Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Jonas D. Rand (talk · contribs) Regarding his personal attacks, I have warned him on two seperate occasions and so has User:FastReverter here. I advised him that it is his last warning, any further personal attack issues and he will be blocked. Kennedy (talk) 09:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

We will have to outline what is unacceptable and what isn't for Jonas. It seems that, going through his talk page archives, he has been accused over and over of PA. Thus, whilst he may have a borderline aggressive and reproachful method of dealing with all problems, he may not think them Personal Attacks himself.
Comments such as these are probably not considered Personal Attacks in Jonas' eyes, and shouldn't lead to a block. But others, more obviously not a passive-aggressive way to solve problems, such as this, would lead to a block.
We're not bending the rules here for one person, it's simply his way of solving problems (which others see as violating WP:NPA) which needs to be fixed rather than a block. Basically, unconstructive PA = block. Constructive/Attemping to solve problem PA = no block. --Gwib -(talk)- 10:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I basically agree, except for the last sentence: "unconstructive PA = block. Constructive/Attemping to solve problem PA = no block." - I say Recurring PA = block I too am not bending rules for him. It is his way of dealing with issues, and I have been accused by managers of being agressive too (in real life) though I personally don't think I am. However, I have never waded into an argument that was not mine and blindly accused people of things of which I have no evidence. Hell, there wasn't anything to suggest that the editor was anything other than a concerned new user. Jonas took it too far, as he usually does. He should come down off his high horse and see that we, the great unwashed, do not have an alterior motive to writing an encyclopedia. Kennedy (talk) 12:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
There was also this one a couple of days ago from his IP. In addition to his personal attacks, Jonas also seems to have POV issues at times. This, for example, is considered a "more neutral" heading to him. When I removed that section again, Jonas readded it saying "Not an opinion, who thinks that these policies are humane or not harsh?". I've only been here for a week or so, but even I can see that Jonas is disruptive and resents everything about this wiki. Either way (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
He does barely anything of use here, and it seems to me he is spending his time here as some kind of martyr or rebel to point out all the faults in the system. He doesn't seem to realise that his kind of person isn't wanted. If he would just communicate with the community in a positive and friendly fashion, things would not be like this. I'm slowly but surely starting to realise he's more of a net negative than positive to Simple. Majorly talk 18:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that Jonas's POV (I am under no circumstances demeaning them) just naturally make it hard for him to adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL. Jonas is extremely opinionated, and I'm not really sure that's a good thing. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 13:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

He has now put a soapbox on his userpage. All in favor for a ban for continuing to break policy, please say so. VandalFighterFR(V) Bad warning? 18:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ban proposal

I think it's time Jonas was banned. He doesn't seem to really care about Wikipedia, or its community, and seems to only be here to act as a self-appointed in-house critic and martyr. As I said above, I think he's net negative, and we'll be able to function better without him hanging around acting like a pest. Majorly talk 18:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Support I am actually surprised and perhaps disgusted that this hasn't happened a long time ago. -Djsasso (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Disruptive and just likes to complain. ѕwirlвoy  18:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Sorry, but under no circumstances is his kind of editor tolerated on this Wikipedia. Razorflame 19:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Ionas has no intention of conforming to Wikipedia conventions because his entire view on Wikipedia is flawed. He does not view this site as belonging to the Wikimedia Foundation, but somehow belonging to the people. Yes, Wikipedia does stop it's critics from throwing a massive tantrum on the website whenever they like - we need to work at optimum efficiency, and he has no right to free speech here. This is not a public website where we allow anyone to express themselves, and if people can't recognise that, they shouldn't be here. Wikipedia is controlled by the WMF, and everyone on this site needs to be happy with that. If he can't do that, he can go set it up however he likes somewhere else. There is nothing that we can say to him to change his opinions, it's something he needs to realise himself. Archer7 - talk 19:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Uses Wikipedia to insult people. VandalFighterFR(V) Bad warning? 19:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly support - reasoning is stated below. User is only a disruption to the community and the project. Obsessive soapboxing should be removed per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I would favor unblocking KA, Kate McA's suitor and the Benni-troup rather than deal with this for much longer. --Creol(talk) 10:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I believe the community's patience has been exhausted, which is the time a ban should be seriously considered. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support - Although the block has already been carried out Kennedy (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Long reply from Jonas

Edit conflict

OK, this is a rather long reply, I'd appreciate it if you read through it.

FastReverter's warning to me was later retracted, on his talk page. This should not be used as evidence for the claim that I personally attack people, as it is now an invalid accusation.

The comment about Armenians, I later retracted, which also does not count. I agree that that comment was out of line, and should not have been made.

The slaveowner edit is backed up by evidence. I was rather suspicious about the claim, which was already in the article, so I did a search for it. This is what I found. Thus, I reformatted that claim. This should not be seen as POV. It is not a POV whether one ownes slaves or not.

As far as the NPOV on the Death penalty, Either way can feel free to remove the section, unless a citation can be provided (like from HRW or Amnesty International). I am not going to fight over it.

SwirlBoy's response is invalid. He has, on three occasions, tricked me on #wikipedia-simple Internet Relay Chat channel. He has gotten me disconnected from IRC, by getting me to /nick to some of his registered nicknames, and has tricked me into having information linking my new (at the time) IP address to User:Ionas68224, when he lied about it being on Private chat. He also "pwned" me by pretending that he was on my side, against Creol, that he thought that Creol was abusive. Of course this was all a trick, and I believe his support for my ban above is just a way to gain power. He wants administrators against dissent to think he is on their side.

Majorly has only been antagonistic towards me. "He does barely anything of use here". Does Majorly? Is Majorly such a great editor that he can say that? If this was me saying that to Majorly, would it not have been considered a personal attack?

As far as FastReverter's complaint about a soapbox, users are allowed to keep their opinions about WP on their userpage. It is a review of how Wikipedia accepts certain people, and blocks others, and how we should act as educators, not antagonists to learning. The governance model and blocking policy is so Anglocentric, even though we are supposed to be educating those who do not speak English.

The ban reasons are pathetic. Really, come up with something better than that.

Also of note is the comments about "types of editors", by Majorly and Razorflame. This proves that Wikipedia tolerates certain "kinds" of editors, and those who are not of the "kind" of tolerable, good boy Wikipedian are banned. There you go. One more reason not to stuff Jimbo's wallet: Wikipedia is full of liars. Those who say that this is an educational project, yet block when there is an editor that the Project doesn't like.

