User talk:Mike.lifeguard/Archive 18

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Mike.lifeguard in topic Not sure why I'm blocked

<older newer>

Thank you

Hi. I just want to say thank you for your recent block of vandal on skWiki. :)-- 22:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

no problem  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi Mike, I have been using your very handy tool User:Mike.lifeguard/removeSpam.js for the past year now and i have found a little tweak that could improve this tool. Is it possible to make the default summery point to the COIbot xwiki-page for the link that is being removed? That way users on other projects will be able to find the discussion more quickly. EdBever 09:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't write it, but thanks all the same :)
It could be added but I'm not going to because:
  1. There's no guarantee that User:COIBot/XWiki/ exists, and pointing to a non-existent page is even less useful than pointing to WM:SPAM
  2. If you use erwin's tool for removing links, the summary is already changed. If not, you can change it yourself (and you will know that #1 doesn't apply in those cases)
 — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Community vote

Hi, Mike. I'm asking you, since I see that you're currently online.
Regarding ongoing Global sysops/Vote, where do I have to post the decision of particular Wikipedia about global sysops? Kubura 04:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

hrwiki is unaffected since it is a large wiki (and isn't included at Global sysops/wiki set). For other wikis, Talk:Global sysops would be the correct place - just start a new section, and a steward can make the appropriate changes to the wiki set.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi! Can I ask you to give me an access to #wikimedia-admin and #wikimedia-checkuser, since i'm now CU and admin on hrwiki. Thnaks in advance. Regards --Ex13 11:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Done — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Good work

Good work on the global sysop vote. Your push to help people understand the proposal is excellent and valuable. I'm sure you are helping this to pass. Ozob 06:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

My goal is actually to clarify if any actual problems exist in the proposal, and if so what they are. If that helps it pass, it is extra. But thanks nonetheless :)  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please spoonfeed me

Why does a global admin need the ability to override a local block? At least one local admin has clearly decided their help isn't wanted. Erik Warmelink 19:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Why does a global admin need the ability to override a global block? It is quite probable they are only overlooking some problem, but if the block is overridden, they won't notice that. Erik Warmelink 19:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Why does a global admin need the ability to edit from an open proxy? Erik Warmelink 19:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

We do have users who edit from IPs which are blocked as proxies. There is no reason they shouldn't.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
My users (user:ErikWarmelink and user:Erik Warmelink, note the space) almost always edit from my IP address (user: I don't see a reason why your users couldn't edit from your IP address. Erik Warmelink 03:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Some users are in restrictive countries (i.e. China) whose government blocks access to Wikipedia and, thusly, the only way they can edit is through a proxy service that is potentially blocked. 03:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


I wonder if you can run a check on nv:User:Seb az86560 (an imposter account), nv:User:, and nv:User: He has been launching severe vandalism attacks for the last couple of days. Stephen G. Brown 00:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

yeah... also RE:our chat on IRC. Seb az86556 00:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Didn't find any sleeper accounts. You already know the IP range - or contact me for info.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thanks/ahéhee' Seb az86556 02:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


I'm going to sleep now, it's night in Holland. I won't react any more and I'd hope this would be investigated objectively. MMaerkk 01:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


Hello, can you please explain what was the reason of getting CheckUser status on ka wiki? I've nothing opposite, but may be it would be better to announce it in the forum? Regards,--Gaeser 14:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There was a vandal creating maliciously-named accounts. I needed the IP to place a block.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I see:) I just said that it would be more honest:) Nothing else:)--Gaeser 16:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Steward 2010 reconfirmation question

I asked Lar a question and I wanted to ask you a question too in preparation for the Steward reconfirmation thingy. How has your experience as a Steward over the past year affected your understanding of all the WMF projects? Do you notice any new concerns, have you seen activities that are new, confirmed old views, etc? By the way, your time helping out places like Wikiversity was much appreciated, and the care you put into projects that aren't your home project is always something that would be great if we could some how mass produce. :) Ottava Rima 02:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree it'd be really nice if we could encourage a mentorship attitude to draw contributors into administrative activities. My own beliefs haven't changed much at all, but my view of the Wikimedia universe has shifted. For example, I have a much clearer view of how insidious subtle trolling can be, and how damaging trolling is to communities. By contrast, I've also had the pleasure of working with a great group of users who work together very well. Consensus is always front-and-centre; the group knows when compromise is needed, and when to agree to disagree. These people have integrity, and are committed to doing the right thing for the projects. So it has been a mixed bag.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


