| Revision as of 15:13, 7 December 2006 editMackensen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators125,157 edits →[] unblocked← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:18, 7 December 2006 edit undoWikipediaiscrap (talk | contribs)3 edits a childish brainless cocksuckerNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| a childish brainless cocksucker | |||
| {{User:Mackensen/Archiv}} | |||
| == A RFCU from way back... == | |||
| ] requires attention from you. '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 13:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Ah, fabulous. ] ] 13:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I thought it'd make your day :) Cheers, '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 13:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Backslashing proxies used for abuse == | |||
| {{IPvandal|72.52.143.186}} apart for the blanking vandalism and attacks seems to be a backslashing proxy | |||
| sugests he is {{Vandal|Stevenak}}. Proxy appears also to be used by whoever used {{IPvandal|83.98.189.50}} which is also backslashing. I can't tell if it is a open proxy or just used by one person. I have noted it on AIV, and leave the info with you as your name is on the ]. ] 09:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *If it's backlashing the above concerns are irrelevant--block and be merry ;). Looks like someone nailed them both already. ] ] 13:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Discussion request == | |||
| Since you expressed an opinion on ], I would appreciate it if you could comment on ], in particular as to whether it accurately represents the way Misplaced Pages works (and feel free to reword it if it doesn't) and as to whether it is correct that we generally discourage (but not forbid) voting. Thanks. (]) 08:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Puzzled == | |||
| ? --] ] 18:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Human error. I'm terribly sorry about that. ] ] 18:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Fixed. ] ] 18:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Thanks. --] 18:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == "the Cabal's Own Pikemen" == | |||
| ..your ideas interest me and I wish to hear more <nowiki>:)</nowiki> --<font face="Verdana">]]]<small><sup>]|]</sup></small></font> 04:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Template: UK heritage stations== | |||
| Can you please enlighten me as to why you have removed this Template from the Ffestiniog and Welsh Highland Railway stations, and substituted it with a template for stations being operated by one of the TOCs or Network Rail? ] 18:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Because the template was identical, save formatting, and its deletion had been requested. ] ] 19:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I suggest then ] is used instead of ]. This allows a linkable caption to be used. See ] - I have also editted ]. Thoughts?? ] 21:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Aren't those the same template (doesn't the former simply redirect to the latter?) ] ] 21:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That had escaped me having previously worked on ] to get the caption incorporated prior to the move to ] (see ]). All is now clear. ] 22:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006 == | |||
| The ''']''' of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. | |||
| <small>This is an automated delivery by ] 22:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC) </small> | |||
| == Lillywhite Campaign Article == | |||
| Now that you've closed out the deletion debate (and have asked that the discussion sorrounding any content changes be moved to Discussion page of the article), it is okay to remove the deletion notice from the article page - correct? (the notice itself states that it can be removed once the discussion is closed). Just thought I'd ask anyway. While the content can certainly be built upon in the article, it seems that there were more users that wanted to keep the article (alongside a few merges) instead of delete - particularly because Wiki policy was cited. The user Milchama was primarily pushing on the opposition - which is fine - but my concern is his/her intent might be malicious considering how he/she user talk pages with deletion requests. Let me know your thoughts, and if you'd like to remove the notice... thanks! | |||
| *Yes, I forgot to remove the notice. It's gone now. ] ] 19:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==re: ]== | |||
| Ah, yes, I will add it to my to-do list :) ''semper fi'' — ] 20:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Checkuser page of ] == | |||
| *Hey, I'm waiting about for 2 months for checking user of ] Can you please take a look? Here the link , Thanks {{User|Zaparojdik}} 18:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **It doesn't appear to have ever been listed on the main page. I'll go ask a clerk about it. ] ] 16:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not only was it never listed, it was apparently '''created''' as a closed archive which explains why it never showed up in the unlisted category. Weird. Listed now. ] 17:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi, you closed this but your closing has been blanked by the nominator. Can you sort this, please? ] 00:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for sorting this. ] 00:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Fiddling with the pharaohs... == | |||
| You've changed all the pharaoh succession boxes from one form to a basically identical form. Now, it looks like there's no cosmetic difference, but was there actually a vital reason to alter all of them? ] 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Vital? No, I couldn't claim that. I do think there's utility in having all succession boxes using the same internal template, in case that system ever needs to be overhauled. It didn't make sense to me for the Pharaohs of Egypt to have an independent system. The template, created by Emsworth, dated back before the standardized succession box system was commonplace and its continuance felt like an anachronism. There shouldn't be any cosmetic difference either. ] ] 01:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Ping == | |||
