Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 25

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

Peter Pan

I'm really confused. I found an article called Peter Pan with some comments about being gay and Michael Jackson etc etc. I changed it to be more correct and a bot arrived and changed it back to the silly version. And gave me a warning for vandalism!! Help please? Victuallers (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it was a mistake by the bot. Don't worry. Barras (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm looking into the exact rule that was triggered, but certainly the >50 edits has something to do with it. Sorry for the problem, could you possibly file a False-Positive Report? Thanks, Goblin 19:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 Done --Barras (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

More Disney Vandal/Bambifan101

I'd unintentionally posted to an archived discussion regarding this little menace, so I thought I'd do it right. :) He was just booted off of English yet again and I have to tell you, I am sick to death of this individual. English has a long-term vandal of nearly five years nicknamed "MascotGuy." His idiosyncracies point toward autism. He's generally benign, but a pain nonetheless. Bambifan101, on the other hand, may be in serious need of professional help if he's for real. I remember when I was 14 and you can bet your bottom dollar that I wouldn't have been writing about the Teletubbies on a wiki site if either had been around at the time. Nor would I keep coming back to a place I wasn't wanted. I take hints well. This screwball does not. Most of his anon edits resolve back to Bell South in Atlanta. What are the steps to be taken for a formal complaint to the IP for TOS violations and abuse? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello there - I am not a doctor, so I am not qualified to diagnose health issues of a patient I have never seen, based on their behaviour on a community website. Also, I have no idea about the terms of service of BellSouth (or any other ISP). I can therefore neither tell you whether this user violates these terms of service, nor how to complain to the ISP; I am fairly sure though that the terms of service specify how to complain to the ISP. As the admin team we are committed to protecting this Wikipedia, we are not interested in the health issues certain users might have. Please also note that there are well-established scientific journals that publish articles about the Teletubbies, so writing about them is nothing to be ashamed of:
Those are just two scientific articles on the teletubbies, I am sure there are many more. In short, I currently do not see how the admin team can help you (beyond what we already do). --Eptalon (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a doctor either, but I don't believe it takes one to see that we're dealing with a really bizarre individual. If he is in fact a fourteen-year-old boy, his interests/obsessions/tantrums point to a mental age less than half that in my opinion. He just happens to be good with computers or he has someone who knows how to shift proxies enabling him. The other likely scenario is that we're dealing with a fully aware adolescent troll who's getting his yuks whenever he logs on and pretends to be this person. I'm an administrator at English and I have to deal with him all the time. I may have frightened him off to some degree and he's coming here instead. Sadly, you may be right about doing all you can. If his proxies keep shifting and he's obsessed with editing these sites, there really isn't much either of us can do beyond playing "Whack-A-Bambi." In the meantime, I'm working on building my edit count here so that I can apply for adminship and help out. Good luck and I'll keep on patrolling for him over here. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Adminship is not based on edit count, nor any other set factors. Everyone has their own reasons to type the words "support" or "oppose". MC8 (b · t) 22:28, Monday May 18 2009 (UTC) (I Protest!)

My name is the master of all of the 6's

Resolved. Clearly endorsed. — neuro(talk) 18:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BOLD I have indef-blocked this account: 0 edits to articles, disrupting RFA with frivolous requests, making contentious changes to templates, a clear and obvious sockpuppet/reincarnation, here to cause trouble. He's now posting his password. I thought it best to nip this in the bud before it got beyond silly. Majorly talk 21:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  • +1, I was just going to do the same. --M7 (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse, good call. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Endorse Block Good call, Majorly. I could tell this user was not here to help contribute to an encyclopedia. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 21:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Also, I've deleted out the diffs with his password (the initial posting, the revert, and the undo/re-revert). EVula // talk // // 21:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • User:MNITMOAOT6 has also been blocked, per the same reasons. --M7 (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with the block. I was thinking about the same. Barras (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with block, but how did EVula delete the diffs? Griffinofwales (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Using the delete button, I reckon. Majorly talk 21:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I thought only oversighters could do that, and when I checked 30 minutes ago, there weren't any oversighters on this project. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
No, selective deletion can be preformed by any admin. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Depends what you mean by selective deletion. Revision delete can only be used by oversighters (who have a (show/hide)) by logs and diffs. What EVula did was delete the page, and then use tick boxes on the undelete form to selectively restore the page without the offending revisions. The diffs are still available to sysops using undelete too. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • There is no use to oversight a password to a blocked account <EG> --M7 (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, but there's no use to leaving the password there in the history, either. I erred on the side of caution, which is the appropriate response in situations such as this. EVula // talk // // 22:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I truly appreciated you fast selective deletion. I was just saying that IMHO there's no need for a steward to oversight that data. --M7 (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Er, I totally knew that. I was just, uh... testing you. Yeah, that's it, testing you. And you totally passed! Congratulations. *cough* EVula // talk // // 22:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse. neuro(talk) 02:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree. Block endorsed. — RyanCross (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse, purely just a disruptive troll.-- Tdxiang 01:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • (NA)endorse. MC8 (b · t) 07:33, Friday May 22 2009 (UTC) (I ♥ Kennedy)

Pakistan topics

I've recently blocked (for two weeks) two IPs used by the Pakistan POV editor for POV pushes. I don't know what is happening regarding the anon editing debate but I'd like to go around and six month or indef semi-pp all the Pakistan articles I can locate in the mean time. Any objections? fr33kman talk 02:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Two IPs could probably mean they're both the same people working from a proxy. I suggest banning the proxy. --<font=Comic Sans MS>S3CR3T (tell me a secret.) 02:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
No, not proxies. Both IPs are in the same /24 range (range block might help) and are UK O2 addresses (probably a 3G mobile Internet user). We've had a long history of this individual causing issues and POV pushing in India/Pakistan topics; he is very well known to the admins here. fr33kman talk 02:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
82.132.136.157 (talk · contribs) seems to be part of the Pakistan Clan. --<font=Comic Sans MS>S3CR3T (tell me a secret.) 01:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, very much so. We tend to believe it is a single person doing these edits; therefore it's a block on sight issue. Even though, many edits do make it into the encyclopedia; and some edits are probably useful. The main issue seWP has with this editor is the constant POV pushing that takes place. They seem to be a Briton of Pakistan heritage who has a point to push against India, mostly regarding Kashmir topics. A long term solution is continually being discussed. For future reference, I'd advise you not to welcome anonymous editors of Pakistan/India/Kashmir topics unless 100% sure that it is appropriate. Don't worry about the recent welcome you made, however; it takes a while to see this person's pattern. Hope this helps! :-) fr33kman talk 02:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) OK, I was a bit confused at this block at first. I thought the users edits were quite useful, but some of them were copy-pastes from enWP (which I understand is against the rules too). Anyway, thanks for the help! :D --<font=Comic Sans MS>S3CR3T (tell me a secret.) 02:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. It takes us all a bit of time to see patterns sometimes. I know I was a tad hesitant with this user myself until I got to grips with exactly what was going on. He can be quite subtle at times. Now, I make it my business to actively seek him out and stop his actions (as do many others here). It's nice to know you really care about the project, and it's editors! :-) fr33kman talk 02:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, just as a note: Most of the topics surrounding Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, including the conflicts these countries went through are heavily edited by the user. As far as I can tell this user has been one of a very select few (read 2-3) to edit such topics in perhaps the last six months. I write this just as a note: not all the contributions of this user are bad, it is just likely there will be a (usually pro-Pakistan) POV in their edits. --Eptalon (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Could we semi-protect every article that has either "Pakistan-* relations" or "* - Pakistan relations"? It would certainly stop a lot of his edits? — This signed comment was added by Kennedy (talk • changes). (I ♥ MC8) 10:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Too much work to be done, and this also prevents other anons from making (useful) edits. Blocking would be slightly easier. Chenzw  Talk  10:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Except that doesn't seem to be working so well. Perhaps we could start salting them as we delete them? I doubt any IP has edited them in good faith yet, and don't see it happening any time soon. — This signed comment was added by Kennedy (talk • changes). (I ♥ MC8) 10:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Could the abuse filter be able to deal with this? Chenzw  Talk  10:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec) @Chenzw: The IPs keep changing. @All: I'd like to try and "encourage" him/her to become a named editor so that his actions are easier to track; hence why I'd like to pp the articles. I know it's a lot of work, but I'm willing to do it. It's very hard for people to keep track of what's going on with these topics and this editor because they do make some very good edits; just lots of POV pushy edits also. I've tried to engage in a dialog, but frankly I don't think they care to talk with us. It's sad really because they could really help us out by editing an area practically no one else edits. Right now, though, more POV edits get through than get caught. fr33kman talk 10:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Flag

