User talk:Fr33kman/Archive 9

IP block?

What was the block to this IP for? The IP had not edited in 2 months. Griffinofwales (talk) 04:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at their long-term edits. Not a single one is useful to the project. I have also issued an abuse notice to their ISP. The IP addy is from a school (according to the ISP) and so it seemed prudent to block them. Please also note that admins are elected by the community because they are trusted to act on their behalf and are not, thereafter, required to explain every action they then take. I have, however, done so, because you seem like a nice person. fr33kman ^talk 04:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I know I promised not to, but in this case I didn't see why you blocked the IP. The block seemed to come out of nowhere, because the IP had not edited in a long period. I was wondering whether something new had come up (such as a checkuser). Griffinofwales (talk) 04:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I was reviewing the history of the Main Page and saw that this IP had vandalized that a lot. I then checked their contribs and saw that ALL of their edits were vandalism. Since they had edited constantly since 2004 and all had been vandalism edits, I checked with their ISP and whois to see who they were. It turned out to be a school IP that had done nothing here but vandalize. I then thought I might as well shut them down since NO edits had been good edits. Hope this helps. :) fr33kman ^talk 05:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the info. Griffinofwales (talk) 05:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No problems. BTW: I can envision you becoming an admin here! I think you'd make a good addition to the team! :-) fr33kman ^talk 05:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how many people dread that vision :). Griffinofwales (talk) 05:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Something to cloud your vision. I'm currently blocked at enWP (edit warring). I can give you the history of it if you want it. Right now, I'm busy trying to get myself unblocked. Griffinofwales (talk) 05:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't particularly bother me; enwiki is a minefield at times, it's not hard to get blocked there. You seem to be growing as a person and learning to talk about things before acting! Life is about growing as a person: don't dwell on the past, concentrate on the future. :-) fr33kman ^talk 00:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

IP block

I know you said that I shouldn't go after admins because they are trusted in their position but in this case I don't see what happened. You just changed the block settings for the IP so it can't edit its talk page. The reason given was: Vandalism. Where was the new vandalism? I thought that that option was only when the users/IPs were flooding the talk page with unblock templates or when they started attacking editors. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Abuse? Where? Griffinofwales (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Being blocked means that we don't want them to edit. They asked to be unblocked but then got into a confrontation on their talk page (with you) and further caused disruption. Therefore the page was removed from their ability to edit and the block was extended. Admins have the discretion to block users who are disruptive, they can do it based on their judgment alone. Experience has taught us what to do in cases like this, and my actions were the right ones. For future reference, don't get into discussions with vandals on their talk page. They are not here to help, they are here to harm the project. Getting into conversations with them always proves pointless in the end. (btw: I don't mind you asking questions of me, or any admin.) Also, read WP:BLOCK, admins have very wide discretion to block people. I only use it when there is no other choice; and blocks must only be used to protect the project, not punish users. What "disruption" means is left to the individual admin to decide. fr33kman ^talk 23:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

If you read the comments you deleted at the talk page, it mentions an addiction to vandalism. I went over the edits made by this IP here and at enWP. It shows a pattern of vandalism and good edits. I will try to set up an adoption with an admin I know at enWP so when the IP comes back (if ever), it will be 100% productive to this project. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want my honest opinion, it'd end up being a total waste of your (valuable, and appreciated) time. From their comments, this vandal already thinks that they are better than you and superior to the concept of Wikipedia. Probably less than 1% (no, I haven't done the math) of vandals are ever turned around. The concept of Wikipedia is simple to understand. It is one that all reasonable people would probably agree with. Showing up and working hard to damage that shows a total lack of concern to take a constructive role within society. It's up to you, but I've never seen an adoption to actually work, and I've been on WMF since 2004. (btw: I admire your resolve! I really do! :-) )fr33kman ^talk 00:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW: I did read the comments in full; I don't ever remove anything without reading it first. fr33kman ^talk 00:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

With experience comes wisdom and you have 12x more experience than I do (you=60 months, me=5 months). If the admin I know at enWP says that it's a lost cause, I'll go with that. Thanks for your comments. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No problems, good luck with it; honestly!! :-) fr33kman ^talk 00:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Editor review

