Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 45

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

Wiki Drama

Next time something like the SF issue comes up I think we should all ignore it. In the last ten minutes no registered user has edited any articles. It detracts from this encyclopedia and aside from that all this discussion just gives the user attention which nine times out of ten is what they want. Please can we make a concerted effort to ignore it next, myself included. FSM Noodly? 19:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Revert, block, ignore. Who wants to guess what his next username will be? To be honest, I'm getting tired of his immature antics. It may well be time to consider permanent removal from here. Majorly talk 19:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
One more chance I'd say, then I'll agree with you. Synergy 19:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
There's been too many chances. I think that I may have had enough immaturity and drama related to his case. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 19:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I have had enough too. I tried adopting him, to no avail. Support block Kennedy (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I suppose I missed a lot. If he really has exhausted the communities patience, then I support the block/ban also. Synergy 20:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I personally have been quite patient with him, and I feel that a line has to be drawn in the sand. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 20:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine then, I propose a ban. What were his previous username(s)? Majorly talk 19:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Gwib just blocked him for a week, but i support extending a ban. He went by the names Baseball16, ThePageChanger, StaticFalcon, and finally ShockingHawk. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 20:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) User:Baseball16, User:ThePageChanger, User:StaticFalcon, and User:ShockingHawk. He also has alternative accounts which I don't know the names of. – RyanCross (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
User:NoclafCitats, i think is his school account. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 20:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support indef ban. Enough disruption. Majorly talk 20:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

i have this account.  ThePublicPageChanger 20:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC) this, StaticFalcon at school (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC) and this StaticCross (StaticFalcon's WikiBreak Account!) 20:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Support ban. I'm leaving for the movies. I need a break from all of this drama. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 20:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support ban. – RyanCross (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

please give me another chance. pleaseplaeaseplease. StaticCross (StaticFalcon's WikiBreak Account!) 20:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Majorly talk 20:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support a ban. Enough is enough. alexandra (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support a ban. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support a ban. Synergy 20:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I oppose a ban. I am happy to support a block. I am prepared to be a mentor for this user if he wishes to return and the community allows it. --Matilda (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - Yes, he did "threaten" suicide, and was rude - I support a week-long block. But I see no reason why he should be banned, especially considering his good editing. -- American Eagle (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I am giving him 1 month for mentorship. If he gets out of control or drains Matilda's patience, then a ban. Chenzw  Talk  04:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Changing to Support after seeing Creol's comment. Chenzw  Talk  05:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly support I am amazed people can support keeping a person who has provided little to the wiki while at the same time vandalized the Main page (1) and Recent changes (2), impersonated other users (3) and an admin (4), insults ethnic groups (5), requested the deletion of TRM's user page (6) (reason listed was "Thuh user isa loser" (7 (deleted page)) and requested the deletion of another page with the reasoning "dadada zuhzuhzuh" (8) in addition to fake suicides, self-pitying screaming fests and bi-weekly retirements. -- Creol(talk) 05:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Of which he should be warned for, then given a block (none yet, till now). How many times have you given him a last warning for vandalism? Hmm? None. -- American Eagle (talk) 05:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
You act like as if this is new. It's not. He's been indeffed on English Wikipedia under ThePageChanger for sockpuppetry [1]. He knows it's wrong, and still did it here. Edit: I'm not quite sure. Peter added the tag as being the I'm On Base vandal, but an anonymous IP removed it. The block still stands, and for me is enough to know that this isn't new at all. alexandra (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
So...? We have policies for a reason, you know. Even though it's "the almighty Creol," they should be followed. -- American Eagle (talk) 06:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
AE: Do you mean other than the impersonation warning, two last warnings and the block he got as his sockpuppet Edge37 and the vandalism and NPA warnings he got as the sock Hin111? Nope, other than those, none were given in reguards to those events. I guess as long as you are hiding your vandalizing abusive socks so that your main account doesn't get warned for it, then there is not reason you should be held accountable for the actions. -- Creol(talk) 06:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
He has contributed very much to Wikipedia. Where in policy does it say that you ban a person not only without warning related to the topic, but in less than an hour after any wrongdoing? Hmm? I can't find it either. (Good-night) -- American Eagle (talk) 06:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Wow Creol, I had no idea that RfD I closed as a bad faith nomination was actually Ric, and the vandalism he did with his other accounts I had no knowledge of were actually Ric's accounts that were disruptive. Everything you pointed out makes me support his block even stronger than before. Vandalism, socking, and disruptiveness leads me to think Ric needs a long time to get away from Wikipedia. I'm still not sure if Ric should go through mentorship yet though, but I'll think about it. American Eagle, I actually did warn Ric several times before. The ones I remember were the warning I left at Gwib's talk page (User:Gwib/Archive_twelve#Retirement), my talk page (somewhere...), and his own talk page ([2]) (though, he deleted the warning afterwards). The warning on Ric's talk page is the "more serious" warning; the other ones were me advising him to stop doing something he previously did. May I also point out that Ric has also been uncivil at times and tends to yell a lot by typing with all capital letters. – RyanCross (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
American Eagle, you're begging the question. Creol and I have proven that his contributions are not substanial, with 45% of his mainspace edits dedicated to removing and adding categories. Ryan and I have destroyed much of his userspace, so we can't say with authority how much work he did in the userspace, though I know it outnumbers mainspace or is in severe competition to it. Referring to Creol as being above the rules is a textbook ad hominem fallacy. alexandra (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Cassandra; category work is important to Wikipedia. Don't diminish work or put some over other things. There is also nothing wrong with userspace work, and I know he worked on several articles in his subpages at one point. And he always admitted to his struggle with userspace editing, and tried to stop, even blanking his user page a few times.

