Category talk:Active administrators of this wiki/Archive 2014-15

WikiIndex - wikis, wiki people, wiki software, and wiki ideas
Jump to: navigation, search
Attribution note - this page was created by copying relevant text from Category talk:Active administrators of this wiki and pasting it here. Therefore, for attribution, check the edit history of that article, thanks.
NOTE: this Category talk:Active administrators of this wiki/Archive 2014-15 page is an archive of older discussions.
Please place new comments on
the currently active talk page of this archive, thanks!

— * 2014—2015 * —[edit]

Table of Contents[edit]

I've been curious of this for quite a while . . . why do our TOCs auto-collapse and only display one level of headings, being permanently collapsed for all sub-headings? Category talk:Active administrators of this wiki/Archive 2012-13 will show what I mean. It never used to be like this. Sean, aka Hoof HeartedAdmin / 'Crattalk2HH 16:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I've no clue! Sorry, MarkDilley
It was because of these 2 edits by me in order to deal with User_talk:Zhuyifei1999#Template:TOCright if this is correct. It is possible to expand the TOC with the [+] button on the left (for a single heading) or with some class= attributes (for a single page). If this does more damage than what it fixed, feel free to revert. --YiFei | talk 03:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Would you mind undoing the appropriate edit(s) yourself? I'm not sure which one is the one needing the undoing, and I don't want to break anything else :-/ Sean, aka Hoof HeartedAdmin / 'Crattalk2HH 23:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 Done Just disabled toctree. Some may look better, some may be uglier. --YiFei | talk 00:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[edit]

I suggest that Mark or Raymond try to get this Domain and forward it to ASAP.Manorainjan (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I would probably wait till it dropped, and did you see on the CommunityPortal - Ray talking about changing the wiki to Index.Wiki or something using the .Wiki TLD? ~~ MarkDilley
The one got nothing to do with the other. I do not mean to move, just to get another domain and to forward to this one, whatever 'this one' may be at that moment. If WikiIndex moves to I would still get/keep and forward to Manorainjan (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Awesome, feel free to grab it! :-) ~~ MarkDilley
I will not acquire another domain, got more than enough already. Best would be to form a public charity which will hold all relevant domains.Manorainjan (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

What defines "active"?[edit]

Are there any rules how to get, keep and loose admin rights here on the Index? Manorainjan (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want admin rights, you can ask if you want! Though in my very humble opinion, I personally prefer that folks 'earn their stripes'. I think I was nominated (without ever asking) after being a prolific editor here for about 9 months; yet others seemed to have asked for it and got it from virtually day one (not really the best way, as it can cause friction). Keeping those rights is generally a given – I know of only one to lose their admin rights, but then she did quite blatantly abuse said rights, and created a lot of animosity, and drove away a couple of very good editors. Sean, aka Hoof HeartedAdmin / 'Crattalk2HH 20:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I definitely do not want to become admin! I'm wondering what active means, because there are admins listed which did not visit this Wiki within years. Manorainjan (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
OK! ;-/
I guess you are comparing sysops listed in this category against our MediaWiki listing? I don't think there is any hard and fast rule. I'm aware of one admin who barely edits these days, but regularly 'checks in' to make sure all is in order. Do you have anyone in mind who ought to be trimmed from this category? Sean, aka Hoof HeartedAdmin / 'Crattalk2HH 21:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
You do a lot of guessing ;-) Why I'm asking is, because what I have in my mind how frequent an admin should show up or how contactable an admin should be differs widely from what I see here. Because of my idea what is the requirement I also do not want to become admin because I wouldn't fulfill it. I prefer to have my active phase here, while I have some time and then I got different things to do.Manorainjan (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, I got it! In reality, we are volunteers here, and so we arn't 'contracted' to be available on WikiIndex for X-amount of hours or days. Remember, we all have RealLives which can sometimes get in the way of our WikiIndex 'duties' :ppp Sean, aka Hoof HeartedAdmin / 'Crattalk2HH 11:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Funny place to be for an image[edit]

AsiaCommons_logo-topbann1.jpg Asia Commons AsiaCommonsWikiLogo.JPG AsiaCommons logo-topbann1.jpg