| "You've got mail" ] 05:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Let me wake up first ;). ] ] 11:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **It's not especially urgent. ] 12:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***No, but interesting in its own way. I've responded. ] ] 12:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Bobabobabo == | |||
| I know that you are uninvolved in this matter currently, but I need immeadiate assistance with this user, and you're the only checkuser/bureaucrat who I can see is online. If you use mIRC, please contact me there.—] (]) 22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Charlie the Unicorn on deletion review== | |||
| An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. ] 13:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Another vandal == | |||
| Hey, can I get you to take a gander at the guy who keeps (several times over the last two weeks) vandalising ]? Thanks in advance.--''']]''' 14:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ? == | |||
| You'll understand this question: ''What on earth was that?'' ;) --] 21:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==] popping up again== | |||
| Hello Mackensen, ] indef. blocked {{userlinks|Maior}} for DRV tampering and subsequently you blocked a sockpuppet {{userlinks|Maior1}}. This user has been coming back time and time again with sock after sock. Could you take a look at ]? Thanks. ''(]])'' 07:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC). | |||
| ==]== | |||
| This is wrong. His surname was never Hepburn. It was always Stewart. I note you have (properly) previously queried this. If you are an administrator, maybe you have the authority to correct this major heading error. ] 17:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *So many thanks. ] 10:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lǐ (李) (surname)== | |||
| Following your closure, and prior to taking it to DRV, I would like to understand exactly what you consider to be the grey area in the policy about the use of Chinese characters. Admittedly, it was a complex debate. I do not believe that a default keep per no consensus is justified, as this would apparently be in violation of ], and overturn a strong consensus arrived at when ] was drawn up. | |||
| Furthermore, it appears that some editors were attempting to use the AfD to decide policy, which I believe is completely the wrong forum. I feel that the default keep of the article sets a dangerous precedent: It is one thing to use characters which could theoretically be recognised without their diacritics, but sinograms, like arabic and sanskrit are different. I would ask you to prevent vigorously wikipedia's descent into anarchy. ] 02:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *AfD isn't the place for that, and I considered that as a matter of disambiguation both sides had a point. It wasn't a keep either, it was no consensus, because there was none. ] ] 12:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Spanish Gibraltarians== | |||
| Mackensen, Im assuming goodfaith but I dont understand your reasoning. If wikipedia guidelines state that an article cant be deleted unless there is a rough consensus to delete, and such consensus is not found, why did you delete it? Please explain this to me, otherwise I can only assume that you are abusing your position as an admin!--] 18:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I have explained my reasoning already. Consensus isn't just the counting of heads. I looked for those keep and delete arguments which took Misplaced Pages policies to heart. I also looked back to the previous AfD and DRV for guidance. Based on all these things, I determined that there was a general consensus to delete. Best, ] ] 18:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == I would just like to say... == | |||
| I would just like to say that I love admins who evaluate arguments instead of counting votes. That is all. Thank you. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diligence''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For holding up ] and believing that ] on a recent ] case. --]<sup>]</sup> 02:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| ==]== | |||
| I noticed you deleted this page because the vote was to delete, but I counted, and it was a tie.--] 03:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *AfD is not a vote. ] ] 03:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''Actually its a keep by vote count''' Keep 18 Delete 17 Neutral 1 . ] please reverse the delete since the results are contrary to your claim. If it is not a vote then on what basis do you delete the page? At the very least the result is simply no consensus , meaning leave the page as it is--] 04:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)--] 04:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Also , would you kindly post the vote count at the top of the ] page so that we can all clearly see whether there was a consensus reached or not?--] 04:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Again, AfD is not a vote. Please read up Misplaced Pages's policies. ] ] 11:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Perhaps , but how can you say consensus was achieved when there were move votes to keep than delete?? As far as I can see this was a incorrect implementation of the AFD process. My suggestion would be that you restore the article, because it was deleted prematurely and wait until we achieve a consensus. --] 12:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***I can say that because I've read the relevant policies, and I'll do no such thing pending the outcome of deletion review. Please take a gander at ]. ] ] 13:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Big Fight Special == | |||
