Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 36

Username block

Resolved. Account blocked by Pmlineditor (talk · contribs) Kansan (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Can someone block Justindrewbieber841 (talk · contribs) for potential impersonation of Justin Drew Bieber? Goodvac (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Protect request to resolve revision war on article Golden Team

Resolved. Not a Simple Wikipedia issue. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bother you - a revision war seems to have started on the article Golden Team, with myself and user GrandMariner seemingly hellbent on cancelling each others changes out. I consider my changes to be editing to make the article readable; he seems to regard it as his own personal page which no-one else can change. I also suspect that this user is also user OliverTwist88 and GallopingMajor, judging by the comments he has made on the discussion board.

Can someone please review, and either either make a call on the edits, or else protect the page? I am happy to abide by any final decision! 188.221.10.10 (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC) (a.k.a Coopuk)

Hi, this is an English Wikipedia issue, not Simple's. --Bsadowski1 10:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You should probably report the incident on their edit-warring board or their arbitration requests board. --Eptalon (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a note if anything similar arises in the future. ArbCom is the last resort of dispute resolution on en, so it'd be best not to point people there. ANI would be a more appropriate venue. Goodvac (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2011/Category:Communes in France

Resolved. Closed by Barras

Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2011/Category:Communes in France is overdue 9 days. Since many of the most active admins have participated in this discussion, I'm posting it here so this is brought to the attention of admins who have not participated so they can close it. Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I've closed it. Haven't had a look at it since I casted my vote. Done now. -Barras (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit War

Resolved.

Please see this user... I will warn the user, but I don't know if any other action should be taken, the user is making unconstructive edits to the article about Lucy the dinosaur. Cheers. Mìthrandir 22:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're worried about violating the three revert rule, it wouldn't apply here because the edits being made here are obvious vandalism, and reverting obvious vandalism is an exception (you can revert that as many times as you have to). Kansan (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

In addition to Kansan's response: since both of his edits were vandalism, you should report him to WP:VIP (vandalism in progress), for future reference. WP:AN isn't for vandalism most of the time. :) --@jersey⁺ 22:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

To add to what Jersey said really, users only should report to WP:VIP if they keep vandalizing after their final warning. We don't normally block after just one instance of vandalism (except in some instances like obvious socking, etc.) Kansan (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind next time... Cheers. Mìthrandir 23:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Mount Cayley volcanic field

Resolved. Speedy deleted. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Mount Cayley volcanic field claims to be a 'featured article'. Seems it's come over from enWP without simplifiation, but with its FA star. Red links everywhere. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted it under A3. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Block

Resolved.

Can someone please block me for a week? I really need to get off of Wikipedia for the time being and the only way that will happen in reality is if I cannot edit. Thanks. SPQR 00:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Try this. sonia♫ 00:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks... Does it work on the Simple Wiki? And how do I get to my javascript page? SPQR 00:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It does, and Special:Mypage/common.js. sonia♫ 00:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you do that for me and set it for a week? I cannot get it to work... Thanks.. SPQR 00:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Try to log out and log back in now. sonia♫ 01:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, try bypassing your browser's cache by refreshing with Ctrl-F5. Chenzw  Talk  01:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Admission of guilt

Resolved. Blocked by Pmlineditor (talk · contribs)

I was User:Editor XXV and others. I apologize to the community for concealing this.

Yours sincerely, Theta 314 (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Since Editor XXV is community banned, your account has been blocked. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Listen

Can someone address the concerns raised by Novice7 (talk · contribs) at WP:ST#Template:Listen? about Template:Listen? This comment best summarizes the issue, so could an admin modify MediaWiki:Common.css or whatever page is causing this problem? Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 05:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It's something I've attempted in the past; really not sure what is going on with it. sonia♫ 07:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Sonia, for your efforts. Though this needs to be fixed sometime, since as I noted at Simple talk, the transclusions look awful. Goodvac (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

CR90's ban review

Resolved. Unblocked per review. He is advised to tread carefully; avoiding POV pushing. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Fellows, it has been a year since CR90 has been allowed to edit here. I feel it is time for a review of his community ban. For those who don't know CR90, he has a past of allowing his personal beliefs as a conservative Christian to affect his work on wiki, and has had some issues in the past with interactions with other users; times when he was blameless and other times not. For those of you who do know CR90, I'll not say anything, you know his story and I'll not start pushing diffs about because they will come out below anyway. I'm asking for Aaron to be unbanned because I feel that the person I knew a year ago is totally different from the person I know today. I've had loads of chats with him where we've disagreed on beliefs and politics but now it's always in a friendly way. CR90 is promising to abide by the five pillars and to remain neutral. He'll give a statement below in his own words. I think we can use another editor, especially someone who knows the project well and edits in an area none of the rest of us do. He knows that his actions will be watched like a hawk and I don't think he'd be bothering asking for an unban if he did not really mean it. Thanks for reading, please partake in this review, all opinions are welcome. fr33kman 00:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

CR90's statement

Hi, it's been a year since we last spoke formally on here, in that time I have aged a year and gotten more mature and learned from other mistakes. While I still have political opinions I have learned it's not right to shove them where they are not wanted. There are appropriate forums for that, Wikipedia is not one of them. I have come to understand that this Wiki is NPOV and I must write within those rules. If you approve my unban I will be a good worker and remain neutral. I hope to do a quick run though of wrestling and baseball articles as they are not up to date; no one really tended to these articles but myself. While I would really enjoy once again being apart of this community, it won't be in same way as before. I have other interests besides Wikipedia as well. Don't misunderstand me though, I will still contribute, just not obsessively. I truly am sorry for all my shenanigans before but to learn you must make mistakes. I have only one request that I hope comes true regardless of the outcome of this ban review, don't "judge" me until you know me. So in closing, I hope you will invite me to be apart of your community again. Thank you and God Bless!--  † CR₉₀  00:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

