different wiki (a huge amount of users hasn't ever heard of meta) where he could ask if he dares to doubt your edit is no such reason. So change your behaviour concerning edit comments on de-wp. --Gnu1742 15:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Gnu1742, calm down. I concur with Mike's suspicion: This "customer" has done exactly nothing to improve Wikipedia. Did he add text or correct mistakes? No, he quite obviously wants to promote his website. Our traffic rank in Germany is 5, his blog is ranked 113.240, simple as that. And after being caught red-handed, he gets impudent. Yep, that's what I call spamming. If the nice guys from OTRS want to hear it or not. Stefan64 15:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm just trying to convince mike that even a steward has to follow the rules of the local wikis and that he, if he doesn't, has to take the consequences. --Gnu1742 16:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that precise edit summaries are preferable, but I hope you aren't spending your time chasing down all all who forget to add one, or adds one not perfect, as there are lots of edits with no edit summary in the history of that article.
Everyone is free to edit Wikipedia. If you don't agree with the edit you can just revert it. Telling users who are clearly making good faith edits that they will be blocked from de.wikipedia if they ever do something similiar again is very negative and unwanted.
I belive Mike is usually using a script when he removes inapropriatly added links, and then a link to the COIBot report he is responding to is given in the edit summary, as can be seen in his other edits on de.wikipedia. This functions relies on the toolserver, which has been down today.
This link was inserted on de.wikipedia by the website owner - edit summary: Eigenfotografien zahlreicher Münzen und Hintergrundinformationen als Zusammenfassung dargestellt. The link is to a blog. The blog uses Wikipedia as a source.
I do not understand what makes this a good link for de.wikipedia, and why you want the blog owner to add his link to many articles.
--Jorunn 20:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)