Maybe someone can create a bot which can correct this kind of mistake. That could save hundrets of edits. Manorainjan (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Please elaborate I don't understand what the mistake is here. Koavf (talk) 06:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
When You look at the DIFF I linked to above, You see Sean Fennel replacing 'wiki_logo=' Image:AsiaCommons logo-topbann1.jpg which was correct, with which would most likely be the server side location of the thumbnail of the correct logo picture. Therefore the file-page does not "know" that the logo is used by anyone. It looks deserted and may be deleted. Recently I marked several such pages as {{delete| unused}} which I now think should not be deleted until the funny links are corrected. I hope that can be done by a bot. The notorious inactive-template may have its aggravating effect on the confusion. Manorainjan (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Are we sure to convert image urls into image links? I see there was a consensus not to do so in 2006. --YiFei | talk 17:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I see not the least reason why this 'work' was done. And I see tons of reason why one should never do so. I assume that one problem which could not be fixed properly was covered up by another anomaly which now causes more problems as to be expected whenever one does not do the 'right' thing. So, anybody who can explain why one wanted to create a bot that was to mess with the image URLs? Actually what I was upon was to ask for a bot who would reverse the mess. Manorainjan (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Many years ago, but I am remembering why Sean Fennel wanted to do this. It links directly to the wiki instead of the image file, making it a better experience for folks. I think we can now add something like "url link =" for file format, so it isn't as big of a concern, sending people to image file pages. Even though this is a Template:Inactive wiki now, the image link works like I described: Attitude Foods Wiki. ~~ MarkDilley
Some of the conversation is here and right below it, the talk about hard linking. ~~ MarkDilley
Would these bot edits be okay for you guys? (File usage shown & logo links to target wiki) I will run this over Category:All. --YiFei | talk 23:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
For me that is fine, because the image-page now lists the Wiki page where the logo is used. — preceding unsigned comment added by Manorainjan (talkcontribs) – 00:31, 21 August 2014‎.
Any objections to start this task on August 23? --YiFei | talk 23:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support ~~ MarkDilley

YiFei - your bot test looks fine in principle, but I ask two questions.

  1. Can you omit the |link= — I would much prefer to be able to click on the logo, and it go to the page file here on WikiIndex (otherwise, how else can we have a direct link to our own files?). The big-text title next to the logo is more than adequate to link to the wiki.
  2. Can you amend the edit summary? Something like [[User:YiFeiBot|YiFeiBot]] (owned by [[YiFei]]) replaced bare URL of uploaded logo to [[wikilink]] of logo??

If you can do those alterations, then run another small batch of say 10, then we can see how that works out. If we agree, then you can unleash your bot!! ;-)))) Sean, aka Hoof HeartedAdmin / 'Crattalk2HH 23:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure, 10 test edits. --YiFei | talk 23:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I would much rather a logo link directly to the source. I think it is a fair use of their property and it is better for the person web browsing than to end up on a page about an image file. I don't see that adding anything to the project. Even though it is a Wikipedia / MediaWiki standard. I am open to a group consensus though ( I was thrilled about YiFei's suggestion I must say! :-). ~~ MarkDilley
I like Hoof Hearted's suggestion about an edit summary, here is my diff: [[User:YiFeiBot|YiFeiBot]] (operated with community consent by [[YiFei]]) replaced bare URL of uploaded logo to [[wikilink]] of logo ~~ MarkDilley
I think it's perfect to leave the linking of the logo as is, to the picture page here. And first of all, I only wanted the unorthodox URL of the Logo to get back to normal. But if You are thinking of different targets, then I suggest to let the target of the Wiki-URL open in another tab/window. I do not think, that most people who click on the name of the Wiki want to leave WiniIndex at that point. Everybody who edits the Entry dos not. I think, all links to external should open in another window b default. But that's another discussion! Manorainjan (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
ahhhh, I like that! ~~ MarkDilley
So, do I go with |link= or not? --YiFei | talk 10:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg SupportManorainjan (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Manorainjan, Sean, Mark: Last thing: Do I go with |link= or not? --YiFei | talk 06:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You mean like what they talk about here? Host the image file locally, but have it externally link to the remote wiki? Leucosticte (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's make my POV clear. When we upload a logo or other image file here to WikiIndex, if it is copyright and we claim fair use, then ideally we should include the url of the originating image file on our file page. Those said logos / images we have uploaded should ALWAYS be used on other WikiIndex articles by way of ONLY [[wikilink]]s (and never a bare url). The logo shown in our infobox, when 'hovered' with our mouse pointer, will effectively show a 'plainlinks' link - and therefore when clicked on, should go to our own uploaded version (if it is copyright, the viewer can then click on the off-site link if they wish - which clearly shows the 'double arrow' icon). Still on our own articles, if a viewer wishes to go directly to that wiki, then they can click on any of the top four external urls (to the right of the logo [when not in wide logo format], which have the double arrow icon at the end of their url, which is the standard for external off-site urls). We do NOT want all wikilinked logos to go off-site when clicked on, as described in the above example by Leucosticte. So that means NO to |link=. Sean, aka Hoof HeartedAdmin / 'Crattalk2HH 12:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Vote for YiFeiBot to change logos to wikilinks[edit]