Hi fr33kman. I was wondering if now would be too early to seek an editor review. I've been on Simple since 27 May, but have only made ~230 changes. I am, however, very interested in what people think of my work here and what I can do to help make this encyclopedia more reliable/verifiable. Thanks for your time. Best, →javért ^stargaze 20:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you've been around enough and have enough edits to aid other editors in making some comments about you. Why not ask for a review then? fr33kman ^talk 20:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, cool, thanks. I'll go create the page. :) Best, →javért ^stargaze 20:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Advice/Help on dispute in Cannabis

I saw that you recently contributed to a conversation about a section in the page Cannabis. I feel that this dispute is being improperly settled, but since I lack editing experience, I'm not sure of the best course of action. Could you have a look at the conversation again when you have a chance? Thanks! --EpochFail (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is a direct link to the discussion section --EpochFail (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Simple News: Issue Eleven

The Simple News

← Previous issue

Issue Eleven

3rd August 2009

Announcements Adolf Hitler has been promoted to Good Article status. Earth is currently at Proposed Good Articles - your comments are welcomed. Victoria line is currently at Proposed Very Good Articles - your comments are welcomed. Pope John Paul II has been demoted to normal article status. User Articles Pmlinediter - Article 4 In his fourth article, Pmlinediter talks about Oversight, DYK and more Administrator News Commiserations to... Purplebackpack89 whose request for adminship was closed per WP:SNOW. Parker1297 whose request for adminship was closed per WP:SNOW. Bluegoblin7 whose request for adminship was unsuccessful. Congratulations to... Fr33kman whose request for bureaucratship was successful. Djsasso whose request for bureaucratship was successful. Good luck to... Fr33kman who is having a request for checkusership! NonvocalScream who is having a request for checkusership!		Swine Flu update As of Sunday 3th August 2009 188,139 cases of Swine Flu have been confirmed. 1265 people have now died from it. QandA The QandA. Every month, a user will be interviewed by a member of the Simple News team. This idea was started by Kennedy. Interviews are generally taking by a member of the Simple News Team - to date this has included Bluegoblin7, Kennedy, Pmlinediter, Shappy and Yotcmdr. This weeks interview is with Barras. Click here for Barras' interview! The Commander's Choice The Commanders's Choice. For every edition, Yotcmdr will be chosing articles that need creating, expanding or being attended to. This time Pmlinediter is selecting the articles. Here is this edition's list: Oxygen Michael Jackson Sport Confucius Food The News in Brief Main Stories: The longest solar eclipse of the 21st century was seen on 22nd July 2009. Sarah Palin resigned as Governor of Alaska on 26th July. The new governor is Sean Parnell. Click here for the Sports stories!

Feedback

About

Subscribe

Archives

Newsroom

Pmlineditor 10:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Snow

Please consider to revert your snow closure. Your closing summary states your opinion of the article instead of the discussion. Also the negative material has already been removed by me, comprising most of the article. Your comment seems to belong more in the discussion, than the closing summary. You only allowed for one comment. It did not appear to be a neutral close. Very respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No! I'm sorry, but I can only go with what is in the article when I see it. I can't go by what you have removed. If an editor removes data from an (BLP) article that is negatively sourced then that is a good thing; ie: they've dealt with the issue!! The article as I first saw it 100% asserted notability, and the subject is very notable! Steve McClaren He's is literally a household name here in the UK. He's as well known a name as "Barack Obama" is. This is obviously a case of WP:SNOW and would 100% have ended up that way so therefore there is no need to run the RFD, per WP:SNOW. On another note; your deletion of my talk page (because your IP was revealed, I take it was you??) IS an abuse of the admin tools!! It's your problem if you reveal your IP address (we've all done it once or twice, and we have to live with it!). It is not permitted for you to then cover your tracks by deleting and restoring a person's talk page. What policy allows this deletion action?? Please be more careful in the future. If you have a problem with my decision, take it to WP:ST or WP:AN and we'll let the community decide! fr33kman ^talk 03:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. I would rather discuss this with you than revert you... that is to say, I won't revert a close you made. You were elected to close RFD. If I disagree, I'm permitted to come to your talk. I only asked you to reconsider. I won't be bringing this to ST or AN. You considered, and explained. That was all I asked for.