Creol; each of your links were old ones, only one was within a month (Hin111), and even that was weeks ago. You bring them up in the heat of an argument, and you think we should punish him for them. Why didn't you block him when he made the changes? This would have been policy, but you are saying we should punish him for his past doings. "[Blocks] are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern." ([3]) These are old things, and you intend to punish him for them. -- American Eagle (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

His sock was blocked previously. It just wasn't until a check was made to identify other accounts as part of this situation that the accounts were identified as his. It is kind of hard to warn someone when you do not know it is them. Unless you suggest I should CU every user every day (completely out of the question) or every new account (still out of the question), there is no way to identify every sockpuppet account out there. CU is to be used when a problem comes up, not to go looking for problems that could exist. -- Creol(talk) 20:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Update

All of his 'alternate' accounts have been indef blocked. If you see any others, indef them as well. However, I think we should leave SH (main account, IMO) blocked for only a week. Blocks are to warn, not to punish. He has been warned now, all his other accounts are gone and, when 1 week has passed, he'll be able to edit more carefully. --Gwib -(talk)- 20:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather he didn't come back after a week. He does this ever time something doesn't go his way. He needs to leave. Majorly talk 20:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Gwib, I think that's fine. One week for it. -- American Eagle (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. Previous timeouts have done nothing. Support indef block Kennedy (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm off, sort this out yourselves. I've done what I think is right, he may or may not have learnt his lesson by now (unless he's killed himself - *cough*). Do as you see fit. --Gwib -(talk)- 20:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I support a one week block with a constant final warning hanging over the account, and no more account creations. I've also indef blocked User:ShockingBot -- a bot that copied a few advanced antivandal scripts from enwiki to its userpages, and has made two "bot" edits... - tholly --Talk-- 20:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I have indef blocked SH. Kennedy (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I undid it. You do not have the approval for it. -- American Eagle (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Approval? Who gives approval for such things? Kennedy (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
AE, you're the only one disagreeing with an indefinite ban here. Majorly talk 20:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Block duration

We should probably have consensus first deciding how long we should block. What does the community think? – RyanCross (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you, Ryan! That is exactly my point. -- American Eagle (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
We did have consensus. It was ignored by a single admin. Synergy 20:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The community thinks an indef block should be put in place. AE, who is a known friend of SF undid it. Make of that what you will. Majorly talk 20:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  1. I would go more for a long term block (i.e. months) but I support an indefinite ban if the community wants it. FSM Noodly? 20:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
He had over 10 alternate accounts... just goes to show really. FSM Noodly? 20:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
What you're all missing is that we're slamming down an indef block on him with almost no warning! He's been asked a few times to be more polite, but other than that, there is nothing even resembling an "I'll block you if you don't STFU" on his talk page.
We've let him go about retiring, being renamed etc etc without much complaint, now we're all suddenly taking huge insult at what he's doing and indef blocking him. Don't you see you're using tools as punishment rather than to give him to time away from us that he needs? --Gwib -(talk)- 05:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wheel warring

The wheel warring needs to stop. A community ban was placed on him. AmericanEagle: I think you have too much involvement in this situation to be reverting an admins block. Synergy 20:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Guys, wheel warring is helping nobody. Please reconsider until the discussion is further advanced. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Think its pretty clear that most people (excluding AE) support an indef block. Kennedy (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I support an indefinite ban, in case it wasn't clear. Stirs up drama, doesn't contribute much articles wise. alexandra (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Heated discussion

Hello all, as far as I am aware, ShockingHawk was frustrated about his RfA. In this mood, he made some unfitting comments on his talk page. Based on these comments, some rather heated discussion went on on IRC. Please let me clarify that this is his first offence.

Based on what what happened, we can reasonably justify a one-week ban (together with some event, see my talk page). We are currently heated up, which clouds our discussion.

For this reason, I think:

  1. We should all cool down regarding this matter.
  2. ShockingHawk can be blocked for a week (this also concerns his other accounts, same block time there)
  3. We are currently not in a mental state to decide a longer ban, let alone an indefinite one.

I hope you agree with me here. --Eptalon (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with number1 only. Definately not any shorter than an indef block. Kennedy (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Um all his accounts have already been indef blocked, all 11 of them. All his userpages/talkpages/subpages have been redirected/deleted. Putting them all back.... I think we have consensus for an indef ban. FSM Noodly? 21:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
This isn't an isolated incident. This silly disruptive behaviour needs to end now. He is not a net benefit to Wikipedia. Therefore, a ban is more appropriate. And his sockpuppets need to stay blocked whatever happens. No one needs 11 accounts. Majorly talk 21:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
"He is not a net benefit to Wikipedia" -- American Eagle (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
It's good we agree on this fact. Majorly talk 21:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Net, AE, means that we take in all his edits as a whole, not simply his mainspace contributions. He ahs 246 mainspace edits. Of those, 110 of them (45%) are adding and removing categories, sometimes in large batches with HotCat, and more simple edits to remove templates, categories, etc. without care to doing them all in one edit. There's about 5-6 copy-editing edits and a handful of vandalism reversions. That, when you compare it to his user and user talk contribtuions... alexandra (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Reverted myself as that is pretty much what I said.. -- Creol(talk) 21:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually trying to do COMM studying right now, and ran into the social penetration theory. One formula that arises out of it is this: the REWARDS - COSTS = OUTCOME. I'll plug that in right here. Little to no encyclopedic work - the need to constantly try to comfort him whenever he throws a tantrum = a lot of time wasted and no little gain at all. If he was a brilliant article writer I could see me going the extra length to calm him down, but I just don't see it here. As they would put it on en, the community's patience is exhausted. alexandra (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

AE, I'd like to counter that post with this Kennedy (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Most of those posts are myspacy-like comments. – RyanCross (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship

  • As above, I oppose a ban. I appreciate that most of his edits to date have not been a net contribution to the encyclopaedia. However, due to limited interaction, my patience is not exhausted. Should the community be willing to allow a return to editing, and should the editor be interested in returning, I volunteer to mentor him. ( See en:Wikipedia:Mentorship ) --Matilda (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I support a band unless he agrees to Matilda's mentorship (who I'm sure will do a good job). Giggy (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I support a ban, unless he accepts Matilda's mentorship, for an indefinite period of time. However, we should keep in mind that indefinite is not infinite and if he refuses to accept mentorship, he should be able to appeal the ban or propose suggestions. It is up to the community (do NOT read: small circle of admins) to decide whether he should be let in and be accepted back into Wikipedia, or stay banned. The ban is appropriate (even though Baseball16, ThePageChanger, and StaticFalcon were not sockpuppets, they were after his renames and "retirement") and I have been waiting for a long time, I just remained quiet as I didn't want to cause drama (meaning American Eagle to come rushing to his defense). Note that WR has a thread about this whole affair, with only one reply at the current moment. It calls StaticFalcon a drama queen, and says we shouldn't tolerate it. I disagree, we should be negotiable, but this has gone too far. If he wants to change, he should accept the mentorship and cut out the fake 1-day "retirements" and temper tantrums. — Jonas (talk · proposal) 02:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Giggy and Matilda on this one. The only way I'd want to see him back as an editor, is through mentorship. Matilda is willing, I suggest we see where it takes him. Synergy 02:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