Voting about YiFeiBot changing access to our files in Category:WikiLogo via Logo-URL to [[File:Your wiki logo.jgp]].

action example your vote
Leave as is
Start YiFeiBot [[File:ACDCWikiLogo.jpg]] Symbol support vote.svg SupportManorainjan (talk), Symbol support vote.svg Support Arcane (talk), Symbol support vote.svg Support TeraS (talk), Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Sweetie Belle (talk), Symbol support vote.svg Support Sean, aka Hoof HeartedAdmin / 'Crattalk2HHSymbol support vote.svg Support EarthFurst
No opinion ?
Continue 'endless' discussion .............. Symbol support vote.svg SupportLeucosticte
Thanks, ✓ Running --YiFei | talk 03:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I like the File:Name|Link= solution. I do not think that linking to the file image page serves the wiki community. ~~ MarkDilley

Both have pros and cons, uploaded files can be categorized, hotlinked files save extra work and wiki space... --Wolf | talk 12:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Wolf, this discussion is only about logos which have already been uploaded here on WikiIndex, and how we link to them in the article infobox. ;-)
Mark, your method defies the common principles which differ between external links and wikilinks, and is a detriment to the wiki community! Sean, aka Hoof HeartedAdmin / 'Crattalk2HH 13:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll go with the one without "|link=" per the majority above. Sorry, Mark. --YiFei | talk 10:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 Done some time ago --YiFei | talk 08:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No need to be sorry, but I take issue with Sean's statement that linking to the wiki through the image is detrimental to the wiki community. Where is the backing for such, an outrageous, statement. ~~ MarkDilley

maybe You can discuss this with him in private? (just trying not to have ForestFire ;-) After coming to a resolution You can both publish it here. Manorainjan (talk)

Getting back to the topic of displaying logos at WikiIndex: I think we all agree that after a local copy of a logo has been uploaded to the WikiIndex, any WikiIndex page that displays that logo should use the syntax that begins "[[Image:..." rather than the syntax that begins "", even though both display identically the same local copy of that logo.

Could someone summarize the "right" way(s) of logo linking on the WikiProject:Logos page? Thanks. --DavidCary (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Getting the email function to work for all[edit]

Table of results[edit]

All chat about e-mail now collected here -> Help talk:E-mail


moved to WikiIndex talk:Deleting pages


I discovered the existence of this article just now. I've nominated it for deletion because it's not under my real name--as my understanding is that you prefer such articles to be under real names, and I prefer not to give out mine--and it mentions nothing about me except the biased claim that I started a 'war' and the fact that I am a former administrator of a relatively obscure, non-notable wiki. ('Uncyclopedia' refers to the forked version, which some consider an impostor and all know to be less popular than its Wikia-hosted sister.) If there is to be an article on me lurking somewhere, I would prefer that it not come off as an attack, as this one does; but I also prefer that such articles not exist.