Jonas D. Rand T 19:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course there is a type of editor that Wikipedia prefers, its called a non-disruptive user who isn't just here to cause havoc. -Djsasso (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not here to cause "havoc", or I wouldn't have created articles (listed on my userpage). "Disruptive" is positive when the system is wrong. For me to prove it is only my duty. I don't really disrupt, but I believe disruption is good when it proves the frailties of a system. Jonas D. Rand T 19:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but when we tell you repeatedly that we don't agree with your view of "flaws" and would no longer like them "demonstrated", it's our right to tell you to go somewhere else. Archer7 - talk 19:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I've volunteered on different projects of the WMF for nearly three years now. When I visit a project for something, I get a welcome, or something similar. When I came to simple to leave a note for Gp75, I got this gem. I'm new here, so I hope this is not the going rate for editors, but you sure were my first impression. I hope everything works out here for the best of this project. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Swirlboy's opinions is invalid for this reason, Majorly should not be counted for that.. Bullshit. Pure and simple. Others are not at issue here. Shifting blame and discounting the opinions of others just because you yourself have issues with that opinion is a moot point.

End result: YOU are on trial here. Your actions and behavior are the only things that matters. You are ultimately responsible for what you do. All the goading in the world does not give you reason to receptively act in the manner you do. Only you are responsible for that and only you are accountable for your actions. Random exceptions can be overlooked, but ongoing behaviour by you is solely your responsibility. The fact that you can not see that your actions lead to results (Cause and effect) is sadly just something you hopefully will one day understand. - What you do will always have repercussions. You want to act like a self-righteous asshole, expect others to treat you like one.

You will sit and whine about being abused and treated unfairly. You will say it is about the establishment trying to silence to voice of opposition.. You are a fool. As Archer said above, this is not a democratic, by the people (and apparently "the people" means those who agree with you) project. This is a group that is determined to work together as a group to put forward a product. AS A GROUP. You are not willing to, not have you ever shown a willingness to, work as a member of a group. You has pointed out time and again you can not even function as a member of your own flesh and blood family. You can not and will not ever accept being a part of a group who does not cow-tow to your specific beliefs and kiss your ass doing it. You are not a member of a team and as such should never be welcome here as you are only about pushing your own personal agenda and could care less about the actual product. You couldn't give a shit about us but expect us to respect you.. You are a silly little twit who has never done anything to earn anyone's respect. You bash others for their actions (ie. Majorly for his activity level in the mainspace) when you have not earned the right to even go there. Eptalon?, Cethegus, even Razor.. they made that remark I could respect it, but you have not earned the right. You have not put forth the effort to be allowed to bitch about him. You are all about what you see is wrong and what others tell you to think is wrong.. You do nothing to do what is right or correct the issues - you only toss out complaints. You do nothing to help and a world to hurt. You are not welcome. I may disagree with many people on certain things (ask Majorly) but I almost always respect their right to say them and their opinion (whether I agree or disagree). You- I have no respect for. You have done nothing to earn it and yet you DEMAND it from people. The only thing here that is pathetic is not the ban reasons, it is you thinking your behaviour is acceptable in general culture. --Creol(talk) 10:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Message to Jonas

Hello Jonas, Hello Community, There was a commotion in the admin community when I pushed through your unban, about 3-4 months ago. This community has given you enough opportunities to show your worth. There are probably many articles here that interest you, and there is also a lot to be done to get a fair socialist or even anarchist perspective into these articles. As an editor, you have been treated no differently than other editors. What is the actual result we have seen from this? - Most of your edits are still devoted to Userspace (or Wikipedia namespace), little is devoted to editing articles. A community is nice to have, but the community here is devoted to creating an encyclopedia. You yourself have written you will devote more time to editing Mumia Abu-Jamal. I am sure you also have a lot of information that can be added to articles like Ernesto Guevara de la Serna (Che Guevara), which is just a stub at the moment. You can also see that the opposition to your being here is growing. I think the only way to avert another ban is to radically change your editing patterns, and focus on articles. I also think that in the spirit of WP:NPA an apology would be in order to give to those you have offended with your bitey behaviour. --Eptalon (talk) 11:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


I have carried out the block, based on the consensus above. Synergy 13:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Automatic archival of this page

Hello, Simple talk has been submitted to automatic archiving, which seems ot work quite well there. The only problem there seems to be the amount of time to wait before archiving. Since the bot User:MiszaBot is working there quite well, I have also added this page to being archived automatically. Currently, discussions have 14 days to time out here. I think this might be a good start, given this page is much less busy than Simple talk. --Eptalon (talk) 11:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


I'm just cross posting, in hopes to get more discussion (consensus) at my request here. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Could I possibly have a 6 month block?

Title says it all really. Per my note at User:Bluegoblin7. Please leave my bots unblocked, as well as account creation by my IP and email by my username. It's all explained there, but if you want more reasoning i can give it. This is mainly to stop the "urge" of editing, and im choosing this option over others as password b0rking would prevent return, i dont think the enforcer works and i can get around it, so this is preferable.


BG7even 01:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I believe blocking to enforce a wikibreak is a nono. -Djsasso (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, afaik it has been done. If someone has another way of stopping me editing that would be great... BG7even 01:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a wikibreak enforcer code here on the English Wikipedia, that you might can alter for Simple. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
That's what I was referring to. I don't think it's working here yet (i cba to fiddle with it) and also I know all the ways around it... so yeh, pointless :P BG7even 01:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
No one needs to block you. Just click log out and switch off your computer. Majorly talk 01:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm with Majorly on this one. Also, if you could find another website that could distract you from editing on here, you could easily avoid logging onto this site. Cheers, Razorflame 01:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hehe ;) I've tried that. I went on a "Wikibreak" several days early, to find myself returning every day and looking at whats going on. I nearly edited earlier... (And all the other sites im on I have the same issue with, other wikis, a few CMSs... im asking for a block on all of them too). But hey-ho, i might go with the b0rking option if this is a no-no... BG7even 01:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can confirm that something like this works, I can protect the page for the time desired. Synergy 01:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