I'd like to request that my flag be restored. I've had enough of a break to get back to work here. Synergy 00:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I definitely think that he should get it back. We've messed him as an admin. :-) Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 00:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
200% endorse! (maybe more!) fr33kman talk 00:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Yay! Majorly talk 01:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I've no problems if you become an admin again. Barras (talk) 07:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back. — This signed comment was added by Kennedy (talk • changes). (I ♥ MC8) 07:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done — This signed comment was added by Kennedy (talk • changes). (I ♥ MC8) 07:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

Can I get an admin to swing by Wikipedia:Copyright problems and deal with (delete) the article I posted there? Thanks. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 00:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible Bambifan101 solution

Since I've joined a mentorship project over at EN, I've made an offer to Bambifan101 via User talk:Junglebook2hater. He's accepted the proposal, so with any luck, we'll have us a good new editor with a bit of spit and polish. I'll keep you posted. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I would be opposed to this. Bambifan has created far too many block-evading sockpuppets and has been disruptive. Sheltering disruptive users was one of Simple's biggest problems, and thankfully it's gone away. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 23:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to agree with all the other comments here and on other associated talk pages. You are welcome to mentor Bambifan on EN, but that user is still blocked here and we do not have a resources to mentor them. EhJJTALK 00:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed; however, it seems to be the only place he can converse with Bambifan101, so I've given him leeway for a few days to continue the conversation; with the understanding that it ends very soon! fr33kman talk 00:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd oppose but Bambifan will just keep on coming back if the community doesn't allow him here/there. --<font=Comic Sans MS>S3CR3T (tell me a secret.) 00:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to mentor this user at en.wiki. After a couple of months let us know how he/she's getting on and we can reconsider the block if required. That's my suggestion. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Strong oppose Bambifan has created a new sock: TheRescuersfan101, i think that he won't do constructive edits --David0811 (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Confirming that the vandal-sock was Bambifan. I am strongly opposed to any kind of mentorship, anywhere. Majorly talk 01:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I've spoken with PMDrive1061 and the plan has been canceled. fr33kman talk 01:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Bambafan101

Could no one delete or alter User talk:65.0.181.192 please? I want PMDrive1061 to see it before it's removed. I have blocked the IP addy and full-pp the talk page for now. Thanks! fr33kman talk 20:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate for you to "permalink" that version of the page to PMDrive1061. This editor should be permanently blocked and then forgotten about as a persistent vandal and self-confessed sockpuppeteer. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I was actually thinking of doing that. I want PMDrive1061 to see it because he's mentoring him for enWP and wants to bring him back here. (No chance!) fr33kman talk 21:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Just do it. No point in giving this troll more food. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I've blanked the page. I don't think a permalink would work if I deleted the page, would it? I've undo the pp on it also. Thanks for the advice, I just wanted to make the point to PMDrive that it is a waste of time to try and "help" this user. :) fr33kman talk 21:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Not to worry, my friends. Ain't no way in you-know-where I'm going to help this indivdual after his latest rant and his latest round of sockpuppetry at ENWP. Better I find out now than later since he's obviously a lost cause. I wash my hands here and now. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Repository for long-time blocks?

Hello, this is probably my last post before wikibreak, but I want you to think about something while I am not here:

  • We definitely need a page which list the users which are blocked for a long time (read: more than a month), together with the reasons why they were blocked, the blocking admin and additional info about their case. I think if it is done as a page on wiki, it should be fully protected, if not access-restricted to admins, crats, cu or similar (if that's doable). If off-wiki a maintained text-only file would do.

All I want to do is that if someone long-term blocks a user, the knowledge about the specifics is not lost whe n the admin leaves (read: 6 months from now, you want some specific info on a block, but you cant find it because it's no longer in the logs, and the blocking admin left?)

Anyway, I'll leave you to ponder...--Eptalon (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm for this idea. I also think a page like en:Wikipedia:Long term abuse would be useful here to provide continuity for editors and admins here. It'd help new users and new admins to have a place they can read that would give them clues to potential new abuse by old long-term editors. Think about if all current admins were gone in 12 months but abuse was still on-going from a long-termer. fr33kman talk 00:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
One would think there would be warnings etc to the users talk page that would indicate the details? Would there not be? Personally I think tracking long term blocks is just more unnecessary red tape. -Djsasso (talk) 03:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the user's talk page should be all the evidence and documentation that we need. A helpful block summary goes a long way towards that as well; between those two, I don't think we need to document anything on a separate page. EVula // talk // // 04:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

CalUpswing

Single-topic editor; claims to be the author of a "definitive book on Badfinger", but has never made a single edit to the Badfinger article. Instead he makes multiple reverts to the Peter Ham article, to his own last-year's version laden with POV and not written in Simple English. Every footnote references the same, online version of said book. (The [1]s throughout the piece get truly monotonous.) His explanation for this is that "since it's an online version, there are no page numbers" to be cited.