I've since turned up several other pseudonymous articles, all of which appear to have been copied here by Sweetie Belle from Mature Spongebob Fanon Wiki. Many of them have deletion tags on them and all seem rather poorly written. As the articles in Category:Pages for deletion have often been there for a few days, and I'm confused as to what to do, I thought I'd drop a note here. My apologies if this is the wrong place. Llwy-ar-lawr (talk) 03:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Policy pages[edit]

I suggest

  • to have another Category:Policy which indicates a higher level of binding than Category:Guidelines
  • protect the editing of those pages limited to Sysops under the policy that content is added only after discussion and decision.
    • and if possible not protect the editing of the associated talk pages to allow input to the discussion from everywhere. Or alternatively associate extra talk pages to them to allow 'common' input.
  • Add a Category:SysopEditOnly to all pages that can only be edited by Sysops, so that on can see this limitation before attempting to edit them.

Manorainjan (talk) 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we not; that would be contrary to the instructions set out at WikiIndex:Protected page. Leucosticte (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This 'instructions' are mainly written by You and not valid policy agreed upon by the community and therefore subject to frequent change and therefore baseless as arguments to support Your suggestion. Do You really think we would not see the all so obvious intention and style of Your edits on account of Your recursive argumentation? Manorainjan (talk) 22 September 2014

Wikis develop policy in two major ways: the first is through actual practice and the second is through statements of policy. Some wikis have an "authority" whose decisions are the ultimate basis for policy. Some don't. However, it's generally true for wikis that anyone may document existing practice. As part of this sometimes norms are stated. Unless there has been some formal approval process, such statements are not necessarily binding; however, if they stand unchallenged for a long time, and if they represent actual practice, looking at the edit history and noting that the changes were made by one person is not a collaborative approach to wiki function. If it's wrong, fix it! However, again, "fixing" a long-standing policy would not be a great idea unless the fix enjoys some level of consensus. Always, it's worked out by editors who collaborate so that the "instructions" to users and administrators are clean and, in the end, do enjoy consensus.
It is also generally true on wikis that even established policy is not some sort of proof that an action is "wrong." Rather, good policy will reflect a general consensus, so that users may be warned that an action may not be supported by the community, so that they don't waste their time. Policy becomes especially important as to setting restraints on administrators. "Administrator" is generally a volunteer position, and to become administrators, usually individuals will promise to serve consensus, but it is very easy to fall into "I'm consensus." So administrators should ideally be very careful about violating policy, and do so only with consultation with the community, preferable in advance, but otherwise immediately.
Leucosticte has very broad and extensive wiki experience, since before I first knew him, which was roughly in 2007. Yes, he has often ended up entangled in disputes, but he still has broad knowledge. It may appear that Leucosticte attempted to use policy language he created as an argument. However, in fact, he was just pointing out the contradiction, and suggesting that the policy guide -- or, I'd add, that the policy be changed.
The only edit of Leucosticte to that page was [1]. What he wrote there would be a common, standard wiki policy. Accusing him of some personal agenda in that, with no actual discussion or attempt to change the page, was out of order and uncivil. What he wrote still stands, having been expanded by an administrator. Ironically, the admin protected the page with Leucosticte's material incorporated. Under those conditions, of course, the page may still be changed through suggestions on the attached Talk page. --Abd (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The said admin was Sean who was out of his mind around that time and did several edits hastily. He is not active here any more. And I could not correct it ;-) Manorainjan (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Problem with Troublesome WikiIndex User[edit]

A small heads-up: One of your users, a User:Manorainjan, arrived on WardsWiki a couple of weeks ago, tucked into gnoming for a bit, and then decided to start putting CategoryNone on all 16,000 or so uncategorised pages. Several of us asked him to stop and at least discuss whether his actions were needed or not, but he insisted on continuing and grew increasingly belligerent, uncooperative and rude, so he was banned.

Due to the old Wiki software involved, enforcing a ban is performed by a 'bot that automatically reverts the banned user based on various heuristics. Now User:Manorainjan is persistently trying to get around the 'bot, and is still trying to put CategoryNone on various pages. It's all rather laughable, though it's a tad irritating because the WardsWiki RecentChanges is getting rather cluttered with his efforts.