NonvocalScream tried to adapt the wikibreak for simple. I believe it works now. Say the word, and I'll protect it. Synergy 02:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Short answer: No.
Long answer: It works but that's only when I turn JavaScript on... which is rarely at the moment due to all the rickrolling going on. And anyway, as I said, i know the ways around it so it would be pointless - seriously, i'm addicted to Wikipedia... (is it sooo hard to ask for a simple block?!?!) BG7even 02:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Follow the instructions here. Also, could an admin fprot that page just incase it becomes widely used/transcluded? NonvocalScream (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely under no circumstances is a block going to be placed on you BG7. Its either this, or you just leave your computer turned off. Synergy 02:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* I have already got the code and it works if i turn .js on in firefox - which im not going to do. Also, at school, i cant turn it on ever... soooo therefore it doesnt work. Please understand that ive been using the WB enforcer for a long time and i know all the ways around it... else i would have just used it off the mark. BG7even 02:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
e/c Well the latter isnt an option, so i'll have to password b0rk and retire the BG7 account... unless i could get a global account lock... BG7even 02:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
BG... if you have to, every time you feel the urge to log on, smack yourself, or stick yourself with a pin. Admins cannot administer a block just because the user in question asks. Also, please don't do anything drastic like vandalizing for a block. You are needed here on simple, and we'll be waiting for you to return. So just log off, and get your affairs in order. Synergy 02:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
(Thats probably not the best advice :P Ive just been talking for about 5 hours about self-harm, suicide and stuff with someone whos actually done/attempted it all :P ) I don't know... (see? I said i would b0rk my password 15 minutes ago... but i still havent...) BG7even 02:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure we can't just block him?? It's for hie own good (he says it himself). We do need him, but if there is no other way, just do as he says I think. He can request to be unblocked if he wants. Yotcmdr✼ Merry Christmas ! ✼ 14:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I've blocked you as requeseted. Yotcmdr✼ Merry Christmas ! ✼ 14:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know about policy on, which is why I was unsure. But I know its policy on -Djsasso (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
And unblocked per clear consensus against. BG, stop being a diva and just leave already. Majorly talk 15:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"Hi good site" vandal

Over the last few days, I've noticed a vandal who uses multiple IP addresses to add "Hi. Good site." to articles (often replacing the entire content of the article). They've also added nonsense edit summaries when they do. Here are some examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Any clue(s) what, if anything, can be done here? Right now I'm leaning towards the "nothing can be done" because it's on totally separate IPs each time, it's always just one edit from the account, and it seems to be random what articles are hit. Any thoughts? Either way (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

All of the IPs involved trace to China (except one). One is a university address (Taiwan? Strange) while another one is that of a net bar. The rest are open proxies. The open proxies have been blocked. Hopefully this will discourage the vandal. Chenzw  Talk  14:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is another instance of that vandal: [6]. It was on the page Webpage. Cheers, Razorflame 23:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Its not a vandal, this has been happening for over 2 years now. Those are forum spambots, usually run on open proxies and since devs in the last few years have locked html tags, these bots can only do that much the best thing to do is block the ip anonymously for at most a month since those are proxies from China and we don't want to block legitimate users on that proxy....--Cometstyles 23:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll see if I can get my bot to revert them --Chris 00:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Just FYI, it's happening on more than one Wikipedia. En Wiki example

"Moved to Wiktionary" deletions

Admins, when you delete an article as "moved to Wiktionary," could you possibly update any links to these articles? Just browsing through some of the articles were deleted today, I see upwards of a dozen links in some cases that are now redlinked because they link to the deleted page. It would be best if these were updated (perhaps someone can set up an AWB on this?). Thanks, Either way (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I was about to work on mine when I noticed Jonas left a message for Gwib about him tweaking his block as to not allow talk page edits (while there was no abuse) citing Arb Com. I had to take care of that first. Synergy 22:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I had just replied to Jonas about the same thing. See User_talk:Gwib#Your_reblock_on_Jonas for Gwib's explanation on the matter, Either way (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

New pages (templates)

I've been doing some work. I've had to copy over some templates because they are either used in articles, or used in the BLP page I'm converting. Please don't delete them, if you do, let me know so I can workaround. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Jonas II

Jonas recently sent me this e-mail, requesting that I act as a messenger (I'm fine with my promotion, and guarantee that all sensible messages from Jonas to me (and hopefully other admins) will appear here). He proposes an account allowed only to edit articles.

I propose that a Wikipedia user creates an account called User:Jonas_editor, identifies their main account on that user page, saying on the user page that all edits with that account were made by Jonas Dalton Rand. The user will copy articles created by me on an external website. I also may point out edits to already existing articles, which additionally should be done with this account. I have not yet determined what website that I would like to do this on. The user will only make article edits, and create articles, but not discuss anything. Questions about the account should go to the main account's talk page.

I did not get banned for creating articles. Since poor writing was not the reason for my ban, articles written by me should be okay to include into Wikipedia. Who the articles were created by, and who originally proposed an edit has nothing to do with the quality of the article, unless the user only creates bad quality pages. Since I don't, I feel that there's no reason that articles written by me should not be submitted into this website.

Thoughts, comments, and questions are appreciated.

Jonas Rand

Thoughts, comments, and questions are appreciated.

--Gwib -(talk)- 22:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No way. I won't support anyone using another account other than the declared account holder (a lesson I learned in August). PeterSymonds (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Not a chance. Synergy 22:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
What Peter said. Learnt my lesson in August (and still serving time for it). A ban is a ban. Someone isn't going to proxy edit for you. SteveTalk 22:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out, this is in fact explicitly not allowed. Lingamondo (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
And what does that have to do with this project? (Oppose this anyway, Jonas should do something else.) Majorly talk 22:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I joined this project for the laid back atmosphere. I don't mind the drama, but I'm trying to avoid it these days. My first encounter with Jonas was not a very pleasant one. I looked into the history, however, I did not discuss heavy in the ban proposal. I'm still very new to this project. The editor is banned. I believe the editor should be allowed to move on. I think the only way I could support his unban, is with a mentor. Otherwise, I don't think I could agree with it. I do however, thank everyone for the welcome, and I have thus far found everyone I'm working with very helpful and likeable. This wiki, is a wiki with a true community. You have to protect that, that community. Value each other. Anyone who does not value, or who is divisive, can bring a small community grinding to its knees (at a stop). Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
He already had his second chance, I personally think this time it should stick permanant. -Djsasso (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick clarification (after some IRC chatting). I was not proposing anything. I was not suggesting an unblock, a mentorship or that we should follow through with Jonas' demands above. This was simply because he requested that this be posted here and discussed - which I've done. --Gwib -(talk)- 01:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Never. Trying to get unblocked on English Wikipedia, too (see here). I would gladly say "no" there, too. MathCool10 03:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Side note: Due to 12 edits after being banned over 5 time periods in the first 4 days of the year (9 IP, 2 from his main account and one from a hidden sock), I hard blocked his IP for one year as well (and the sock indef). The message here does not seem to be getting through to him. Jonas is not welcome here in any manner. He used all of his chances (and a few extras) and needs to just forget we exist and move on to other people to push his opinion on. --Creol(talk) 06:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, no way. No chance. Absolutely not. What happens if someone has a question about where it was sourced etc? We would have to contact him, and he would have to reply. Therefore he would be entering a discussion. Absolutely not - Goodbye and good riddance. Kennedy (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi protect please