I see nothing wrong with unbanning the user, as I don't see anything wrong with a second chance for any blocked user showing initiative to help the wiki. Be aware, if you are unblocked, that your edits will be monitored very closely. Albacore (talk · changes) 00:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

In all efforts for transparency, I have to point out that this is Aaron's third chance if allowed. His second chance is here. fr33kman 00:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Alright, I agree with Fr33k. Over this year I think CR90 has made some large gains in the field of maturity, and I am willing to give CR90 another chance to re-join our community. Looking into the future, if CR90 is unbanned, there are some things I would like him as well as the community to consider. I would like a six month one strike editing restriction in regards to NPOV. If an edit is clear POV, the indef block can be reinstated without discussion. I was also considering also a possible six month topic ban on all political topics. This is just to give some time for CR90 to adjust to editing again, and let the community once again build up some trust in the editor. These are just some things I think the community should think about putting into place should CR90 be unblocked. Now, moving on to actions I think CR90 can make to better adjust to working on this wiki, should he be unbanned. Firstly, pay close attention to any restrictions which may be put in place. If, when you type something, it sounds even remotely like POV, don't hit save. Instead, hit the talk page and discuss the change. This would do two things. 1, it would keep you completely NPOV. 2nd, it would create some collaboration on articles to help the community gain trust in you. These two points are not just for you, but can really be applied to anybody on the wiki, however I feel they are very important in this case. Secondly, I would suggest a name change. I know CR90 is like your personal identity online, however I think it would help you adjust to our community, starting sorta fresh. Also, per our username policy: "Some names do not offend people, but they show a strong view or are very religious. These names are discouraged but less seriously than names that offend people." So, while not 100% bad, religious names are discouraged. So, I do suggest a name change.

So, I think I've summed up my points pretty well. I've given the community some possible restrictions, and I've given some advice to CR90. I think all of this can be applied, should the community decide to give CR90 another chance. Just in re to Albacore, this will be a second unban, and a third chance..--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 00:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

What you are saying sounds much like what was said last time around, with the heavy restrictions upon unblock. Also, CR90 is an already renamed account. I would also like to see the evidence of maturity. We didn't see some last time around, and nothing has changed in a year. Is there anything on a WMF wiki that shows him working constructively with others? Griffinofwales (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

See no reason to give him a third chance. He used up his second chance last time he was unblocked. Don't think the user has changed at all. He was asked to stay away from IRC until he was unbanned to show that he had changed. He was unable to do so, which shows me he did not change at all. And as for not thinking he wouldn't ask if he wasn't serious. Is that a joke? He asked before and was unbanned before only to do the exact same things again. Have absolutely zero reason to believe he changed this time. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. I would also point out in his statement above in which he says "God Bless" which was part of the problem, he couldn't even hold out from doing it in his unblock request. Show me proof on a WMF wiki of him working without the issues of the past and I will reconsider. Until that time he should remain blocked. -DJSasso (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd hope that I'd personally have enough of your respect to know that I'd not joke about someone's unban dude. You have had a personal grudge against Aaron for ages; let's be honest, no matter how he says he's changed or how many years or even decades have gone by you will still vote no. Sorry to be so blunt, but it's the truth. (no disrespect intended at all) There are other users here who go around saying God Bless, it's not an insult, nor is it in violation of NPOV, you are allowed opinions, just not within the articles. :-) fr33kman 01:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't know that. You constantly over assume good faith. He has no proof he changed. I would allow him back if he had proof. If he wants to come back on simple maybe we should turn the tables on the standard offer and tell him to go to en and show us proof on en that he has changed. As for the other users that go around saying God Bless, I don't think they should either. It is offensive to those who don't believe. Unfortunately CR90 has had other issues than the others which caused him to be banned, but for him this is just the tip of the iceberg. He does not belong on a wiki, he does not know how to be unbiased, and has shown no proof that he has changed. He got a second chance last time he was unblocked to show us that. We are under no good faith obligation to allow him to show us that proof on simple this time. He already had that chance. -DJSasso (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think you over assume bad faith too much, I'd rather assume good faith and get it wrong and assume bad faith and get it wrong. The first I can fix, the second is a loss of trust. Telling other users that they can not say God Bless is just as offensive to them as it might be to you to have it said to you. You always have the option of telling users not to use such terms with you and I believe they no longer do. We are under no obligation to review this ban, you are correct, but I believe it to be the decent thing to do at least. fr33kman 01:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

