Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 37

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unblocking User:JackPotte

Resolved. User unblocked. EhJJTALK 01:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the current rule "You may vote [...] not be blocked on more than one project" excludes me unless if you let me a second chance, after the only serious beginner error I've done three years ago. 88.164.137.127 (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you seem to be a a very established user on frwikis... with many edits and also advanced rights. I think in this case it is worth giving you a second chance. Let's see what others say. -Barras (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think there won't be a problem--Eptalon (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Jon@talk:~$ 21:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Put a request on your talk page from that account so that I know its really you and I will unblock you. The only issue you had happened once and was on your user page so I think it warrents an unblock. And it appears others do as well. So I will unblock once I see an edit on your talk page. -DJSasso (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea whether this user should be given or not a second chance because I was probably on wikibreak three years ago. The reason I write here is only to emphatize on a several months block about a quite similar pseudo. This French wiktionary is the place where JackPotte has more than 50 000 edits. ONaNcle (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That block is on a malfunctioning bot, not him. Either way (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done User_talk:JackPotte.
Concerning the two recent blockings of my bot it's not really a personal error, but linked to these collective decisions: straw poll on all the fr.wikt bots and on the fr.w evaluations system. 195.101.224.204 (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been unblocked. I probably don't have to tell you but if you go spamming again you will likely get blocked again. But I trust that you won't. -DJSasso (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, I'll do my best. JackPotte (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Import

Resolved. Templates imported. EhJJTALK 01:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin please import Template:Cite gold platin and Template:Cite_music_release_notes from enwiki? Thanks. NotImportant (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both imported. -Barras (talk) 08:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for importing. :) NotImportant (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overdue RFDs

Resolved. RfDs have since been closed. NotImportant 11:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Little FYI: There are two RFDs that are at least two days overdue Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 02:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another import

Would be useful it Template:Let Go tracks is imported. Thanks. NotImportant 11:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -Barras (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Boredsohere

I'm quite concerned about Boredsohere (talk · contribs · count), especially since his third edit was to User:Snow funn at tall and placed a barnstar on his own talk page. I suspect he's been here before. EhJJTALK 22:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd block on duck. Snow fun at alls CU data is all long expired so unless a CU kept a personal copy a CU won't be much help. -DJSasso (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I have blocked based on the very big likelihood it is a sock of someone. Don't necessarily believe it to be snow funn at tall. But he has been commenting on the pages of users who haven't been here in years etc. Clearly being disruptive. Another admin is welcome to reverse, but I think its a vandal/disruption only account if not a sock. -DJSasso (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note they are blocked for sockpuppeting on en.wiki as well so its not a stretch to think they did so here as well. -DJSasso (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I checked him as per the block and his statements. No socks here. But might be worth to keep an eye on him. -Barras (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha sorry guys but this is my only account on here, but I do want to know If I can put have a second account just for the heck of it as long as I don't break any other rules... [[User:Boredsohere|BORED!so chat]] (BORED!so chat)

Flood flag

Hello, could I have the flood flag for stub sorting? Thanks, -Avicennasis @ 05:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Granted and removed by Peterdownunder and Sonia --Bärliner (talk) 10:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance

My editing history has suddenly become blank, not to mention my talkpage. Could an administrator help me?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could a crat

...restore my admin flag please? Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 11:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -DJSasso (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DJ. :) Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 11:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Active admin wanted

Resolved. Blocked, from next time, please use this page. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone block 82.198.250.6 (talk · contribs) please? They are vandalising and creating nonsense pages despite warning. PrincessofLlyr talk 12:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason that we have the vandalism in progress page - at least make an effort to use it before bringing trivial matters over... Goblin 13:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Gordonrox24![reply]
Thanks and sorry. Will remember that for future. PrincessofLlyr talk 13:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. Ydennek is now unblocked and on probation per proposal II. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. Closed as unsuccessful by Jamesofur. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 18:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of a crat noticeboard :) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bluegoblin7 6 is due to close. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 22:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would close, I have voted and not recused, but 13/7 is a clear promote here (in the absence of a crat board), in my opinion. If the community is happy for me to finish the job, let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Bluegoblin7 6 I started a chat. Jon@talk:~$ 23:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources

When you are on the English Wikipedia project and you click the source/cite button, you get a nice little choice of what type of citation (weblink, book, etc) then a form to fill in... it does the rest. We don't have that. Having that would be an improvement. If anyone is well versed in coding that kind of thing... would have my eternal gratitude. Warm regards, Jon@talk:~$ 21:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What source button? You sure you don't have some script installed? -DJSasso (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • What we have:






What they have, and note the "cite web, cite book..." examples, those will actually open forms... nice easy forms.:






Jon@talk:~$ 22:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same one as simple on en. Perhaps its a skin based button. I will let someone else look into it. -DJSasso (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't looked but I wonder if you have it installed in your .js DJ. THe cite button is a part of en:Wikipedia:RefToolbar_2.0 which is default for all users on en (through global js). I love it, I didn't even realize where it came from until Sue (Gardner) got excited about it and wanted to know where it was from a couple months ago. James (T C) 03:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so how do I get it here. :) Jon@talk:~$ 03:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Several users have attempted to import it; none of these work afaik. sonia 07:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To add the refToolbar 2.0 here add this to your vector/monobook/common.js:
mw.loader.load( 'http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Grunny/refToolbarSetup.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript' );
That should work fine. Let me know if you have any problems with this :). Cheers, Grunny (talk) 08:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me, thanks --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resigning permissions

I would like to resign all my permissions here other than rollback. Thanks, Kansan (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think only stewards can remove +crat; not sure if a formal request at m:SRP is required. sonia 06:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am a steward, and could do that, but for the record, I think it would be best to drop a line at this page, so that there is a "trail"....--Eptalon (talk) 07:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
For the record: Rollbacker/Patroller would be good (those are currently covered with the other flags). I woould hate to patrol your edits...--Eptalon (talk) 07:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't have a problem to remove the crat and admin bit as requested here, but prefer a request on SRP for the os tool. -Barras (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the request there for him. -DJSasso (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by Dferg. -DJSasso (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Your permissions have been removed. Thank you for your work. -- Dferg (talk · meta) 14:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin...

...please redirect User:Kennedy to User:Ydennek and User_talk:Kennedy to User_talk:Ydennek? I'm fine with them being protected too. Thanks Ydennek (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Ydennek (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OS

Hi, can I have my oversighter flag back please? I gave it up so Kansan could get some experience but he's resigned as an admin and we're down another due to Barras giving it back Thanks! fr33kman 21:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no reason why not. Fr33kman left in good standing. I think it would just be good to have another one at least back. -Barras (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As long as there's nothing in Meta policy preventing this happening without 'formal' request, give it back. Goblin 22:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC) I ♥ PeterSymonds![reply]
This is ok as it is. We just need to link to this and to his old RfO. -Barras (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can't do this locally, by the way. I'm in favour, as we all are, but this isn't something we can do here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can't do this locally, right. But everyone knows this. If people are in favour, a bureaucrat only need to make a request on m:SRP linking to this and to his old RfO. -Barras (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests%2FPermissions&action=historysubmit&diff=2693232&oldid=2692013 Jon@talk:~$ 13:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right has been granted. Finally at least one more is back :-) -Barras (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! fr33kman 16:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back. Don't forget to request to join oversight-wp-simple so I can add you to the mailing list (which looks like it needs some updating). EVula // talk // // 18:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

We need to keep an eye out for unattributed derivative works. i.e. Toyota Prius which I'll be deleting shortly if it does not become attributed. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 15:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC) ...Federico García Lorca. Jon@talk:~$ 15:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could do the more constructive thing and actually attribute it? -DJSasso (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Therein lies the issue. If I don't, who will? I desire to discourage the practice altogether. Here is a better suggestion, lets put a notice about derivation in the edit wondow. That would be better than {{sofixit}} as you suggest. Kindly, Jon@talk:~$ 00:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

protection request

Could an admin fully protect my userpage as I have retired. Thanks! Crazymonkey1123 (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-protected the apge you have given; atm I don't see a need for more protection (or for protection of the talk page) --Eptalon (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia sock puppeteer moving to Simple English

Resolved.

Per this edit to an en.wp editor's talk page, it seems that the socking vandal originally known as MosesBeacon has decided to spread his nonsense to the Simple English Wikipedia, under the name User:HelloHello9369. I've tagged their first article (Australian Pun Convention) for deletion as vandalism, but you guys ought to be aware that this may not be an end to it.