Could an Admin please semi-protect this page please? Thanks.-- CM16 MLB  07:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Question: why is this even created here on Simple? We're not a webspace for you to get comments on your apology for another wiki. You spammed about a dozen users here for your own personal goals not related to Simple Wikipedia. I think that's inappropriate, but that's just my opinion. Either way (talk) 10:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a vague sense of soapboxing and some canvassing, however, as long as he asks only for comments on the letter and not our own personal involvement (for example, defending him on ENWP), then it can be allowed. Don't forget, userspace is not mainspace. --Gwib -(talk)- 13:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know this is userspace, not main space, but I still don't see how it's the most appropriate thing. It's essentially using it as a blog: here are my thoughts about something. Either way (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that CM16 meant well, but it would've been better not to blatantly canvass so many people. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 14:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's not beat him over the head with it. He was asking for help in a way, which is commendable. While I think it would have been better just to post to a couple people at a time, he is trying to better himself atleast so I will give him the benefit of the doubt. -Djsasso (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

To address all of you I needed a place to build my letter wikilinks and see them work, As I have banned from en I can't do it there, so I did it here so I can make it work first.-- CM16 MLB  22:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Sp declined. Let me or another admin know if there is vandalism in progress. Synergy 22:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

New section

CM, I commend you for taking positive steps. I do want to remind you to keep the English Wikipedia meta stuff (unbanning efforts) , off of the Simple English Wikipedia. Unless of course the community is ok with it. If that is the case, I won't resist. They are however, two seperate projects. Good job here and on your editing. Keep up the good work! Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you know

There is a discussion on crediting DYK editors Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Suggested_section here. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to reinstate Synergy

Hello all,

it looks like Synergy laid down his Admin privileges over a misunderstanding yesterday; I therefore propose to re-instate him. Please voice your opinion; If there is consensus, a bureaucrat can re-instate him on the 16th of this month. --Eptalon (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Uncontroversial circumstances; yes. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • He wants adminship back? Majorly talk 22:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. I feel it was my fault he resigned it... give it him!!! BG7even 22:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • If he doesn't want it before he feel confident about beeing an admin, don't give it to him, let him run for Rfa if he wants. If he does want it, give it back to him, :D Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 22:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Only if he really wants it: i'd like to see him comment here. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 23:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • He got bad advice, acted on it, double checked the advice and fixed his own error. May be worthy of a trout slap and certainly a *head-desk* moment, but not a situation needing de-sysoping. Had he not requested it, I wouldn't even have noticed the situation had happened... --Creol(talk) 00:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm sad that he wanted to be desysopped. TurboGolf 20:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If the community thinks that it wasn't that big of an issue, I will resume my duties as an admin. I was told offwiki by admins and editors who know and understand the headings issue, that it would have caused a major problem if I had not reversed it. A mistake of that magnitude was completely unacceptable, and from what I am used to, would call for a desysoping so I did what any responsible person (or at least I thought) should have done. Which was correct it and take full responsibility for my actions. It was never about "I don't want to be an admin", so if, and when the community agrees, I would not decline the rights being restored. Synergy 23:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to comment: my advice wasn't bad advice - just incorrect for the WMF. I went of extensive testing I did on my own wiki, and told Synergy that, but didn't cross-check with WMF devs. Synergy et al assumed that I had, and so Synergy made the page deletions. I accept I messed up, and i'm more at fault than Synergy. Thanks, BG7even 00:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't even know what exactly you did to make you want to give up the flag yesterday (when I asked, you blanked my post asking you why). I would definitely support him coming back as an administrator, but whatever happened is nagging at me ;). Cheers, Razorflame 01:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

He made this clear shortly afterwards: He was given poor/incorrect advice to delete all the [[WP:]] redirects, so the developers could successfully implement a bug that makes all WP: links automatically link to the Wikipedia namespace. After the redirects had been deleted, he double checked with Wikimedia tech folk, to discover that, had they not been restored, there could've been major problems when the bug was implemented. He considered this an erroneous error of judgement because he didn't check with Wikimedia know-how first, and thus, unchecked, could've caused significant problems down the line. However, he quickly fixed them, and while trouts may be reduced in price this season, it wasn't worth desysopping over (IMO). PeterSymonds (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep. I would have to agree with that statement. If it is a problem that was fixed quickly and at the time, it definitely does not mean that he should lose the flag ;). Cheers, Razorflame 01:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, restore the bit. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Hell yes. He admitted his mistake and fixed it. That is what I want to see of an admin, admitting when they are wrong. This is the kind of experience I like to see people go through. Less likely to be hasty with actions in the future. He will be better for it. -Djsasso (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
If he wants his sysop tools back, he should be reinstated as an admin. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 08:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't an issue for de-sysop-ing anyway, so I'd have no problem with him being reinstated. Fixing your own mistake once you notice was enough. A little embarrasment and a little slagging/heckling/trouting/laughing/pointing/name calling/burning at the stake/public flogging would have sufficed. Kennedy (talk) 09:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Result: Synergy reinstated, per general consensus --Eptalon (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Back to work. Synergy 16:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK credits

There is a straw poll to gauge rough consensus at this place. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