Deleting a page to hide an IP is not abuse where the edit is immediately replaced and attributed. See this community consensus and this policy; "This is generally only done when the revisions contain personal information of a user or some other person (telephone numbers, etc.)". I grow tired of the abuse accusations. Please give me more credit. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion of Griffin's talk page is not community consensus, merely the opinion of a few editors. The page an enwiki is not policy there and also the "policy" that we accept whatever enwiki has to say is not a policy here, but a guideline. If you grow tired of the accusations, perhaps you should consider whether or not you are always acting in the wisest of manners. There is no smoke where there is no fire! Most of us have left our IP address around at times, I don't think most people do anything about it. We tend to live with the mistake. fr33kman ^talk 03:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a special circumstance in my case. I will tell you privately if you like. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I will join IRC now. fr33kman ^talk 03:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I accept your private explanation and withdraw my statements about abuse of the tools. fr33kman ^talk 03:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll be more careful about staying logged in. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Force preview, would be good in your case! fr33kman ^talk 03:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude like this, but in a case where there is not a special circumstance (unlike this one), would it still be proper to delete the revision? or should I take this to WP:ST? Griffinofwales (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is needed to take to ST. It is a judgement call. It is my belief that not everything should be written in policy. I mean, if the comment is immediately recreated... what damage is done? NonvocalScream (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

But Fr33kman disagreed with you he changed his mind but that was for a special circumstance. Although admins are trusted, deleting your IP address for no reason (your case is special) besides hiding the IP is probably not proper. I dropped my case at my talk page because I thought all the admins agreed with that. Now that I know that admins do not agree with it, I can pursue a RfC (at WP:ST) Griffinofwales (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And I ask again, what damage is done by the action? NonvocalScream (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a solution seeking a problem. I don't know of any reason you would prevent this action aside from "not needed". It bothers me, because we should be doing things in deference to user privacy. That is my opinion. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

None, but IMO it's an improper use of admin tools. If everyone had that option, then it would be fine, but we don't. So while admins can block their IPs from being seen, normal users can not (without going to an admin first). Post EC: Read the comments at my talk page. Unless it's a special case, I don't see a reason. I have checked the WP IP tools for my IP and it narrows down the potential candidates to everyone with internet access within a 2000 square mile range. Griffinofwales (talk) 04:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. You must undergo a request for adminship to delete things.

• If anyone accidentally edits while logged out... and comes to me on IRC and requests that the revision be deleted so they can replace the edit immediately while logged in, I will do that for them, in deference to privacy. This is not written in any policy or guideline. It is my best judgement. The community elected me to use my judgement. That is what I will do.

• It would be unfortunate if a policy or guideline were to take this option, should I choose to use if for myself, or any other editor, in my best judgement to protect a user's privacy. It would make administrators more... robotic with regards to these decisions. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• If a user goes to Fr33kman and asks him to delete a revision and he uses his judgment and says no, and the same user goes to you and asks you, would you say yes? Not on IRC, because not many new users use IRC (and they are the ones most likely to make a mistake like this). Griffinofwales (talk) 04:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would not override Fr33kman intentionally. I trust him to make the right decision. There are also other ways to contact us other than IRC. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

<-So, it is an admin's judgment to whether they delete the revision or not, and if one admin says no, the body of admins says no if I understand you correctly. But if an admin says no, and another one says yes, that creates conflict. If we had a guideline of when to delete and when not to, there would not be that conflict. Griffinofwales (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If one says no and another one says yes, there should be thoughtful discussion between the two. As has occured above. If there is a guideline, then there would be little or no discretion in that area anymore. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree! Just because one says no, does not automatically prevent another from saying yes. The issue is only a problem when the first admin complains. fr33kman ^talk 04:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

 (change conflict) Notice I said 'guideline' and not policy. If the two admins do not agree for whatever reason, what would happen? If an uninvolved admin is called in, the admin who was ruled against would feel dissatisfied with the process and might leave the project (as many have done and threaten to do). The guidelines would assist admins and would decrease conflict. Griffinofwales (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would come to that (having to call an uninvolved admin). We are usually able to work things out. Also, if an administrator leaves the project of a disagreement vis a vis a deleted edit, there are larger problems at hand... NonvocalScream (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What about guidelines? What is your objection to them? Griffinofwales (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't need them for everything. Guidelines should be proscriptive, not prescriptive.NonvocalScream (talk) 04:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