and I don't get credit for writing that long-winded stuff above because? :) — Jonas (talk · proposal) 02:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Because I don't need to read it, to know my own position. Synergy 03:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
People are assuming the worst of me. I don't defend his actions, only that they don't warrant an indef-ban when only 5 or so users support it. Other than that, Ionas, I mostly agree with what you said. I think, if he wants to become an everyday user again, he should be thoroughly mentored by Matilda. -- American Eagle (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Considering the ratio of HotCat/Category edits:other Mainspace edits, I don't really think that he made that many article edits to improve the encyclopedia. Come to think of it, maybe there should be a separate value in the Special:Contributions dropdown box for HotCat edits, which, semantically, are different from other mainspace edits in that they are semi-automated, and don't add knowledge. It only contributes to the sum of human ways to build up edit counts in the Mainspace by using a program to make little edits of no value. You mentioned how many edits he made in mainspace, which are not justifications or valuable to the encyclopedia. — Jonas (talk · proposal) 03:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I disagree there. Hotcat, Popups, etc. are very useful and I use them often. -- American Eagle (talk) 03:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I use popups. They are very useful. I sometimes revert vandalism with them, and I sometimes use them for their many other uses. Aside from my views on HotCat (it is useful, but does not add to the encyclopedia, and nor does vandalism reversion), I was saying that he did not make many manual edits that add to the encyclopedia and if one were to subtract Ric's HC edits from his total mainspace edits, they would not have much. — Jonas (talk · proposal) 03:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree both that popups are useful and that Ric's edits are not of substantial net benefit to the encyclopaedia to date - others have also noted that the net encyclopaedic contribution is not substantial. I am however prepared to mentor Ric should he wish to make a substantive contribution to the encyclopaedia in the future.--Matilda (talk) 03:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
HotCat is nice, but not to use them eight times in a row to remove each category one by one instead of manually removing them all at once. Also, if i'm not mistaken, ShockingHawk has been mentored once before, either by RyanCross or Kennedy, though I can't remember who, or if he was even mentored at all. alexandra (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
No, he was somewhat adopted once before, but not mentored. -- American Eagle (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Kennedy adopted StaticFalcon previously, and he got out of control, retiring every five seconds and then coming back. Apparently he is either very unstable, or has some sort of mental disorder. In the case of the latter, I think that mentorship would be a good course to take. — Jonas (talk · proposal) 03:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Kennedy/StaticFalcon was the page I was using as a adoption. It didn't get far as you can see... Kennedy (talk) 08:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
He claims to have Asperger's Syndrome, which, in itself, would serioulsy hinder any encyclopaedic work he might one day consider doing. --Gwib -(talk)- 05:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not see him exhibiting Asperger syndrome in his style. As I understand it, people with AS have problems because they misinterpet nonverbal cues and make social problems. Face-to-face interaction is also extremely fast and much easier to make mistakes. With computer-medicated ommmunication, nonverbal cues are filtered out, thus reducing the number of mistakes, and one can take a lot of time to interpret and respond to comments. I also don't see the captivation and obsession with subjects, other than an obsession with editing userspace. What I see is generally lack of maturity, likely due to his young age. Things like frequent retirements, inabillity to respond to criticism, etc. are not things I identify as specifically linked to AS. alexandra (talk) 05:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, he claims to have either "Aspergur's" or "Aspurgur's" Syndromes. -- Creol(talk) 05:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict *2) Asperger's syndrome does not necessarily hinder encyclopaedic work - to the contrary many successful wikipedians have Asperger's. Many individuals who have the syndrome have qualities which help contributing to an encyclopaedia. There may be social interaction issues, which are especially problematic on-line, which need to be developed. I had already noted his claim and had taken that into account when considering my ofer to mentor him. --Matilda (talk) 05:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
But his socking is just ridiculous. I didn't know he had so many socks until after reading Creol's comment (see above). Chenzw  Talk  05:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate much of his prior behaviour has been unacceptable. I note that many are exasperated with him. I am prepared to try and am prepared to focus on this wikipedia activity for the next 6 weeks or so as a priority. I have quite a lot of patience and goodwill. If the community is not prepared to accept Ric's return under any circumstances, I quite understand. I have not had interactions with him in the past to my knowledge. --Matilda (talk) 05:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Good at interpersonal communication

Hiya there, I havent written here for almost half a day. It is clear that some of us are able to better communicate with other people than others. This is however no excuse for comments that seem unfitting, and it is definitely no reason to not be able to contribute to a Wikipedia project, where the first aim should be to get together knowledge, and to present this knowledge to our target group. You do not need to interact with the people, you just need to fix the problems some article might have. Hence, problems with social interaction (however you call them) are a hindrance to contribute here. Also note that "communicating" with other people is something that can be taught and learnt. --Eptalon (talk) 10:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Eptalon, I'e re-read it a few times, and, just to clarify, I'm sure you meant to say that "Problems with soical interaction are not a hinderance"? alexandra (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Very briefly: Scoial skills can be learned; not having them is no reason to not contribute here --Eptalon (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Everyone, stop?