GFDL Complience

As noted here some articles were moved without attribution. Since there is a great number, is there someone with a bot that can fix them, or as a last resort, a deletion that could be executed so the articles can be reuploaded when the article maker has time to do them properly? Note that deletion is not prefered here, but fixing it is. I just don't have the time to at the moment. They are currently, and unfortunately. license violation without attribution. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, i'm going to bot it up shortly. I have been very busy with school, exams and my birthday this week, but next week will see me back to normal.
Just a note on the articles: The content directly copied are the iboxes, templates, cats etc. The articles themselves have been re-written, and once i've finished all the cats (in about 10-15 minutes) i'm going to start expanding them all with non-en.wp content. I have a feeling several will also be GA worthy ;).
I'm fully aware of the GFDL rules/regs and so it was carelessness on my part to not include the attribution.
Do we want a permanant diff in the attribution or would a "From Wikipedia" template/link suffice (As per what Wikia tell you to do, amongst other places)? If the former a bot would be harder to run and it would take me a week at least to get one running (as im a code noob, compared to maky others ;) ).
BG7even 16:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Code noob? You and I both. I've been fooling around for about an hour trying to get a bot up that will do this job. You do good work, I'm just trying to help you fix this, we all make mistakes. I think the best way is to null edit the article (template) and place "From:" or "Derivative from. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah just a from works fine, or some people say "based on article at x". As long as english wikipedia is mentioned so that others can go to that article and see the attribution. -Djsasso (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, that actually won't be too hard to do. I have a couple of ways of doing it that are GFDL compliant: swtrain:Template:From Wikipedia is my preference, and can be added to either the article or the talk page, so I might use that (we had legal boffs look into the GFDL at that site and its fine to do that). Comments? BG7even 20:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Just to be clear, you meant the edit summary of the article (noting where it came from), not the article itself (it needs to be there too, but thats an MoS issue, not a GFDL issue). Synergy 22:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
See {{Enwp based}} --Creol(talk) 23:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wheel warring over Barack Obama

I have serious concerns over the wheel war that is ongoing at Barack Obama. For those not following it: Gwib semi-protected the page for three days, it was objected to on his talk page by Synergy (and myself). Synergy unprotected it, and Gwib restored the protection ten hours later. These kinds of actions cannot occur on Wikipedia. In cases like this, an administrator needs to seek consensus before implementing changes that they know may be controversial (because of the "warring" that is occurring). Either way (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You forget to mention that I reprotected it with justification on my talk page. People should check my entries as well as others there against me before coming to a conclusion. --Gwib -(talk)- 12:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you did make a statement there. But you making a statement does not justify your actions. You still wheel warred regardless of whatever statement you made at your talk page. Either way (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
To be honest Synergy should have discussed it before he unprotected it himself and waited for an explanation from Gwib. Technically his revertion without waiting for an explanation was wheel warring as well. -Djsasso (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Djsasso. Please check the time stamps. That is precisely what I did. I made two posts to his talk page before unprotecting. I did not feel his answers justified the protection, and I noted it in my edit summary. Synergy 13:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


Based on this and the wheel warring here,

I would ask that one of three things happen.

  1. Gwib undo himself, discuss here, and we call it a day.


  1. Gwib request his rights removed at meta.


  1. We remove his rights here by discussion.

I have little tolerance for this. NonvocalScream (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, it's a loose loose loose situation for me. This whole entry is a joke, I can list tens of templates protected due to high visibility and yet once an article reaches the same viewability as one of those templates, we'll just attempt to handle it by blocking? As Synergy, ever graceful, states on my talk "we've just lost editors", don't you think that we may just have lost a tad more if we'd simply blocked all those who vandalised? The best offence is a good defence and a mass block wouldn't help.
I ask this of all of you, if that page is unprotected, why not unprotect all the templates as well? We can just block those who vandalise them. While you're at it, let's go delete WP:BOLD as well, since it obviously doesn't come into people's judgement here. --Gwib -(talk)- 12:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Gwib, as I stated on your talk page, this is not like a highly visible template. A highly visible template is highly visible because it occurs on dozens or hundreds of pages. If I add a picture of a penis to a template, that picture will show up on all the hundreds of pages that use that template. That is why highly visible templates are protected; because one occurrence of vandalism can cause hundreds of pages to be affected. There is a difference between "highly visible template" and "page that is view frequently." Either way (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
If you'll check out the grok.stats, you'll see that visits to his page have been skyrocketing. What you've managed to make above is a point against your own argument. Hundreds of people will see aforementioned penis if it's added to either a template or the Obama page. Both are viewed frequently, all you've done above is put my example in two different contexts, which either way, ultimately lead to the same conclusion. --Gwib -(talk)- 12:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
It is not a lose lose situation. You undo, we discuss. You win. The templates are protected because one change to a template may affect *many* articles. One of the founding principles of the foundation, is that all articles are editable by anyone. This is why we don't protect articles, unless there is need. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the article should be protected unless there is need, right now, I don't see need. NonvocalScream (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Just as an example, on other projects, articles on the main page are left unprotected. Since this is in line with the aforementioned principle, I agree in following suit. NonvocalScream (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I would note, however that articles that have gotten as much IP based vandalism as this page has gotten over the last few days would have long ago been semi-protected for atleast a week to get by the inauguration. Semi-protection based on this kind of vandalism on highly viewed pages is extremely common. Just have to look at George W. Bush on en to see an article that is permanently on semi-protect. To be honest I think the undoing of his protect is the bigger deal because admins are supposed to discuss reversals of blocks/protects with the admin who made them before undoing them. So technically I think Gwib is in the right and Synergy is the one in the wrong. -Djsasso (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Hello all, Obama has received a lot of publicity in the last few days, it is clear that there will be many edits to the page. Because of this the page is also a target of vandalism. For this reason, I think that a (semi-)protection is probably the right thing to do. We can of course talk about how long it should last (indef blocks are not the way to go). --Eptalon (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