So you say (and several others) that it is at an admin's discretion, and if one admin denies a request and another thinks it should be accepted, they should have a discussion over the action, and come to a decision that pleases all parties involved. In most cases, the requests should be accepted as a courtesy and as a privacy issue, unless there is a serious reason to oppose. Does that sum it up correctly? Griffinofwales (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well put. It's not always wheel warring if one admin "declines" to do something and another chooses to do it. It's only wheel warring if one admin DOES something and another UNDOES it. fr33kman ^talk 05:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think you did a good job on that summary. With special emphasis on as a courtesy, and privacy. On another note, if you still want to bring this to the community for wider review, that is your option as a member of this community. While I might gently discourage it, I recognise your option to do so. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 05:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I will sleep on it. Be back in 10-12 hours hopefully. Griffinofwales (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Cu l8r! fr33kman ^talk 05:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ping

Can you hop on IRC a sec?  :) Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrestling Related

I've come over from the English Wikipedia looking to improve the quality of the Wrestling Articles over here, I've already started working on the WrestleMania 23 article which I created a few months ago in hopes to improve it, currently its in my Sandbox. Afkatk (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser.

You are officially a checkuser now as a steward has made the change. Use the force wisely young old one. -Djsasso (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• You have too many hats :P Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 03:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Not at all! I have six heads you know! :P You sticking around for a bit? fr33kman ^talk 03:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Didn't really plan on it, I could for a little while, but I've got work, married life, a new business, moving house, and an RFAR at enwp to deal with, so...hmm...I don't have a lot of free time. I could try, I guess. :P Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 04:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it dude. Keep your life sane! :) fr33kman ^talk 04:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

CU

Hello Fr33kman, I have granted you CU flag. As CheckUser you can subscribe to checkuser-l and contact an op for access to #wikimedia-checkuser. And always act based on CheckUser policy. Congratulations and regards, Leinad (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

irc

I need some advice if you can spare a moment. :) NonvocalScream (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Cat:CSD

Hey, do you want to grab the article I have tagged for QD. I put a number up on the Recent changes Template to give a heads up and it was only removed. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for promptly protecting my user pages. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

NP, I'm going to have to unprotect the userpage as the policy at enwiki says "User pages and subpages are protected at the user's request if there is evidence of vandalism or disruption. User talk pages are rarely protected, and are semi-protected for short durations only in the most severe cases of vandalism from IP users." and until we have a local policy for it we should use that. Also, since you do warn people with templates, they need a place to report false positives. fr33kman ^talk 03:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh...I see, that makes sense. I noticed the QD tag removal, I might work on the article once I finish research on the IP attack. If it happens again while I'm offline (which is about to happen [30 minutes or less]) protect the page until I get back). Griffinofwales (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into the IP attack right now. fr33kman ^talk 03:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the IPs voted in favor of CM16's unblock at WP:AN in May. I can't figure out why it decided to attack me. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

None are known user accounts, and these edits are the only ones they've made that are in the logs. I'll keep watching. fr33kman ^talk 03:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I thinks it's an open proxy. Mythdon (talk • changes) 04:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that, or a TOR. fr33kman ^talk 04:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It could be. Mythdon (talk • changes) 04:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

At first, light checks do not reveal a proxy... we are looking into this further. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Good. I hope that something is found, if anything is there. Mythdon (talk • changes) 04:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

<-Me too. I will be logging out soon, so if anything happens to my talk page, PROTECT IT. Griffinofwales (talk) 04:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope nothing more happens, and if anything does, I'll be requesting protection, if I see anything happen. Mythdon (talk • changes) 04:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just found another IP. Please see 68.168.212.12 (talk · contribs). Mythdon (talk • changes) 05:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

And now please see 12.47.44.197 (talk · contribs). Mythdon (talk • changes) 05:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, looks like I'm being harassed now. Mythdon (talk • changes) 05:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