Obviously, there's not much that can be done about it other than let him run out of steam, but I thought it might be worth mentioning in case he causes trouble elsewhere and folks start looking to see if there's a prior history. 18:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC) Dave Voorhis

Ok, thanks for letting us know. --Wolf | talk 21:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

As of November 31, 2014, User:Manorainjan is spamming WardsWiki with repeated attempts to restore approximately ten pages that he created -- and which were deleted -- when he was banned. The pages are content-free, consisting mainly of mockery and links to Dilbert cartoons, so his behaviour is vandalism. 17:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Dave Voorhis

I have only one comment to this:
  • When Dave wants to talk to me about WikiWikiWeb matters, he can do son my talk page there. Oh, I see, he deleted it ... bad luck!
  • There is no logic in bothering admins of other wikis with his problems local to WikiWikiWeb. He could have complained to admins on [Wikipedia] as well or call my mother ,-)

Manorainjan (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not a complaint to the admins here, but -- as I wrote above -- it's a "heads up", i.e., a warning. It's also evidence of a pattern of behaviour if you do similar things elsewhere. 20:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Dave Voorhis

It's an accusation, not evidence (I didn't see any diffs), and the portion of the pattern of behavior that occurred off of this wiki is irrelevant to this wiki. A user who does poorly on one wiki may do very well on another. Leucosticte (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks As an admin here along with User:Peu, I appreciate the heads-up. Koavf (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • What I notice here is the site of this notice. WikiIndex has never, to my understanding, developed coherent structure. The report here might have belonged on Wikipedia on WP:AN. However, a lot of damage has been done on Wikipedia through anon edits which alleged stuff about a user that then attracts everyone who ever had a problem with the user to pile in. I'm a bit concerned about encouraging anonymous attack. However, it appears that this person did identify himself, and Manorainjan effectively confirmed that identification. So we can take this as a heads-up from a fellow wiki administrator. Leucosticte is generally correct that it is a strong tradition on wikis to give users a chance to collaborate on a new wiki, and often they are successful there, where they were not successful on another wiki. People learn, and sometimes people also run into wiki dysfunction on the old wiki that doesn't exist on the new one, or that is not dominating. --Abd (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I never regarded this lamenting as anonymous. Even unsigned the first times (on my talk page) it was clearly Dave. But it is not a heads-up at all. Admins of this wiki know me sufficiently. I had been banned here and did not keep mum either. If any heads-up would have been of any use, it would have been Dave who should have got one from here before I went to edit WikiWikiWeb ;-) That might have saved him in time from the delusion that "hard-banning" me on an account-less wiki would save him any time in discussion with me. So, his head actually hangs down and he is only complaining uselessly out of helplessness. He still hopes, more coding to harden the ban will solve the conflict. Also I like to add, that I'm successful on that wiki. I'm still working on it, using it and are learning a lot. Dave gives me just the right amount of resistance and friction that I need for my purposes. Funny thing is, that even after being hard-banned there and after he hoped to never see me again, he calls me here a WikiWikiWeb user. ;-) Manorainjan (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Manorainjan, in his editing of this section, demonstrated "problem-user" behavior.[2] I am seeing evidence that the incivility and combativeness of this user may have done severe damage to WikiIndex. Such users may lead administrators to err, as one aspect of the damage, and WikiIndex may have lost Hoof Hearted over this. The response above shows a complete lack of respect for the right of a wiki community, through its administrators, to maintain order. It is not about "keeping mum." It is about cooperation, and collaboration, the purposes of wikis. --Abd (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for undeletion[edit]

I request WikiIndex:Inclusion policy to be undeleted together with its original history. the deletion was not warranted. Manorainjan (talk) 11:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Undeletion I won't oppose it if another admin wants to undelete but I don't understand the purpose of it when a discussion about policy is already happening in the first place. Drafting up policy is fine and well and it's not necessarily a bad thing if someone writes it unilaterally but if it's done while a discussion is happening about that proposed policy and posted in the WikiIndex: namespace, then it smacks of bad faith to me. Koavf (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This page was not spam and it was no danger to wiki. Therefore the single handed deletion was unwaranted. For this simple reason it should be restored, no matter what kind of discussion is or was going on wherever. The way to deal with this page has to be different. For example:

  • Adding a note that this is a proposed policy and not a valid one
  • moving the proposed policy to the talk side
  • asking the author to correct his mistake to pose a proposed policy as a valid one.