Regards, 88.109.60.234 (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's gone now. VOA, trolling etc. -Barras (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHU

I broke this somehow... the new requests are not making their own section with a header... any ideas? Jon@talk:~$ 02:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions are telling people to use {{Usurp2}}, which doesn't have a header. It says on the Usurp2 template page that it shouldn't be used, as it is simply called on by {{Usurp}} which has the header and status included. So we should be using the Usurp template, same as the {{Renameuser}} template, and it should be probably be subst'd as well (unless there is a reason we were doing it like that). :) Cheers, Grunny (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... I see now. Template documentation is meant to be read, so I should have checked that. :) Yes, we subst... I usually do unless the code will interfere with discussion in the edit window. Jon@talk:~$ 03:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be archived more frequently. It looks bad to have stale stuff lying around. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mh... you can just do it yourself and archive the old stuff. This doesn't require any extra rights. -Barras (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since we don't have a crat board...

I'm going to take a bit of a break from administrative functions for a while. I intend on asking for the tools back at a point in the near future. Kindly, Jon@talk:~$ 07:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you wanting to retain your flags? fr33kman 07:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note Jon, I do hope to see you back and good luck with whatever you need the time for :) James (T C) 08:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for flood flag

Resolved. User told to request flood flag if more than 30 minor edits are to be done within a short period of time. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the work I've been doing with AWB has been flooding the new changes page. Could I have a flood flag, please? Is that something that will be in place every time I use AWB, or would I have to ask each time I want to use it? Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 04:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to ask for it each time to turned on and off, as it hides your edits from "recent changes". It should only be used for minor edits. At quiet times, like most of today, flooding is not a big problem. If you plan more than 30 minor edits ask for it to be turned on. --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diff needs to be deleted

Resolved. Diff deleted by Eptalon. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this diff from File talk:Evaporation.png--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 07:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Eptalon (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You guys know about....

...this, right? It relates to the User:Lugurr thing, as well as the recent cavalry charge. As with any big EN hooplah, there's SIM spillover Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically if you would have had some patience you would have likely seen it get deleted in a week for lack of simplification by me. Instead now that you opened an Rfd it can't be speedied anymore. So when it closes as no-consensus like it will probably it will end up staying on the wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I've done loads of speedy's after the RfD was created. I just close the RfD as deleted, or not, and don't see anything wrong. fr33kman 01:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I can apply IAR but on a controversial subject like this I wouldn't. Because any speedy that is objected to is supposed to be recreated (except obvious vandalism)... so as long as there is a keep vote at an rfd its been objected to. -DJSasso (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DJ, for starters, it seemed clear to me that a speedy tag wouldn't have been appropriate...a) because it had been speedily deleted and then recreated, b) because Lugurr would've clearly objected to it, and c) because he may actually be trying to simplify it (though it's still inappropriate for other reasons). And with regard to closing it, discussions are closed by policy, not votes. The deletionist votes have a stronger policy backing than the keepist votes, and all of the keepist votes save your procedural one. If you want it gone, which apparantly you do, I'd first withdraw your procedural vote, and then wait for most of the established editors to vote delete. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been perfectly appropriate. We speedy any article that hasn't been significantly simplified. Lugurr being the author wouldn't have mattered because he was the current "author" of the page. And yes, if it does get simplified it may very well be a decent page, however we won't know that now because you are racing to delete it. I don't want it gone, I think it is probably a notable organization or it wouldn't have sources and get the publicity it gets. I just think in its current form it isn't simplified. Thirdly policy doesn't necessarily dictate the close, consensus does, which can sometimes deviate from policy. Instead of being rational you freaked out and decided to go the most drama filled way which is what you always do. -DJSasso (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"A decent page"? Seriously? The article has been deleted 18 different times on Wikipedia, and is forever embroiled in controversy. Look at that thread...tens of KBs long. We should spare ourselves that fate by nipping this article in the bud Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is controversial doesn't mean it isn't notable and can't be a decent page. The controversy itself probably makes it notable. Wikipedia is not censored, the people seeking to delete it often (though not always) are doing it because they don't like the name. That is censoring at its worst. I don't like the name either, but it doesn't mean the topic isn't notable. -DJSasso (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lugurr indefinitely blocked

Per this action on En., I have blocked Lugurr indefinitely here on Simple. It is clear that the user has attempted to deceive us and is only here to disrupt. Either way (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...which was what I was saying all along and why I nominated the article for deletion in the first place. Since the user is indef blocked, he will never finish fixing the article, in which case the discussion should be speedily closed as delete Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and not that it matters here, but the block is being contested at EN's ANI. Could go either way at the moment. Support long/indef block for Lugurr here, by the way Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

Resolved. Fr33kman reassigned flags. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can a crat reassign me flags please? Thank you, Jon@talk:~$ 16:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block review

Banned Concensus is to block, thereby I am implementing a ban of this person. This means all past, present and future socks are also banned and are to be blocked on sight. fr33kman 12:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crat.