OK, apart from a spot of redirecting Static's accounts to his main username, I've kept out of the argument that's escalating here. After reading this whole, massive section, I feel that prehaps Simple English Wikipedia has stopped being that safe haven from English Wikipedia that has drawn many of our editors here. Many users have just gone on wikibreak because of this, and I can't help wondering if it really is worth it. I sincerely hope that Simple English Wikipedia recovers from this, and that this current crisis blows over as soon as possible. What this seems to boil down to is not "Does blocking StaticFalcon help Wikipedia?" but "Does unblocking StaticFalcon help Wikipedia?". We are in no position, it seems, to be able to judge with a level head. Let's all stop, and then reconsider when everything has all cooled down. All Wikipedians involved in this argument should remember that, afterwards, we cannot afford to bear grudges. Wikipedia is fragile enough as it is. Please think of the Wikipedia as a whole, not as just the individual users. Yours, Microchip  talk 19:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


Note: I've collasped the above discussion, since it wasn't particularly a discussion anymore. Below, we find a calm place, where heated comments are removed and templates are used to convey consensus rather than words. Sigh. --Gwib -(talk)- 20:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to "Does unblocking StaticFalcon help Wikipedia?" - my view is I am prepared to work on developing Ric as a contributor if he and the community are willing. I am concerned he may have received mixed messages from the community including users Kennedy, Microchop and Chenzw in recent times. There is a rather strange joke that Kennedy and Microchip were party to that caught up Ric and Chenzw apparently observed but did nothing about:
Kennedy, who offered to adopt him and who ran for RfA (successfully promoted on 11 October) indulged in this joke - ie labeling Static Falcoln as a sockpuppet of Microchip . This was on 9 October. He passed it off as a joke in an immediately following edit summary. There were several intermediate edits from Microchip and Chenzw that did not remove it until Shocking Hawk did with the annotation that it was "a little insulting to me" Kennedy then explained on SH's talk page that it was a joke with Microchip . This is a bizarre series of interactions from someone who was running for admin. Moreover I am surprised the community didn't mind? I appreciate they all finished !voting before that and they may not have seen it but ... perhaps in Ric's eyes, and certainly in mine, the community is not consistent in what behaviour it deprecates.
My mentoring would focus entirely on contributing. It would encourage him to develop content without copying from en and to use sources. Perhaps if he had a chance to experience this, he would have a better understanding of what it meant to be an editor. He nominated the article on Chris Parks as his best contribution [4] but it is apparent he copied it from en per [5] I believe that Ric perhaps does not know how to contribute effectively as an editor and hasn't been shown how to do that. Until that has been tried, I believe we have let down the community and also that individual who was part of our editing community - we sent him mixed messages about acceptable behaviour and we didn't show him how to contribute effectively. --Matilda (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
This is good - Matilda is offering (as far as I can tell from community discussion) a last chance. Six weeks (or whatever) of mentoring, and then I would suggest a probationary period during which Ric should prove the community that he is a valuable and positive influence on this Wikipedia. Perhaps six months. If Ric strays off the path then an indef ban, quickly applied, seems appropriate. If he edits positively for those six months, clean(ish) slate. Good on you, Matilda, for showing this level of dedication to what seems to be a lost cause. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
My joke on User:Microchip08's page was intended as a light hearted joke. I thought that at the time, I was on good enough terms with SH/SF that it would not be interpretated as anything else. SH/SF complained, removed it, and no further action was taken. People are falling over themselves to be offended here. Kennedy (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Alright, two views have been shown. Kennedy has said why he did it, and what happened after. Matilda has told us what she thinks of it. If any more is added about this, God help me I'll chuck another collapsible box in. We've had enough, all we want now is consensus (BELOW) without comment. Just opinion without justification. Think you can do that? --Gwib -(talk)- 20:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Consensus is now determined through voting as soon as we've had two views given? Am I the only one who finds this an odd way of finding consensus? Giggy (talk) 05:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Those for an indef block

Support or Oppose - do not give reasons. These lists are to check consensus rather than dispute

  • Support indef block Kennedy (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the calm, clear vote. Other's should follow in your wake. --Gwib -(talk)- 20:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Indef block. Such behavior is a nuisance. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 21:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support -- Creol(talk) 22:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Incapable of mentoring. Majorly talk 22:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I support the indef block. SwirlBoy39 02:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • { Support alexandra (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support behaviour is becoming a major disruption. -Djsasso (talk) 05:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • SupportRyanCross (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support--Chenzw  Talk  06:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Those against an indef block

Support or Oppose - do not give reasons. These lists are to check consensus rather than dispute

  • Oppose - He did wrong, and should be given a block (till end of week for his threat and mean comment), but not indef. Matilda should mentor him. -- American Eagle (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose indef block but Support a long block ie months FSM Noodly? 20:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose--Matilda (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose (per my comments above and Matilda's great intentions) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry Gwib, missed my chance to contribute to the drama, don't tell me off.. please... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose mentorship should be a better course of action, but if he acts out again... — Jonas (talk · proposal) 20:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose indef block; we can talk about a more specific block time in relation to what he did though. --Eptalon (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose indef block but Support a block of a few months. Would give him a serious warning and time to 'grow up'. If he comes back after the block and messes up again then the indef block seems justified to me JurgenG (talk) 06:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Those sick of it