Tholly attempted to reason with him last year, and got nowhere. (Their correspondence may be found on their respective talk pages; Tholly's at his 2008 archive.) If the editor is truly the author of said "book", there may be some OR/ADVERT issues. As it is, the fact that he does not reference a printed version (didn't he keep even one print copy, of his own work?!), has not attempted to rewrite his version in Simple English (much less cut the obvious POV in it), and has not made even one edit to either Badfinger or Tom Evans, despite his alleged "research", makes me highly suspicious of the whole matter. Somebody please check this (and him) out. Zephyrad (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Memorials

Not sure if this is in good or bad taste, should we allow this? fr33kman talk 21:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't. There's a page on enwiki (Jeff's main project) that people can leave their thoughts on. Creating single-purpose accounts isn't appropriate though. Majorly talk 21:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 Done I have removed the memorial and soft-blocked the account User:I heart Jeffpw. fr33kman talk 21:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Señor Kruzkin

User:Señor Kruzkin is a sockpuppet of User:Mr. Kruzkin 5. I am requesting a indef ban for the Señor for block evasion. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for noticing. EhJJTALK 04:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
As I've fully-protected Kruzkin 5's talk page due to {{unblock}} abuse, I've also locked down the sock's talk page. I'd recommend any future socks be handled with the same treatment. EVula // talk // // 07:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm getting tired of hearing "liberal hack" in every unblock request, both here and on the English Wikipedia, and (ironically) when I asked this account to be blocked on Commons a few days ago. "Kruzkin" is no longer allowed as part of any new username here, so it may be more difficult to spot next time (just letting you all know). EhJJTALK 13:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The ultra-paranoid part of me is going a bit crazy after seeing a slew of new accounts pop up on RC. Hopefully he's had his fill of us, though. :) EVula // talk // // 14:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

JzG for a day, RHMED for a lifetime

Reporting RHMED sock - JzG for a day, RHMED for a lifetime (talk · contribs). --Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done by Vector. Chenzw  Talk  08:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Roll back.

Just wondering if I could get Roll Back privileges for my account on this Wiki so I would have them on both en and the simple Wikipedia. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done - You have only just started editing here, please show a need for it - it's not a toy or a sign of power. Also, please use WP:RfR. Goblin 20:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Thats ok. I just assumed having Rollback on the English Wikipedia currently means I have already proved a need for them. Also on the WP:ROLLBACK page it says to petition for roll back on this page.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 Fixed Thanks for pointing that out. Requests can be made at any location, but we prefer them at WP:RfR. EhJJTALK 20:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks good!--Gordonrox24 (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The threshold is generally lower for en users... but User space and Project space edits are imo not showing a need for rollback. Though apparently Majorly has  Done it. Goblin 20:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks guys!Gordonrox24 (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you typically use Twinkle on EN. Once you're autoconfirmed, you can use WP:Twinkle here as well. EhJJTALK 20:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Granted rollback. Rollbackers from other projects do not need to have made edits here. Majorly talk 20:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, you just changed consensus 1 minute ago (diff). Anyone object? I don't. EhJJTALK 20:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
No - see WP:RFR. This has been established practise for months. Majorly talk 20:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Hm... you're right. It's been like that since WP:RFR was created. Well, now our pages are consistent and it makes sense that rollbackers trusted on another wikipeda can be trusted here, too. Any admin can remove the tool if it is abused. EhJJTALK 20:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. I don't see the problem with giving existent rollbackers on other Wikimedia projects the RollBack tool. It does however make sense to have Rollback requests listed at WP:RFR instead of here.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I've updated the instructions at WP:ROLLBACK to say that users should request it at either WP:RfR or an admin's talk page. EVula // talk // // 18:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Does that mean that we should give rights to users if they already have them at enWP? Rights such as Bureaucrat, Oversight, and Checkuser. Griffinofwales2 (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
No, though administrators and bureaucrats on the English Wikipedia do have an easier time at RfA here. EVula // talk // // 04:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
With rollback all we want to know is if they know the difference between vandalism and not vandalism. If they have RB on en.wiki then they obviously know the difference and we can see their history there. But yes, generally its easier to get one of the other flags here if you are one on en. (even if some people here hate that fact) -Djsasso (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan relations

I deleted another "Pakistan-_____ relations" article today. It seems the message isn't getting through. Is it time to consider adding "relations" to the Titleblacklist? EhJJTALK 15:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Is it possible to use the word in a good article title? If no, then add it to the black list. Barras (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It's probably overkill. There are about 25 articles that contain the Pakistan, another country, and "relations" search results. I know many more have been deleted in the past as copyvios. EhJJTALK 15:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Not a good idea. per en search (here) are about 2,000 articles possible. Therefore, I would say no. Barras (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I would say no on this, the problem isn't the articles but how he writes them. It is possible that someone could write those articles from a non-POV angle and then they would be valid. -Djsasso (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
To prevent collateral damage, a delete on sight will have to do for now. Chenzw  Talk  00:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think 82.0.157.111 (talk · contribs) maybe part of the Pakistani relations "gang." --<font=Comic Sans MS>S3CR3T (tell me a secret.) 01:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Page Protection.

Could we get the Wikipedia talk:Requests for deletion/Requests/2008/Carlos Nemer page create protected? It keeps getting created needlessly. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

PeterSymonds just beat me to it. EVula // talk // // 22:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Ahahaha...ahem, yes. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Haha. Fast work guys!--Gordonrox24 (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
You only beat me because I'm still playing around with Safari 4. :P EVula // talk // // 22:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Excuses excuses =).--Gordonrox24 (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request at User talk:Inferno, Lord of Penguins#Ping

User:Inferno, Lord of Penguins is requesting an unblock for User:SchnitzelMannGreek. See the request at User talk:Inferno, Lord of Penguins#Ping. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I would personally decline it as he was socking less than 2 months ago. -Djsasso (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Please a link to the en contributes of the user. After this I will think about an unprotect of the user's talk page. So wy can discusse there. Barras (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Since I was the one who protected his talk page I will unprotect it, however if he resumes the abuse on his talk page that he had before I will reprotect it. -Djsasso (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Though it looks like you already did... -Djsasso (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 (change conflict) Sorry Dj, I did it now. I wil monitor this page. I think we should discuss now on this user's talk page. Barras (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Yup, I would at this point leave it up to him to request the unblock, explaining why he thinks he deserves to be unblocked. -Djsasso (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
That sounds fine to me. I know a number of our admins' first interactions with Wikipedia was as vandals. Perhaps SMG will one day be a useful contributor or admin here. EhJJTALK 00:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree. fr33kman talk 01:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion criteria A2.