See and I think assuming good faith and getting it wrong is irreparable whereas assuming bad faith and having them prove us wrong can easily be fixed by an unban, whereas the reputation hit we take each time we let someone like him back is almost impossible to repair as this wiki has seen time and again. Telling someone not to say god bless is not in the least offensive, its saying be neutral and don't push it in peoples faces and keep the wiki neutral as it should be. Saying god bless is pushing a point of view, effectively sand boxing which is one of the things that Wikipedia is not. Just like I wouldn't push atheism/agnostic beliefs on someone who believes, they shouldn't be saying things that can be interpreted as pushing their point of view. The talk pages of Wikipedia are not for pushing your beliefs. -DJSasso (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Block a good faith user is much worse than unbanning a bad faith user. The bad faith user can just be reblocked, the good faith user has a taint on his name. I think both reputations matter, and I think ours is pretty good at the moment. We have 8 editors who are stewards and all of them were vocal about being on simplewiki. That's not too shabby! fr33kman 01:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no taint if the user is unbocked as being an incorrect block. And in this specific case, the taint on his name is long since a done deal and nothing done here will change that. -DJSasso (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking for very heavy restrictions and a topic ban because I have no evidence on a MWF wiki. CR90 is currently blocked on en and simple, and from what I gather he only speaks English, and is interested in very specific topics. Being blocked on both English Wikipedias, I'm not sure where else he can edit in his specific topics. We can't force users to edit elsewhere, and I feel asking our banned editors to go to other wikis to gain some trust is an action we often frown upon. When a user from en comes here and says "I'm here because I'm banned at en, and the admins say I need to edit here to show I can be constructive before they will unban me" we watch them like a hawk, and block them on first offense. I think us telling users to do this, when we dislike it when en does it to us, is rather hypocritical. Also, saying god bless is completely fine. We have admins who are obviously very religious, and as long as they don't incorporate this POV in articles, we're fine. I understand that CR90 however, does have a history incorporating this POV into articles, which is why I have suggested these harsh restrictions. If you believe a user cannot add god bless in a post on their TP, I would like a policy that clearly states that. If we don't have one, lets discuss getting one, and I will strongly oppose it.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Being obviously religious and pushing that belief are two different things. Frankly having Christian in his name isn't a big deal to me. But saying things to people that are clearly religious in overtones is soapboxing which is part of WP:NOT. Yes I don't think we should send him to en to prove himself, but frankly we need proof. If he had never been unbanned before and reblocked then I would be more likely to unblock and say fine prove it to us. But we have been through this before. He is blocked on two wikis. It isn't our fault he got himself in this situation. I only suggest going to en because its been a long time since he has asked there as far as I am aware. -DJSasso (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Not really that interested in editing enWP anymore because of the stress involved, not to mention the redundancy involved the wrestling WikiProject over there.--  † CR₉₀  01:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the thinking there. Saying god bless, to me, shows an obvious religious POV, but it doesn't push that POV. There is currently nothing that stops a user from saying god bless in a comment. I don't see how this is pushing his religion on others, in no way am I being forced or being pushed into being Christian as a result of this comment. The only issue with posting god bless is a POV, and as long as this remains in comments and out of the userspace, there is no violation of any policy. WP:NOT states "That means that if you believe in something, you should not try to say that idea in the article." It speaks of an article, not in a comment on a usertalk. I understand that you need proof, I just don't agree with saying "Go there!". And, what is the difference if he requests here or there? The same argument of proof will be brought up, and as he is blocked there is obviously none. This is why I want strong strong restrictions. At least 6 months of one strike on any POV.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Saying God Bless is forcing someone to be blessed against their will. Its pushing their religion through blessing someone. I had no choice to be blessed or not. I was forced into being blessed. As for WP:NOT. There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. No one with any belief religious or otherwise should be spreading it around the talk pages. Talk that is not directly related to editing the wikipedia is forbidden through. Either way my point was more along the lines, if he doesn't understand he should probably not be acting overly religious when that is what got him in trouble, then I don't see where he can say he has changed and won't be POV. It was more an example that he is lacking in. That its a point of proof (arguably) that he hasn't changed. In other words a small thing that hints towards a larger issue. And his asking the exact day a year was up doesn't speak to his taking things seriously and that he just treated it as time he had to wait as opposed to teaching him anything. -DJSasso (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't being forced to accept anything. No person can reasonably expect God (if you believe in one) would be forced to bless someone just because a human said it. It's just polite for some people. Good evening, good bye are also Christian religious statements, shall we remove those? Personally skin creeps every time someone says Happy Christmas to me but I don't think ill of the person for doing so, I say thank you and move on. You are just touchy about this subject, and that's fine, but you also simply don't like CR90 and I'm sure if he went over to en and went for the standard offer you'd oppose him there also. I respect you a lot man, and I know you respect me, but I guess we'll never be able to agree on this subject. fr33kman 02:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I seriously disagree with you here DJ. If two active admins disagree with the wording and how a rule should be interpreted, I don't expect somebody who has been away a year to get it right. If you wish, we can hold a discussion on ST about this issue, as this is a phrase other users and admins have used, so is not an issue that is isolated to CR90. ST would be a better forum to discus it. And I also disagree with him coming here today being a bad thing/ Today is the day that he is allowed to be unbanned, and is there anything wrong in coming back at the date that the community decided was a good date for a review? I would thank him for coming here today. Take a look at the wrestling articles. When is the last time the majority of them have been updated? By coming here as soon as possible, it proves he is VERY seriously about getting back to work and fixing these pages.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I would support an unblock on en because all he was blocked for on en was sockpuppeting as far as I am aware, and since he hasn't done that lately as far as I am aware then I would have no problem unblocking him as the lack of sockpuppeting is proof in itself that he can be unblocked from a block for that reason. However, on simple he is blocked for much more than sockpuppeting. And things like acting overtly religious while showing no proof he has changed, and making the same promises he made previously and broke previously are all indications that he hasn't changed and is still the same. As for unblocking him with stringent conditions, of course he would have stringent conditions as a banned user on en he is always under the one strike rule. So he will get banned for one mess up anyways. And as I said the act of saying god bless is just a symptom. Not a big deal in itself but a sign. Just like the coming here the minute he can is of course allowed, but it shows a lack of clue. The idea was that he might get reviewed after a year. Not that he would get reviewed. -DJSasso (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