Just to name 3 possible ways to deal with conten a registered user created. Deletion is no way to fight opposing opinions. That could and should be regarded as misuse of power. Manorainjan (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I restored it, it has only 1 revision and seem not to help very much... --Wolf | talk 13:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not think this wiki will explode if we let it so for a day and give Nathan time to do better. ;-) Manorainjan (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Koavf is an administrator without broad administrative experience. I recommend this to him: be very careful about using your tools when you have strong opinions about a user. "Suspecting bad faith" would not be a reason for deletion. If you thought the page was inappropriate in the WikiIndex namespace, moving it to the WikiIndex talk space would have been a quick fix, that would not involve use of admin tools. Deletion in this case created a reasonable suspicion that you were using-tools-while-involved. --Abd (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Theme Park Insider[edit]

I see that WikiIndex once had an article Theme Park Insider (using the logo image:Themeparkinsiderlogo.gif) until a WikiIndex administrator deleted it.

If there never was a wiki there, then I agree that is completely off-topic and that administrator did the right thing.

However, the page "New 'Wiki' Articles on Park Guide Pages" seems to imply that, at least back in 2005, there was once a wiki there. If so, then perhaps Theme Park Insider should be undeleted, and then added to category: dead as per the rough-draft WikiIndex:Inclusion policy and WikiIndex:How do you categorize a wiki that is no longer.

Should I undelete and categorize this page myself? --DavidCary (talk) 06:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Categorizing I took a look myself and didn't see any wiki content but they did at least mention having a wiki about a decade ago. I think your course is appropriate. Koavf (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Since there are no objections, I went ahead and undeleted Theme Park Insider and categorized it in accordance with the rough-draft WikiIndex:Inclusion policy, WikiIndex:How do you categorize a wiki that is no longer, User talk:Elassint#Deleting Wiki from WikiIndex, Category: Wiki Status, etc. --DavidCary (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2015 (PDT)

I plan to unblock IP[edit]

I blocked this IP for harrassment/trolling. I have since been contacted by the user of that IP via a private IRC chat and we had a long discussion about what is and what is not appropriate behavior on WikiIndex and they have promised to show more discretion and civility and have acknowledged they should have done so in the first place. With that in mind, I am releasing the block pursuant to their continued display of good faith. Arcane (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Seems perfectly reasonable, Thanks for the message. I see now you've decided to do so. --Wolf | talk 08:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

We may need to make changes to our blocking policy[edit]

See here for more information as to the specifics, but I found I could not change a block to let someone edit their talk page only, and while I'm not entirely sure we should do away with infinite blocks, Michaeldsuarez does bring up some valid points I feel we should consider. Arcane (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed Blocking to edit talk pages is a good idea. Alternately, we can encourage blocked users to contact admins via posting as an IP (although that does not respect users' privacy) or sending e-mail through WikiIndex (although that is not transparent). Koavf (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I would recommend a six-month maximum on blocks. Leucosticte (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Block maximum Why? Koavf (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
For the reasons specified at Leucosticte (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

sending e-mail through WikiIndex is blocked as well. I tried it, when I was blocked. Manorainjan (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Vandal and impersonator - please block and revert[edit]

User:Mike Rosoft is a vandal and impersonator account - an account of a cross-wiki vandal (David Beals) whose modus operandi is to spam images and videos of ceiling fans, often by overwriting existing images, and then to bring attention to his own vandalism (see [3]). He also harasses administrators who take action against him - including me - such as by creating impersonator accounts. (*I* am the Wikipedia user Mike Rosoft.)

Please revert his overwriting of File:Lead follow or get out of the way.jpg and File:Carl mcbride.jpg, and block the user. - 21:18, 22 June 2015 (PDT)

Thanks, I was asking Koavf for come action, but did so myself --YiFei | talk 21:25, 22 June 2015 (PDT)
And thanks Koavf for deleting the old revs of images --YiFei | talk 21:31, 22 June 2015 (PDT)

Username change[edit]

I want to change my username to stranger195. The reason I've put my real name in the first place, was because I've thought the warning at the register page was that to put your real name in the username. --Luis (talk) (guestbook) 02:59, 1 August 2015 (PDT)

realname is preferred but pseudonym is also ok. How comes You saw the text on the registration page as a "warning"? Manorainjan 01:47, 3 August 2015 (PDT)