Term. They are many of these in article space. This article meets the WP:QD#A2 because they have no content other than a link. Before I delete them all (they not being real articles) I want to post here for clarification. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

These articles wouldn't be speediable for no content as they are redirects. As results of Rfd's are often to soft redirect to wikt. So these at one point in time or other were considered valid articles. I personally would like to see them stay. If you want to see them gone a Rfd would be more appropriate. -Djsasso (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
If they are going to be deleted then they need to be replaced with a hard link to the wikt.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Define "hard link". We can't redirect a page directly to another wiki; that's the whole reason {{soft redirect}} exists. EVula // talk // // 22:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, I believe he meant hardlinked inside of the articles, the ones that would have these soft redirects linked in them. So who ever deletes them, be sure to click the what links here button and replace the redlinks with direct links to wikt. Synergy 22:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I had considered a soft redirect a "hyperlink" for the purposes of A2... however, even with a soft redirect, there is no content in that article. They do meet A2, I would think. I, however, will be doing no deleting of these without a consensus, too much gray area. I understand from the above, that if they are deleted, the redlinks in other articles need to be changed. That makes sense. And instead of soft redirecting an entire article, we would be better to softlink the wikt interwiki within the article. A soft redirect is not an article and is not content. I know we can do better than that. :o) Are there any objections to the soft redirects (those articles where the only content is a "soft redirect" being deleted as no content? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I object as they are not articles so they fail the A part of A2. They are redirects. Speedies applicable to redirects start with R. While hardlinks direct from the article to the wikt entry is preferable. A soft redirect is better than nothing at these locations. If an article can be written in the future the soft redirects can easily be overwritten. -Djsasso (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I was looking at the hard redirects as "redirects", and the soft redirects as "articles". NonvocalScream (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
It might just be my opinion that soft redirects are still redirects. I suppose technically speaking they are articles, but really their purpose is just redirecting someone. Anyone else have an opinion on it? -Djsasso (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Going by the spirit, rather than the letter, I'd say yes, soft redirects would fall under the category of redirects. EVula // talk // // 06:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Jessica Dauber

I've put the {{QD}} template in Jessica Dauber, which was clearly written by herself (if she exists) or a friend of hers, and user:NonvocalScream removed it. -- Marawe (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed that because it did not meet the standard for articles that we can quickly delete. Since the articles states notability. I'm asking you to now request a deletion discussion. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, one of the unsourced notability statements is that she's "world renown for her beauty and radiance". -- Marawe (talk) 05:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:HOAX Note that hoaxes are generally not speedy deletion candidates. That being said if its pretty blatant like this one is, I would probably delete it as vandalism. -Djsasso (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I can not prove it is vandalism. Also I can't delete it if it is not quickly deletable, unfortunately :( . Cheers! NonvocalScream (talk) 05:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Well that is your discression. On en (I know this isn't en) WP:IAR is applied to this very situation pretty much daily. If it wasn't then Afd would be clogged with hoaxes. Since we don't have the article numbers en does I will defer to your judgement as to not wheel war. But I will note had I seen this as a QD before it being declined it would be deleted already. -Djsasso (talk) 05:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm new, so if you want to delete it, go ahead. I won't reverse it. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
lol I will let a third admin decide so you don't think I am picking on a new admin haha ;) -Djsasso (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Good deal. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Pages like this were quickly deleted when I was an admin, that's why I posted it here. I'll use the other template next time. -- Marawe (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
It is more than possible that I have made a mistake and read to literally into the standards. I'll seek advice. But thank you for posting here! Bets, NonvocalScream (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted under G11 - Advertising. EVula // talk // // 05:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
As above, NonvocalScream (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it was a bad call to turn down the deletion request, but I also had the immediate reflex to delete it first and then looked for a decent reason to justify clicking on the tab. :) EVula // talk // // 06:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:David Wee

Auto-cancelation Please consider I'm asking no more this restoration. I was indeed quite frustrated to have different talks of mine removed while I was coming back from a long wikibreak Since then, almost all my edits have been kept and I'm no more worrying. ONaNcle (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I know that I was starting writing on this page without exactly remembering why. Please restore it back inside my own talk:page or in a sub-page whatever fits you better. No need btw to touch the main David Wee page. ONaNcle (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Copyright violation. The text isn't part of the GFDL. If you want you can rewrite it so, that it meets our criterias. Please don't copy from other websites. Thanks Barras (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Nice your answer has occured so quickly... Was copyright violation mine ? If not, please paste-copy my own text, and only my own text, unto my talk:page. Thanks. ONaNcle (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The source website of the text isn't part of the GFDL. So the text is a copyvio. Please read WP:COPY. Barras (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok about David Main Page but I was talking about the talk:page. Btw I've noticed you had to block people accusing someone of sodomy and I wonder if this and probably racist words not in English should not be removed from the history from most pages where he has already being reverted. ONaNcle (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Talk pages of deleted articles are deleted. There is no need to restore them to your user space. If the article is ever restored then the talk page edits can be restored as well. -Djsasso (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm a long time editor with over one thousand edits on Simple; unless I didn't notice becoming such as doctor Jekyll and mister Hyde , I've never been told to use copyvio texts. If you just tell me that my work on Talk:David Wee is neither important nor a copyvio, I'll believe you. But please have a look. ONaNcle (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks that you are this David Wee, because you used "I have written..." on this talk page. That is COI. Barras (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Argh ! Am I mister Hyde then ? Btw, I ask nobody to restore Wikipedia talk:Requests for oversightship/Barras but it was deleted soon after I was saying nice things about you. Too bad! ONaNcle (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
That wasn't me, but it was correct done by Majorly. It's a closed RfO. Barras (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Strange! Very strange! Why then pretend Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page... That's what I did ! ONaNcle (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Ask the deleting admin. This is closed and there is imo no need to edit it. Barras (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It was indeed frustrating to be deleted so quickly; but now it's ok: I'm sure that you've read my vote to support you and can diff it if you need it... Do you still believe I could be David Wee after all those years spent on Simple exhibiting my poor froggy English? ONaNcle (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to Talk:David Wee aren't necessarily a copyvio, but your edits aren't the only ones on the page, and the copyvio text exists on all the individual revisions to the page. If you'd like me to restore just your comments from that page somewhere in your userspace, I'd be happy to do so. EVula // talk // // 15:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Tks Evula ; do what you feel better: on one hand, I'm a little afraid to be told again about COI; but, on the other hand, I feel curious how/why people may think I was deeply involved in this copyvio matter. ONaNcle (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Oddness with Commons images

Our Commons-hosted images usually have a stylized box to display the "this is on Commons" message, but ours don't. For example, compare File:Wikipedia-logo.png or File:Gilbert Stuart Williamstown Portrait of George Washington.jpg with MediaWiki:Sharedupload.

I'm not sure why we'd have such a plain display, or why it wouldn't pick up the proper MediaWiki page. Thoughts? EVula // talk // // 16:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems the new MediaWiki software (now 1.16a) has changed a few things. That is probably why it changed... now we just need to figure out how to change it back ;) EhJJTALK 16:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 Done. Goblin 21:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy! 21:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Not entirely sure what the point of MediaWiki:Sharedupload-desc-here is, but whatever. :) EVula // talk // // 21:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that's actually the one that does it - but I have no idea - it worked! Goblin 09:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!

Redirect?