@Djsasso. I can honestly say that Aaron's not brought up the topic of religion with me in almost the whole year. I can't actually recall a single time. Politics, yes, but that's in my channel on IRC and I enjoy the debate with him there, and there is the correct place for it and he know's it. fr33kman 01:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This isn't that productive. Probably more important to focus on more important things. Albacore (talk · changes) 02:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Very true, thanks for pointing that out. These things always do tend to get heated, sadly. fr33kman 02:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ironically that sums up the biggest reason I think he should remain banned....the waste of the wikis resources he has caused over the years from discussions like this. -DJSasso (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this unban. Reading DJSasso's comments, I feel myself beginning to agree with him, but then reading Fr33kman's comments, and assuming good faith, I really want to have CR90 back again. (And DJSasso... I used to say "God bless" quite frequently too. I didn't know it would offend you, and if it did, I'm sorry. :P) In any case, I'm going to try thinking very carefully over this matter. If CR90 was having his first unblock request, I would most certainly support it, but this is his second, and he has already disappointed us all and lost himself two chances. But then again, he's very sorry, and willing to be good - and I'm quite sure that as long as he has some self control in him, he will be good. Anyway, I'm inclining to a support, but at the moment it's rather weak. (Apologies to dear CR90—do forgive me for being neutral too much and loyal too little.) ♥ingly, Bella ^{tête-à-tête} 07:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello all, I fully support unbanning CR90, without any editing restrictions. I have known CR90 before the ban, and I haven't seen him edit since, so there is no way I can evaluate if he has changed or not. I must however say that blocking a user is something that is easily done, so there is no real need to discuss this here. Everyone is entitled to his opinion, and we should not block editors based on the fact that they disagree with some other editor. Given that there is still some resentment, I would also propose that all block/ban requests for CR90 are handled by one single uninvolved crat, to be determined by the community of admins/crats; CR90 should propose suitable candidates. --Eptalon (talk) 09:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me perhaps add: About a year ago, the community active at that time decided to ban him, based on what he had done on this wiki. Complaining aobut not having evidence of him changing, and supporting his unblocking on some other WMF wiki to see is the wrong approach. If some other WMF wiki blocked him, it is on the community of that wiki to decide whether to unblock him. In other words: Whatever we decide to do should only involve SEWP. We are the community of SEWP, we cannot force the community of any other WMF wiki to do anything. --Eptalon (talk) 09:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• You all know that I'm too lazy to read the whole discussion above (way too long), so I ask directly (not sure, may have been questioned/answered above already): Is this unban also something most people do who got blocked on EnWiki, then got blocked here and want to get unblocked here so they can show on EnWiki that they are good or something the like? Please let Cr90 answer this. Thanks, -Barras (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• If I understood your question correctly, my answer would be no, that's not why I want unbanned here, enWP is not my "home", simple is my "home".--  † Christnrockr90  12:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• I am always happy to assume good faith. The question seems to be either CR90 has changed, or he has not. He has had a 12 month block. I suggest that we lift the ban and find out. If he hasn't changed we simply (and quickly) ban him again. If he has changed there is no problem. Seems straight foward to me. --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• (note:I have no previous experience with this user or their ban) I support the unban, with some precautionary measures (POV editing restrictions, etc.). Like Peter said, if he hasn't changed, ban him again. A person can change a lot in a year. PrincessofLlyr ^talk 12:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• I support the unban. I too assume good faith. People do change and learn from their mistakes. If he has changed, he will be a valuable editor. If not, he will surely be quickly banned again.--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• I've had the chance to talk to CR90 a fair bit over the last 12 months, and I believe he has matured and is ready to come back to Simple. Assuming Good Faith, and seeing how he gets on is definitely to me the right solution. Yottie ^=talk= 18:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I come from en (its been a while). I followed the link that fr33kman posted on the simple talk page. I've read the ban discussions and perused CR's logged activity. This is a volunteer driven project, and you've got someone begging to be reinstated as a volunteer. Why has he not continued his scorned upon actions during this year? Surely he has access to other IPs or whatever is needed to circumvent the banning procedures of this site. Christianrocker90 or CR90 is an important identity for him. If he blanked pages or subtlety inserted cuss words into articles, I could see the logic behind this uproar created by a suggestion of his reinstatement. The world is full of morons and people trying to manipulate others, but those people don't sit around for a year and then get their friend fr33kman to post an appeal on their behalf. Whatever becomes of this, I think it is very clear that fr33kman is much to close to the issue to be involved in any final decisions, in the interest of fairness. The3stars (talk) 06:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You are indeed very correct when you say I am in a COI position. I recognize this and knew it prior to requesting this unban and. I've said all I need to say about this topic above. I would, however, say here that it was I who blocked CR90, and my block led to this community ban. So please do not think I am that biased! I have not said this yet, but now will, I won't have any involvement in the closing of this request, nor in the suggestion of who should close it. I think CR90 should not have any influence over its closing either: this is up to the community to decide. fr33kman 02:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Offtopic, but what username are you at English Wikipedia. You don't seem to have an SUL and you just created your account today here. --Bsadowski1 06:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC) (Same Username in en, I thought things were unified between the 'pedias, but they're not. So this account I created to comment here. The3stars (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC))