| What you did to ''Big Fight Special'' was not good. Many articles on what appear very trivial issues make up a good 60% of English Misplaced Pages. If you've got two weeks annual leave from your job, I can link you to a few of them. What now if I begin to rewrite the article? Will you delete it again? ] 15:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Any closing administrator would have done the same thing. What you decide to do is entirely up to you. ] ] 15:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/E-Sword (second nomination) == | |||
| Why'd you delete ]? The only comment calling for deletion was from the nominator. I see no consensus that it should have been deleted! Not having sources is not a criteria for deletion. I was not involved with that page or the project at all, but I think you made a mistake in closing it the way you did. --] 15:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Look, the need for verifiability is non-negotiable. It's irresponsible to create articles without sources. I can't help it if people arguing keep ignore fundamental policies. ] ] 15:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::] states that ] should probably be addressed by cleanup, not deletion. --] 15:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Furthermore: the AfD did not bring up any problems about verifiability. You acted out of process. If you saw problems with ], you should have been the first to comment about it -- you shouldn't have closed it. I encourage you to restore it. Otherwise, I think this calls for deletion review. --] 15:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I considered that, but this wasn't the first nomination. Editors had two years, and two nominations, to fix it up. Again, they're free to create an article that has sources. And the AfD most certainly brought up those issues. You can't prove or disprove notability without sources. Any assertion of notability without sources is no assertion at all. My actions were completely within process and I stand by them. ] ] 15:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I do not believe the page was a recreation of deleted content. Can you confirm? --] 15:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I can confirm that the ] deleted it because it was an advertisement. That was two years ago. I believe that the old database crash lost those deletion revisions, but that debate definitely took place. This is a different article, but suffered from the same problem: absent reliable, verifiable sources, it is an advertisement (that it also read like one is almost beside the point). ] ] 15:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===E-Sword on deletion review=== | |||
| An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. ] 16:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC). | |||
| *Duly noted and expected. I have responded. ] ] 16:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Short and sweet == | |||
| Kudos to you. See above for recent reeasons why, but also for your general kudo-worthy-ness in times past. <br/>] 23:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Arbcom== | |||
| I'm quite bemused by your vote for geogre - you oppose because he's too valuable an article space contributor? By similar logic, presumably those candidates who are excellent admins are also opposed by you for their vandal fighting (etc.) prowess? Or are we just supporting expendable candidates to stop them from messing up articles? --] | ] 00:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Heh, that's a fair question. I hope we aren't at the ] quite yet. I commented to Geogre several days I ago that I viewed arbitration as a sentence, not a reward. I try to support candidates who I think bring the best balance of talents to the committee. My ideal candidate is a mix of janitor and article editor, preferably one with loads of free time (one thing that strongly recommended Paul August to me). I also look for at least informal experience in dispute resolution--preferably the person defuses situations. ] ] 00:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **I'm not sure what circumstances lead to your disillusionment with Arbcom but I'd hope candidates appreciate the time required for the job, certainly, having read geogres numerous (lengthy) and well reasoned responses to just about anything ever asked of him, I think he has the time..... Regarding dispute resolution perhaps a serious point; appeasement has something of a chequered history. I'm rather dismayed geogres candidacy has provoked such opposition, he stood up recently, to what a number of people saw, as abuse of power by certain individuals and appears to paying a price for that. In a community of volunteers if wayward individuals are attempting to assume power beyond their remit, is appeasement the best course of action? --] | ] 01:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***I'm not calling for appeasement, and I'm not entirely disillusioned with the Arbcom. My remark about sentencing has more to do with the high workload and corresponding stress. I think my best statement on administrators and potential abuse of power was made during the last Arbcom election (]), and I'll not restate it here. I take the view, broadly, that the best possible outcome of dispute resolution is that the group of editors concerned patch things up and go back to editing the article. Obviously this isn't always going to happen, but it remains an admirable goal. To that end, we need to get people talking to each other. This strikes me as less adversarial than collegial. Now, in reference to the abuse of power, that represents, in my view, an unusual set of circumstances not likely to be repeated, and I prefer that we not build policy or procedure on a boundary case. That being said, I'm prepared to concede that I'm wrong. If in the next year we are confronted by a massive abuse of power from established users it will of course be necessary to re-examine the existing structures. It would be my hope that we don't come to that. ] ] 01:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ****Thanks for the chat. Extraordinary circumstances aside, I think he'd be pretty good at dispute resolution but we'll leave it there. To quote Curb your Enthusiasm "A good compromise is when both parties are left equally miserable.". Cheers. --] | ] 01:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == reference desk comments == | |||