Should this page not be a redirect to the New changes page?--Gordonrox24 (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a template that is included in RecentChanges, and transcluded via a MediaWiki page. We could move that page to the MediaWiki one, but then that would limit it's editing to sysops only. Not sure if that answers you're question or not, but hope it helps ;). Goblin 16:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!
Yeah that makes sense. Leave it as is then =)--Gordonrox24 (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Script Request

Would anyone (primarily those who edit Enwiki) know where I can find a script to block zombie proxies? Thanks, Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 00:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Enwiki has a bot that does it, but for obvious reasons the code is top secret. -Djsasso (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
It may just be better to block as we find them. Watch Meta-wiki RC where such proxies are blocked quite frequently, then just apply the block over here. Majorly talk 13:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Localization

I have localized

There is more work to be done in this area, I will pause to check for objections/issues. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. On a side note, please don't make any changes that have got to do with the CC-BY-SA 3.0 licensing change. It will be updated automatically. Chenzw  Talk  02:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'll leave that be. Thank you for looking. :) The following localizations and interface edits will be in my contributions history. Cheers! NonvocalScream (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I've altered the Sidebar to make the search bar more prominent, feel free to RV me if you don't like it :). Regards, Goblin 11:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!

New Changes.

Hey,

Just noticed that the counter for number of RFD's on the New Changes page is at zero while there is an RFD in progress. Is something wrong with that?--Gordonrox24 (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There should be no issue... I changed it to zero when I closed the RFD. Cheers! NonvocalScream (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
No it's manually done so it does get out of date sometimes. Nothing to worry about. -Djsasso (talk) 04:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes we forget to change the template. If you see this, just change it. Barras (talk) 08:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
OH it's manual! I just figured it was automatic!--Gordonrox24 (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
That does sound like something a bot should do. EhJJTALK 14:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
There's one under development. As of yesterday, 90% done. Goblin 14:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!
Oh great!--Gordonrox24 (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Upload?

Moved to Wikipedia:Simple_talk#Upload NonvocalScream (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan editor - blocked

I have blocked the Pakistan editor (This time User:92.0.49.21) for failing to adhere to WP:NPOV for a period of one month. This person created Seraiki people as a copy paste of the lead from enWP and failed to include the information about this peoples who live in India. This is a clear POV push. Please watch out for IP socks and block as usual. Thanks fr33kman talk 02:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Masha Ashner

Did an logged out admin make this change? --<font=Comic Sans MS>S3CR3T (tell me a secret.) 01:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

templates

Whatever template made this is redlinking the talk page, or rather, referencing the incorrect page as "the talk page". NonvocalScream (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


I have fixed it for now, but it needs a long term fix, the template is {{UsernameBlocked}} NonvocalScream (talk) 03:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done - I think I have fixed it. Chenzw  Talk  03:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

User:KV2009

Evidently, an advertising only username. Username is promotional: it is the name of an antivirus user intended to promote. User previously created Jiangmin, which was G11d. The article the user created is the name of the company who created the KV2009 antivirus which the username promotes. Regards, Pmlinediter  Talk 08:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC).

I have warned the user. Next time, I'll block them. -- Mercy (|) 09:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Mercy. Allow him the chance to edit normally, then block. From first sight, I could not tell it was promotional, but hey, give him a chance as Mercy stated. Thank you for bringing it up here, now I'll watch his contributions also. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Non free content

There is proposed polciy at Wikipedia:Non-free_content. Please discuss, on that talk page over there. Thank you for taking a look. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Rename of Oysterguitarist

Just to let everyone know so that people won't be thrown into confusion when this "new guy" does an admin action: Oysterguitarist (talkchangese-mailblocksprotectionsdeletionsmovesright changes) is now known as Exert (talkchangese-mailblocksprotectionsdeletionsmovesright changes). Chenzw  Talk  02:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

I noticed this article is now protected. I've looked through the history and there seems to be just one person causing problems. I don't think the article should be protected because of one person. --Tb240904 (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The protection is just to prevent vandalism :) He died only a couple of days ago, and it's quite a big deal and when vandals can't vandalize at enWP they sometimes come here. Just a precaution :D --<font=Comic Sans MS>S3CR3T (tell me a secret.) 22:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
But it's also a good opportunity for us to get some quality edits to that article. Until a few days ago, it was a three/four sentence stub. Now, with the recent interest in him, it has grown quite substantially. EhJJTALK 22:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed! Have you seen how many new Michael Jackson articles there are across the WP projectspace? The interwiki bots are going mad :) fr33kman talk 23:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
As the admin who placed the protection, I can tell you the reason the semi was put in place was because of vandalism that had already occurred to the page. Obviously the semi prevents future vandalism also. The semi does, of course, prevent that rarest of creature, the good anon from adding content. But they do have the option of requesting edits via the talk page and, of course, requesting un-protection. In the mean time, we have to deal with a real event of a somewhat controversial figure. As such, the protection will remain; it's only for another 50+ hours anyway. fr33kman talk 23:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I've unprotected the article since the vandal is blocked. The article is heavily watched, and vandalism can be quickly reverted, we need the contributions of others. Any issues, let me know. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted my unprotection since the protecting admin has contacted me on my talk page... sorry about that. I do think the article should be unprotected. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Why? My reasons are 1) he was very famous; 2) he just died; 3) enWP tends to semi-pp these things when they occur; 4) he just announced a 50 date concert series in the UK (which now is cancelled and needs to be refunded) and 5) events like these tend to attract vandals. Since I then saw vandalism, I re-semi'd it. fr33kman talk 02:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
It is such a small wiki, and easily watched. There is not a high level of vandalism, and anonymous edits have been known in the past to add good content. See this user for example. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I counted one decent edit by an anon; I'll leave it up to you. fr33kman talk 02:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I won't reverse the action without consensus to do so here. I just wanted my opinion to be heard. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I would support un-protection. We are a small wiki and there is always somebody watching the new changes. Vandalism won't go unnoticed and will be reverted immediately. I think all the protection is doing is deterring aspiring editors wishing to contribute.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 02:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
My decision stands; if another sysop wants to unprotect, they may. I think to do so would be a mistake. fr33kman talk 02:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I do agree that protection is needed, however the protection period is currently set to indefinite. Would anyone like to suggest an expiry? Chenzw  Talk  02:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say try a month, and see how the vandalism is then. Exert (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Indef? Really? I could have sworn I set it to 72 hours, as in "04:03, June 27, 2009 Fr33kman (Talk | contribs | block) changed protection level for "Michael Jackson" [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 03:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 21:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)) ‎ (Excessive vandalism: There's been a few acts of anon vandalism now; I'm replacing the semi on it for 72 hours) (hist | change)" ?!?!?! fr33kman talk 03:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Chenzw changed the protection level, and set the expiry to indef. Exert (talk) 03:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've set it to one week for both. Let's leave it at that unless something else happens which dictates a new setting. fr33kman talk 03:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Copyright

Advice would be appreciated at MediaWiki talk:Copyright by those most knowledgeable about the MediaWiki software. EhJJTALK 02:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Page deleted per discussion on its talk page and at Simple talk indicating that it had been deprecated in favor of MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyright. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow...3 hours between notice and deletion...that was rather fast. If its truely deprecated then I supported getting rid of it. But by a comment on the page there it seemed like we needed to confirm that no pages actually use it (you can't use what links here with those types of pages I believe). But now that its deleted I guess we can just watch for errors. But I am guessing there won't be any. -Djsasso (talk) 06:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
If it is indeed needed for some particular use, it will just revert to the default content (which is GFDL, I believe) with no adverse effects, so not to worry. Chenzw  Talk  06:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


Bluegoblin7

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BG7 has sadly left Simple; let's just forget this drama and go back to editing. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 19:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Bluegoblin7 (talkchangese-mailblocksprotectionsdeletionsmovesright changes)


Bluegoblin is attempting to host discussion regarding our DYK process on his talk page here. I have asked him to not do that here and he responds that no one reads that page. This is unacceptable, talk of process should go on that process page. We don't discuss project changes on low vis talk pages.