As I have stated on Gwibs talk page about this, I am in full agreement with Eptalon on this. Repeated vandalism due to current events and peak media coverage are evident and expected. As it is a multiple IP situation and not an isolated attack blocks are ineffectual. temporarily shutting out anon/new editting is the last resort --Creol(talk) 13:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
It's ridiculous, Gwib only did what seemed right to him: it's called common sense if you didn't know. He protected the page as we knew that it would be vandalized, so I don't see the problem. It's noth worth the hassle. Why do people make a big thing out of it? Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 13:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection should only be used if it is the only option left available to solve the problem of vandalism of the page. Taken from our policy on protection. Synergy 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, what's the other option? Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 14:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Er. Block.... Synergy 14:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
And as mentioned above, since the vandalism will/has occured over multiple IPs. Block is no longer effective so you move to semi-protect. -Djsasso (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Djsasso.... no blocks were "applied". Nothing was tried except protection. This was the first option explored, not the last. Synergy 14:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
No blocks have to be tried. Its the multiples that makes this automatically the realm of semi-protect. Due to the media blitz you will get many single edit vandalisms from many ips. Blocks whether tried or not will not work as you have to warn a number of times before blocking and vandals that hit due to media blitz rarely do it more than once. A block will only block a single user, not all the others that follow along. Due to the fact that this is multiple IPs we are already past the point of blocks being effective, if it was just one IP I would agree you block that IP to get it to stop and then move to semi-protect, but in this case its already past the point of blocks being effective and as such its the last resort left which follows policy. -Djsasso (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
(as posted on Gwibs talk page) (edit conflict). Giwb protected the article after an ip misspelled president while trying to place it into his profession. These were good faith edits, reverted and never addressed via the ip's talk page. All of the "vandalism" going on, were solitary edits over a course of 2 days. This wiki is nowhere near as popular as en, so we have minimal vandalism here and as such, protection should come when a target article is under attack by multiple edits at the same time. Not over the course of days. If this were en, semi would be the most effective, but its not en. These edits are reverted fast enough to not have to worry about potential damage. Synergy 14:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I've said my piece, but I will make one comment. I don't agree with a indef semi. But a reasonable amount of time like a few days or a week I think would be a benefit. -Djsasso (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that this page should be indefinitely semi-protected. I think that it should be semi-protected for a period of a week until the buzz from the inauguration has died down. At that point in time, it should be safe to unprotect it. As other editors have stated, blocks are pointless here because of the different IP addresses that would be used. If it were just one range of IP addresses, then I would be in support of a block, but since it is many different IP addresses, blocks won't work. Cheers, Razorflame 14:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: Indef was never an option, I protected for 3 days (approximately average time someone takes from getting over their new Obama-fix, thinking "alright, new president! Everything will be solved by thursday" and then being placed unceremoniously back in the real world), which is an appropriate time frame. --Gwib -(talk)- 14:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I was never accusing you of making a bad call. I was merely stating what should have happened. I do not really want to get involved in the whole mess with you and Synergy. Razorflame 15:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Synergy, you mis-understood my question. I didn't mean options for Gwib, I meant so that the article doesn't get vandalized. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 14:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus to keep the article protected, that's great. (Personally, I disagree with it, but if that's the consensus, I can accept that). This consensus should have/could have been sought earlier is my point, though. Admins should not be reverting each others' actions without a solid discussion. Had this discussion occurred after Synergy's undoing of it, or before Synergy's undoing of it, then we could have avoiding unnecessary drama. Please, please, please admins...DISCUSS. Either way (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes agree. It seems that protection is the way the discussion is leaning. I don't support it, but I'll abide. I think the most important thing here, is the administrators discuss. Gwib and Synergy are in good standing in my book. Gwib, I thank you for taking option one. You are too valued! Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
To add one more, I agree with Gwib, but in my thinking it should be temporarily indef semi'd until how ever long it takes for the halabaloo of the new presidency to calm down, but I would be happy with a week. I also agree with Yotcmdr, Gwib used common sense which I think was right.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 19:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Protect Adolf Hitler

I'm not very familiar with Simple English Wikipedia's protection policy, but I propose to semi-protect Adolf Hitler. The article is very bad already, and the vandalism makes the history difficult to read. --Asgar (talk) 03:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is probably a good idea. The acticle was unprotected on November 11. Since then, it has been vandalized on 16 different occasions (often more than one vandal edit occasion - 27 total vandal edits). While there is some quality IP edits in that time, they are outmatched by the amount of vandalism. The subject certainly is a target for vandalism and it seems as though the vandals are not disappointing us by avoiding it. --Creol(talk) 06:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothign has happened so far except for more Vandalism. Can someone please comment? --Asgar (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, no need to protect it at the moment - vandalism is reverted quite quickly already. Majorly talk 14:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Why shouldn't we at least semi-protect is? That would certainly reduce the amount of vandalism we have to deal with. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
No need to protect now, stuff is reverted quickly. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed here. Us editors can easily get the vandalism reverted without much of a hassle. Therefore, I would say that it doesn't need to be protected at this time. Pages should only be protected temporarily for a few days only when the amount of vandalism is more than the editors here can revert. Cheers, Razorflame 18:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


When scanning the wanted templates, I noticed that {{AID}} has 56 links. When doing further checking, I believe it is referenced inside a welcome template that we are using. Resulting in broken welcome messages. See this talk page where the referenced template and "selected article" is redlinked. I have checked the standard templates that we are using, and I don't see the references. This leads me to believe that a bot or userscript is inserting the text that causes the redlinked welcome message. Any ideas? NonvocalScream (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on edit histories of the talk pages its on, I am guessing the old welcome template had reference to it in the past which has since been removed. But since welcome templates are subst'd then the pages that were already welcomed still have the link. -Djsasso (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I have really no idea on this one. Best guess: The What links here is out of date?--Eptalon (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Improper username

A new user has register under the name Yo Mother F'ckers (talk · contribs). I believe this falls under the improper username thing and therefore should be blocked.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 06:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Never mind I just saw Cometstyles (talk · contribs) did it.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 06:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia and WP headings

(Note: See Wikipedia:Simple talk#Wikipedia and WP headings for more info) Since we have a "clear consensus" of support, is it possible for an admin/bureaucrat to fix LocalSettings.php to make WP: headings the same as Wikipedia: headings? Thanks! MathCool10 01:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe this will require a well worded bug. Project members don't have access to that. Has the discussion closed? NonvocalScream (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe so. MathCool10 02:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Before we file a bug, we have to delete all pages starting with "WP:" to prevent things from going haywire. Chenzw  Talk  12:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it really worth all the hassle? I note that many of the users who have voted in that are relatively new. Kennedy (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
See the !vote at Simple Talk. I don't call the votes consensus. Let's just leave it for now, it's not needed. BG7even 13:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
BG, look at the discussion, don't count votes. Three against one, and I was granted permission for importer. That discussion, has far better in favor numbers, and if I had not contributed to the discussion, I would have closed it as pass, it passed. According to the discussion, the motion passed with a consensus. One blocker does not a non consensus make. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I had not contributed to that discussion, and if I have point it out to me. I have closed it as a neutral party. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
No you haven't, that's fine. But reading through the discussion too I still feel that there is no consensus. I'm fully aware that !votes don't count for everything. Thanks, BG7even 15:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(<--) How is that not consensus? A very clear majority supporting; 13 supports to two opposes, plus two neutrals. You cannot just say "oh let's just leave it for now, it's not needed" when the !voting has closed, in my reading, a solid supporting consensus. Exactly how is there no consensus, may I ask? I'd be interested in seeing your viewpoint. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