After reading CR90's comment about simple being his "home", my support for his unblock was confirmed. It was short, but not short enough to leave me in between my thoughts. Blocking is easy, and if he creates drama and acts controversial again, the block can be restored with only a few clicks by any admin's mouse. But unblocking is the harder job, and so is assuming good faith, and we should do this. Although I don't like for Simple's reputation to be put down along the lines of "too easy and forgiving", like some on en think, we do need CR90 back, for he was quite helpful in articles. And CR90, I hope you'll be more careful this time - please do not misuse the trust we gave you or disappoint us again. :) ♥ingly, Bella ^{tête-à-tête} 06:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I have faith in Fr33kman's judgment that he should be unbanned. Any issues can always be dealt with in a couple clicks. Exert 06:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support unblocking as long as he understands that this is likely his last chance and fully understands rules such as WP:SOAP and WP:MYSPACE. If he violates this, we reblock, simple as that. As an aside, I don't understand why the "God bless" is an issue. People say "bless you" after sneezing all the time and it means the same thing. Kansan (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

  Bless you doesn't use the word God. Was actually going to use that as an example of what he could have easily said instead of bringing god into it. -DJSasso (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't really follow that either. By saying "bless you", you are still forcing somebody to be blessed, which was your argument against saying "God Bless". As I said, I would be more than willing to discuss this further on ST. This isn't an issue solely related to CR90, so ST would be a better forum.--Gordonrox2448 (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Not really, you can be blessed in a non-religious fashion. Saying God bless is being blessed by a specific religion, Christianity. -DJSasso (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support At the very least, I do think CR90 does take Simple English Wikipedia seriously and wants to help out. I sincerely hope this unblock will have happier results for the Simple English Wikipedia than the last one. If he violates the rules (and everyone will keep a strict watch on him, I'm sure), it'll be easy for one of our many active administrators to make a swift, firm, decisive block. I wouldn't say that changing his username is necessary, but it would be refreshing. And as for saying "God bless", I don't see why that should be a problem. If a Muslim editor said to me, "Allah's peace be with you", I wouldn't be offended or angry. I would simply understand it as it's in all likelihood meant—a greeting made with good intentions. —Clementina talk 04:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Eptalon and Kansan have my pulse on this matter. I will support the unblock. Jon@talk:~$ 06:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support an unban. I agree with what Kansan says and I think CR will be able to contribute to the encylcopedia. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 07:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: I note he apologises only for the political POV, and ends with 'God Bless'. This is indicative of an underlying lack of sincerity. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC) [and why have two people placed repeat supports in the statement section?]

  (Replying to your question) That probably happened when Sonia moved the discussion back to the talk page from the Administrators' noticeboard. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 10:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Unbanned

You are now unbanned per community consensus. See [1]. Goodvac (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

closure?

Can someone determine if it time to close this review or not, and then how/who and result please? Thanks! fr33kman 00:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't these sorts of discussions run for at least a week? It's been only five days since the thread was first created, and even less time has it been visible on this Board. Disappointing. Goblin 21:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!

It should have been...but at this point I doubt the wind would have shifted much. -DJSasso (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't particularly disagree with you, though I know of a few people who were holding of commenting (Including myself) in the belief that it would be open for 7 days and wanting to speak more with the user concerned. Furthermore, we've now set a precedent for five day reviews. Badly handled, imo. Goblin 21:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Gordonrox24!

Sadly not out of context with this wiki which rushes into everything. -DJSasso (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

100% agree. Goblin 21:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!

No body had commented in three days though guys. Anyway, have a good day, I have work to do.--  † Christnrockr90  22:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter....different people edit at different times of the week. That is the purpose of 7 day discussions. -DJSasso (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Autopatroller/Patroller

Hi folks. I just want to remember that this right should only be added to people who actively create new pages and to people who are familiar with the syntax. If people only do changes to pages, then they don't need this right. Unlike meta, we only patrol new page creations. Just posting this, because I saw right now a right change where it might not only be unuseful but also "dangerous" (no real danger, but would make the work harder again for patrollers). -Barras (talk) 09:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Just looked at the list with patrollers, please be careful when adding this group. I'm not going to remove the right, but I gues some of them needs to be watched as they are that familiar with formatting and stuff. -Barras (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

desysopping

Resolved. done by Barras (talk)

Would any bureaucrat who isn't too busy be so kind as to desysop me per this? :) It's always been my firm opinion that an administrator ought to be active, and I don't think I can be so anymore. Thank you, —Clementina talk 13:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Its sad to see you leave, Clementina. May your future be wonderful and happy! Hydriz^Talk 13:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sysop mop removed, thanks for your service. -Barras (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Please watch

Please watch Yellowstone National Park, where (according to me) serious religious POV vandalism is taking place. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

An interpretation of one sura, perhaps with inadequate english language references. But no more serious religious POV than the idea "that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent" --Bärliner (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but that was on a page devoted to Mormonism. Anyway, the main battleground has been on enWP: see here. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Chuck Marean

Resolved. Blocked indef by Gordonrox24 fr33kman 23:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Chuck Marean (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

Banned user at EN; his talk page indicates problems with NPOV here as well. Most recently, this morning’s edits here and here exhibit a total lack of CLUE about sourcing. Has probably violated the “banned-users-one-strike” informal rule Purplebackpack89 22:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I gave him a very stern warning on 30 November 2010, but I've been a little more lenient since. Unfortunately, I think it's time to show him the door. By the way, the one-strike rule is policy. Goodvac (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I've done. As always, other admins are always free to comment on my actions if they feel them to be incorrect.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I really hate situations like this. Chuck definitely means well and acts in good faith. However, I've read through a bit of what led him to be banned from the English Wikipedia and the same problems have persisted here, and used up so much of other users' times that I fear this is the only option left and thus endorse Gordon's block. Kansan (talk) 06:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Purplebackpack89

Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs) What the heck is this guy doing here? He spends all his time writing articles, when we know that Wikipedia is all about vandalism and voting. Also, his backpack is too big and too purple Backpack ^{mano y mano} 04:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest initiating a ban proposal. Kansan (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Take it to ArbCom, please. sonia! 05:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Support permanent ban What a goof.-- CR90♫ 05:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Purple is my favourite colour, but large backpacks are bad for your posture. Support name change to Purple Handbag or Purple Satchel. 220.101.28.25 (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Make into barbecue, then pwn than eat. --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Annihilate him! (On a side note, I realize that I've commented one day late, but couldn't resist. Lol.) —stay (sic)! 07:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Username block

Resolved. Blocked. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 08:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Please block Bayarstainless (talk · contribs) for his/her promotional username. User had created an advertisement at User:Bayarstainless. Goodvac (talk) 08:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 08:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser/Jamesofur

Just a pointer to a discussion I posted on Simple talk James (T C) 22:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry?

Resolved.

The IP 79.18.245.224 added the same text to "Baby" as this account. Should this be considered sockpuppetry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SEPTActaMTA8235 (talk • contribs) Oh crap, I forgot

No, it is probably more likely that they accidentally logged out. Kansan ^(talk) 20:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The account was registered after the IP edited. --SEPTActaMTA8235 (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Then maybe they edited as an IP then decided to sign up for an account. Why is this a problem? The standard IP welcome template encourages people who edit anonymously to proceed to sign up as a user. Kansan ^(talk) 21:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Birth categories

I've just created three birth categories for 1996, 1997 and 1998 because I noticed that they had one article each. I know that conventionally we expect, say, three, but I think it's preferable to have a category in this case with one entry rather than a red-linked category (usually as a result of a the use of the {{BD}} template). If there's a huge anti-one-element-category campaign, then I'll delete them, but I firmly believe that articles should not use red-linked categories. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Any way we can fill each category with one or two more people? I'm not really a fan of such categories, but it might be more useful to create two more articles to fill the categories. -Barras (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a fan of "birth" categories or not a fan of "few-element" categories? Either way, I'm not a fan of redlinked categories. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

 Doing... Filling some up... --SEPTActaMTA8235 (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

edit conflict I think categories like this we can definitely make an exception to the rule for, as they are useful and can be populated - they're just not yet. With categories like this, definitely better to create than have redlinked. Goblin 13:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!

 (change conflict)  The "few-element" ones. Birth categories are fine. I also think categories should not end up in a redlink, but they aren't very helpful with one article in them only. -Barras (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

But more helpful with one in than red-linked, for sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Revdel Request

Resolved.

Please revdel (NSFW) this (NSFW). --SEPTActaMTA8235 (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done by Pmlineditor. Goblin 13:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Bsadowski1!

Very short new article...

Hello all,

I just wanted to let you know that I imported a filter from EnWP to recognise (and currently tag) articles which are very short, and basically aren't redirects or disambiguation pages. Depending on how things go, we might need to tweak the filter:

• Drop the condition that it only triggers on new (unconfirmed) users
• Adapt the size, it currently triggers for size less than 150.

I came up with the idea to prevent the siztuation we currenlty have with the "very short" city stubs. --Eptalon (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

When you say "tag" them, do you mean that it places a stub tag on the articles, or that it would physically prevent people from making the pages? Kansan ^(talk) 13:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

see this list. I meant tag the edit in the recent changes (as much as other filtered edits are tagged). And no, no preventing the user, there may be legitimate cases for such articles. --Eptalon (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. This seems very reasonable in my opinion. Kansan ^(talk) 13:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It's working! Just tagged 3 /w QD tags. --SEPTActaMTA8235 (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

...all of which would be more suitable to be tagged under G1, G2 or G3 - just because something's tagged as a short article doesn't mean it's instantly an A1 - and we should also be trying to fix first, wherever possible. Other than that, fully support the filter's creation though do hope it's not a speedy road to quick deletions, such as this (Though all three, in this case, should be deleted.) Goblin 14:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Jersey!

But can someone salt Nur Muhammad Taraki please? --SEPTActaMTA8235 (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Goblin that this should not mean that people tag anything for QD that comes up. Often on English, there are false positive tags. Kansan ^(talk) 14:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

No, we should not salt Nur Muhammad Taraki. He was a notable politician. Salting would not be appropriate if there can be a legitimate article made. Kansan ^(talk) 14:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Started a stub on Taraki, he was the third president of Afghanistan in 1978 and 1979. I'll leave extending the article to others though. --Eptalon (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

 (change conflict)  Why was there "REDIRECTTemplate:Clarify" in the middle of the text? --SEPTActaMTA8235 (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Vague was a double redirect. You redirected it to Template:What, which redirected to Template:Clarify. Goodvac (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Revdel

Resolved. Done by User:Bsadowski1

I'm not sure if this diff need to be deleted.--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 02:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Erock23432

Erock23432 (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

Contributions lead me to believe that this cool-cat is a sock of Bambifan101. IMO, they should be blocked. Albacore (talk · changes) 12:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Note, This person has already been blocked on the English Wikipedia.