Regarding his bold edits... he prefers to filibuster and edit war before discussing his bold edits... requiring consensus for everything.

I don't really like the personalising and owning of DYK.

I also deleted the sandbox this morning to test out a restore feature I was scripting, but did not get a chance to because he restored it without talking to me, or letting me know.

Now this is a good editor. The actions need to be reviewed, they are getting a bit out of hand.

These actions are detrimental to project collaboration and I want it stopped. So I bring here for discussion. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've presented exhibits why. I can give more. And I think it's rather more than an attempt. And I wound't call my page low vis (link incoming).
As for my "bold" edits, EhJJ clearly said people could revert if they had a problem, and both me and PM do. Therefore, consensus for such a change is needed - it's not only me with the problem. This is stupid. Goblin 16:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!
I've hardly owned it or personalised it. And I could say the same about you. And that's also a bit of an oxymoron. Goblin 17:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!
No people can't revert it... you starting warrring. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Why can't people revert it? (Gets another link). I've not warred once. Your return was also warring. Goblin 17:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!
No,had I done a second reinsertion, then I would be warring... but I stopped. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Really, I couldn't care less. A COI doesn't lead to a section here. And really, he doesn't own DYK. It's just that he is one of the primary contributers to it. And were is the edit-warring evidence? Clearly, this need solution by reason, not by quarreling here. Regards, Pmlineditor 17:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC).
Your edit war evidence removal ... reinsertions and the second removal. At the second removal that is edit warring. I had to stop my insertions. I was going to reinsert then discuss the removal. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys, take it easy; no need to fight over a couple of minor isues like these. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 17:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
There are a few issues, and a pattern emerging. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
(<-) Look, we both had a problem and EhJJ said that we were free to revert. Pmlineditor 17:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, for what it is worth... this type of behaviour has the result of turning editors away. It may be some time before I ever contribute to DYK again. With the tribal guard and all. Think about it. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's the quote i'm after: "adding subsection per BOLD and a complete lack of understanding of the complexities of this process. revert if i've broken something)". I.E. EhJJ doesn't care if we remove them. Your the one edit warring, it should default to the "normal" which is what it used to be. Goblin 17:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!
I undid your change once... you revised the same revision twice. And why do you seem to think *every* improvement or change that you disagree with *requires* consensus? This is another issue with your edits. Filibustering. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't. I think that changes that multiple people disagree with require consensus. This is a complete non-starter... I though you we're just going to drop it... <walks away> Goblin 17:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!
I don't know why you thought that... most especially since there are multiple issues. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
And why do you think that every edit you disagree with requires to be noted here? Pmlineditor 17:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
PM, really? I think this is the first time I've used AN for editor conduct. Make yourself aware of the page history please. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Point threats

Also, there are two recent incidents also to the pattern of disruption I should also bring up.

Given that and the above, I am considering BG please reconsider his actions, he is a sysop on this project and the actions should reflect that. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

BG7's just gone and threatened to put in a request for de-sysop against me, which I also see as a point violation. In the section below, there is no objection to the block, so I decided to re-block him as he broke his promise not to unblock himself. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 19:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Shappy, is there an on-wiki proof of what you're saying? If it was on irc, please note that you shouldn't take things seriously there, that's what cost me my admin tools in the first place. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Block review

Please review my block. User_talk:Bluegoblin7 and unblock if I made a mistake. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with the block. Barras (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The block seems reasonable. It appears that Bluegoblin7 had no problem ignoring the advice (and warnings) of two admins on his talk (and IRC) and continued to flood. Consensus rules all, and continuing to make edits that are against consensus (i.e. mass deleting with flood flag) could be seen as an extension of 3RR (i.e. redoing the same action despite warnings to stop and failing to engage in discussion before resuming). EhJJTALK 18:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to comment on the validity of the block, but Goblin should definitely have used the flood flag. –Juliancolton | Talk`
BG7 was being completely unreasonable. I think that he should've used the flood flag instead of whining about it, and that the block should stand. BG7, please be more careful in the future. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 18:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Not using the flood flag seemed justified to me, and I personnaly think the block was uncalled for. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

De-sysop of NonvocalScream

I propose the de-sysopping of the above administrator for abuse of the Block tool.

As i'm sure you aware, he blocked me for "Disruption" for two hours when I did not use the flood flag due to the discussion about my editing above. This block is very clearly not what blocks are for - prevention of damage to the encyclopedia - as I was clearly not damaging it. There were no edits before, during or after my supposed "flood", so I see this as a very POINT-y block... and was that not why I was blocked? Hypocritical, no?

Simple really needs to sort itself out if it goes round blocking users for following the rules. Where is there a rule that says that the flag has to be used, anyway? Show me one and i'll back off :).

Goblin 19:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!

I oppose the desysop of NonvocalScream. He was acting as an admin in good faith, and did what he thought would help the situation. Now, if there was significant opposition of the block, my answer might be different, but this seems to be blowing off steam after being blocked. Please, just let it be. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 19:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll stay neutral, but I would like to point out he should not have blocked him while using the flood flag. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Your correct, I apologise for that. I needed to stop the deletions before they completely flushed RC and I had forgotten that I had the flag enabled. I'll be submitting a bug report so we can get a notice or something to remind us we are still flagged. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


Goblinbots

Hi, I'd just like to say from now on I'm now running the Goblin bots (1/2/3/4). Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 20:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see some test edits from you on those bots first please. You need to apply or permission to run those bots just like anyone else. -Djsasso (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
There's a whole proven history to look at, and there's no code change. I know you don't like BG7 (from what was said on IRC) but that doesn't mean you can't trust his bot code. There will be some edits, you'll see for yourself if it's good. If it's bad, of course that's a problem (but that's another matter as they haven't gone wrong yet...) Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 20:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Its not the bot code I am questioning, its the operator. Good code can be used wrong. Every bot has to be approved. Mostly its just a formality in this case but we can't make exceptions to something as important as bots which can cause havoc if they run amuck. -Djsasso (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem, the test edits will be made. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 20:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Come on...