See my comments at the original ST post ;) BG7even 20:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I took care of the deletions and the bug report was filed. There may still be a few stray ones, if you find them, either let me know, or tag them for qd. Synergy 21:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi all, Just to update you, Synergy has deleted all of the pages with WP: as a prefix to avoid conflicts. PeterSymonds has begun recreating the pages in the Wikipedia: namespace, and I will continue them. All pages with WP: in them will now be redlinked until the NS alias is added - this could be anything from a couple of hours to several months. I suggest you don't change any of the links or create the pages as it's just more hassle later on - basically, shortcuts can't be used until the devs "fix" the bug - perhaps an admin could add this to the Sitenotice? Cheers, BG7even 21:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Is there any way that I could help with this process? I'd be happy to work on this. If there's anything anyone needs help with, or if an extra person would quicken the process, feel free to let me know. ★ Braingle (Contact me + Contribs) 21:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello Braingle! Yes, we do need help! All the pages that Synergy deleted need to be recreated with the same content, but in the Wikipedia: namespace, if that makes sense. For example, if WP:FOO had been deleted, and it's content was #REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Foo]], then Wikipedia:FOO needs to be created with that content. Does that make sense? If not, ask what you don't get and i'll try to explain some more. Thanks, BG7even 21:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
You do not have to delete every page starting with WP. They will be automatically moved by script most likely to Broken/Title, when the namespace is created. Prodego (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm... I was testing it quite a bit earlier to see if it needed to be deleted, and all my tests corrupted the wiki with no such page :S I was running the latest trunk revision, with my settings as close to this Wikipedia's as I could get (userrights, extensions etc, i couldn't go too far as I can't see the LocalSettings.php file...). Hmmm indeed... (Either way though, they would have to be deleted eventually). BG7even 21:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
To add to the above I basically got it wrong ;) I didn't actually check with WMF devs, just going off my own back. Obviously the settings are different, so I probably missed a trick. Sorry everyone! BG7even 11:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(reset) When is the change going to take place? MathCool10 04:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

When's the bug request going to be answered? - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 05:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Robert Sieger

The user's very first edit was to their user page, stating they were banned at EN wiki. I noticed this and decided to welcome them, hoping they may decide to be helpful over here. I then wasn't quite sure what to make of his response to it, as it seems rather mocking. His article creation: The Troubles (by the time you read this it may have been deleted); it's contents were:
The Troubles are some kind of ongoing conflict in Northern Ireland. Judging by the name they were given, these things are there to cause trouble.
This is obviously not a good faith edit. Next, he told User:Alison that her photo looked ugly.
I warned him about this (and removed it from her page), and he repeated it on my talk page.
On the other hand, a couple of his contributions can be potentially viewed in good faith: [7][8]
But then again, comments like this are certainly provocative in nature.
Just thought to inform people. Lingamondo (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not his first edit technically, he is well known as User:TBC -Djsasso (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Huh? Majorly talk 01:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I highly doubt that this user is User:TBC. Their editing styles are completely different, not to mention the fact that Robert Sieger is much more immature than TBC. There is absolutely no way that these two editors can be related. Cheers, Razorflame 01:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I just went off the fact that his userpage basically says he is TBC. I suppose he could have just copied TBCs graphic. But it would be an odd coincidence that he took the graphic of a user who hasn't been on since October. But I do agree styles are obviously different. -Djsasso (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
People do. It's a rather obvious troll or banned user of some sort trying to cause trouble. Majorly talk 02:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
You are probably correct. -Djsasso (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Given the vandalism, attack on a well known crosswiki target and impersonating an admin, I felt there was valid reason to justify identifying the account. It was who it was expected to be. Account blocked for vandalism and just another sock for a well known cross-wiki troll. --Creol(talk) 07:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


Absolutely outrageous! What the hell is going on here? He jumps in to BG7's RfA with a co-nom that no-one knew about. Next when he is told that he should not have co-nom'd he removes his support out of spite and strong opposes "I didn't know yadda yadda" - This gives the strong impression there is something seriously wrong with BG7 that even his co-nominator changes to strong oppose. This is the type of behaviour that got him banned in the first place. He doesn’t think. Which brings me on to my next point: No-one thinks. Especially in RfA's. BG7 has done months of good work. A bit of a bad patch IRL (everyone has them) and they all pick on that to oppose him.

Because of FR's atrocious behaviour, of which I am livid about, I propose the community ban is reinstated. He has been warned about other things more than once, and seems to enjoy making mistakes so that he gets trouted. He has made a huge error in judgement here, so far that people are opposing because of him.