| Can I interest you in commenting about the ongoing situation at the ref desks? I'm starting to suspect nothing will work except bring an rfc against one or more of the worst offenders, but I'd like another opinion on this before proceeding down this path. -- ] <small>(])</small> 02:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] for new administrators -- ] 03:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)]] | |||
| Just wanted to stop by and tell you that I was honored to see myself listed ]; I'm taking my inclusion as an example of many-hattedness as a compliment, rather than as an example of being ''really stupid'' to take on so many (per point #2). <tt>;)</tt> <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ]</span> 03:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Well said, Mackensen -- ] 03:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] unblocked == | |||
| Hi Mackensen, I've lifted an ip block for ] (] <small>•</small> ]) on <span class="plainlinks">] (] • ] • • • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font>)</span> which you blocked back in August as a compromised host. nmap returns the following: | |||
| <pre> | |||
| % sudo nmap -v -P0 -sA 84.114.131.26 | |||
| Starting Nmap 4.11 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2006-12-06 16:37 EST | |||
| DNS resolution of 1 IPs took 0.00s. | |||
| Initiating ACK Scan against chello084114131026.5.15.vie.surfer.at (84.114.131.26) at 16:37 | |||
| The ACK Scan took 35.41s to scan 1680 total ports. | |||
| Host chello084114131026.5.15.vie.surfer.at (84.114.131.26) appears to be up ... good. | |||
| Interesting ports on chello084114131026.5.15.vie.surfer.at (84.114.131.26): | |||
| Not shown: 1668 UNfiltered ports | |||
| PORT STATE SERVICE | |||
| 111/tcp filtered rpcbind | |||
| 135/tcp filtered msrpc | |||
| 161/tcp filtered snmp | |||
| 162/tcp filtered snmptrap | |||
| 201/tcp filtered at-rtmp | |||
| 202/tcp filtered at-nbp | |||
| 203/tcp filtered at-3 | |||
| 204/tcp filtered at-echo | |||
| 205/tcp filtered at-5 | |||
| 206/tcp filtered at-zis | |||
| 207/tcp filtered at-7 | |||
| 208/tcp filtered at-8 | |||
| Nmap finished: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 35.437 seconds | |||
| Raw packets sent: 1774 (70.960KB) | Rcvd: 1709 (68.360KB) | |||
| </pre> | |||
| It looks clean, but shortly after I unblocked the IP, I remembered that "Leaderofall" fits Enlighter1's pattern of ] names. Could you please double check this host for me? Thanks -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">]]</span></small> 05:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree that it isn't a proxy, but I also think that Enlighter1 is still on the other end. I suppose we could do a trial unblocking and see what happens, but those so often end in heartbreak, pathos, and discredit...] ] 12:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::But also in exposing more sockpuppets. I suspect ] - same Reuters ect edits today. ] 13:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes indeed. What was it I said about heartbreak? Re-blocked. ] ] 14:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Well, my suspicions panned out (I hate when that happens). {{Vandal|Universalgenius}} is definitely an Enlighter1 sock and he's coming from the usual place. I've blocked indefinitely as it's obviously a static IP. ] ] 14:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You may want to run a checkuser on {{checkuser|Leaderofall}} then. Likely a sleeper account in that case. How did you detect that the host was compromised in the first place? Just intuition? -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">]]</span></small> 14:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Damned if I can remember anymore. I must have seen something in the nmap results that I didn't like (open IRC port maybe, who knows?). In any event, it's clear that this is Enlighter1's address, and we'll just have to sit on it. Leaderofall is definitely a sockpuppet and I've tagged him as such. ] ] 14:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::He went on a spree a few days ago using proxies. If you want I can dig them out for you if you want to tag or run further checks. ] 14:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sure. ] ] 15:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==], ], ]== | |||
| ] was deleted per ]. I've proded ], ]. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—] <sup>(])</sup> <small>2006-12-06 08:57Z</small></i></span> | |||
| == Stonnar == | |||
| It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from {{{{{subst|}}}#if:Stonnar|]|an article}}. Please be careful not to remove content from Misplaced Pages without a valid reason, which you should specify in the ] or on the article's ]. Take a look at our ] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. <!-- Template:Test1a (First level warning) -->* | |||
| *] was deleted per ]. Please don't misuse the warning templates. ] ] 15:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==What are you doing== | |||
| why? what is <nowiki>"{{db-spam}}"?</nowiki> ] --] 01:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Well, it was tagged for ] back on November 21 by {{user0|Calton}}. I deleted it the next day, on the grounds that it read like an advertisement. ] ] 01:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:18, 7 December 2006
a childish brainless cocksucker