I'm not going to file a formal RFD because I'm assuming editors can show sufficient maturity but do we really need this useless, potentially divisive, crap? Soup Dish (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Just stop spoiling everything. We've had enough trouble for one day; the last thing we all wanted was you to come and find something else wrong. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 21:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Bluegoblin7 isn't blocked. He retired! There is no reason to delete the page. The page doesn't harm. Barras (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, it encourages strife and infighting. In no way does this help the project. I've a mind to delete it now... but I'll let everyone cool for some time. Remember, we are here for a purpose, and we have a community... but this is not social networking. This is not a popularity contest, but an encyclopaedia. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
It's a user subpage. My Sandbox does nothing to help the encyclopedia yet you don't delete it. I think some editors need to step away from the keyboard for a bit until they cool down and are not editing with prejudice because of a quarrel they have had.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
As an admin not involved in what happened today, I would probably delete it. -Djsasso (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Then please go on, and search in all user name spaces for subpages, which don't help our encyclopaedia, like this or this. Feel free to open a RfD, but not per QD. Barras (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Maintaining stats is useful in terms of open and transparent operation, though, Soup Dish (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Is the page somehow harmful to the Wikipedia? Is it a copyvio? Pmlineditor 09:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
To be blunt, Goblin spat his dummy out of the pram because he was blocked for acting immaturely, consensus was that he was acting poorly, so to protest against it is baffling. I worry that this project is becoming divided on lines of under-18 social networkers and the rest. Worrying Soup Dish (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Come on, what's the point in arguing here? It's over, Bluegoblin's gone; let's all go and build a wiki instead of wasting our time here. Why not join user:Project/Stub Eradication Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 10:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
A fair point and, for the record, I think the eradication of the asteroid and Romanian river articles will be looked back upon as the time things started improving for the better Soup Dish (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I really hope so too! Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 10:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Flood flag bug

For those who are interested: http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19519 - tholly --Talk-- 21:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It is right. You can only grant yourself the flag. Barras (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
But I cannot give myself the flag with "tholly", only with "Tholly" - IP block exemption and rollback work on both. That is the bug. - tholly --Talk-- 07:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The MediaWiki software capitalises the first letter of every username, so this is not a bug, but a limitation in the system itself. Chenzw  Talk  07:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
No - it is a bug because if you type your name with a lower case first letter ("tholly"), it gives info on "Tholly" - with caps. It lets me add rollback or IP block exemption at "tholly" user rights - it is meant just to mirror the "Tholly" user rights page. At the moment it mirrors the page in every way apart from the flood flag, which is very confusing. Surely it either needs to just treat "tholly" as "Tholly" (best option, currently meant to work) or say "User not found" or similar. - tholly --Talk-- 17:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it isn't a bug. You can only add flood flag to your own username, not to others. You can add IPBE and RB to everyone. Barras (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Yup that is correct, the reason those tags work with lower case names is that its not checking to verify that those names are exactly you, whereas the flood flag needs the username to match your username exactly. -Djsasso (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
But if I add a rollback flag to "tholly", it adds it to "Tholly". It would be easy for them to allow flood flags to work like this too - the flood flag box is greyed out at "tholly" and says it is not a flag I can change. It is confusing as it is, and yet easy enough to correct. - tholly --Talk-- 18:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


I have also filed 19520 for notifications when you are performing actions flagged per my above promise. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Rights

Hey,

I will be going inactive here at simple so I am giving up the rollback tool in good faith. If somebody would wish to change my user rights. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Twinkle should still work. Hope you're not gone too long; sorry to see you go. EhJJTALK 21:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seeing that the community has questions with BG7's "non-controversial" reinstatement and based on drama that happened over at AN a while before the desysop request on Meta, an RfA is required to regain the tools. Chenzw  Talk  11:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello all, I would like to request my admin tools back following my resignation. I've taken time to think over the events, and will be releasing a statement on my userpage within the next day or so, as well as contacting all involved parties if I haven't yet done so. Furthermore, i'll be proposing a few things on wiki to try and stop such events occuring again.

If anyone objects to this, please comment below. Let me also make it clear that for various off-wiki reasons i'll also be less active in discussions and the like and more active in article work, article improvement programmes and vandal fighting etc. The various bots will also be back online if there are no objections.

Kind regards,

Goblin 18:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!

  • I'll fully support, that you get your tools back, and I was one who said I request the removal of your rights. Please be in the future more carefully! Best Barras (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid that usually, adminship is only granted by asking a crat if they lose the bit through non-controversial circumstances. Although BG7 did request removal himself, I'd say that the events that day that led up to this request (multiple ANI threads, 2 hour block, controversy with flood flag etc.) were pretty controversia, and l can't support him regaining the tools in this manner. However, I'd encourage BG7 to run for a reconfirmation RFA. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 18:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


Since your resignation was a completely voluntary though a somewhat rash decision, I see no reason, moral, policy or otherwise that you can't have it back. Promethean (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It actually wasn't. He resigned it under a cloud because a desysop request was about to go up. -Djsasso (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I would prefer you to edit sometime without the tools to make sure you really feel comfortable. Then you should go through RfA. I mentioned at the time that your actions, including unblocking yourself and then requesting a desysop, evidently showed that your resignation was "under a cloud". I would thus not support an automatic resysop. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Is this pot calling the kettle black? Promethean (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I beg your pardon? I went through RfA to get my tools back, on a different project, so no it isn't. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Concerns for the automatic re-grant of the tools are risen up. I think we can stop now to discuss useless.

@Bluegoblin7: Please follow Peters comment and edit some weeks without the tools. Barras (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