Duh. No consensus. Figure out what to do from here, so we can get back to articles. Synergy 02:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Block for a week, and be done with it? - While he isn't really productively editing articles most of the time, his editing patterns are a nuisance at best; I would not call them vandalism. Restoring his user page (for one or two perhaps) accounts might take a little while, but can be done, too. Any opposition? --Eptalon (talk) 08:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Block for only a week... - doesn't he deserve about a month? And when he comes back is someone (Matilda?) going to give him some strict but basic rules to follow? Although I oppose an indef block, I think he needs to know that he cannot create any more accounts (they're not needed), should not change his username every month, and not say he's going to commit suicide etc. - tholly --Talk-- 15:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much. All I want to see here is a good compromise, so we can be done with it. Synergy 15:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thing is, I see it to be a hard task to come to a comprimise. One side wants an indefinate ban, the other wants a short term block. To be honest, I don't know what the middle ground is there... I would be fine with User:Matilda mentoring him, but I feel that the first mistake he made, people (myself included) would be calling for the ban to be re-instated. Kennedy (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I feel a 2 month ban is a good compromise between those who want permanent ban and those who want a 1 week block. 2 months would give him time away and to reflect and to be perfectly honest, I think after 2 months his fixation may have receded a little and he won't be so active anyway. FSM Noodly? 15:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
FSM, the problem with that is that it doesn't help anybody. Giving him a long-term block at this point would just show we want to punish him. Since there is obviously no consensus for a long term ban/block, our goal should be to help SF to become a better user and learn the rules, and never do such things again. That is why I think Matilda's mentorship is a great idea. He is currently blocked for his suicide threat and disruption yesterday (or so). I think at the end of the week he should be unblocked and Matilda will have his/her chance to mentor him. God bless, American Eagle (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Nobody has answered the question: if Kennedy's adoption didn't work, what makes you think that mentoring will? The fact that he's under extreme duress now to perform? In what way is mentorship any better than adoption? Also, Matilda is a female name. alexandra (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The point I believe is this: This is his last chance, acknowledged by a number of our regular editors. If this doesn't work, you can have his head (sort of speak). Originally I was against a ban, because it appeared too soon. This was quickly changed because a number of editors expressed their lack of patience and noted a long history of lack of changing. Overall, I think the better compromise is to give him this one last chance. After a grace period we can determine whether he has changed under this new "duress" as Cass points out. I also feel, that a ban at this point will look more punitive than preventative (as AE notes above as well). This is a behavioral block and not one for vandalism. Adoption was tried, now we need to let mentorship attempt to fix this (with no reflection on Matilda of course, this might prove to be a difficult task) since its so graciously being offered. We've spent enough time mulling this over. Synergy 17:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I basically agree. -- American Eagle (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge that mentorship might be a difficult task. I concur that If this doesn't work, you can have his head (sort of speak). What I see as different about the mentoring that I offer is a focus on teaching him how to contribute as an editor. Part of the adoption process by Kennedy of Ric can be seen as User:Kennedy/StaticFalcon - these questions, say about deletion or other policy issues, are applicable to someone only who is already contributing as an editor. Ric apparently wants to be a wikipedian but doesn't know how. There will be no joking around. Other than the user page, I am unaware as to what Kennedy offered to Ric as an adopter. I am aware that others have made suggestions about contributions to Ric, including that he should not copy text from en and he did not heed their suggestion nor did he react positively or politely. From me, there will be a focus on editing - contributing in accordance with policy - ensuring verifiability is met by citing reliable sources, thinking about the readership. If either Ric or the community don't want this - that is fine with me. In response for mentoring, I expect Ric to be polite and receptive. Instead of mentoring Ric, I am quite happy to continue contributing here and at en and I even have a life outside wikipedia! From early December I may well be less available on wikipedia for a couple of months than I am now - in other words I will have less time to focus on mentoring than I do over the next 6 weeks. --Matilda (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC) I confirm that when it comes to pronouns I would prefer the feminine form to be used

Block reset

As the original IP block was only set to 31 hours, the IP was used to evade to accounts blocked. As such, I re-set the block on the IP for one week from today. All decisions on block length should probably also be set to start from the last known block evasion/sock edit. -- Creol(talk) 23:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Email from ShockingHawk

I just received the following email from ShockingHawk:

                    /"\
                   |\./|
                   |   |
                   |   |
                   |>~<|
                   |   |
                /'\|   |/'\..
            /~\|   |   |   | \
           |   =[@]=   |   |  \
           |   |   |   |   |   \
           | ~   ~   ~   ~ |`   )
           |                   /
            \                 /
             \               /
              \    _____    /
               |--//''`\--|
               | (( +==)) |
               |--\_|_//--|

Lovely! Majorly talk 00:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

 :-( I think I now support a ban - he isn't interested in contributing to wikipedia. I have left him a note at Simple quote spelling out my views. --Matilda (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I too, was sent the bird. It seems that there is an absolute 0% chance SH can positively contribute. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 00:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
He's now lying about it on Simple Wikiquote [6] Majorly talk 00:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) Now I really, really, support a ban. Even stronger than I did before. Unacceptable behavior from ShockingHawk, and now I am just really tired of this guy and his disruptiveness. I wouldn't be surprised if I checked my email right now and saw this. – RyanCross (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Were the emails sent from simple wikipedia or from simple quote? --Matilda (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
From here, Wikipedia. Majorly talk 00:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Now ShockingHawk is using Simple English Wikiquote email to ask for unblock requests here for Simple English Wikipedia. – RyanCross (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps he needs a block on quote as well. Majorly talk 00:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
No. You don't have the power there, Majorly. -- American Eagle (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
American Eagle, I believe he's asking Simple Wikiquote administrators to (hard)block him there also. Majorly can't do that, but you and me can, American Eagle. – RyanCross (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Er, who said anything about power? And what a surprise to see you sticking up for your buddy. Majorly talk 01:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Mail was sent from his account to a total of 6 users. Majorly, Shapiros10, and I make up 1/2 of those but the other three are not known yet (CU isn't entirely helpful identifying the targets for mail, only that it was sent). All of his known accounts have been blocked indef/nomail/no create, all but SHawk are also prevented from editing the talk page. The IP is still at the one week setting. -- Creol(talk) 01:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Majorly: He is not my "buddy" (see also). I now believe he should receive a longer block here, what he did was wrong. -- American Eagle (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • As the offer of mentorship has been rescinded due to this unkindness to other editors by Ric via email, I hereby close off this section by increasing the collapsing of this section. It should be archived promptly. --Matilda (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix - to VGA or not to VGA

After a gigantic expansion, with 13kb of text (more than any other VGA)[source?][1][2][3] , I think that the {{pvgademotion}} can be taken off.

If anyone has any objections to this, or even better, improvements to make to the article, please go ahead and do so on the appropriate page. Without anyone speaking up, I'll remove the tag in a week. --Gwib -(talk)- 12:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Gwib, you've done a fantastic job of this, well done. I'll read over it again but I won't object to removal of the template after a week. Good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  1. Hendrix= 12.8K text, 11.4 prose
  2. Evolution = 21.7 text, 15.6 prose
  3. Gwib = FAIL
Thanks Gwib; I have rpelaced the vga tag...--Eptalon (talk) 10:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Administrator 24.1.4.241: Is it possible?

I have a question: is it possible for an IP like me to become an administrator? Please respond ASAP. 24.1.4.241 (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

no. Ric is ShockingHawk 01:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Only registered users can become administrators when they pass a request for adminship. You would have to create an account first. – RyanCross (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
This is due to security and technical reasons. The MediaWiki software can't grant user rights to anonymous users and it is always possible that the user of the IP address will change, causing possible havoc (Main Page, anyone?). Chenzw  Talk  02:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Afil

Can someone who has not participated in the above request for adminship close the request? It has been running over the time it was scheduled to close. Thanks, – RyanCross (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done. I'd rather just do it than wait. --Gwib -(talk)- 07:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Because everyone loves statistics...