So those IP's were proxies after all? Mythdon (talk • changes) 05:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I see you've been blocking a bunch of them IP's as "proxy" IP's. Good job. Mythdon (talk • changes) 06:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd add "Mythdon" as well. Mythdon (talk • changes) 06:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Mythdon (talk • changes) 06:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

np :) fr33kman ^talk 06:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Your blacklisting of them titles has really helped the new changes log. Mythdon (talk • changes) 06:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Please add "myth" and "mythshit". Mythdon (talk • changes) 06:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I still expect "myth" and "mythshit" to be added to the list. Mythdon (talk • changes) 06:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't add myth (due to false positives) but mythshit will be dealt with by .*shit.* :) fr33kman ^talk 06:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Makes sense that you won't add "myth", due to potential good creations. Mythdon (talk • changes) 06:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

rm of rights of blocked user

This user is block indefinitely but still has the rollbacker right. I'm sure that he's not supposed to have it. Please remove it, thanks, Griffinofwales (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not an issue since he's blocked, but for the sake of housekeeping, why not? :) fr33kman ^talk 00:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say remove it. It's not needed since the user is blocked. Mythdon (talk • changes) 00:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment! fr33kman ^talk 00:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Mythdon (talk • changes) 00:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This user also. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but honestly, they are blocked, they can't use it. What's the point? Last one! fr33kman ^talk 00:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Mythdon (talk • changes) 00:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop going through old logs Griffin, you've been told to drop this silly behaviour. If it continues, I will be blocking you. Majorly talk 00:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

For what? Am I disrupting because I'm going through the rollbacker list? (and not the logs) Griffinofwales (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You're not an admin. Try editing the articles. fr33kman ^talk 00:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

About to (several articles I need to look at), but I don't see why I should be blocked for looking through lists of users. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

...and bringing it up here for no apparent reason. Majorly talk 00:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Majorly - Please do not block Griffinofwales for going through these logs and asking for removal of rollback rights. I don't see a problem with it, and I actually support it. Mythdon (talk • changes) 00:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't if it was a single incident, but Griffin has been getting up pretty much every regular editor's back here for weeks now. Majorly talk 00:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Just direct him to WP:AN, then. I also don't see a problem with this - it would actually be preferable if blocked users automatically lost rollback, imo. Since we don't have such a tool (or at least not enabled) I don't see how this does any harm. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

CH.JAYAPRAKASH

Please block CH.JAYAPRAKASH (talk · contribs). Though I haven't read the username policy here, if there is one, I don't think such a username should be used. Mythdon (talk • changes) 00:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? fr33kman ^talk 00:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have two reasons: #1: Confusing, and #2: Shouting. That's just my opinion, however and common sense. Mythdon (talk • changes) 00:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither are valid reasons. fr33kman ^talk 00:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a username policy here? If so, please show me, and I'll read into it. Mythdon (talk • changes) 00:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of unwritten rules here. We usually use enWP's version of the rules when situations come up (unless we already have one). Griffinofwales (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There aren't alot of unwritten rules here. Quite the opposite actually. That is what we keep trying to teach you. Rules are not meant to be followed blindly. -DJSasso (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with the first sentence (example: The RfD 3RR block, I thought I was right, but it turns out that an unwritten rule existed that said I was wrong [usually located at ST or AN]), and I don't see what the second sentence has to do with anything. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not an unwritten rule. It's just how things happen. That is the point, it wasn't a rule, it was common sense and common practice. You tried to enforce a rule that didn't exist. Stop trying to be a wiki-lawyer and just edit articles. -DJSasso (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I would except I'm commenting on two threads right now, and every time I refresh RC, a new comment pops up. The 'common sense' and 'common practice' part is great except when a user doesn't know what the 'common practice' is. Now to the articles (unless someone commented at ST). Griffinofwales (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, and if you don't know the common practice, you don't jump into the situation. You sit back and see how others handle it so next time you know. Just like you don't dive into water you haven't swam in before so that you don't break your neck. -DJSasso (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a completely fine name. -DJSasso (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN

I'm thinking about redirecting users to this noticeboard when they post administrative requests to my talkpage. I'm sure it owuld be better to centralise these requests, that would provide more input and visibility. But I wanted to get your thoughts on that... what do you think? :) Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. fr33kman ^talk 01:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters to be honest. I think it would probably create unnecessary red tape as suddenly ever small request turns into a huge discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"Mythdon" blacklist

A few days ago, you added my user name to the title blacklist. I am trying to create User:Mythdon/Talk header, but I can't, because my user name is on the blacklist. Since you're an administrator, can administrators create pages with titles that are on the blacklist? If so, could you please create User:Mythdon/Talk header so I can use it as a subpage? Thanks. Mythdon (talk • changes) 04:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Your name can be removed... I'll give it some time and remove it unless Fr33kman responds here with a different desire. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I also started the page. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You can keep it there. Mythdon (talk • changes) 05:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