Strong support This is not up to the community or admins to decide. It is for the 'crats to decide. Bluegoblin7 resigned his flag without being asked to and without it being called for by a community desysoping. It is therefore his right to ask for them back. I disagree that his resignation was "under a cloud", only his actions were and a desysoping did not take place. In any event, it is up to the crats, not the community to decide this case. Regards fr33kman talk 18:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that is up to a crat, but you would say that he resigned purely by coincidence, not because of those actions? Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 18:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe if concerns are mentioned, no crat re instal the rights. Barras (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I would say he resigned because several individuals burnt him out for a little while, which is understandable for someone who puts allot of time into sewp. Furthermore resigning shows that he has the maturity to know his limits. Perhaps you should resign shappy, might help you recover from your illness quicker ;) Promethean (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see the humor in making fun of me because I am ill. Now, can we please get back to the matter at hand? Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 18:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
No Shappy, it most certainly was not a coincidence, but I'd say it was frustration that caused him to resign the bit, not fear of a desysoping. If he gets the flag back, those who wish can then start a request for desysop. In the mean time it is up to the crats, and only the crats. We gave them that power in the first place, it would be rude to tie their hands preemtively now. fr33kman talk 18:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Crats are not given the power to give a flag back when there was a cloud hanging over the admin. A desysop request was being written when he gave up and asked for his bit to be removed. He did it to avoid the desysop request which is considered resigning under controversial circumstances. -Djsasso (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Please point to the policy page where this is stated. When the community elects a crat they have the right to use their bit as they see fit. If we then disagree with a crats actions we can call for their removal. What we can't do if to tie their hands ahead of time. fr33kman talk 18:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:Administrators 'Crats interpret the results of RFA's. They do not on their own decide who gets to be admin or not. Giving a flag to someone who gave it up is arbitrarily deciding a person can be an admin. It is not a crats job to decide if they should get a flag back or not, that is up to the community through an Rfa. Any crat who gives back a flag in a situation where there is great concern like this is not doing their job and can expect an de-Rfb immediately after they do so. -Djsasso (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose 100% oppose. Unblocking oneself is about the worst offense an admin can make. That combined with many previous instances of emotional instability would gain a no from me. -Djsasso (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • (To others) This was an obvious case of a resignation under a cloud. He unblocked himself (a serious abuse of the admin tools) because he knew he was about to request desysopping. He should not get the bit back automatically, and it remains my opinion that a few days is not long enough to get over whatever it was. This was not just a one-off either. There has been a pattern of poor judgement, including requesting a six month block and supposedly retiring back then. I am sorry, but I cannot support, per this incident and a history. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    No one called for him to resign. He did it out of anger. If you want you can start a desysoping if he gets it back. Either way, this is up to the crats and only the crats to decide. We gave them that power. fr33kman talk 18:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    Actually yes, Scream told him he was about to post a desysop request. 'Crats are also not entitled to give back a bit automatically when there is a cloud hanging over the candidate and there clearly is since he was blocked. He does require an Rfa to go through. Should a crat automatically give it back then I will pretty much consider this wiki doomed. -Djsasso (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    The point is that a desysoping request did not get posted and we don't know what would have happened. A quick look above shows us that BG7 proposed a desysoping of Scream and this was simply closed. How do we know the same thing wouldn't have occured in the case of BG7. The fact is that both admins abused the bit (and I'm saying that as someone who was totally not involved). The status quo should be restored and then people can call for desysoping if they want to. fr33kman talk 18:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    Unfortunately BG abused his powers and unblocked himself. He then resigned his bit when a desysop request was about to go through. Whether or not it would have gone positive or negative is not the point. A parallel example on en would be Majorly who resigned his bit when someone was calling for his bit, and when he wanted it back was forced to do another RFA. Scream however was justified in blocking BG, while I might not have done it, it was a valid block so I don't see Scream as having abused his powers. BG was by far in the wrong in this situation. And I am saying this as someone who wasn't involved or even on the computer when all this went down. -Djsasso (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    Scream did abuse his bit; he blocked a user with the flood flag on and I also believe that there was an edit war (related to this edit by EhJJ) that I can't verify as he had the flood flag on at the time. Both editing warring (BG7 had permission to revert from EhJJ in the edit summary) and blocking a user both done with the flood flag on is an abuse of the admin flag. BG7 also had permission (I believe) to unblock himself; even so I agree he should not have done so. (Anywho, I've said my peace, it's up the the crats now.) fr33kman talk 19:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    Flood flag only hides from the RC not from the history of the article so there is no edit war there. Also there is no actual policy against blocking with the flood flag on. While you probably should not do it, there is no policy against it, especially since the block still shows up in the block log and on peoples watch lists. -Djsasso (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the crat's role is being misinterpreted. They decide the result of an RFA. It isn't up to bcrats to decide if tools were abused or if someone resigned in good standing. I think BG7 should go through an RFA again. It was fairly clear he resigned under a cloud. And there is a considerable voice against his promotion with valid reasons. A bcrat ignoring concerns like that would not be a very good bureaucrat. Majorly talk 19:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you summed up my position better than I. -Djsasso (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
If the community really wants him to go through a new RFA then fine. I think that the desysop request for NonvocalScream should be reopened as well. It was closed without the community having a chance to discuss it. I, personally, wouldn't support the desysoping, but if one has to go through a reconfirmation, so should the other since it was started. fr33kman talk 19:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I would not object to that. I hadn't been aware one was actually opened on him prior to you mentioning it. (I mean I see the thread above but never knew an actual de-rfa was created in the relevant location) -Djsasso (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
There was never a RFdeA sent about NVS, as I recall (that is, the user who posted the notice above exercised his RTV and retired for a day or two following the above posting). If someone begins a process but doesn't see it to completion, I think it's fair to just close it as "request withdrawn". Anyone is welcome to open it if they have further concerns, but I don't think we as a community are obliged to do so. EhJJTALK 20:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind him having it back directly; it seemed he was forced into resigning (not wanting to go through the awful process of a reconfirmation (If anyone on this wiki, I know about this...), but if people prefer him to run another rfa, so be it I won't disagree with consensus. Best of luck, Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a big difference between someone who decides to step down after a long personal deliberation and someone who sends a heated request to meta with "RTV". Personally, the latter user is not entitled to request adminship is automatically reinstated without a community review. If the above comments said something like "Oh, I understand, we all have a hard time sometimes", then perhaps. But, quite a few users have expressed concerns over BG's actions in the past. Ultimately, the question of whether to reinstate BG comes down to one questions: 1) Does the user have the community's trust and support to exercise the role appropriately? I think the only way to find out is to ask (whether it's an RfA, desysop, or some other method, such as this discussion). EhJJTALK 20:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but I can't support automatic resysopping. I would, however, support you in an RfA. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems clear that he resigned under a cloud and should therefore have a new RfA. Even if it was clear it would be unanimous in his support (and if I'm reading above comments correctly, that is not the case) we should do this simply to establish a clear rule for future cases. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • @Freekman I did not abuse my bit. I told the community on this wiki, that I did block with the floodflag on, which was an accident, and I apologise(ed) for it. I was mass deleting I believe. Should I ask for your reconfirmation should you delete something that falls outside of QD? You want me to reconfirm for a mistake? I even filed a bug at bugzilla:19520. I surprised. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    Actually I didn't ask for you to be reconfirmed Bluegoblin7 did when he opened a desysop proposal. I only noted that there was a proposal for your desysoping that was closed improperly and shouldn't have been. I even said I would oppose your desysoping, which I certainly would. My saying that it should be reopened is not related to BG7 needing to go through a new RFA in the slightest. Nor is it related to any action you've made. I merely think that BG7's proposal for your desysop was closed incorrectly, and would feel that way even if he had left the project for good. Once opened, it should have ran its course. It's not personal, honestly!! It's a procedural thing. Do I think you acted incorrectly, yes; but I also think BG7 acted incorrectly and have said so, both onwiki and off. fr33kman talk 02:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
If I misunderstood, and it is possible, then I retract. I did take the statement you made regarding abuse when writing the reply I made. As a procedural note, you may reopen the request. I am open to review, in all my actions, and will abide if the community desires that I have or have not the bit. Best regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Nah, the two are unrelated. I'm not going to reopen it as it was closed by an admin and I don't go in for that sort of action. I have a rule for WP; "I can increase another admins actions, but I can't lower them or reverse them without permission or consensus." fr33kman talk 02:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • @BG7 I can not support your auto resysop. I would only ever block another sysop in the most extreme of circumstance. The fact that I had to do it to you to stop the disruption (flooding), is the reason why I oppose. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.