Overall stats

  • We're currently #48 on the list of most accessed Wikipedias out of 713!
    • We're in the top 10% most viewed Wikipedias (≈ 6.7%)
  • We're getting ≈ 188,000 hits /day from various countries
    • We're ahead of meta.wikimedia on the list of most accessed Wikipedias
  • We get 96 page hits /day
  • Our search bar is used ≈ 10,600 times /day

Category stats

Talk/User stats

We're quite popular, guys. Keep up the work! --Gwib -(talk)- 08:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? My user page is viewed that much a day out of everyone at simple? Wow... – RyanCross (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Translation of the Week Bot

Ok, it was suggested on IRC yesterday that it would be useful to have a ToTW bot. I have now done such as bot, User:GoblinBot, and my intitial test today in my userspace was successful. I will shortly make another update to the page it will work on, Wikipedia:RecentChanges, changing the current translation with the current translation! (just to see if it works),

Are the community happy with this?

After a few weeks succesful running I will request a bot flag.

Thanks,

BG7even 11:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the bot has just made it's first update to {{Totw}}, which transcludes onto Wikipedia:RecentChanges (this was done as the bot is not yet autoconfirmed).
From my end it ran smoothly, although there is still one thing that needs tweaking to automatically arrange the Interwikis by alphabetical order - I had to redefine what needed doing thus the second edit.
Anyway, just thought i'd give a heads up!
Thanks,
BG7even 09:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Formal Proposal of a "Did you know...?" section

Ok, there's a discussion above, but i'm now formally proposing it.

My ideas can be found at User:Bluegoblin7/DYK and subpages. Please comment.

It is far from ready imo, but i'd now like to get the community's input to make this great.

Feel free to discuss here, on the talk pages there, or even better just make the changes!

And then I suppose, as usual, we should have a !vote here, so one is below!

Thanks,

BG7even 16:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


Support

  1. Support - I feel it is a very good idea and could attract more editors to the site which can only be a good thing. However my support is subject to subtstantial support from other editors, as without good community backing I feel it would be hard to manage. FSM Noodly? 16:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Ok, I understand your concern. I also thik that it will be hard to manage without community help - I can keep it updated and staffed, but will need the community to give me facts! BG7even 16:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support - I think it would be a hard thing to pull off at this scale. However, If you wish to take on the challenge, Bluegoblin, then I too support. Kennedy (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
    • How do you mean? As in the whole thing or the current way it's set out? Either way, i'm happy to take the challenge ;) BG7even 16:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I mean that the way its laid out, you might have a hard time finding recommendations... But if you are willing to push for them, maybe have to find them yourself, then I would have no trouble supporting. I would of course try to help out as much as possible though Kennedy (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Ok, any ideas for simplifying? And i'm willing to find hooks myself :D. BG7even 17:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Kennedy, DYK is actually pretty simple when you know how to navigate around and what to do. – RyanCross (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Second that ;). It really is simple! BG7even 20:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support Bluegoblin7 knows what he is doing. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 16:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support – Since DYK is my most active area at en.wikipedia, I'd be happy to have it here. I would be able to help DYK here also at anytime. Thanks, – RyanCross (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support What I like about DYK, that I learn something new everyday. I'd also be willing to help out if its needed. The life of brian (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  6. Anything that will encourage people to improve articles gets my vote. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  7. Good idea. Majorly talk 18:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support As long as Ryan is there also. Synergy 20:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmm... just wondering why? Am i not qualified? Not trusted? I have helped at en's when i have had the chance... BG7even 20:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, it's probably because I have more experience with DYK. I haven't seen that much participation by BG7, but I have seen him around doing some good work. – RyanCross (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Just spoke it through on IRC ;). And actually, I was involved with DYK around the time of my failed RfA, and then again recently on and off when I have time ;). I'd say we're both qualified, this is nowhere near as much hassle as en's. BG7even 20:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support--Matilda (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support - as long as some users will head it and make sure it runs smoothly, I think it's a great idea. -- American Eagle (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support ~ R.T.G 06:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support Per above. WashingManwithwings (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support - I saw a few today, and they are really interesting! Chenzw  Talk  02:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support Excellent work, BG7. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

Hey,

Just to clarify, i'd be willing to run it myself once a week, as long as suggestions are made by other users. I'd be happy to make the updates etc. Also, it probably is still a bit complicated, so please do suggest ways of making it simpler!!!

Thanks,

BG7even 16:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help update this also. Basically the same way as en.wikipedia, so it shouldn't be hard. – RyanCross (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Did a huge overhaul of most pages there. Go check them out and change them if you don't like them. --Gwib -(talk)- 18:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"Did you know? is a section taking interesting facts from non-stub and non-very good articles." - yet one of the current hooks is from Red Hot Chili Peppers. Giggy (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, i'm currently looking for hooks to replace that and others. All but 2 are currently VGAs. Thanks, BG7even 08:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused. Are we using VGAs or not? You're contradicting yourself. Giggy (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, to clarify: We are not using VGAs. Those that are currently in there are simply for demo purposes and will be removed as and when suitable hooks appear. Sorry to confuse things. Also, something that needs discussion: are we putting a kb limit on articles? 5000 has been suggested, but both as a lower and upper limit, i.e. 5k or below is eligible, or 5k and above is elegible.
Thanks,
BG7even 12:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I understand that. Basically everything is eligible? Kennedy (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
That's what I want to sort out. It's clear we don't want VGAs to be allowed, but is there any other rule, other than citations? It needs to attract editors, so should stub articles be allowed? Thanks, BG7even 13:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, i'm going to Be Bold and publish DYK in about 10 minutes. There appears to be consensus for such a section. Thanks, BG7even 17:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Update!
Ok, a quick update: This page, created by RyanCross, is the project home page. "my" pages are the template itself, the nominations and the main page. Although of course, I didn't do all of the stuff on there ;). It's now a community thing in my User space ;). If anyone else adds stuff, let me know and we'll add it to the mixing pot.
Thanks,
BG7even 09:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

Is "Did you know?" a non-simple english phrase... should it be renamed something like "It is not often known..." for simple ? ~ R.T.G 17:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC) OR:

  • "Todays Surprising Fact"