Block 2604294 targeting Erock23432 was blocked by JamesBWatson @2011-04-05T12:22:03Z and expires at 2011-04-12T12:22:03Z because "Creating copyright violations: and other unconstructive editing" (Account Creation Blocked, Hardblocked, User Talk Page allowed)

-- DQ (t) (e) 18:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Psst Albacore did you forget you are an admin. Go ahead and block him. And I would delete his page creations as copy vios....or cut them down to one line stubs heh. -DJSasso (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not Bambifan101. I just consulted with Brian. There's nothing that fits. Please unblock that account. And btw, there is a page for requesting checkusers to be done... -Barras (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

As Barras said, data doesn't match any of Bambifan's. --Bsadowski1 21:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Disputed RFD closure

Resolved. RFD has run its course.

There is dispute about the closure of Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2011/List of ThunderClan characters on the RFD's talk page. I nominated this article for deletion and there was debate over whether or not the subject is notable/important enough for Simple Wikipedia. In the middle of debate, User:IanP userfied the article. Because of this User:SEPTActaMTA8235 made a non-admin closure saying "The outcome of this request for deletion was to Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. Page userfied to User:IanP/List of ThunderClan characters."

I, and others, have multiple problems with this action. For one, SEPTActaMTA8235 had already commented in the discussion, so he should not be closing the RFD. Secondly, non-admin closures should only be reserved for unanimous keep closures after the RFD has run its full course. And, finally, this article likely would have not survived the RFD based on the forming consensus. IanP's userfication of the article would make it violate the user page guidelines which say: "this space is not meant to keep your version of disputed or previously deleted content forever".

I would like for other admins to review this decision. The article has been deleted from the article space now, but I think that the way it exists now violates our user page policy and that the decision carried out (by a non-admin) was made to go around the potential deletion. Either way (talk) 10:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Completely agree with all that's been said and the close and move should be reversed and the discussion concluded normally - it's rather clearly heading for a delete, and is already controversial, so NAC should not have been applied - there's a reason we nominate our admins. If it's not already done, might also be worth leaving both of the involved users (The one that closed it and the one that moved the article) a message about how these things work and what is and isn't allowed, because it stinks of purposeful project disruption/circumnavigation of policy to me. Goblin 10:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!

I already left a message for the closing user to warn against controversial non-admin closures. I haven't messaged IanP yet, though. I'm logging off now for the rest of the day, so if someone else could take a couple of minutes to explain to him why he can't do that, it'd be appreciated. Either way (talk) 10:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

While I agree the close was wrong, I would note its valid for him to place a copy in his user space if its being worked on. If it is just sitting there to collect dust that is not valid. -DJSasso (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem was not that the article had to be improved, though. The discussion focused on, and supported the idea that, the subject itself was not notable enough for an article. Even if he improves it, the subject will still not be notable for inclusion. Either way (talk) 10:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't mean he can't work on it to try and show notability. -DJSasso (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The close itself has now been undone so this discussion is largely now unneeded. Per Either way's discussion I will mention the issue on IanP's talk page and see if he will move the page back to the Main space himself so that the RfD can assume unhindered - if not, perhaps an admin could move it? Goblin 11:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Barras!

I reverted. Well, I guess we wait a week, this article does not deserve an article–a page like "List of characters in Warriors series". Ian keeps reverting my edits to his articles when they have MoS "violations" but then he keeps reverting it until we hit 3RR. --SEPTActaMTA8235 (talk) 11:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If Ian is disrupting the project by reverting your edits then warn him and if he persists you can bring it up here or at WP:VIP. You're not an administrator, so it's not your part to just revert until you hit 3RR. (Not that it is for an admin, either, but that's besides the point.) I think you need to take time to have a good read through of a number of our different policies and ensure you fully understand all of them. Goblin 11:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Bsadowski1!

Excuse me for butting in like this, but I never saw anything in the MoS that said that the Setting part had to be in the Intro. I am reverting my move very soon and am going to put the redirects up for QD. Then I will continue to contribute into the discussion. I have changed my mind about keep, and now I'd like to Merge it into Warriors (book series). A turn for the better. Loudclaw/Hey, let's collaborate!/Desk/WP:Warriors/My changes 00:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ganderbal

A similar issue has been brought up at Wikipedia talk:Requests for deletion/Requests/2011/Reshipora, Saloora, District of Ganderbal. The RFD was closed after only five days and without a clear consensus. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Revdel 2.0

Resolved. Done by Barras. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Revdel this please. --SEPTActaMTA8235 (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done -Barras (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

User:LouisPhilippeCharles

Resolved. Deleted by Kansan. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

User:LouisPhilippeCharles has been banned. He/she has a number of sub-pages. Some are trying to call non-existent templates, such as: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Ahnentafel_top. The pages are also populating a number of categories, including Category:Sardinian queens consort which only contains the user's pages. Could one of the fine, upstanding admins clean up this mess? Many thanks--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I have all of them, let me know if I missed any. Kansan ^(talk) 05:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism in different languages

Resolved.

All IPs blocked globally

Can someone protect Embryo? Thanks. --SEPTActaMTA8235 17:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked one of the IPs tag teaming on it and if the other continues they will be blocked as well. Let's wait to see if the vandalism stops after that (or even continues) before protecting. Kansan (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

See also: [2] they're on all these wikis! So, the IPs are: 95.54.20.108, 91.203.170.227, and 91.203.168.225. A rangeblock doesn't seem feasible here. They're vandalizing ALL these wikis, can someone globally block them? Thanks. --SEPTActaMTA8235 17:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Please request for a global block here if you think it is necessary. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm busy at the moment, can someone else do it? Thanks. --SEPTActaMTA8235 17:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I've now made a request. --SEPTActaMTA8235 18:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: All 3 IPs globally blocked. --SEPTActaMTA8235 18:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Unblock review needed