Why have you granted sysop rights for this user in Ukrainian Wikibooks? Her deletions were rather harmful: instead of fixing double and broken redirects, he simply deleted them, so I had to recreate most of them (except six) again. Ukrainian Wikibooks have two sysops, and they are rather active (see activity of Ahonc and activity of Albedo): both of them were active in Ukrainian Wikipedia and Wiktionary yesterday, and usually at least one of them responds within 24 hours. Innv has previously nominated for deletion a few other redirects, all of them were fixed. So fixing these redirects was a more obvious solution than deleting them, sysop rights weren't required. Thanks — NickK 16:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you ask Innv about this already? Certainly, redirects should be fixed rather than simply deleted where appropriate.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Haitian creole wikipedia


i admin the haitian creole wiki. There was a discussion about a suspected vandalism on the wiki that is ok by now; but the announcement is still appearing above pages on the wiki:

"Vos commentaires seraient appréciés sur Meta au propos de la suppression en masse de plusieurs pages sur ce wiki. Your input is requested on Meta about mass deletion of content on this wiki."

Could someone suppress it ?

Thank you in advance. Masterches 10:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Masterches, I saw your note here and thought I would let you know you can actually clear it yourself as an administrator there. If you go to ht:MedyaWiki:Sitenotice while logged in you can edit the notice, if you erase it all it will disappear totally (you can always recreate it or another message by going to the same page). I will leave this note on your htWiki talk page as well. James (T C) 14:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, James. MAsterches has replaced the sitenotice now.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism accusations

Sorry for posting here, but you have accused me of vandalism and banned me from editing; I am therefore unable to edit my talk page to ask for information about WHY I have been banned. I have searched for my name among the recent banned users, but there is no sign anywhere of my name so I'm a bit confused. Safebreaker 11:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Where do you believe that you are blocked? I cannot see this account blocked anywhere. Is it a block of an IP address or an alternative account? billinghurst sDrewth 15:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
It could be many possibilities. Nvadertim99 is a one. That was on 03:30, 20 January 2010, so a while ago. Or, it could just be someone random. Mike deals with a lot of blocks on a lot of Wikis. Ottava Rima 18:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
That's exactly why billinghurst is asking for information. Random speculation is not helpful, so please don't. I'll address this when and if there's sufficient information for me to do so.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mike, sorry for my poor english, could you tell me why you blocked my ip? what's the reason? Could you explain? Bye, LucaBiondi (

The IP you used to post this message isn't blocked by me as far as I can tell - though the IP range is blocked as an open proxy on 2 wikis. Did you mean some other IP?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

cross-wiki sysop vote comment

PLEASE LEAVE ALL messages for me here: [1]... I don't misunderstand the proposal. It WOULD use resources -- it is irrelevant that they are volunteers (virtually all work on all projects is still done by volunteers) -- from viable projects to support fringe projects. The whole idea of a wiki structure is that it works itself and doesn't require an elaborate beaurocracy to maintain it. Pedant 19:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have taken it upon yourself to tell others where to spend their efforts - but I don't think doing so is appropriate or correct here.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 06:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why I'm blocked


I'm getting a notice about a Global Block when I try to edit anything, including my Talk page. I'm reasonably sure it wasn't aimed at me specifically, so I'm curious what it was aimed at and what I should do about it. If it helps to identify the block, the message says "The block expires on 6 March 2010 at 14:34". I looked at what said it was a global block list, but it didn't have any with that expiration date.

Sepreece 22:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It isn't clear which block is affecting you. If you can provide your IP (in private if you like), I can review it. All the possibilities are blocks placed on IPs probable abused open proxies. If the IP isn't a proxy, I'll unblock it.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 06:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)