-sysops please. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 04:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for your service. -DJSasso (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flood flag, please

Could I have a flood flag? I want to use AWB to work on some CheckWiki errors. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe some stub sorting, too. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Post when you're finished --Griffinofwales (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but it looks like my changes are still showing up at Special:RecentChanges. Isn't the flood flag supposed to suppress that? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have to log out and log back in for the flag to work. -DJSasso (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that. This is a bug. I'll research the bugzilla. Jon@talk:~$ 00:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a bug, its an AWB thing...it gathers flags when you first log into it so if you are logged into AWB already it doesn't know you were given the flood flag and forces the edits visible. -DJSasso (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... I did not know that either. Perhaps in AWB bug? I posit there is a big somewhere with something ;) Jon@talk:~$ 00:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If anything its a bug in AWB. My guess is that it was never made to constantly check for flags. Since this is the only flag that would come and go. And as far as I know we are the only wiki who really uses it. Others have it but I don't think any others use it. This is the only wiki obsessed with not flooding the RC. So basically not a bug so much as AWB has never really been asked to constantly look for flags so it would probably be a new feature request technically. Ironically I am a Software QA guy by day but I guess my bug detector turns off at 5 haha. -DJSasso (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm done for today. Please turn me back into a pumpkin. ;) --Auntof6 (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Grunny (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New request

Could I have the flood flag again, please? I want to continue working on CheckWiki errors and do some stub-sorting. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, let's now when you are done. -Barras (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've enjoyed all I can stand for today. Go ahead and take the flag off. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Grunny (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Done with flood flag

Earlier, Fr33kman gave me the flood flag. I'm through using it for now so you can take it off. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. sonia 00:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting flood flag

Could I have the flood flag, please? I'm doing some work sorting articles into more-specific categories. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jon@talk:~$ 01:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 07:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flood flag, please?

Please give me a flood flag. I'm doing some recategorization, and then I'll do some stub sorting. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. sonia 03:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 06:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm finished for now. Go ahead and remove the flag. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Grunny (talk) 07:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could I have a flood flag, please?