DYK on the Main Page

Good news! Obviously we have consensus to have a DYK section on the Main Page. Whenever Template:Did you know has enough verified hooks, I'll be adding the new Main Page design from User:Bluegoblin7/DYK/Main Page. Thanks! – RyanCross (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, who should be updating T:DYK? Auto-confirmed users and administrators, or just administrators? – RyanCross (talk) 05:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the updating of T:DYK should be aligned to who is allowed to update the main page. At present that is not confined to admins but may be it should be. --Matilda (talk) 06:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I really hope that it doesn't get full protection, at least for now. I am not an admin, and I would be, to put it nicely, very annoyed if I was unable to edit something that I have "kindled" with the help of others in my user space.
  • Thanks,
  • BG7even 10:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Flying Spaghetti Monster 2

Could a bureaucrat close the above RfA and find the consensus of it? It was supposed to be closed several hours ago, but I guess no bureaucrats were around then. Thanks, – RyanCross (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I asked for an extension as it currently stands at 7% on the support side, which I thought was no consensus. FSM Noodly? 19:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually a bureacrat never got back to me on whether or not I got an extension. The closing bureaucrat has to be Eptalon since Vector and Creol both voted, but he either hasnt noticed or is not online. FSM Noodly? 20:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Two points:
  1. While we normally go with a non-voting 'Crat to close in close RfAs, this is not a rule. This is mainly due to the fact that doing so would be saying that the last 'Crat to try and vote is not allowed to or else the vote could never be closed if all voted.
  2. No consensus= failed request. Much like an RfD request, if there is no consensus, nothing is done - ie. no deletion/no flag. -- Creol(talk) 21:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


Consensus for the Rollback tool?

Hey all,

Just thinking, is there consensus for it? Personally, i'd find it very useful for vandal fighting etc. What do others think? It may have been discussed before. If it has, then sorry!

If consensus is found I will open a bug for the devs to add it.

A poll is open below, to run for one week (unless we feel consensus is found before then!)

Thanks,

BG7even 13:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

NOTE en:Wikipedia:Rollback

~ R.T.G 17:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support as per proposal ;) BG7even 13:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support I support this as I think that it would be great for easily reverting vandalism. WashingManwithwings (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support
  4. Support Use it all the time on en-wiki. Very useful. SpinningSpark 10:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  5. Strong support SwirlBoy39 18:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support - Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 09:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

A bug has been filed already. It's just that the devels haven't started processing on them yet :P. I have heard that we have to wait for a few more weeks. Chenzw  Talk  13:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Will it be automatically given to all users or will it be for admins to allocate? Or do we not know yet? Kennedy (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest that it is given out by admins on a request basis, to users that need it. Those who do not need it do not get it ;). Chenzw: Can I have a link to the bug? And I assume there is consensus then ;) BG7even 13:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the en.wp page for rollback it is only given to trusted users. I trust that this would be the case here wouldnt it? WashingManwithwings (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) Plans are to give it, to those named users who request it. Admins will then be able to judge if the requesting user really needs it. At the moment I only see like a handful of users for it. --Eptalon (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Right I see, seems fair enough to me. Im ok with it anyway just means that we will have to do a page for permissions. Does anyone want me to create a page for permissions or do we already have one? WashingManwithwings (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The bug is here. Chenzw  Talk  14:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it can probably be handled through this for now, or even just admins talk pages. I don't see the level editors warranting a whole page. BTW: I'd like to request it, I also have it at en-wp. BG7even 14:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok BG7 seems fair enough to me. Cant see why a whole page would be for just Rollback. If we do decide to add more tools to the wiki then it would need to be considered. Thoughts on that? WashingManwithwings (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I think we can use WP:RfA? Kennedy (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Strike that, actually ST or admins talk pages is probably better because of the way WP:RfA is set up... Kennedy (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
e/cHmm... I suppose the best place would be WP:RfR, (Request for Rights) which could also be used if things such as AWB, IP-block-exempt and Account Creator ever appear. But I suppose RfA could be slightly modified for now?
Thanks,
BG7even 14:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Well there is also the built in Global block lifter which can only be changed by admins so maybe we could put the rollback on that page aswell?. WashingManwithwings (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • BG7, this has already been done before, and we did find consensus to add rollback. We're just waiting for someone to fulfill the bug request. Also, we can just use WP:AN to take requests. No need for a whole new page for a small wiki like ours. AN would do just fine. – RyanCross (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
    • As i've said: I wasn't aware of the previous request, so please don't bite my head off!!! :D. And yes,, I would agree with using AN for now... BG7even 17:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
There appears to be little or no description here of what a rollback tool is or does. ~ R.T.G 06:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Please see en:Wikipedia:Rollback for a description. Thanks, BG7even 10:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I have support for this but I can't see the benefits over the "undo" button (?) ~ R.T.G 17:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
On a small wiki like Simple, which attracts little vandalism, there aren't many advantages. There's certainly no need to bring anything like Huggle onto Simple. The only benefit is speed: The (undo) button forces a confirmation screen, allowing you to use an edit summary, while the [rollback] button reverts back to the previous revision before that of the top editor instantly. The rules about only rollbacking vandalism only still remain. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh boy. It appears we have a page for it, User:Synergy/rollback.js. Do we have consensus for it yet? IDK -- American Eagle (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't that script only work if you already have rollback? And I've customised a better version of that too. Found here. - tholly --Talk-- 20:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
@American Eagle: Yes, the consensus is found in this earlier thread. The bug found above was filed after this thread was closed. @Tholly: Yes, it's not a substitute for rollback like Chris G's script. It will only work when rollback is enabled (and only for those users in the 'rollbacker' group). Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Bot

I would like it if someone could give me a tutorial on how to make/run a bot. I don't actually want to do it right now but it's something I would like to know how to do. I am totally clueless on this subject by the way so I would need quite a bit of instruction. FSM Noodly? 20:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied at User_talk:The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Felt it was more appropriate. Thanks, BG7even 20:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Quote from the top of this page "This is the place to ask any questions you have about the Simple English Wikipedia." ~ R.T.G 09:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Section to confirm approval of the WikiProject Video games

The project has barely covered anything but it is well underway and has a dozen members headed by User:A Link to the Past on the page User:A Link to the Past/WikiProject Video games. So far only a few articles have been produced by the new project but i can say that of a dozen or so video game articles that I have created almost every one has been spellchecked and categorised or added to by members of this project. I suggest that WikiProject Video games is approved of in general and an admin should move the page to WP:Video games after a swift vote. ~ R.T.G 09:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games