AN

Hello, I see your active. Can you take a look at my deletion request at AN if you could. Thank you for your time, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

More titles

Please add these titles to the title blacklist:

• "gruffy"
• "wills"
• "freeky"
• "tittle"
• "fock"
• "you"
• "whores"
• "gr1ffy"
• "sucking"
• "j3w"
• "stupid"
• "kikes"
• "greefenofweels"
• "bitches!"
• "mithdon"
• "HOo HOO HA HA"
• "lol"
• "@"
• "Wikiped0"
• "Mothdon"

It appears that the attacker(s) have found a loophole for which they can continue the attacking. As a precaution, please add these too, but they're just precautions for now:

• "f0ck"
• "gr0ffy"
• "mythd0n"
• "m715d0n"
• "s0ck1ng"
• "gr1fy"
• "wh0res"
• "wh0r3s"
• "73w"
• "title"
• "t1t1e"
• "t1tle"
• "tit1e"
• "wales"
• "griffin"
• "of wales"
• "griffin of"
• "gri"
• "ffin"
• "finn"
• "greefen"
• "weels"
• "bitch"
• etc...

For every loophole we find, is every loophole we should fill in. Please consider all of the above, especially the first group. The precautions should be done to prevent loopholes from being found. I'll be listing more titles on this page as the attacking goes on. Mythdon (talk • changes) 21:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You can create the page. Thanks for helping out. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Because "Mythdon" is on the title blacklist, I can't, so I am asking an administrator to do it. Am I missing something? Mythdon (talk • changes) 21:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I don't know whether it applies to user space or not. I don't think it does, but let me check. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right. :(. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If .*Mythdon.* is changed to .*Mythdon.* <autoconfirmed>, you will be able to create your user subpages. Most of the vandalism is from IP addresses so that shouldn't be a problem. SUL (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd totally forgotten about that. I'll fix it now. fr33kman ^talk 21:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Done, both adding <autoconfirmed> and creating User:Mythdon/Attack titles. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, I've done Griffin too. fr33kman ^talk 21:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

reminder

One, the correct way to add the date to the {{nosources}} tag (and its variations such as unreferenced, unsourced, etc.) is not to do this {{nosources|August 2009}}, but to do this {{nosources|date=August 2009}}. Two, 6 months ago you started this article. Your last edit's summary indicated that you intended to add more information (your last edit was also 6 months ago). You never did, so maybe you forgot about it. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Oversight

I'm tired of asking stewards to oversight stuff even with our local oversights. They can't be online all the time. I note that you are online when they are not. I trust you, would you consider asking for the tool? NonvocalScream (talk) 05:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I will not self-nom for OS. fr33kman ^talk 05:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll nominate you, give me a day to formulate a message to the community. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok! fr33kman ^talk 05:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, we just appointed what, five oversighters? Once we get a mailing list set up (bugzilla report has been submitted), you'll be able to just use that (either directly or via User:Oversight) to get a hold of one of us. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

So, if Fr33kman runs for oversight, it won't be as needed as Nonvocalscream is predicting? Mythdon (talk • changes) 05:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that, at this exact moment, submitting oversight requests is a bit iffy; someone has to find an individual editor to get stuff taken care of. Once there's a mailing list, submissions get sent to everybody, so whoever happens to be by their email can take care of it, without a lot of running around being done by the person reporting. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

R1 deletion criterion

I don't know why, but it was removed about a month ago by Petersymonds in this diff: http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_policy&diff=1652178&oldid=1610750 . Perhaps ask him about it? EhJJ^TALK 02:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I will ask him about it. Anyone who adds or removes a QD criterion is obligated to explain their actions on the talk page, as I have done. fr33kman ^talk 02:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Cross-namespaced Basic English (BE) pages and redirects

I'm the editor who recommended the four BE redirect RfD's. The main namespace article Basic English also contains many cross-namespace See Also links. I think these should be changed as well. (It is my understanding that we usually don't allow main-to-Wikipedia cross-namespace links.)

My new solution would be to move all of the Wikipedia namespace BE lists to the main namespace (maybe with a new subcategory, say Lists of English words?). For example, I would rename Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist as "Basic English combined wordlist" and so forth.