I'm doing some category work, and it's turning out to be more than I thought it would be. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - let me know when you're done. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the flag. I'm done for today. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. -Barras (talk) 07:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NonvocalScream (talk · contribs) User:NonvocalScream You are correct in stating that the blocking admin has the first say, usually. However, once it is brought to commnuity debate the original admin can't just act unilaterally., and the community decided to block indef. You can not override community consensus just because you placed the block have now decided to mentor the user. Where was the consensus? for that? I have considered to reinstate the block. This would not be wheel warring because I did not priorly use them to block him. Please discuss this unblock! :( fr33kman 15:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, and with respect, there was no clear, not even a rough consensus for ban. I could have gone either way. I brought it to the community for approval and review. What I received was opinions straight down the middle. How I took that was "refer back to blocking admin", since consensus did not support a ban. Please re review the discussion. Jon@talk:~$ 17:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I will discuss my action, I have removed myself from this. That is to say, you may of course leave him unblocked, or reblock. I will not consider it a wheel war or anything of the like. I value my fellow administrators, all inclusive. Also, I would ask that before anyone consider a reblock, please consider how unfair it would be to the editor that, the perception being; we can't get our shit straight. Very kindly, Jon@talk:~$ 17:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above was pretty clearly closed as a consensus to ban/block, and so any unblocking certainly is out of course. I don't think it's a case of the wiki being unable to "get their shit straight" but more specific editors not following what are clearly defined policies etc. I've seen a couple of things in the past couple of days that I would, personally, view as an abuse of administrator privileges (this being perhaps the most 'minor'!) though sadly I am lacking the current time to 'write these up' as I am (supposed) to be on holiday - no doubt they will therefore go unrecorded... Just my two pennyworth worth anyway. Goblin 18:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Microchip08![reply]
Yes, it was closed as a consensus to ban. But a closure does not a consensus make. If you read the discussion you will see there is no consensus for anything. Also, the above closer has a habit of adding things to closures that clearly was unmentioned by the discussion, e,g, this, look at the closing remarks, and then look at the discussion. It is askew. So, yes, I disregarded the closure. I'm not in a group of sheeple, if something it incorrect, it is incorrect. Also, write up whatever you want, scream admin/sysop abuse where ever you want, it will not change the fact that I am operating in accordance with the discussion. Jon@talk:~$ 20:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with your opening point, scream, though I believe that in this case there was a consensus, albeit weak. I also agree with your comments regarding some of the actions of the user above, one of which I alluded to above and is probably the most serious of the misuses - I certainly have no intention of writing up something as minor as this (In the grand scheme of things!) were that incident to go "unpunished". I have no problems with the unblocking (Think I might have given a slightly different view to that in my initial message, not my intention) but more the manner - an additional discussion would have been better (Imo) before the unblock was granted. Whatever: I don't care enough to keep this going any further! Goblin 21:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]
  • Not an admin, have an opinion: Discussion was closed too soon. Should he have been unblocked? Probably not. Was there a clear overriding consensus? no. Should we have kept talking to be sure that an indef was what we wanted, leaving him blocked in the interim? Yes
  • And for the record, he's not indef banned on EN, at least not yet (he's only banned for a year), and to my knowledge he hasn't exhibited the major problems that got his lengthy block on EN, so I would strongly oppose anything harsher than a ban for longer than his ban on EN, and would prefer a block of two to three months Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closure as ban was... rather unexpected. Let's see. PBP was vocal against an extended block (and thus I assume a ban); Barras and Eptalon were clearly unhappy about the block of a constructive contributor; Peterdownunder expressed the same sentiment, and Gotanda and I seem to be leaning toward a time-limited block. I'm not sure where the consensus to ban came from.
    I think what's happening here is that general opinions are getting in the way of sensible discussion. By this I mean opinions about Racepacket as an individual or about editors who come from enwiki after getting blocked there, or maybe about users who are constructive but don't simplify pages. Can we please stop making actions until we're actually sure what the community wants? To make my stance absolutely clear, I'd be happy with a final warning on the basis of his actions here, with the mentoring proposed on his talk by scream being a good step. Or if the community feels that enwiki actions should be considered also, then I'd support a time-limited block no longer than the one on enwiki. Tit-for-tat blocks aren't exactly tit-for-tat if they are more severe than the original block. Otherwise we're just pulling banhammers out of thin air. sonia 23:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no consensus for a block (or anything), even if you count Sonia and Gotanda for the indef. Since the community couldn't agree, the blocking admin (Jon) was well within his right to unblock the user if he wished to do so. If the community had spoken for a block, then it would have been improper. However, I think that the closure of the discussion should have been discussed before any action was taken on the user, as that is where the controversy begins. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just me or are we going to have to do this whole discussion all over again? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I have more at stake here than most, having spent so much time contributing to science topics. I fear it does great harm to have pages of the kind Racepacket put up on our wiki. It is damaging to young readers, who may then think 'science is too difficult for me', and damaging to our reputation in the WP community in general when we permit such flagrant abuses of our most basic remit.
    Several of us communicated with him when the nature of his pages became apparent. Though polite, he never took on board what we were saying, and in not a single case did he make any of his new pages genuinely simple. Instead he brought over more highly technical stuff and dumped it here, leaving most of it unedited except for trifles.
    Verbally he denied the seriousness of the situation, changed a few words and said he had simplified it. He was either unwilling or unable to comply, yet continued to bring over the same kind of material. If we hadn't stopped him, we'ld have a hundred such pages here by now. I would say he was effectively non-responsive to criticism.
    It cannot be an accident that he arrived here after the ban on enWP. He did not arrive here (as I and others did) because he believed in the goals of Simple. He arrived so he could carry on as he used to, but was now unable to, on enWP. The enWP ban is directly relevant to us and we should respect it. They are very well organised for dealing with editor misbehaviour, and a one-year ban is a big statement. I for one am going to be very unhappy if we let him back in. To do so would be a betrayal of our remit. And no, I don't think the issue needs to be discussed again. The right action was taken. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mh... I think I should comment here as well, as I was one of the first people complaining about the block and then was kind of responsible for the unblock. Just as first, I want to mention in reply to Macdonald-ross above, that simpleWP is not straight for young people and pupils/students. It is also for people who learn a foreign language. From my experience (I'm a scientist myself), most of the sciences work only in English. I know (being a German) that students here often prefer to read science for studying in English even if the study is in German, because it helps them later on. Not all people are that good in English to understand the standard English. Highly scientific stuff is usually not understand by everyone. I just want to say that not only young people read here. As for the other stuff. I had some mails with Racepacket. I then offered him to mentor him and help him with the article under some restrictions to not annoy people. This includes not to post DYKs before I gave my OK to the article and that it is generally a simple hook. Also we agreed that he is not going to create new articles in our main namespace. Firstly we will simplify the existing stuff, which I've already done (Diels-Alder reaction, etc). All new upcoming articles will firstly go into his name space, so we can work on it and simplify etc. I think with a mentor on his side he can make a great contributor. I talked to Fr33kman and he said that he is willing to unblock if I mentor him and leave him an official note on his talk page. That's what I did. Now, I'm working on the articles to simplify them as good as possible. And tbh, those few articles don't make our situation worse, just look at our 1400 other complex articles and the round about 1000 unreferenced articles. Hope this helps a bit to clarify the situation. -Barras (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've not commented on any discussion recently really, and haven't even read the original ban discussion, to be honest. I have read the comments above, and I for one would feel comfortable letting Racepacket edit with Barras guiding him. Take it for what it is worth. Cheers. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 19:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