Support

  • Support~ R.T.G 09:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support~I have enjoyed games all my life and video games have become a major influence in countries, like America so it should be approved --24.1.4.241 (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • 24.1.4.241: your vote may give more weight if you create an account. Thanks, BG7even 10:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • This user has been indef blocked. Kennedy (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, the IP has been blocked for a year. IPs should never be indefinitely blocked. – RyanCross (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Oppose - Sorry, I still think the projects need to be a bit more active. But, Support move to User:Project/Video Games or similar. I may change this view if I see activeness and community consensus. Thanks, BG7even 09:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
its hardly obscure... no project is highly active here that isn't obscure. Video game history is a different type of category. Non obscure topics should be encouraged rather than tested but I respect your view. I have not added much here for some time but I for one as the newest member of the project have added and rewritten dozens of articles related to computer hardware and gaming history. And even today added a fresh one (actually a somewhat historically unique game) Sauerbraten. I have a strong hand in everything from Space Invaders to ZX Spectrum and stuff like Graphics card and TFT. I do not expect to see any opposes!! I will make a long list if you would be happier or if you insist I will create ten decent articles tomorrow. If a project is strong dormancy should not threaten its existence!! ~ R.T.G 09:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say it was obscure, just not active and to be honest if it is project spaced I am sure it will be non-active within a few weeks. And you don't want to see opposes? I'm completely within my right to oppose. Please remain calm. I have been discussing Projects a lot myself recently, and I have to agree with everyone who i've spoken to that at the moment the community just doesn't have enough members to support a Project without it going inactive. And didn't you only just sign up today?
BG7even 10:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I have been active in the video game project since early this year. ~ R.T.G 10:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I had to laugh when I saw we had a similar number of contribs but I made nearly 15 times as many in articles as you. I don't think you see yet that simple.wiki isn't as full up as en.wiki ;) ~ R.T.G 11:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Ha i've been here 5 days, you've been here a year ;). BIG difference, i've been working on some community stuff. Replied to the rest on my talk.
!! I thought it was much longer. I mixed you up. ...but if there was such large activity here there would understandably have been a video game project long ago. Apologies to all for the lengthy tirade. I was under the impression Bluegoblin was an admin of some time here (mixed you up). Please ignore me and vote for the video game project. It looks good, has over a dozen members and appears to me to have made some progression in all related articles as well as creating a few. Even if the activity wains, I myself will occasionally show interest in this project (I like to add and adjust lots of stuff, especially migrating long en.wiki articles and stuff about video games press the G in my signature) *blush* look at all this rubbish, I am embarassing myself (oh no!! someone opposed!!) sorry ~ R.T.G 21:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry ;). I've been active at en-wp for about 2 years now so it may be there...
It really doesn't matter what it looks like and how many members there are. You are missing the point. We do not have enough active community members to warrant any projects at the moment. And you even say occasionally above: at the moment we needs projects that will always be active: currently none are and there isn't enough community activity for them to stay like that for more than a few months.
Thanks,
BG7even 10:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - you may be active on the project for a while, but we don't really have enough people here to sustain activity. And BTW the page WP:Title should just redirect to Wikipedia:Title, as technically WP:Title is still in mainspace. Move the project to User:Project if you wish, or just leave it alone. - tholly --Talk-- 14:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: all topical projects and guidelines (also seen as projects) redirect from "WP:..." for instance WP:SETTLEMENT ~ R.T.G 17:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
And... in response to your idea... I don't think it would be correct of me to just open an official project page. I am surprised to learn that all projects are on personal pages. That is why my long arguements. Oh well! Looks like a lack of concensus with a slightly negative bias. ~ R.T.G 20:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per all above comments. I cant be bothered to type it all out what I think because we will be here all night but I oppose it from the comments above. WashingManwithwings (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Regarding maintaining activity. Vandalism/reversion is the most active project at present (on any wiki). On simple.wiki there is a unique requirement to lower the bar or have absolutely no projects at all and be a random jumble. Please support all projects covering a wide range of valid wiki information with a view to appearing correctly structured thus increasing interest in this wiki. Certain topics need their ball rolled and although this is an unusual place to begin such a debate, it is such a topic. Games are more similar in the modern world to music and movies than anything else. Please open the project pages of all major notable topics for a little correctness and encouragement. This wide ranging topic is certainly not suitable for a personal user space except as a personal project. This project is the only one on video games and is open to the public. Give us our shop front as a sign of respect please, and consider this to be a sign that all major topics will have a project page where one is lacking, also as a sign of respect and to encourage its growth. Set a limit that any person creating a project page should show signs of activity in the area (i.e. do not allow people to create project pages they are not involved with). I will vouch for the page as it is now and challenge anyone to find a signifigantly larger contribution to video game related articles than mine. ~ R.T.G 23:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Footnote: there is no page called WP:Projects and there should be. Try to count the projects on this page [10] ~ R.T.G 23:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
bluelinked to redirect to the Simple equivalent at Wikipedia:WikiProject --Matilda (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

To bring some perspective I have selected a wikiproject at random from en.wiki as an example of inactivity and yet this project has been open for 2 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Prince_Edward_Island any thoughts? ~ R.T.G 04:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

not sure why we would comment on an enwiki project here? --Matilda (talk) 06:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed closure of project

Please see the discussion here. Majorly talk 19:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to it. Synergy 19:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
What have they got against us?--   ChristianMan16  19:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't matter, it has no shot. -- American Eagle (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

democratic?

wtf does democratic mean? — This unsigned comment was added by 67.237.15.233 (talk • changes) at 21:09, October 22, 2008.

Reading the article Democracy might help you. – RyanCross (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK credits

Should we have DYK credits? DYK credits are templates like the one on my en.wikipedia DYK page. There are used to "award" users for their work in finding DYKs. Should we have them here, or (since it is rather easy to find DYKs here) should we not have them? – RyanCross (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought about that. I'd say no, because it isn't much to click "random" then find something random, like I don't think I should get an award for Roger Williams (theologian). -- American Eagle (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
That's what I thought. Thanks! More comments would be appreciated though. – RyanCross (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • If you were going to give credits then it should be to the author(s) (substantial contributions) of the article - but that gets tricky becuase a fair bit of amterial comes across from en. I would give credits on the article talk page as has been done and nothing more. Authors of the page can gain their kudos from that. --Matilda (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)