I’ve had enough. He does more harm than good in general, and its time for him to go. Kennedy (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Completely agree. We have enough people disrupting RFAs as it is. Majorly talk 11:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support reinstating the community ban. Enough really is enough, he was unbanned as a last chance, but failed to reform. However, the issue I see is how to stop him from socking. SteveTalk 11:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think we can stop anyone socking. All we do is block all socks on sight. Seems to be working for Jonas, even if he did still email me, and correct my spelling... Kennedy (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Well true, but that's not really solving the problem is it? I've got to say (and this may not sound great, but seems true) but I feel FastReverter is a problem that cannot be solved, at least not at this time. I feel they are most likely too young to understand the rules of a community such as Wikipedia. SteveTalk 12:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Abstain I'm not going to comment as i'm directly involved in it. For what it's worth, i'm all for second, third, even fourth, fifth sixth chances, but enough is enough. Hey, that's a biased view, thus my abstain, but I feel it should be said. BG7even 11:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Cheers "I screwed up!" when he makes a mistake, and seems to enjoy it. The co-nom thing is ridiculous. FR, if you are reading this, you do not need to co-nom everyone you want to support. This was brought up with you before, at Kennedy's RFA. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 12:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Maybe instead of banning me from SEWP, how about you ban me from WP:RfA and talkpages (unless it is about a edit I made)? FRSign Here 15:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • It is not only RfA and talkpages. It is about your editing in general. Kennedy (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm working on getting a article to VGA. See my to-do list and my edit count. I have most in the article mainspace. (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Kennedy, could you provide some examples of concerns with his editing in general? So far all that's been mentioned in this thread relates to RFA issues, so I'm curious what other issues they are. Thanks, Either way (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment – Let me get this straight, you are proposing his indef ban for changing his mind about a RfA? I saw nothing wrong with what he did, he realized things about the user he disliked and changed his vote. What policy does this fall into? TheAE talk 15:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • You don't see what he did wrong? He co-nom'd someone (obviously on the spur of the moment thing) when he had not asked if he could. Neither me nor BG7 knew about it. BG7 decided it wasn't a good idea and removed his nom. He didn't like this and changed from Strong support and a nom to Strong oppose - Has he thought any of these votes through? Does he even know who BG7 is? Clearly not, as BG7 has a big notice on his userpage about the thing people are opposing him for, yet FR was oblivious to this, and "didn't know". I think you would at least view the persons user page, or talk page before nominating someone? No? Or is that just me? Before I nominate someone, I want to know if they have any skeletons in the closet. BG7's skeleton was out for everyone to see, and I didn't think there would be any issues with that due to his impeccable history. I still fully trust him. And I have no idea why one slip of judgement (if it is even that) should count against him. Kennedy (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Feel free to discount me - but throw him. Net contribs is 0. We are here to build a wiki. -- Da Punk '95 (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think it's ban worthy. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 21:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - I don't think it should, I have a reason but I can't figure a way to put it into words right now.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 21:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose as changing one's vote isn't worthy of a ban. I supported his Wikiquote block/ban, but this is outrageous (there must be more...). Wow. TheAE talk 21:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support a ban, for a definite amount of time. He definitely needs time to mature. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


I have had a chance to look over the last 500 contributions to mainspace. May I propose an alternate proposal? I propose a three month ban of the project space.

Alternate proposal: Perhaps just assigning a mentor?

Thoughts? NonvocalScream (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Mentors don't work. He's had umpteen chances to redeem. No luck. Majorly talk 17:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Project space ban then? NonvocalScream (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
No. We're giving him too many chances, Majorly talk 17:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand where you are coming from, I've not been here long enough to observe what has occured in the past. Kennedy, can you perhaps listify the past in summary form? NonvocalScream (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The Past. --Gwib -(talk)- 10:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The Past of the Past. (warning: the discussion is quite long) --Chenzw  Talk  10:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I would support this.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 21:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Abstain I'm going to keep a close watch on this issue since I've just returned. It is best to watch his behaviour for say the next 3 to 6 months. Any further "disruptive" behaviour from FR is uncalled for and I'd motion for a ban by then.

For now, just watch his behaviour.-- Tdxiang 03:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

We've been watching his behavior. We've put him through mentorship on a last chance after all of the horrible things he said and did as SF/SH, and now he tells us a) he enjoys getting trouted and switches from a strong oppose to a strong support and co-nom (or was it the other way around?) claiming he "didn't know" about the candidate's past issues. All it takes is common sense to avoid these mistakes, and I don't think that FastReverter is mature enough to have a sufficient amount of that. Shapiros10 12:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guys, but I do not believe that his actions as of yet are justifiable of a ban at this point in time. He simply has not done anything that could justify a ban at this point in time. Cheers, Razorflame 14:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What benefits has FR brought to Simple English Wikipedia? What is his net positive? Majorly talk 15:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Just changing ones' vote does not equal a ban. He has not been as disruptive as any other banned user that I have encountered and while he doesn't have much of a net positive, I don't see any justifiable reason to ban him either. I don't see why we can just block him for a week or 2 instead of jumping straight to ban. Razorflame 15:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I personally don't think her should be blocked at all. He's done nothing to deserve it. Vote are alloud to be changed.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 19:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Note to all: this is not his first offense. I encourage you to look at this and this. Add all of this behavior together, and...Shapiros10 20:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

He does need to mature some but he should not be the next Hornetman (me). People called for a 6 months to year ban on me for time to mature but they were ignored and I was banned indefinitely. I don't want to see somebody that doesn't deserve it get what I got.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 20:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
That's because when you were banned, the people calling for a 6 month to year long ban realized that because of your age, in that time period you might mature at a good rate. FRV is quite a bit younger than you, and not certainly not old enough to mature as fast. Shapiros10 23:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
True, but an indef ban is still too much. IF banned there should be a time limit on it.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 03:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Urgh, this is the sort of thing I'd want on WB to liven the place up :P. Anyways, a) why was he unbanned? b) what's the fuss about? c) does it really harm the 'pedia? Truly? Or is it just a mild distraction? Mild distraction, small block. Massively important to Wikipedia itself, indef. MC8 (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Disney vandal again?

I am unsure about this, but I believe that since this editor is editing new pages and pages about Disney, could it be the Disney vandal at work again? Cheers, Razorflame 01:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed a possibility of a second disney vandal IP address. Could someone please check this? Cheers, Razorflame 20:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Could this be another disney vandal IP address? Razorflame 19:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi there all. I know that you probably know that this user is no longer with us anymore, and because of this, I would like to ask any administrator to fully protect his userpage and talk page here. Razorflame 16:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A bit late, but done anyway. I also blocked his account as they did on enwiki. Majorly talk 16:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Late is better than never. Razorflame 16:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


Hey can an admin undelete User:SwirlBoy39/IRC please? I don't remember QDing it but I must've. ѕwirlвoy  04:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk page protected.

Please unprotect User talk:Maxim. As long as the editor is still editing here, the talk page should not be fully protected. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree here. Talk pages are most certainly not supposed to be fully protected, even if the editor in question is not going to edit here anymore (there are, of course, exceptions, such as talk pages of those users who have died). Even if a user requests it, they almost never should be fully protected. Cheers, Razorflame 21:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I unprotected it, since he was still making edits. Synergy 21:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I would note it was protected after he stopped making edits. His only edits since then was blanking the page. -Djsasso (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I've talked this over with him via IRC. I agreed to reprotect in two days, given there are no more edits, but insisted that he was still welcome back when he's had enough time off to think. He can request unprotection at that time. Synergy 22:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)