Resolved. Done by Peter. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 12:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Can another administrator please review the unblock request here? [3] Kansan (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Revdel 4

Resolved. Done by Pmlineditor (t · c · l)

RevDel needed --SEPTActaMTA8235 12:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 12:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

184.41.30.151

184.41.30.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

His edits, most of which pertain to the Rugrats, need further examination. Many of his articles contain patently untrue statements (like that the Rugrats were on the Ed Sullivan Show); and I have reason to believe that portions of some of his articles may have been copied from elsewhere Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Lion

Resolved. Not protected. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 18:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The article Lion keeps getting vandalized, once every few days-a week. Please protect. --SEPTActaMTA8235 17:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to remind you because I know you have been told before. Protecting is only for pages that are getting vandalized alot by multiple editors within minutes/hours of each other. Once every few weeks is not a protectable issue. -DJSasso (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Agree with DJ, no need to protect this at this point in time. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 18:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive username

TrollAccount0 (talk · contribs) needs a block. --SEPTActaMTA8235 21:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No edits in nearly two years? Blocking is just a waste of our time since it won't serve any purpose. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't check that. --SEPTActaMTA8235 21:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should work on editing articles instead of trying to police everything? Just a thought. -DJSasso (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible LouisPhilippeCharles sock

Resolved. Blocked by Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

See User:Jenkins2011 and en:User:Jenkins2011. --SEPTActaMTA8235 13:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done Blocked per CU in en and the fact that they have a SUL account. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

User:MaltaWideWeb

MaltaWideWeb (talk · contribs) - this username seems promotional, see their edit to Malta. --SEPTActaMTA8235 21:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I can't act on seems... got proof? Thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 00:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding link to hotels site [4] --SEPTActaMTA8235 00:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, other than the word "Malta" the website added has no connection to the user name. Either way (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with my colleague above. There is not anything actionable here. Jon@talk:~$ 04:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

De-admin

Resolved. right has been removed

Please remove my admin access here. Thanks. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to address that to a steward, probably best bet at meta. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No, crats can remove admin access here, afaik. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

cf. Special:ListGroupRights — μ 17:37, Sunday April 24 2011 (UTC)

Do you want me to do that as a Steward or can you wait for a local simple.wiki bureaucrat to address your request? In any case, thank you for your work as a sysop. --M7 (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Live and learn. Done. Thanks for your work. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I respect your decision, and I only wish you the best! Thanks for all your work! --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 19:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Notice

To prevent lots of questions and stuff: I resigned as a bureaucrat and oversighter from simple. I have updated the necessary pages. There is no need for the typical "Please don't go" sentence and stuff, I'm not going to leave, just dropped the useless rights. Just letting people know so you aren't surprised. -Barras (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

OMG what a surprise, please don't leave!!!! (etc.) PeterSymonds (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah sure get the big steward flag then leave us high and dry.... :P lol -DJSasso (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Global block needed?

Can someone globally block this IP? 81.105.171.120 (See [5]) --—SEPTActaMTA8235— (t — c — l) 12:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that would be a major overreaction to a school IP that is causing minor vandalism on two projects, one of which it is already blocked on. Either way (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh ok. So to what point would a global block be needed? 3 projects? 5? 7? 11? --—SEPTActaMTA8235— (t — c — l) 12:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

See these guidelines. Either way (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Not worth a global block. -Barras (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

2.99.240.0/20

IP range 2.99.240.0/20 seems to be the range used by the Pakistan vandal. It covers about 4,000 IPs though... --—SEPTActaMTA8235— (t — c — l) 15:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Which is why we don't block it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

RevDel

RevDel this --—SEPTActaMTA8235— (t — c — l) 15:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't post oversight requests publicly. Email the oversight list instead. -DJSasso (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not an oversight request nor did it require oversight. RevDel would have been sufficient. Goodvac (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually it did as it was libel, and even a revdel shouldn't be posted here. The whole purpose of RevDel/Oversight is to avoid attention to what was written. Posting to a public board watched by lots of people defeats the whole purpose of hiding the edit. -DJSasso (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the administrative mailing list would be good to use in revdel cases. Jon@talk:~$ 04:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

In cases like this one it might even be better to mail the oversighters instead of the admins... -Barras (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense

Keep an eye on Cleartext...a protection might be needed soon. (I'm busy on-and-off due to real-life activities) --—SEPTActaMTA8235— (t — c — l) 18:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Protection needed! --—SEPTActaMTA8235— (t — c — l) 18:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and we need more vandal fighters now too, there are so many vandals today! --—SEPTActaMTA8235— (t — c — l) 18:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

What happened to my page?

I logged into wikipedia today, and my user page and corresponding talk pages were gone. My watchlist is also empty. I was never given a block notice, there is no reason I should've been blocked, and my page doesn't say it has been deleted, just that it doesn't exist. Ryan Vesey (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You userpage has never existed here. This is the Simple English Wikipedia. Your userpages do exist over at the English Wikipedia.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 11:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong wiki? -Barras (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Import

Please import {{HND}} from here. Thanks. NotImportant (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears that SEPTActaMTA8235 has created the page, so this request may be ignored. NotImportant (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:SALT request

Someone please create-protect Tomlinopolis–it's a hoax and has been created 6 times within the past year (including twice this month). --SEPTActaMTA8235 14:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Check. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User:SEPTActaMTA8235

Resolved: Indef block endorsed by community after discussion = community ban. Requests for a review of the ban should be made at least 6 months after (15 November 2011), but there's nothing stopping editors from making such a request earlier. Chenzw  Talk  15:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)