Would someone please move Comfortably numb to Comfortably Numb? Right now the second one redirects to the first one. This is to get the capitalization correct. I can't do it because that second one is a redirect. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done sonia 05:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 06:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josip Broz Tito protection please

Resolved. Article semi-protected for a month by Eptalon. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin please place Josip Broz Tito under a semi protection? IPs have returned to push their POV into the article, giving undue weight against the subject. This has been protected several times already and could use another semi protection to prevent the POV pushing. Either way (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ermm, aren't you an admin? :) fr33kman 00:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd classify myself as an involved administrator so I'd rather someone else lock it. Either way (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can an administrator please move Template:Infobox Television to Template:Infobox television over the redirect, without suppressing the redirect? It makes more sense in proper English. Television is not a proper noun. Thanks.  Hazard-SJ  ±  23:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done fr33kman 00:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.  Hazard-SJ  ±  00:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Winehouse RFPP

Resolved. not done, issue moot fr33kman 16:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Amy Winehouse (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

There's been some vandalism on her page lately. Can we get a one or two-week silverlock until her death blows over? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure its really needed, there doesn't seem to be that much but perhaps for a really short term period, i.e. a week? Ydennek (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No - certainly not needed, nowhere near enough vandalism to warrant a protection; we'd be looking at multiple reverts a day, every day to make it worthwhile. And what on earth is a 'silverlock'? Certainly wasn't a protection option when I had the mop, and sure it hasn't been made (The drop down MediaWiki page doesn't say it...) Goblin 20:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC) I ♥ PeterSymonds![reply]
 Not done I'd not define that as loads, but either way we have the editors and bots to aid if need be. fr33kman 20:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify...a silverlock is semi-protection...because it is symbolized by a silver padlock. Likewise, a gold lock sis full protection, a blue lock is move protection, etc Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So call it a semi protection then, as that's what it is. Not a clue where you've got your fictional terms that no-one else knows of from. Goblin 00:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Microchip08![reply]
Don't they call them that on en? Not really sure as I don't edit there anymore but I'm sure I've seen that before... Ydennek (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no longer relevant - closed fr33kman 16:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jim Michael creating underpopulated categories

Jim Michael (talk · contribs)

What it looks like he's doing is copying the cats from EN wiki, and if redlinks show up, creates the category. Most of these categories he tags with popcat while creating them, have fewer than 5 pages, and no effort has been made to integrate existing pages into them. Pas, Faux pas, or Non pas? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I can't believe this! You come here to AN expecting an admin to solve the issue and you haven't even spoken to the new user and tried to engage them and find out what's going on. You have just assumed bad faith right off the bat. That just takes the cake! fr33kman 23:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't, as it's the categories that are the issue as much as the user. The question I'm asking mostly is if we should QD or RFD the categories or not. I'm not seeking punitives against JM; and I can't talk to him until I figure out whether or not the categories should be deleted or not. What's with you and DJ jumping all over me...I can't sneeze without getting criticized around here Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Fr33k, he is not a new user. He has over 500 contributions and has been active for over a year. So BITE is not an issue Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It comes down to politeness at the end of the day. You go to admins when what you should have done was ask him about his actions first! Coming to AN without warnings or discussion, that's just wrong!! fr33kman 02:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
People keep "jumping" on you because you don't stop and think before you take action. Assuming good faith applies to new and old users alike. Coming to ask admins to sanction someone when you haven't even had the courtesy to message the user is extremely bad taste and utterly rude. If you want people to stop "jumping" on you then start thinking before you act. -DJSasso (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm missing the part where I asked for sanctions. I have moved my discussions to simple talk Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 03:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is what the admin noticeboard is for...so its implied. -DJSasso (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]