Then I would change all of the redirects, See Also's and other textual links in all namespaces (within SEWP, of course) to point to the new, main article names. This would make most of the redirects I have RfDed perfectly proper. For example, BE 850 could be redirected to the renamed "Basic English alphabetical wordlist": we don't delete the cross-namespace redirects, we simply rename the targets. Finally, and only if necessary, I would add links to the newly renamed lists in a few pages (like Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages) in the Wikipedia namespace. I believe we do allow Wikipedia to Main article, cross-namespace links.

What do you think of this plan? I believe it would take me a week or so to implement. (I've discovered that there are more BE cross-namespace redirects than the four I list for RfD's.) If you approve, we should stop three of the four RfD's I recommended. (We should probably still delete BE 805.) Also, is there a bot that will handle most of the redirect links? There's evidentally a bot like this in enWP, although I don't know its name. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

We can't move Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist to article space because it was an original research list we created for simple. -DJSasso (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the key point to remember is that the mainspace is the encyclopedia. All articles within it must conform to the rules of the encyclopedia. They have to be referenced, etc. The only real solution to those particular redirects is to simply delete them. That's the rules, no cross namespace redirects. fr33kman ^talk 14:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Or WP:IAR. But I think I can agree with EJJ's idea that we just redirect to Basic English. -DJSasso (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we can IAR and redirect into WP space. If we did that we'd basically be saying that the WP pages are encyclopaedic and reliable. It'd be better to redirect to Basic English. fr33kman ^talk 17:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist is referenced now. By this. I just spent three days (off and on) researching the sources, not only for the article itself but also for the individual word lists. That's how I got into this whole mess to begin with. :) See User talk:RoyGoldsmith#Word use and Wikipedia talk:Basic English combined wordlist#Meaning of "Next"? for details.

It seems that Netoholic wrote the original Basic English article and most or all of the wordlists as well. He did paraphrase Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist and the other lists enough, I think, to qualify for main namespace article status. Someone check me. The sources of the individual word lists (found in Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist#Notes) correspond to most of the lists in Basic English#Other pages. I can find the others.

Can someone please compare Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist and its source to determine if Netoholic paraphrased it sufficiently? Remember that lists as lists do not exhibit sufficent creativity to qualify for copyright of and by themselves. If that's a go, I think we can consider the combined wordlist encyclopaedic and reliable. Do you want to check out the paraphrasing of the other word lists? (I'd have to do some more research to find out which web page corresponds to which wiki list.)

BTW, the main source is this and various web pages under it. For all I know, the entire website is in the public domain but I can't find who they were (other than they were somewhere in England), what their mailing address was or even who is currently paying the website fee. Apparently, they (meaning the "publishers") went out of business in the 1970's. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

My talk page

Please protect my talk page until September 5th or later. Apparently, the harassment hasn't stopped as I've just found an IP edit that I can not view. Mythdon (talk • changes) 18:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting it. If the vandalism starts again after September 2nd, please protect for 2 months after it is protected. Mythdon (talk • changes) 20:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Mariofan88

I see that you've blocked this user as a Bambifan sock. Did you perform a cu on him? If you did, I'll take it up to the RFCU at enwp. Pmlineditor  Talk 08:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hiya, yes I did perform a CU on it. It is a confirmed sock. Cheers! :) fr33kman ^talk 09:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Difficult IP

Hi there, I have just put a week block on this IP 203.62.10.9 There are about 50 edits and all of them are vandalism. I was thinking this probably needs to be checked out, and perhaps an indefinite block. --Peterdownunder (talk) 04:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

We never block any IP for indef; however this particular IP address belongs to the schools network in Australia (prx2.act.schools.net.au). I think your 1 week block is a good first start. Continued abuse can be set as long as 6 months, or can be the subject of an abuse report to their ISP. Well done and thanks!! fr33kman ^talk 14:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Open proxy?

67.159.5.76‎ abuse and vandalism started from this PI immeddiatley after you blocked similar stuff from another proxy ip --Peterdownunder (talk) 03:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• And another 94.76.216.237 this one promises to never run out of proxies. Oh well, I won't run out of blocks either. --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

---

The above talk is being kept as an archive of a talk page. Please do not modify it. If you have new things to say, use the current talk page. No more changes should be made to this section.